I learned during and after the presentation that quite a few people in
the audience thought I was going to talk about the role of intuition
when making breakthroughs in science. Although intuition is clearly
important in any human endeavour, the talk was about something very
different - direct perception of the non-physical.
When
I said "extending the range of science", I was talking about the
possibility – and desirability - of extending the range of
consciousness of scientists, so that, without the help of sophisticated
instruments, they would be able to perceive the non-physical aspects of
the world directly for themselves. But what do I mean by
"non-physical", and why do I think it is important that we explore it
and experience it? To answer this, a useful starting point is to look
at how modern science began.
Modern
science was effectively born when instruments were invented that made
it possible to observe and measure things much more accurately than
ever before. The telescope and microscope are
classic examples of such instruments, but just as important are
accurate clocks, thermometers and weighing machines. Being able to do
this ushered in many benefits, and we have a lot to thank science for.
It has changed the world and our lives in many important ways. But
there is a price to be paid, because it was only a short step from
being able to measure and quantify things to believing that if
something did not lend itself to measurement or quantification, then it
might not be all that important or might not even exist. As measurement
and quantification grew in importance, a whole range of human
experience, including the intuitional and qualitative, was pushed to
the margins or right out of sight. Thus, science increasingly became science of the physical, in the sense that it
generated knowledge about the physical aspects of the universe, the
physical aspects of our home planet and the physical aspects of the
human being, to the virtual exclusion of all other aspects.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
The problem arises only because most scientists – to be fair, most of the world – appear to believe that science is exploring all
possible aspects of the universe, the world and the human being. They
believe that the physical reality is the only possible reality, and
therefore all the many things that might at first sight seem not to be
physical – such as mind, consciousness or God – can either be explained
in terms of the physical (for example, consciousness is assumed by
science to be an epiphenomenon of the brain) or may not exist at all.
In passing, it is worth noting that the "new physics" and the "new
biology" may have taken us beyond reductionism, but they have not taken
us beyond the physical.
It
is because scientists do not normally admit to the existence of modes
of perception other than the physical that they do not admit to the
possibility of other forms of reality.
They continue to believe that the physical universe is one and the same
as the whole universe. The mistake they make is to use their narrowly
based "map" to interpret a world that not only far transcends the
limitations of this map, but also far transcends the comprehension of
any one of us. Scientists rely almost exclusively on their physical
senses and on extensions to these senses (telescopes, microscopes,
weighing machines etc.) to explore the world. Although it should be
self-evident, perhaps we need to remind ourselves that if we use only
one modality – the physical one - to view the world, the world will
respond in kind, by appearing to be wholly physical. If we had used
another modality, the world would seem different. This is exactly
analogous to viewing the world through different coloured lenses. If we
look through a red lens, the world seems to be red. If we look through
a blue one, it seems to be blue. If we look though a physical lens, the
world is physical, and so on. What the world seems to be depends on the
"lens" we use to view it. That lens determines the quality and level of
our consciousness.
There
can be little doubt that the physical "lens" has become the lens of
almost universal preference in the modern world. I say "almost" because
there are people, e.g. some Australian Aborigines and some practising
mystics, who are able to use other "lenses", in addition to the
physical one. The world they experience is therefore richer and more
extensive than the world most people see. That is because they
experience the non-physical as well as the physical. But why has the
physical "lens" become the lens of universal preference today? I
believe it is because, for the vast majority, the non-physical senses
have become dormant, through lack of use over the centuries. Most
people today probably do not know they even exist. However, what many
people do have is the occasional fleeting glimpse of what it would be
like to have the use of their non-physical senses. This happens when
they have particular types of extraordinary experience.
Most
of us have extraordinary experiences. It could be a vivid dream, or a
powerful sense of being totally connected to the whole of creation, or
a feeling of absolute certainty that we have just met the love of our
life. Or it might be a lasting sense of inspiration brought on by
something or someone. Although each of these counts as extraordinary,
they are not all that extraordinary, in the sense that they do not pose
a threat to the prevailing worldview, which is essentially the
worldview of science. On the other hand, there is a whole class of
experiences – such as telepathy, precognition, distant healing,
clairvoyance, a near death experience, or an out of the body experience
– that cannot be explained by science. But it goes further than this.
Science actively rejects them because it believes that they are
impossible. They are indeed impossible from the point of view of
science, but that is only because science has, unknown to itself,
become a restricted form of knowledge.
Although
science undoubtedly tells us much about the world and ourselves, it
does not and cannot, give us the whole picture. Science, as it is currently understood and practised,
is a restricted form of knowledge. There are two reasons for this. The
first is that scientific knowledge is always changing. Despite the
claims of some that we are close to producing a "theory of everything"
or to knowing "the mind of God", it is helpful to recall that the
history of science is littered with the corpses of "hard facts" that
have had to give way to newer "hard facts" as we make new discoveries.
This is well illustrated by our understanding of the nature of matter.
At
one time, many centuries ago, we were convinced that matter consisted
of tiny solid things, which we decided to call "atoms", because we
thought there could be nothing smaller (that is what the word "atom"
implies). This belief eventually had to give way when we discovered
that atoms consisted of even smaller things that we decided to call
"protons, neutrons and electrons". For some time this was the
scientific "truth" until, inevitably, it was replaced by another
"truth", that protons and neutrons are themselves constructed of yet
tinier particles, which may not actually be particles but
"probabilities" or "tendencies to exist". This process, of facts being
replaced by newer facts, is unlikely to stop, and there is no a priori
reason to suppose that the facts of the early twenty first century are
more sacrosanct than those of any other period. If they were
sacrosanct, we would soon reach the point at which there is no more for
us to discover and learn. Science would have done it all for us. But
that would be the ultimate boredom, the ultimate stasis. Quite apart
from anything else, it just does not ring true, and it sits ill beside
the daily diet of human affairs. If as a species we cannot even live in
peace and harmony with each other and the planet, claims that we shall
soon know nearly everything about almost everything sound hollow
indeed. We still have a great deal to discover and learn. The
likelihood is that what we know is greatly outweighed by what we do not
know. Of one thing we can be sure, that however
much we think we know and understand today, our knowledge and
understanding will be different in the future.
The
second reason is that science is a partial form of knowledge because,
as with all other forms of knowledge, it is the product of the means of
acquiring it. Ultimately it is we who are the means. It is we who do the acquiring. Now, if we were to apply the whole of ourselves to acquiring knowledge in the pursuit of science, then science would reflect this. It would be science of the whole.
However, if, as we do, we apply only part of ourselves, then scientific
knowledge will be correspondingly limited. It will be, and is, science of the part.
Since, in my opinion, we have applied only the physical and
intellectual parts of ourselves to the pursuit of science over the last
few centuries, science today reflects this. It is science of the
physical. If, however, we were to awaken, train and use parts of
ourselves that we have forgotten about – such as our non-physical
senses – our understanding of who we are and what the universe is would
change out of all recognition.
Meanwhile,
the fact that the worldview of science has become the dominant paradigm
of our time is causing all kinds of serious problems. It has relegated
western religions to the role of "ethics providers", for example. (In
the past, they were providers of facts too). And it has led to the
widespread belief that the universe and all its contents, human beings
included, are essentially physical in nature, that the universe is
little more than a sophisticated machine and that we, too, can best be
understood as machines. It is sobering to reflect that what
we believe strongly determines what we value. If our core beliefs are
that the universe is little more than a highly complex machine, that it
consists entirely of physicality, and that we, too, are little more
than complex machines, then our values will reflect these beliefs.
In essence, they will be physical/material values. This means that we
will give the highest priority to material things. It can be no
accident that shopping is now the world's main activity, and that
economists and financial pundits are the new high priests. In such a
climate, we will give the lowest priority to spiritual things, so much
so, that in some circles "spirituality" has to be whispered as the
"S-word". It is surely no exaggeration to say that our lives, our
economics, our politics, our healthcare and our education are all
rooted in material values and the beliefs that underpin them. We are
paying a high price for this. Why are we surprised that we exploit and
destroy each other and the world on such a scale? The fact is that we
do not care for things we do not value.
If,
as many scientists insist, we and the universe are merely physical
mechanisms, that the universe began suddenly for no reason, and that
life emerged by chance, then the whole show must be meaningless. The
fact that this statement, being part of the universe, must also be
meaningless is little consolation! A life without meaning is a bleak
life indeed. The search for meaning for many people has become little
more than a desperate attempt to find instant happiness and to solve
problems of their own making. That is probably why, in today's world,
there is nothing like a good crisis or tragedy to give people a sense
of meaning. It is interesting to reflect on the growing status of the
emergency services over the last 20 years.
The Non-physical
For the avoidance of doubt, when I say "non-physical" I am not referring to auras or qi or
ghosts or anything like that. These are simply subtle manifestations of
the physical, available to anyone who is very sensitive to the subtle.
The non-physical is different altogether. Perhaps the easiest way to
describe it is to say that it is direct participation in the total and
instantaneous connection of everything in the universe. And I do mean
everything and I do mean instantaneously. Thoughts are connected to
thoughts. Events are connected to events, wherever they are. Lives are
connected to lives. Past, present and future are connected to each
other. In such a reality, the things we currently think of as
extraordinary or paranormal or impossible become ordinary, normal and
possible. Once we start experiencing the non-physical directly for
ourselves, we see that the things mentioned earlier - telepathy,
precognition, distant healing, clairvoyance, a near death experience,
an out of the body experience – start to make perfect sense. Just as
important, they become part of our normal experience.
The
actual process of awakening and training our dormant non-physical
senses is not easy. There is a lot to it. It is as much a general
character training as it is a specialist training in being able to
experience at will what we may have experienced only very haphazardly
and infrequently, in the form of an extraordinary experience. I will go
into some detail about the training in the second part of this article.
If
we did go through such training, the range of our consciousness would
extend considerably, and I believe that our lives would change
fundamentally as a consequence. For instance:
First,
extraordinary experiences – such as telepathy and clairvoyance – will
become a normal, accepted part of our daily lives. That alone will
change much that we think and believe. And that, in turn, will lead to
changes our behaviour and how we live our lives.
Second,
we would learn about aspects of the universe and the human being that
we are unaware of. It would be like seeing, for the first time, the
bigger part of the iceberg, although it would feel as if our current
reality is the tiny tip of an inverted iceberg, below the surface, in
the dark. What we think of today as indisputable
scientific facts will turn out to be the product of restricted
(physical) consciousness. It would completely change our understanding
of who we are, as human beings, why we are here, and what we are
capable of. This would give us new meaning and purpose, and that would
lead to new values and priorities.
Third,
we would have something very new to be serious about. What do I mean by
this? At present, by far the biggest source of seriousness in the world
is worrying about, or trying to solve, problems. The problem is that
nearly all of the problems of our time are of our own making. When
coupled with the fact that a lot of people appear to derive their sense
of meaning and purpose from having problems and crises and to deal
with, there is a widespread, albeit unconscious, vested interest in
having a reliable supply of problems to deal with far into the future.
This must surely act against any real attempts to solve problems once
and for all. Perhaps we should not be surprised that poverty, crime,
injustice and unhappiness (to name but a few) seem to be as widespread
as ever. If, however, we had the use of our non-physical senses, we
would see that there are very different things to be serious about,
very different sources of meaning and purpose, which have nothing to do
with problems.
We would cease to be a problem-creating race, and become a life-enhancing race.
Chris Thomson
chris@school-of-consciousness.com
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |