May 22, 2024
This Essay considers the relation of math to science, the reliance of both on consciousness, and what this means for understanding the true reality within which we live.
Many people think of math as the way we use numbers every day from an early age — adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing. At a more advanced level, however, mathematics is a highly sophisticated discipline.
One great mystery — which has perplexed illustrious mathematicians for centuries — is why anyone has an interest in higher math at all. Human beings could get along just fine fulfilling their basic physical needs — finding food, shelter, and sex — without higher math.
Why Did Advanced Mathematics Happen?
Why is it that some people feel a powerful urge to understand and create complex mathematical formulas, sometimes even sacrificing material pleasures and practical opportunities to wrestle with a complex equation. Math can be as compelling for some as music, creating art, or playing a sport.
An equally perplexing mystery is why abstract mathematical formulas can precisely describe the material world. Higher math functions through complex formulas that are ideas, images, understandings that arise solely in consciousness, in the imagination of a gifted individual. These ideas are shared from one mind to another by symbols — markings on a piece of paper or a screen that often do not represent physical things, but ideas in consciousness.
So why do these abstract ideas that arise from a stroke of insight in consciousness, like E=mc2, correspond to the material world? This simple formula came to Einstein in a flash of insight, yet it precisely described a previously hidden dimension of the material world. And there are many, many other examples, some of which have arisen in dreams and in other altered states of consciousness.
These immaterial ideas often do not start from a desire to build a shelter, cook food, or win a mate. Much of early science began as a process for studying the material world — trying to understand it in order to solve practical problems and improve daily life. Simple math was one of its helpers. But higher mathematics usually does not start from trying to solve any practical problem in the material world. It often involves an attempt to resolve a highly sophisticated mathematical question that has little or no practical application.
Furthermore, the higher the level the more abstract it becomes. Few of the great mathematicians said that solving a practical problem was their motivation. This is now true of many scientists in advanced fields as well. What drives them forward is akin to a spiritual quest, the desire for a revelatory experience — of seeing, of knowing — a pure desire to understand. Reflecting this spirit, Albert Einstein said, “I want to know the mind of God.”
In the same vein, Johannes Kepler thought of himself as a priest of God in the temple of Nature, and Isaac Newton came to consider his scientific work as a hymn in praise of God. Einstein summed up the actual motivations most great mathematicians and scientists have: “The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research.”
This is, of course, directly opposed to any motivation the worldview of Materialism recognizes. In its view, all thoughts and feelings and intentions must arise from the bottom up, from the smallest specks of matter. How this can happen, how atoms or quarks or whatever the smallest things turn out to be (even when collected together in vast numbers) can form thoughts and feelings is a complete mystery. But this is the act of faith of Materialism.
The problem they face is, especially if the material world came about through an unplanned, evolving, random process, why would these very strict and precise mathematical formulas be able to predict the actions of a randomly evolving material universe? Why would complex, immaterial mathematical ideas in consciousness be related to the material world? Why should these two realms be related at all?
To answer this question, a preeminent mathematical logician of the 20th century, Kurt Gödel, came to a startling conclusion: The only way to explain why higher mathematics precisely applies to the physical world is that there is a non-physical realm lying behind it.
He reasoned there must be a dimension of reality beyond the strictly material that our imaginative minds, that human consciousness has the ability to access. When trained mathematicians “see” this higher order of reality, they can create formulas that describe the patterns, and these formulas provide a bridge of understanding between immaterial consciousness and the patterns present in the material world.
After reaching this conclusion, Gödel forcefully rejected the materialistic worldview. According to one expert on his life and thought, he became “very decidedly opposed to materialistic philosophy.” In this conclusion he is joined by most of the great mathematicians through history, for few of them have been materialists. Many have described the experience when their insights occurred — when a purely abstract mathematical formula “clicked” into place in their minds — of feeling they had connected with a higher dimension of reality.
Often, at the time of these sudden bursts of intuitive insight, there was no way to know whether the complex formulas in their visions actually corresponded to the material world. When the correspondence was later demonstrated, many came to the same conclusion as Gödel, that there must be something deeper going on, something more to existence than we perceive while going about our everyday lives. They felt there must be a realm behind the surface of the everyday world that they had accessed.
In his book, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, physicist Paul Davies explores this topic at length and concludes that anyone who comes to understand math and science in a broader way will be able to see more deeply into the larger reality. This higher dimension of reality lies behind both math and the material world, and both are simply different aspects of it.
If true, this solves the riddle of why so many of us, including some of the greatest minds, have been fascinated with both higher math and with science. Experiencing their higher intuitive dimensions can be a spiritual experience.
(It is important to keep in mind that the people quoted here using the word God had each worked out for themselves a personal, independent understanding of that word.)
An Extraordinary Example
Srinivasa Ramanujan, one of the three or four greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, is a wonderful example of the blending of math and a higher dimension of reality. Ramanujan was a mostly self-educated boy from a small village in India who was invited to Cambridge at the age of 26 to continue his work. Scientific American described the extraordinary nature of what he had accomplished by himself when he first arrived:
“In areas that interested him Ramanujan arrived in England abreast, and often ahead of, contemporary mathematical knowledge. Thus in a long, mighty sweep he had succeeded in recreating in his field, through his own unaided powers, a rich half-century of European mathematics. One may doubt that so prodigious a feat had ever before been accomplished in the history of thought.”
Some background is necessary to explain this praise. Ramanujan’s exposure to mathematics by others was minimal in his early years. He was never very interested in going to school, and although he did attend off and on during his early and teen years, he didn’t do well in most subjects because of his lack of interest. He was, however, very interested in math, but couldn’t find anyone to teach him anything that he had not already mastered on his own.
To learn higher math, therefore, he educated himself. And he did so using an old, out-of-date mathematics textbook, which he studied diligently and figured out on his own. (If you have ever looked into a higher math textbook filled with long, abstract formulas, try to imagine figuring all that out by yourself.)
Ramanujan was also very poor, yet he had to support himself from an early age, and living in a time and place where it was very difficult to find work. Consequently, he lived in extreme poverty until he arrived at Cambridge. Until that time, he scraped by doing whatever menial jobs he could get. Then, late into the night, already exhausted, he continued his mathematical studies and began creating inspired, advanced formulations.
When he was 23, a leading mathematician in India recognized the brilliance and originality of the work Ramanujan was already doing solely on his own. Everyone who saw it first thought he must be copying his formulas from others, but eventually one Indian mathematician came to believe his insights were original, that they even constituted major breakthroughs in mathematical thought. Some of his work was sent to other experts, and in the following months, letters of introduction were sent to a leading mathematician at Cambridge. Finally, when he was 26 years old, the Cambridge scholar arranged for Ramanujan to travel there. After that, it took only a few short years for Ramanujan to establish himself as one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century.
The reason for recounting his story here is that, when asked how he achieved his incredible feats, Ramanujan said that he had been called to mathematics as his spiritual lifework, and that his understanding and insights had been given to him by a goddess in dreams. (There is an outstanding film about Ramanujan’s life entitled: The Man Who Knew Infinity.)
Materialists simply ignore what Ramanujan had to say about the source of his ideas, but the problem created for them by the fact that higher math is extremely abstract and unworldly is hard to ignore. Especially since advanced physics — the crown jewel of science for at least a hundred years — is totally dependent on these abstract mathematical formulas. Most all the great discoveries in physics since Einstein’s day arose first in the imaginations of individuals, with the next step being to demonstrate the ideas in mathematical formulas.
Almost all of these breakthroughs were vigorously questioned when they first arose, sometimes for years after, because they could not be experimentally tested in the physical world (which is the gold standard for proof in science). Now, however, many have been confirmed by rigorous tests demonstrating that they work remarkably well in explaining how the physical world functions. Some, of course, have proved to be flawed, and discarded. Still others are awaiting proof, although they are used provisionally.
The key point is that many of these marvelous insights that arose first in the imagination of an individual, then translated into precise mathematical formulas, have worked incredibly well in explaining the makeup of the physical world. So much so that math is now the standard operating procedure for much of cutting-edge physics.
And yet, the question remains: Why does an abstract mathematical formula fit the real world so perfectly? For example, try to bring to mind an example of an “imaginary number.” Not the mathematical definition, which itself is abstract, but what that could possibly be in the material world. Yet the use of imaginary numbers is crucial in many real-world areas, including electrical engineering and practical applications of quantum physics such as medical imaging, wave mechanics, and quantum computing. But why should an abstract concept like imaginary numbers and the material world be connected? Formulas that use them “work” in describing the material world, but the worldview of Materialism has no explanation for why.
In addition, no one has any idea how to come to terms with the strange world that modern math is depicting. Quantum theory is the leading edge of science today, but the glaring question of why it works is not close to resolution. We do not understand what the math is telling us about the nature of the physical world we live in. It is so strange that one of the greatest physicists of the late 20th century, Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman, said: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” (He meant that nobody understands what it suggests in a practical way about the nature of the world.) He also said: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”
Another of the most honored mathematicians of the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead, had a spiritual perspective and made several efforts to understand how math and the higher motivations of life are related. His answer is that math is a way to understand the underlying harmony of the universe, a harmony that originated from a single, universal Source that is “an all-embracing chaotic Attractor, acting throughout the world by gentle persuasion toward love.”
If this is the actual reality, it is of great importance to every one of us, for Whitehead insisted that every individual has the capacity to align themselves with this Source. By choosing love as the guiding principle for their lives, anyone can come into harmony with this underlying Source and live from the direction it gives. Ask yourself, then: What would it mean for your life if Whitehead is correct?
If you are of a more pragmatic mind, consider this reason given by the outstanding mathematician John von Neumann for assuming there is a broader dimension to reality: “There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn’t.” (This approach has the advantage of following the dictum of Occam’s razor, often used in science — always choose the simplest possible answer)
The Centrality of Consciousness
Von Neumann and John Wheeler (one of the most honored physicists of the last few decades and also a fine mathematician) both came to the conclusion that consciousness is necessary for matter to exist at all. They also join Gödel, Ramanujan, and Whitehead in rejecting Materialism — with its belief that everything can be explained by examining material objects alone.
One reason is that the underlying nature of reality seems to consist of waves, but not waves like we normally think of them — because those require a medium to carry them, like water or air. But these are “possibility waves,” and Wheeler insisted that these “waves of possibilities” can only take on physical dimensions from among the countless possibilities that might have come into actuality — might have come into being in the normal sense — when perceived by consciousness.
The result of this picture of reality, according to Wheeler and many other cutting-edge scientists, is that consciousness is necessary for anything to exist in the material world. There must first be consciousness somewhere before anything material can exist — this is the only way they can understand whereby material things can appear in our tangible, everyday world. Some consciousness must focus on an object to collapse the wave function and turn all the “possibilities” into one tangible “actuality.” (I have tried to imagine what numberless “waves of possibilities” might be in a tangible way, but have been completely unable. Try it yourself.)
One way to understand why this might be true is to consider the fact that science takes place within consciousness — consciousness does not take place within science. Consciousness lies behind, is prior to, the ability to do science. And the same is true of all other human endeavors: Without consciousness there would be no art, no religion, no friendship, no true romance, no questions to answer, no self-awareness, and no memories. There would be no you — unless something or someone were conscious of your existence. In what world would you exist if something or someone were not conscious of your presence?
Perhaps this explains why science has been completely unable to provide any meaningful understanding of consciousness. Science happens within consciousness, is a part of it, so science has a hard time understanding the whole of which it is only a part. As the great physicist Max Planck put it:
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
It is precisely because of the centrality of consciousness that philosopher Ken Wilber insisted that all the great pioneering physicists developed a spiritual pursuit in their lives — because they “were united in the belief that the universe simply does not make sense and cannot satisfactorily be explained without the inclusion, in some profound way, of consciousness itself.”
In the same vein, Nobel-winning biologist George Wald said:
“Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has always existed. … Mind [by which he meant the whole of consciousness] is the source … of physical reality.”
One idea, that there is one primary consciousness — one in which we all share, and that preceded and gave rise to the physical world — goes back to at least the ancient Vedic sages of India. All those years ago they had come to the belief that consciousness had to exist before the material world could exist. Since that time, for thousands of years, they have been reporting direct experiences of this larger reality, and this has led to the dominant understanding within Hindu cultures that there is one primary consciousness, one we all share.
Today, a number of scientists hold this view. Bernardo Kastrup, with a PhD in both computer engineering and philosophy, argues that there is only one “cosmic consciousness,” and that each individual consciousness is a part of that one consciousness. In several books, articles, and a very active web site, Kastrup presents precise and logical reasons to believe that there is only one primary consciousness.
He also insists that his view rests on the strongest scientific evidence available today, while providing numerous examples of the weakness of Materialism as a way to understand the world. Kastrup says his ideas provide a hard-nosed, non-materialist way of understanding the world — based on empirical evidence, a healthy skepticism, and clear, logical arguments.
Another scientist, noted stem-cell biologist Robert Lanza, posits in his book Beyond Biocentrism the fascinating possibility that consciousness is connected throughout the Universe. His theory is hard to summarize, so I won’t try, but it starts with forceful arguments that nothing we have learned so far in any scientific field can explain how a group of molecules in the brain could create conscious experience, or how conscious experience could possibly arise from physical matter. He says:
“The beauty of a sunset, the miracle of falling in love, the taste of a delicious meal — these are all mysteries to … modern science.”
Lanza goes on to show that materialists simply ignore or try to explain away these incredibly important human experiences because their experiments and reasoning have been unable to find them. The problem is, all their efforts and experiments start with the assumption contained in their worldview that only material things exist, so if these very human experiences are not based in or caused by the material world alone, the assumption with which they begin blinds them to the truth.
Again, the weakness of their arguments does not settle the question between Materialism and the worldview of the wisdom traditions. But it does make vividly clear why many scientists do not choose the materialistic worldview — science does not support it.
Another example: Ervin László, noted systems theorist and philosopher of science (who developed a fascinating new theory of evolution), has published numerous books and papers exploring quantum consciousness. His work strongly suggests that fields (rather than matter) are the underlying nature of reality, and that consciousness is created by and interacts within these fields.
“You can get to this new worldview by rational means. You can get to it intuitively, through art, spirituality, or religion. And you can get there through science. If you look at developments in science, you’ll find that science is increasingly recognizing that everything is connected very strongly with everything else. Everything that exists is an open system — everything is very sensitively connected.”
This in turn leads László to the conviction that information should be thought of as one of the fundamental factors in the universe, as fundamental as matter and energy — which numerous other scientists, for a variety of reasons, are now coming to believe.
“Our living tissue is not made out of hard-core elements — atoms and molecules … we are living systems that are continuously receiving and transmitting information. This information transmission is faster than any conceivable biochemical mechanism, because what happens in one part of the organism simultaneously happens to the other part. It’s constantly interactive on multiple dimensions. It’s a remarkable thing — going way beyond any technical, biological, mechanistic, and materialistic concept of the organism.”
László, like Einstein, was a musician as well as scientist. And both felt that the two pursuits informed and aided each other. Music helped them with their scientific work, as well as their lives. According to László, part of the reason is that our bodies are not made up of atoms or particles at the most basic level, but of waves or vibrations that are continuously receiving and transmitting information to and from the whole field within which we exist. He presents fascinating studies showing how this is happening faster than a biochemical mechanism can possibly function.
Furthermore, because these interactions happen at speeds that cannot be explained by biological or mechanistic concepts, László concludes that consciousness cannot be functioning in a single mechanical brain acting in isolation. Instead, the universe is an interrelated whole, a whole made up of all the fields and systems that exist — and consciousness and memory are somehow contained within the whole. Further, through our own connection to these fields, each of us is connected to everyone else.
“We don’t just see the world through the five sense organs. It’s very obvious that consciousness is not a byproduct of the brain, produced by a complex set of neurons. … It pervades the whole universe.”
László believes that opening into and experiencing this field of consciousness is something like what happens when we open fully while listening to music, or the moments many of us have had when we feel we are part of a larger universe, are united with something larger than ourselves.
These ideas support Rupert Sheldrake’s theory that there is a field of memory, and that everything in the universe is entwined through these interconnected fields of memory. Sheldrake, who has a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge and was a fellow in philosophy and the history of science at Harvard, has for forty years extensively explored the existence of these morphic fields. His view is that all human beings, and animals as well, are influenced by information coming in via paths we do not yet understand — from “fields” beyond the brain.
After studying many of these ideas, Ken Wilber developed a model of human beings that posits we have four main aspects, or quadrants. Two of these quadrants deal with the physical aspect of our nature and its engagement with the external world, but the other two deal with our inner selves. And these inner quadrants cannot be explained in materialistic terms.
He recounts the long western tradition running from Immanuel Kant through Schelling, Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault that suggests that the world we see “out there” is not constituted by empirical facts and data, but is the result of personal interpretations of everything. Following the thought of Immanuel Kant, Wilber suggests that our minds develop constructs that help us make sense of the world “out there.”
There is no question that we need these constructs, these organizing patterns in our minds, to make sense of the “big blooming buzzing confusion” of sensations that is actually “out there.” The buzzing confusion phrase is William James’ description of what is actually “out there,” before our minds create patterns from the countless bits of information available to it through our five senses.
I am not attempting here to judge which of these various theories is most valid or will ultimately be adopted, but reflecting on all of them has helped me come to an understanding for myself that makes some sense of all that I have been learning. But one thing that seems clear to me, following the thought of Carl Jung, is that our minds, with input from our memories, reason, intuitions, and emotions — and then guided by our cultural training (all the patterns of understanding we have learned throughout our lives) — give meaning and relevance to the way we apprehend ourselves and the world.
Further, I have come to believe that all ways of viewing “reality” are constructs of our minds. Many different constructs “work” in a specific area, but no single construct captures the whole underlying truth. That is beyond our thinking processes, beyond all constructs of the mind, beyond words. We cannot “think” it, but only “be” it.
Looking for Answers
Skeptico: I have read many of the scientific ideas you speak about, but I don’t really understand most of them, so what do they have to do with my life?
Wisdom Seeker: I have read and studied them a lot, and I do not understand how they relate to how I should live either. The plain fact is — no one does. For instance, there is much scientific evidence today that time is relative, and also that time is an illusion. The greatest scientist of the modern era, Albert Einstein, said, “The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
And quantum theory is now presenting us with a strange new world in which, at the most basic level, there are no objects, no particles “out there” in the world at all that have a continual existence. Instead, the world outside us seems to consist of probability waves that take on tangible form only when they are observed by some consciousness. After the observation, they dissolve back into non-physical probabilities.
But what on earth does that mean for my life, and especially, how does it relate to the values and meanings I should embrace? How does it help me know the best way to live in relation to other people?
I have a profound respect and interest in both science and math. Always have. There is much that science and math can do, but also much that they cannot. Science, even the most advanced science, cannot be used as the basis for answering questions about how to live — except in the narrow areas of how to manipulate physical objects for our comfort and convenience. There are only a few areas in which you can use machines and measurements to guide your life decisions. Both the achievements and limitations of math and science are now telling us that existence is not trapped within the narrow confines of the purely physical, or that the only place to look for answers to questions about living is through studying material objects, or measuring them.
Further, both math and science are now strongly suggesting that there is a dimension of existence beyond the purely physical, beyond our material selves, and this leaves the field wide open to a broader investigation, given that there are other dimensions of existence beyond the strictly material. It therefore makes sense to investigate these other areas for answers to questions about how to live.
This was certainly the conclusion reached by most of the great scientists and mathematicians through the ages. Further, many suggested one area especially worthy of investigation: Consciousness.
Studying consciousness with brain scans, however, is not the primary answer. It can be of great help in trying to heal physical problems with the brain, but brain scans have never found consciousness, and this approach runs headlong into the problem that all measurements and studies can only be done within consciousness itself. The instruments and graphs and theories themselves are all constructs of consciousness.
For me, then, the most productive path forward seems to be to consult the experts who have explored the primary data of consciousness for themselves for thousands of years, the mystics, saints, and sages who have worked with what they can directly know — their own consciousness. It is they who have given the clearest advice and counsel on how best to live, which is the reason many of the great mathematicians and scientists considered it to be of great value to explore what the wisest spiritual teachers had to say concerning questions about how to live their own lives.
If you wish to explore these questions for yourself, the place to begin is to remember that the images your mind creates are very useful, but they are, in the end, useful illusions. The mystics have been saying this for thousands of years, and for those with a scientific interest, it is valuable to know that cutting-edge areas of science are now suggesting it as well — that the everyday world is an illusion.
For those who undertake this exploration, it is also crucial to keep in mind that, even though the real world “out there” might be illusory, each of us forms useful mental constructs to guide our daily lives. The formation of these constructs is guided by the culture we grew up in, and they are absolutely necessary for a life in the world of food, trees, squirrels, cars, shelter, computers, and all the rest. You cannot throw constructs away easily, or without severe consequences. Nor can you easily escape the patterns you have been learning all your life from those around you, from your deeply embedded and ongoing enculturation.
This gets at the heart of the difficulty of knowing how to integrate an understanding of the physical world being illusory with living our everyday lives. In various forms, mystics have spoken of the illusory nature of the physical world for thousands of years, and this idea is now being reinforced in numerous ways by the discoveries of science. But if true, what does this mean for knowing how to live? Most people just ignore the implications of the question — but is this wise, given the increasing possibility that, in some way, it is likely a reality?
A simplistic understanding of these concepts has led some spiritual seekers to the conclusion that they can just choose to disregard the everyday world. But such an interpretation ignores the fact that the constructs a person holds cannot be thrown away by wishing to do so, or by thinking you will do it — because your constructs are rooted very firmly in your unconscious. (It is fascinating to begin to notice how often those who say they have thrown off all constructs are still caught by unconscious fears and desires — not to be critical of them, but to be able to use their mistakes as a lesson in your own journey.)
The critical challenge each of us faces is to get to know ourselves so thoroughly and honestly that we can use our own lived experiences, our own consciousnesses, along with what we can learn from the wisest of those who have gone before us, to derive the wisdom we need to guide our own lives. Until you have come to know your own unconscious fully, you can’t throw out any unhealthy ideas, beliefs, or opinions that are lodged there. Probably not even then.
What you can do is learn to work with your unconscious as a partner. When you realize that the constructs your mind uses do not give you a true picture of the underlying reality, you can begin to work with that realization and slowly change your constructs and learn to guide your life more consciously.
Taking this path can sometimes seem lonely. The great majority of people through the ages have simply gone about their lives in the way they were taught, accepting the views of the faith tradition in which they were raised. Most have just assumed that was all they needed to know about the larger reality.
Today, most people still live as if the physical world is a totally real thing, even though science has joined the mystics in describing a very different reality. But the great majority of us do not ponder the deeper issues about the nature of true reality; we just go on living by the daily patterns endorsed and accepted by the group with whom we identify.
This is certainly true for those who have adopted the worldview of Materialism as their belief system. Like any other group, they turn to the trend-setters of their faith, their “theologians and high priests,” who give advice and write books and articles providing guidance for how to understand the world. Materialists have always dismissed the mystics of other traditions, while making a mystical act of faith themselves — that the deepest reality is the material world. In this worldview, physical matter is the core reality that they believe in, upon which have grounded their faith. And they do so in spite of the fact that their views cannot be reconciled with emerging scientific understanding.
When science questions whether physical matter is really “out there” in the way materialists believe, they are faced with a profound dilemma. It raises serious doubts about what they have chosen as their bedrock reality, and giving up a bedrock belief is hard, like a good Christian or Muslim being asked to give up belief in the image of God they have been taught — it is an existential threat to the ground of their faith.
No wonder, then, that very few materialists can let go of their faith in physical stuff as the absolute bottom line of everything in the universe. Instead, they ignore the implications of modern physics and attack vulnerable points in other belief systems. (This is not to say that some of their attacks aren’t quite valid, just that attacking others is primarily a diversion from the weaknesses in one’s own views.)
They also latch on to elaborate new theories (multiple universes, string theory, M-theory, supersymmetry, misaligned supersymmetry, and more), and interpret them in ways that they insist resolve the inconsistencies of their own beliefs. Some of these new theories get high marks for creativity, and I do not have a strong opinion about any of them, for I do know enough to fully evaluate them scientifically.
I have, though, always had a fondness for string theory. It proposes that all matter consists of vibrating strings of an almost infinitesimally small length that only have one dimension. (Try to imagine that, something with only one dimension.) But what I especially like about string theory is that the different vibrations of these strings can be compared to musical notes, with each note corresponding to a different particle, so each subatomic particle is actually a musical note.
My fondness for string theory, however, does not mean I believe it is likely to be proven true, or that it is even actual science. According to Karl Popper’s broadly accepted falsification principle, the line that separates science from non-science is that real science requires someone be able to propose a way to test whether the theory might be false. The test does not have to have been carried out, but at a minimum, a reasonable test must have been conceived and presented to the scientific community that could test whether it is false. This is actually a weak standard, for there does not have to be any proof, and no test has to have ever been carried out.
It is important to keep in mind, then, when used to justify any belief system, that none of these new theories mentioned a couple of paragraphs back — though creative and interesting — can actually be considered a scientific theory. In fact, for many who talk about them enthusiastically, they are more like mystical theories than scientific ones. They certainly do not provide scientific support for Materialism as a worldview.
All this means that the belief that physical matter alone can be the basis for explaining everything about life and existence requires a fairly dramatic act of faith — even more so since the discoveries of modern physics run in the opposite direction. But Materialism is primarily a weak system of faith because it lacks any confirmation from the direct experiences of wise men and women through history. Those who support it make intellectual arguments, but do not recount any personal experiences themselves of seeing or knowing at a profound level, or what guidance their worldview offers about how best to live that has actually been tested and worked in real world situations. It is all theory.
In this regard, my adaption of a quip by the British writer G. K. Chesterton as it applies to the faith system of Materialism is: “Those who reject all traditional beliefs do not thereafter believe in nothing. They become capable of believing in anything.”
Which leads me back to the reasons I still look to the wisdom traditions of history for guidance, even though they have many flaws: They are supported by the direct personal experiences of some of the most respected figures in history, and the ways of living they have taught have worked well for millions of individuals, and for whole cultures, when they have been properly understood and implemented with courage and determination.
Learning to Live Within the Deeper Realities
Skeptico: Tell me the approach you have learned for how to live, and the way it relates to the possibility that all physical things are an illusion.
Wisdom Seeker: Sages, saints, and mystics have always taught the path I have chosen — find the answers for yourself. Their message has been that the only final answers come from personally experiencing the truth. Spiritual and religious traditions can provide valuable guidance and support along the way, but the final realization must be your own, coming from a deep sense of “knowing” within yourself.
This is also the solution needed to come to terms with the possibility that the tangible world is an illusion. Walt Whitman, after having his own mystical moments, described the dilemma of trying to reconcile such moments with life in the everyday world:
I must not be awake now
for everything looks to me as it never did before.
Or else I am awake now for the first time
and all that was before was just a dream.
These lines make vivid the dilemma anyone who has a deep experience faces: Deciding which is the true reality. Is it just a dream when you experience the mystical dimension, or are you now experiencing the true reality for the first time? While in the mystical state, the everyday world, which had always seemed so real before, is now bathed in a whole new light, and it seems like the dream.
By going deeper and deeper into the heart of the seeming contradiction, however, the solution I have experienced is that both realities are true. Although they seem to be in conflict, at the deepest level of experience and understanding they are not. They are both real; both are true. This is the final stage for those who undertake the journey to wisdom, who seek the metanoia of which Jesus spoke, who answer the call to awaken and come to the realization the Buddha urged each of us to find: To know within yourself that both levels are real and true, and be able to live in harmony with each.
Skeptico: How do those who come to rest in this place then live?
Wisdom Seeker: A few who have had a full mystical experience have not returned to participate in the everyday world. But many have, like the Buddha and Jesus. After the Buddha’s profound realization, he spent 45 years constantly engaged with those who had not yet awakened, patiently teaching them how to experience the broader reality for themselves.
And certainly Jesus returned to fully engage with people in the everyday world. After his 40 days alone in the wilderness, and his mystical experiences there, he went back into the world and taught all who would listen: “The kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth but men do not see it” (from the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of the earliest words spoken by Jesus found in long-buried scrolls near Nag Hammadi in Egypt in the mid-20th century).
This saying captures one clear message of Jesus recorded in all the Gospels: Live from the spirit of the Kingdom of Heaven all the time. And, of course, this is how Jesus himself lived. After his full realization in the wilderness, he committed his life to the mission he felt called to fulfill, and spent the rest of his life healing and helping others see the broader reality for themselves.
A short phrase that many Christians use to describe the way of Jesus and how he lived is: “In the world, but not of it.” This phrase can be a valuabe reference point for anyone wishing to follow in his footsteps: To interact fully with people in the everyday world while also being conscious, in each moment, that there is a broader reality that transcends all everyday concerns. To continually remember to follow the guidance of the higher reality in all that we do in the world.
The Apostle Paul followed the way of Jesus and engaged fully with the world after his own profound awakening. And he instructed everyone to, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” — which I take to mean that those who follow the way of Jesus continually attempt to expand into the state of consciousness that Jesus himself exemplified and live from that new mind each day.
In Islam, there is an oft-quoted phrase in the poetry of Rumi (also sometimes attributed to Muhammed himself), “Die before you die.” This phrase suggests a very similar message, the meaning of which is that we should die to our small self and its narrow, self-centered concerns — before our physical bodies die. If we can do this, the rest of the time our physical bodies are alive we will be able to focus our attention on the broader reality and respond to its guidance for how to live at all times.
A wonderful description of this process of realization comes from the 14th century Tibetan monk and scholar Tsong Khapa (as explained by Robert Thurman, who recently retired as Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University).
Thurman portrays Tsong Khapa’s image of the journey to complete realization as requiring, first, that you do the work necessary to know the deepest truths in your own direct experience. Then you must do the further work of integrating these experiences fully into all levels of your own being. When you have done both, you will be able to see all levels of reality with clarity, the largest dimensions and the everyday world as well. When you reach this place, then — and only then — you will see that there is no conflict, that there is only one truth that encompasses all levels of reality simultaneously.
Now, neither the mystical dimension nor the everyday world seems like an illusion. The conflicts and contradictions are resolved, and the sense that the everyday world is an illusion — which was so vivid when immersed in the mystical state — is gone. After one has taken the final step on the journey of realization, “the world is back” (as Thurman translates Tsong Khapa). The everyday world has returned in the fullness of its own truth, and you know that both the mystical vision is real, and the everyday world is real. You know that both views as “relatively real.” Neither is untrue, but neither point of view — by itself — is the absolute truth. The full truth embraces both.
When you have fully entered this world of relativity, you see the truth of both views simultaneously. Although they had seemed contradictory, you have now found, according to Tsong Khapa, your “center of balance,” and you can hold both views in “harmonious balance.” You have integrated both into a natural equilibrium and come to rest in a state of “holy equipoise.”
(For a more in-depth exploration of Tong Khapa thoughts, see my Essay, Tsong Khapa on Time and Timelessness.)
Walt Whitman found this place of “harmonious balance.” After experiencing the mystical dimension, he renewed his commitment to helping others see what he had seen, sharing his vision of the broadest reality in his poetry with lines such as these:
Do you see O my brothers and sisters?
It is not chaos or death
it is form, union, plan
it is eternal life
it is Happiness.
Whitman also followed the example of Jesus and engaged fully with the everyday world. After his mystical experiences, he spent an intense three years volunteering to care for the suffering and sick in the gruesome conditions of Civil War hospitals. In the preface to his most famous book of poems, Leaves of Grass, he succinctly summarized the vision he had found for how to live:
“This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and the animals … give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people.
“Re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body.”
Skeptico: How have you tried to live all this?
Wisdom Seeker: For one thing, I have tried to keep up with the main developments in science and math. I honor and respect the value of each, and when dealing with the physical world, they are our best guides.
I also know there are areas of life that are beyond the purely physical, and it is validating to know that almost all the great scientists and mathematicians through history have come to this conclusion. They certainly did not agree on how to integrate the broader reality as they understood it into their own lives, for they were quite independently minded, so each searched for their own way. But one commonality was that many saw consciousness as a key, and this has given my own search some direction.
Another important key for me has been coming to understand that no way of perceiving, no picture of reality gives the whole picture. I therefore try to honor what each has to contribute to the whole and keep firmly in mind that true wisdom is to be able to reconcile the seeming conflicts between the different levels of reality within myself.
When I can remember that the different views are each relatively real — that each is relatively true when seen from a certain context — I am able to respect the value of all, including the view that each person holds of the everyday world. Many people think their personal experience of the everyday world is the only true reality, and have a hard time interacting with those who have a different understanding. But if I can remember that each person’s view is true from within their own experience, I can interact with each person and honor their way of perceiving — while simultaneously knowing that there are other ways of perceiving that are different, but also true. (Of course, whatever another’s beliefs, the more honesty and integrity that person has, the easier it is.)
The times I remember all this I face dramatically fewer conflicts with others — although sometimes they still occur, especially when I feel that another’s actions are impinging on my freedom to live fully and to be true to myself and my values.
On the other end of the spectrum, some mystics think that the everyday world is nothing but an illusion, and even more adopt this idea and try to live as if it were the final truth. I have experienced this way of seeing, but have come to understand it is not the final truth. It is one very important relative truth, but so is seeing the everyday world as it is and respecting the truth it holds. When I can hold both truths simultaneously, I can engage with the everyday world as if it is real, while also knowing that the mystics are right as well.
It is of immense importance to remember that wise men and women before you have taken this journey and found fulfilling answers. To reach this place yourself, though, you must come to trust the validity of your own journey and what you are discovering. You must come to trust yourself and the answers you are finding — while remaining ever-vigilant to the dangers of self-delusion.
You will not reach this place in the journey by using only one or two of the faculties you possess — not with the thinking mind alone, or just your feelings, or emotions, or bodily sensations, or your insights and intuitions. The whole self must be involved. You must come to know and accept your whole self, for only then will you be able to reach the deepest level of “knowing.” Only then will you be able to find your own “harmonious balance.” Only then will you be able to live all you have come to know — by being it.
If you can reach this state of being, you will then live in a state of “holy equipoise” with a simultaneous awareness of all realities. You will be free to engage with each level of reality without being trapped by any one; you will be able to move between the levels of reality smoothly, easily, like a dancer — shifting effortlessly between the music of the spheres and the music of everyday life.
For previous Essays in this series, go to: Two Worldviews – And You Must Choose
May you have a wonderful summer!
David