SCIENCE, THE DIVINE AND THE NIRVANA
PROJECT (Seekers’ Lesson 4)
Erle Frayne D. Argonza
Magandang hapon sa inyong lahat! Good
afternoon to you all!
Before everything else, let it be clarified
that this note intends to advance and articulate the thesis that science is a
way to the Divine. Knowing is an inherent trait of the soul (or 5th
body), and given that all souls were emanated sparks from the divine Godhead,
then science is an endowment from the Almighty I Am Presence and is among the
seven (7) essential ways or paths back to the Godhead.
Let it be clarified further that science—as
the enterprise that seeks to build knowledge—is not only limited to material
science. The other core category is spiritual science: knowledge of the higher
ontological domains called ‘spiritual dimensions’, the purpose for their
existence, the intelligences inhering in them, and most of all the knowledge of
the Almighty Cause of all Causes or ‘God’ (from Teutonic Godin, related to
Nordic god Wodin or god of the woods, related to the Nordic deity Odin).
A Seeker is one who, after filling up shis
(his/her) ‘glass of faith’, must move on to progress in the path by filling up
shis ‘glass of knowledge’. For a Seeker, it doesn’t suffice to just believe in
God. It must be proved, by way of scientific methods—established for both the
material and spiritual sciences—that the higher ontological domains and the
intelligences inhering in them do exist. By employing the very accessible
scientific method of yoga meditation—in its advanced form—such domains and
intelligences can be observed and known.
So the lesson for Seekers is: learn the
sciences for both domains, the spiritual (with 3 dimensions) and material (with
4 dimensions), study them arduously, learn the methods and theories about them,
the rules about the establishment of knowledge, and internalize the scientific
attitude in daily life. Not only that, as explained in the fundamental article
on the 2nd ray, a Seeker must adopt the critical thinking that
pervades the sciences whenever s/he does a task of interpreting texts
(exegesis).
Discourses on science are tough ones, so
bear with me, Noble Seekers, as I am a scientist myself: a sociologist,
economist, and ‘social technologist’ (technocrat). As Seekers you have chosen
particularly the 5th Ray (science) and 2nd Ray (wisdom)
as twin sub-paths congealing into a singular Path, so please digest
knowledge-based discourses no matter how tough they are. I’ll try to simplify
them, worry not about the digestibility, masticate the discourse well and quaff
them with ‘glasses of wisdom’ for more efficacious comprehension.
To move on, science is a systematic,
institutional response in fulfillment of a basic human attitude: knowing.
Situational adaptations demand knowledge, adaptations to complex situations
demand complex knowledge. Knowledge manifests in two essential forms: science,
or ‘know-why’ (pure knowledge), and technology, or ‘know-how’ (applied
knowledge).
Knowledge must be further converted to
information, or those quanta of knowledge that are used to make decisions or
choices. Such a conversion process requires a fundamental strategy of how to
make do with information that seems to be almost always imperfect. The degree
or level of intelligence would determine to a greater extent the appropriate
identification and efficacy of any strategy applied thereto.
Incidentally, human society is moving
towards the Information Age. In this Age, which had in fact already begun but
which is just in its infantile stage, human engagements will be largely
knowledge-based. Daniel Bell, Alaine Torraine, and Alvin Toffler elaborated on
this coming Age very deeply and successfully. This rising context brings
enormous luck to Seekers, precisely because the emerging context will demand
the Seeker-type souls who will, in the main, come to dominate this society as
it matures in the future.
Needless to say, human society will go
high-tech, and only those who are most adaptable to the new context will
survive in it. Fact is, only the aboveground of the physical plane now remains
in this infantile state of Information Age. The underground cities, of which
there are more than a hundred (please do your respective research on this), and
the worlds or cities of the higher planes or dimensions, are exceedingly
high-tech aside from being high-Spirit (take this as a given). So it pays to
understand science very substantively and adapt adroitly to the technological
developments evolving. We aboveground people need to catch up with our
underground and other-dimensional siblings, and likewise those advanced
siblings in the other star systems and constellations who are able to travel
across vast spaces.
If your evolutionary level is lower than
that of a Seeker or advanced Devotee/Believer at least, and you cannot catch up
enough for reasons that are largely internal to you (such as the laggards do),
then necessarily you must be transferred elsewhere. You aren’t fit on Earth,
which is itself evolving and will climb from 3rd density to 4th
density very soon, so you better be shipped out to less evolved planets that
would fit you most. The moment that the planet moves to 4th Density,
misfits (not necessarily ‘bad guys’ or ‘evil ones’ but simply slow learners)
won’t be able to adapt to the vibration of the planet and to its demand for knowledge-based
smart living. Forcing the slow learners to stay here later will leave them
highly fragmented and perpetual schizophrenics, unable to digest and comprehend
what they see and feel. Pitiful siblings, but out of compassion let us give
them what they deserve: the chance to continue evolving in contexts that fit
them.
Practically all of you have already begun
your science studies in fact. And, chances are that many of you Seekers who
browse this website are scientists, technologists, and professionals who deal a
lot with information: ‘Information Workers’. But many of you may not know where
to begin your inquiries on the mystical or spiritual sciences. So I can give
you some tips here, your fellow Seekers can input some other tips, and your
Inner Guide will lead you to the bulk of the reads.
I presume that you are familiar, if not
adept with the structure of the scientific enterprise. This you learned in high
school yet. The notion of structure was well articulated in the 1st
half of the 20th by the Vienna
Circle Copenhagen
On the mystical/spiritual side, the
outstanding giant is no other than Helena P. Blavatsky, the mind and heart of
Theosophy. She and her team mates—Hodson, Leadbeater, Bessant, Olcott—began to
establish the contours of spiritual science at the tail end of the Victorian
Era (late 19th century), tasks that spilled over to the first three
(3) decades of the 20th century. It took just a single figure,
Blavatsky, to deconstruct devastatingly the arrogant contentions of the
classical Evolutionists who regarded change as a very static, linear movement
from one stage of life to another. In place of lineal evolution was
superimposed a cyclical theory of evolution, which already shows the seeds of
the evolving paradigm of ‘dynamics’.
The contributions of the theosophists were
very monumental, by my own admission. Although I do reserve certain critiques
of their discourses, notably regarding the ‘Lucifer question’, I appreciate the
monumental and indispensable contribution of the theosophy team. Remember that
the said thinkers, all of whom were Teachers or gurus in quality, were battling
wars on two fronts: on the objectivist front were the atheistic scientists who
shamelessly reduced science to a mere building of knowledge about the material
world; and, on the subjectivist front, the vulgar spiritists comprising of the
churches and their legions of Pied Pipers who slandered the theosophists no
end. I’m sure you’d agree with me that it was a very, very tough war, with
uphill battles fought on many sub-fronts at the same time.
After the Blavatsky team, many mystics
tried to fill up their shoes and hats. But, sad to note, the post-theosophy’s
outputs paled in comparison to the thinker-gurus. What you, Noble Seeker, must
do is to gather the different bits and pieces of information about the works of
other mystics so you can erect the tapestry of spiritual science yourself. For
instance, the contributions of Paramahansa Yogananda and his guru Sri Yutekswar
Giri are of paramount importance, per my assessment. Among contemporary mystics
you’ll discover the contributions of Sal Rachele who, like E.Argonza, was
trained in the sciences and can handle the toughest scientific questions from
sub-atomics to cosmology (see www.salrachele.com).
Sadly, many mystics and psychics are
channelers who by my estimation do not measure up to the accepted standard of
an epistemologist and scientist. They came straight from experiences of
spiritism and healing, and without the proper grounding in scientific precepts
and meta-language, they tend to misrepresent spiritual science into a
hodgepodge of seemingly unrelated quackery with nil scientific credibility at
all. There are too many of them over the internet, even as many before the
internet days have published materials that sound low-tech and approach
spiritual science from a defensive, superstitious position. Without mentioning
names, I would honestly say that they are a disgrace to us Lightworkers. They
should better stick to their spiritism and healing works and leave science to
the scientists, technologists, and epistemologists among seekers and mystics
who abound in great numbers today.
One more thing to note: over the past three
(3) decades, there was a marked shift from questions of structure to questions
of process. Today, being among the students of the latter thinkers, I tend to
view science and the knowledge pursuit from the vantage point of process, even
as I am nauseated by the antiquated fixation to structures and elements, and
the flaws of its paradigm ramparts (systems theory, neo-evolutionism,
structuralism, uniformitarianism, psychoanalysis, structural functionalism)
which, thanks heavens, have all become obsolete before the turn of the century.
For your own sake, for an understanding of
the contemporary issues involved that are process-centered and transdisicplinary
(borderless science), I would recommend that you review the key works of the
following thinkers:
·
Theodore Adorno & Max Horkheimer: Founders of the ‘Frankfurt school’, they were among the earliest defenders
of ‘inter-disciplinary’ and transdisciplinal (borderless science)
methodology.These were elaborated in scattered articles. Adorno’s Authoritarian
Personality is an example of cross-disciplinary method, by integrating
sociology, psychology, and medical science (psychiatry) to explain the rise of fascism
and nazism.
·
Thomas Kuhn: He dovetailed on the notion of ‘paradigm’ as focal
category for understanding scientific revolutions. Kuhn is an excellent thinker
on the history of science. The key work is Structure of Scientific
Revolutions.
·
Jurgen Habermas: A dissection of the interests inhering in
knowledge led Habermas to infer about the logic inherent in theories. He
clarified the emergence of three paradigms—positivism, hermeneutics, critical
theory—on the basis of inherent human interests. Go straight to his core work Knowledge
and Human Interests.
·
Michel Foucault: He disclosed the connection between knowledge and
power, and the process of how Discourse emerges from that link. He is a
brilliant thinker on the history of ideas. The book Order of Things is
the fitting start of his works regarding scientific methodology.
·
Jacques Derrida: Advanced the thesis that ‘writing’ (referent for
text in general) preceded speech. He also innovated on the method of
‘deconstruction’. His works have enormous implications for scientific modeling
purposes. The work Of Grammatology is a fitting start. Follow it up with
Writing and Differance. [Note the distinction between the terms
‘differance’ and ‘difference’.]
·
Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari: This team of thinkers
elucidated the preference, in terms of modeling, for the ‘machinic discourse’
in contrast to the pervasive ‘organismic discourse’ of previous thinkers.
Reality moves like unto a machine that keeps on rolling, without bordered
elements. The team also advanced the ‘transversal’ (transdisciplinal) method of
establishing knowledge. The machine model has much kinship to fluid dynamics,
which is the preferred model of Chaos Paradigm. Go straight to their work Anti-Oedipus.
As to scientific discipline, the attitude
in science is one of humility. No scientific theory can be regarded as fixed,
absolutely pervasive and applicable throughout time. More so, there is no such
thing as a Theory of Everything or TOE. Every scientist, no matter how
brilliant s/he may be, can only contribute to a fragment of the cosmic tapestry
of knowledge. Such a situation explains the humility of scientists and
university professors.
Go ahead in your scientific pursuits, Noble
Seeker. For the scientists and technologists among you, it is highly
recommended that you take up advanced degrees up through the PhD level.
Remember, you are not only preparing for ‘this life’. We are all preparing for
the ‘afterlife’, and your learned knowledge and information will have a strong
bearing in the other planes as well when you go back there. Go ahead and please
conduct research, present papers in conferences before scientific peers, and
publish your outputs in reputable journals. Bro. Erle is well with you in these
S&T efforts.
To conclude, let me echo the note of one of
my most revered thinkers, Jurgen Habermas: let us transform knowledge into a
liberative pursuit, and allow the knowledge-bearer to apperceive the
transcendent in the process of knowledge pursuit. Knowledge is liberation.
Amen. Om. Aum.
[October 2007, Quezon City
No comments:
Post a Comment