Not Knowing: Chasing The Dragon Of Reality [1, First ed.]

Table of contents :
ii
Table of Contents
Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
PART I: Outer World Insights .........................................................................................2
Chapter One: Holy Science ..................................................................................3
Chapter Two: War.............................................................................................. 15
Chapter Three: Sex ............................................................................................ 19
Chapter Four: The Medical Priesthood ............................................................... 25
Chapter Five: The Good Ole US of A ................................................................. 31
Chapter Six: Education ...................................................................................... 34
Chapter Seven: Politics & Government .............................................................. 38
Chapter Eight: Malaysia, My Home ................................................................... 40
PART II: Inner World Insights....................................................................................... 47
Chapter Nine: Religion & Spirituality ................................................................ 48
Chapter Ten: Human Intelligence ...................................................................... 57
Chapter Eleven: Our Worldview ........................................................................ 62
Epilogue/Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 70

Citation preview

Not Knowing! Chasing The Dragon Of Reality. By

AHA

Table of Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 PART I: Outer World Insights .........................................................................................2 Chapter One: Holy Science ..................................................................................3 Chapter Two: War.............................................................................................. 15 Chapter Three: Sex ............................................................................................ 19 Chapter Four: The Medical Priesthood ............................................................... 25 Chapter Five: The Good Ole US of A ................................................................. 31 Chapter Six: Education ...................................................................................... 34 Chapter Seven: Politics & Government .............................................................. 38 Chapter Eight: Malaysia, My Home ................................................................... 40 PART II: Inner World Insights....................................................................................... 47 Chapter Nine: Religion & Spirituality ................................................................ 48 Chapter Ten: Human Intelligence ...................................................................... 57 Chapter Eleven: Our Worldview ........................................................................ 62 Epilogue/Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 70

ii

Kindle Book Available At: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08DMV88DV https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08DMV88DV https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B08DMV88DV https://www.amazon.in/dp/B08DMV88DV https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B08DMV88DV

iii

Introduction From the time I first became aware of myself as a conscious and apparently separate being, I have always been perplexed by the fact that this world seems so diverse and complex and the fact that I knew next to nothing about it. How then will I navigate through it when every moment seems to require some kind of input or action from me? I was lost and although I was loath to admit it, I forced my way through life as best as I could, forcing myself to grasp and hold onto all the worldly knowledge that came my way. This book is a look at all the insights I have gradually accumulated over my life; a series of essays if you will, on all the major issues in life that all of us are confronted with. My hope is that even if some (or all) of my views are proven to be untrue, at the very least it may help some to gain insights of their own regarding these matters. Life is short as they say and in my view most of its perplexities can be overcome and understood if only more men and women spend less time arguing and more time contemplating. Someone I knew once said that it is the clash of human thought that results in new ideas and insights and as such we should be thankful that there is such a variety of human thoughts; some controversial, some paradoxical, some vulgar, some conservative, some nonsensical and on and on it goes, never-ending. This book then is my contribution to human thought and hopefully it is read with an open mind and without judgement. Judge my ideas if you will, but do it after reading the entirety of my message.

AHA, July 2020

PART I: Outer World Insights

2

Chapter One: Holy Science Have you noticed the amount of adoration and praise and worship that the subject of science conjures up in the present day? Practically any and all improvements in human life is attributed to the dogged determination of humankind to discover ‘scientific truths’, come what may! It seems that science (and its closely related cousins, human reason and knowledge) is the new religion of the masses. I have heard that on a few occasions in the last few decades some eminent scientists have claimed that science has discovered almost all the secrets of the universe, perhaps 95% or so of everything. All we have to do are a few more final laps and we will get there! Really! Have these people been swallowing mushrooms or smoking psychedelic drugs or something? I would have said that science has hardly even begun its quest! It is true that science has brought what appears to be tremendous benefits to humankind. However, whenever any person, group, cartel, country, brand, knowledge stream and so on engenders enormous success, that is when the pretenders to the throne and hypocrites and swindlers get into a frenzy and there is a mad rush and jostling in, to somehow get a cut in the success and the adulation. In my country Malaysia, Islam is the religion of the masses. It takes pride of place in everything. Anything even vaguely Islamic cannot be questioned and woe indeed to anyone who does. As a result, we have such things as ‘Islamic banking’, ‘Islamic healing’, ‘Islamic law’, ‘Islamic philosophy’, ‘Islamic education’ and so on and on. Whether or not the banking, healing, law, philosophy, education and so on works and is effective in its own right cannot be easily queried. You see, all debate here has been curtailed to some extent by the simple expedient of adding the magic word ‘Islam’! As a consequence, today this practice has degenerated even further and we now have things like Islamic chicken (chicken bred and specially slaughtered over and above the normal Muslim slaughter requirements). Also, Islamic holy water, Islamic products, Islamic this and Islamic that. Of course, things of this nature are hardly limited to Islam. I am sure that readers living in Christian, Buddhist or Hindu majority countries can find similar instances in their own backyards. I am merely pointing out the above to illustrate how con-men the world over jump on any available wagon if there is even a slight chance that some of the success and money of the big names and brands can rub off on them. Science is a subject which “appears” to have been a major success for the past few centuries all over the world. It is also a major coup for those who in any way control its narrative. That includes all the major and prestigious scientific bodies, organizations, periodicals, magazines and other entities representing any aspect of it. Anyone who is not in this ‘elite team’ like the common man on the street is at a major disadvantage. His opinions are laughed off as ignorance while at the same time his entire life is to one extent or other influenced and heavily dominated by what the world calls ‘science’. I was watching a YouTube interview recently by a well-known personality and the interviewee was (I think) a political and / or social activist. The interviewee seemed to voice disbelief in the current hoopla about how humans are on the road to disaster due to selfinflicted climate change. The interviewer then promptly pulled out some news article (from I assume some major media organization) where it was said that 87% (or a similar figure) of scientists are sure that climate change is being precipitated by humans of the present day. 3

That sort of stumped the interviewee and she had to lamely keep saying that she just simply disbelieved it. That interview was a classic example of how big names and brands (like “science”) are used to browbeat people down. What was one female voice against 87% of scientists? In the first place, world climate is not like dissecting and studying a frog in a laboratory. [And no, I do not for one moment believe that any scientist anywhere has understood anything about frogs apart from the obvious]. Any scientist in this world who claims to understand world climate after years of observation and study would have to be Godlike in his abilities. Then again, at least as far as I know, I didn’t realize that there was an international body of people who are officially designated as scientists. There are university lecturers and professors who specialize in various branches of science. Then both in the private and public sector I assume there are various educated people who study and do research in various fields. When exactly and on what criteria do this people get designated as scientists? Are the 87% scientists from the US or Russia or various parts of the world or perhaps from the whole world (which I seriously doubt)? Are the scientists concerned specializing in world climate and related fields or are they also from non-related fields like medicine, social science, astronomy, engineering, electronics and so on. In this case, they would have as much knowledge on climate science as the man on the street, who likely knows more. Of course, none of this information was available in the news article or if it was, the interviewer did not highlight these. I could do a survey of all the religious people (since they are the selfproclaimed experts on this matter) around me to determine if they believed in their God. Chances are the survey will proof that a majority of them do. Does that mean that it has been proven that God exists? You say that scientists are more objective then ‘normal’ people! Really? As they say, if you believe that, then I have got a bridge here in Malaysia to sell you. In cases like this, no one is interested in any one’s opinions; we need detailed clear proofs. What makes anyone think that we give a damn about what the scientists think? You mean we are unable to think for our self? Like the word ‘Islam’, the magic word used here was science and scientists. The moment it is mentioned, both interviewer and interviewee fell into a daze and into a trancelike state. No further questions were asked once it was assumed that these “facts” had dropped out of the holy mouths of scientists. In my own case, I studied marine engineering and went on to work in that area. Human general knowledge has expanded so much that even in one field like marine or mechanical engineering I specialize in one teeny-weeny area called mechanical maintenance. Even this teeny-weeny area can be split up further if one has a mind to do so. Obviously after some 4 decades in this field, I know a lot more about it then the man on the street. But do I call myself an expert in this field? Yes, if I need to market my skills. But in truth I realize I am no expert as I do not have all the answers even in this tiny area. What I have discovered in my life is that the more we learn any subject, the more we find and understand the extent of our ignorance in that very subject. I do not say that climate change is not being caused by human activities. Honestly, I have no idea. But I beg to differ with those who do. From my understanding, they are just as blind as I am. The truly scientific way and method would be to forward some hypothesis or claim that human activities may be causing climate change, to adduce definitive (and not

4

subjective) proofs and to look for scientific ways to reverse the so-called changes. To state instead that it is a scientific fact when it cannot be definitely proven is an injustice to all human reason and scientific endeavor. If anything, it illustrates the arrogance of scientists in particular and humans in general to insist that this are facts when it is almost impossible to prove. And then to force-feed such half-truths which may easily turn out to be lies to all and sundry. What arrogance! I was reading some so called scientific books recently on the latest discoveries and thinking on the universe. Somewhere in the book it was mentioned that scientists had calculated the total mass of the universe and (I assume) after further calculations and God knows what else exactly, had determined that their calculations only accounted for about 4% of the observable mass of the universe. In other words, 96% of the universe (whatever that means in their language) is unaccounted for. At this point, I had to sit back a while trying to get my mind around this. How the hell do you calculate the total mass of the universe? It is not exactly like calculating the mass of the moon! More like trying to weigh yourself jumping in mid-air with a weight scale; although come to think about it, even that is a whole lot easier. I googled it and found that it had something to do with manipulating the critical density and the diameter of the observable universe. This would mean that there is a non-observable universe somewhere which presumably can be observed from some other point in the observable universe and further questions on why the non-observable universe hasn’t any influence on the observable. I gather that the non-observable part is expanding away from the observable part at speeds exceeding the speed of light which is the reason adduced (I think) why it doesn’t affect the observable. [Again, I thought Einsteinian physics doesn’t allow speeds above light speeds but what do I know*]. Please don’t quote me on this, as I am not sure that I am quoting it right and neither am I inclined to refer back to the book as it strikes me as a load of crap masquerading as science. But you get the general idea. It is one hell of a mind twister. The above reminded me of my experience in Indian astrology. When I was younger an Indian astrologer predicted a very difficult time for me coming up ahead. Although I didn’t pay any attention to this prediction, true enough I went through a very difficult period with very strange events which seemed out of character with my normal self. Thoroughly miffed, I was determined to get to the bottom of it and spent my free time for a few years studying Vedic astrology. I collected hundreds of birthdates and birth-times of friends, relations and acquaintances. My conclusion? Until today I am convinced that astrology is a true science. The problem however is it is next to impossible to find a really competent astrologer. How did I convince myself of its truth if I was unable to accurately decipher an astrological chart myself, you may ask? In exactly the same way that I am convinced that science has the smell of truth but almost all present-day scientific knowledge is based on half-truths at best and lies at the worst. You see, present day science is based on the claim that the universe and the world come first and only later on does consciousness makes an appearance. That to me is the most laughable and idiotic piece of nonsense. To me it is obvious that consciousness comes first; no universe exists anywhere which is not observed by consciousness. With such a misstep as the first scientific assumption, is it any wonder that science gets everything wrong and has to keep correcting its theories every now and then without ever reaching finality. If you put the cart in front of the horse, you may be able to move a few erratic steps ahead at great cost to

5

both horse and cart but you are basically going to get nowhere. What is that you say? What great stuff and gadgets has not been invented and benefited humankind as a result of science, people claim! True, but science has no success in combating the truly important issues; that of human disease, old age, death and misery. It appears to be like an illusion created in Disneyland, very convincing in some ways but at the end of the day you still need to get back to your real-world problems; and thanks to science that has increased just as dramatically as the so-called ‘convenience’ provided by it. I also notice that the in thing now for the scientific crowd especially the physicists is this great Theory Of Everything where a single formula or theoretical framework is sought to explain and cover general relativity and quantum mechanics or in short all physical aspects of this world. My question would be; have scientists ever thought under what scientific logic or human reason did this intuitive knowledge arise in them that there must be a single formula or framework to explain everything? They don’t pay any respect to religion or to spiritual ideas, or to the One God or One Absolute who is the whole of creation. Why then did this strange idea that there should be one formula to explain everything arise unbidden in them? Shouldn’t it be truer that if it were only scientific logic and / or human reason which governs them, then they would never have looked for a single formula but would instead have expected dozens if not hundreds or thousands of formulae as a more accurate mirror of this diverse and incredibly complex universe? Why one formula or one framework? What drives them in spite of their external denial of the One to still intuitively look towards the one and not the many? Astrology is a much-maligned science, sneered at by the ‘intelligentsia’ and everyone’s favorite punching bag. Science on the other hand is worshipped and praised as the creme de la crème of all human knowledge. Astrology only claims to predict human character and events, which to my mind is a lot more complex and difficult then calculating the mass of the universe. Science on the other hand has as its ultimate quest the desire to discover all the secrets of life and the universe. Present day astrological expertise falls far short of its claims. Science however claims it has made a hell of a lot of progress. Most of this progress however seems to be in the realm of adult toy creation* (with absolutely no attention paid to the cost and detrimental side effects of such toys) and weapons for control and destruction. Scientific progress for sure has a lot of glamor and it is sold to the public with a very sophisticated sales pitch. But is it really progress? Or is it another round of hogwash with claims made that are yet to attain a fraction of its aims. Obviously, there is no question that where old age, death and human misery is concerned, science has gotten nowhere but a lot of people seem to believe that where disease is concerned much progress has been made. I will leave that topic for another chapter as I think it requires a longer and more detailed look. In any case and getting back to this scientific quest to calculate the mass of the universe; does it occur to anyone to question how this is done? For one thing you would have to know 100% percent of the universe (whether observable or otherwise). Scientists don’t know a damn thing about what is contained in the universe, they don’t know if there are any other strange objects out there beside the litany of objects they claim are out there, of which claimed objects very little is known about and what is most glaring of all, they are out by some 96% in their own calculations, assuming it is right in the first place. For common folk like me, we would probably take a breather and be extremely embarrassed to be referred to as scientists for some time at least and then look very, very deeply and thoroughly at all our

6

assumptions in our calculation as it is obvious there is a good chance of a great many mistakes or errors there. But what do these scientists do? They hardly seem to miss a beat and come back with some idea about something mysterious called, I think, dark energy. Earlier due to discrepancies elsewhere they already had dark matter; now we have dark energy. They have absolutely no idea what this dark matter or dark energy actually consists of but that doesn’t seem to matter. Who dares to question science? If there are no available explanations to account for the presents under the tree, then all we have to do is invent Santa Claus! And this is what is claimed to be scientific method! And this are the same people who sneer at astrology! Recently, I was mildly shocked one night to see the moon loom very large on the horizon as if it had decided to approach the earth or something. Barely one hour later it was back to its normal penny size in the sky. I assumed of course that it was unlikely that the moon had crept closer to the earth or that it had suddenly grown in size so I looked it up on the web and found that this phenomenon is known as the ‘Moon Illusion’ and had been known to occur for centuries. It is claimed to be some kind of optical illusion although no one is sure exactly how it occurs. In other words, they have simply put a name on it (optical illusion or Santa Claus), without any idea on how it actually occurs. Our astronomers and scientists don’t have the foggiest notion on what is happening at our doorstep but they have gone on to dream about observable and non-observable universes and dark matter and energy and so on. The radius or depth of the earth is in the range of 6300 km and the deepest hole man has ever dug into the earth is in the range of 12 km. One would have thought that great care would have been taken to avoid mentioning any ideas about what is in the earth’s center; especially in schools and if there are any queries here the scientific thing to do would be to say that we don’t know for sure. At university level education, perhaps whatever current hypothesis as to the composition of the earth’s core be given and all the proofs available to support this or that hypothesis be trotted out for study and debate. That would be the scientific thing to do; because true enough, we don’t know for sure. Not until you have actually gone in there. But No, the scientific world has to come out with their hogwash so that they can convince everyone that science knows everything! Then we have this nonsense about evolution. I personally couldn’t care less whether my body evolved from a bunch of monkeys or if it was made by special dispensation by a giant wise all-knowing bearded chap after piling up some mud and reciting some mumbo jumbo over it. Why should I, because I know very well that I and my body are not the same thing! Leaving my philosophical meanderings aside, the simple fact is that all the scientists have, are some very shoddy material evidence; one that in a court of law is known as circumstantial evidence. How exactly with this 3rd rate proofs did such a thing even end up being taught in schools as proven fact? You mean to tell me that the scientists were physically present and witnessing the whole thing at the time when the homo whatever decided to metamorphose into the current homo sapiens? Do scientists know the meaning of speculation? That is what it is, mere speculation. Just because someone once noticed a bunch of birds modifying their beaks over a couple of generations does not mean proof positive that man descended from ape. As far as I am concerned it is a load of nonsense and I have to feel really sorry for a scientific world which seems incapable of admitting that truly it does not know!

7

There is a Zen story about some professor who visits a wise old sage in order to learn the secret of life. In response, the sage serves him tea. The sage pours the tea and continues pouring even after it overflows. The professor meanwhile is non-plussed and requests an explanation. The sage explains that as long as the professor is filled with knowledge and assumes he knows, he will learn nothing. The knowledge of life is gained not by piling up more and more knowledge but by letting go of everything in order that true wisdom can enter, in the same way that the tea cannot enter the cup when it is already full. This story applies at several different levels but one level of application is useful for scientists. If you claim that you already know what is in the center of the earth [when you actually don’t] won’t it hamper each and every further investigation into the subject? Won’t results that don’t accord with your assumptions be ignored or suppressed? How is this in any manner the right spirit of scientific investigation? When I was young, I had a lot of respect for the scientific method. Today I look at it with utter contempt. As usual any organization which gains tremendous influence becomes corrupted from within due to the lure of Mammon. Physics, the study of the infinitely small and the infinitely large, the microcosm and the macrocosm, quantum mechanics and general relativity; in hopes of being able to make sense of that which is neither infinitely small or large, namely the day to day life of humans on earth. That is like a human being who goes through life with a very powerful portable microscope and telescope and refuses to use his / her bare eyes to see what is happening around him / her and instead uses the microscope / telescope to make his / her decisions. In ancient times, the Chinese sage Confucius was reported to have said "Let us take care of this world: and then, when we have finished with this world, we will take care of the other world." He meant this in a different context but isn’t it also true that unable to make sense of our day to day world, we engage in flights of fancy in the microcosm and macrocosm; hoping thereby to find clues to our existence in ‘other’ worlds? Logically or philosophically, both time and space can be proven to be a mere illusion. Think about it for a moment, the very quality which defines time (or space) is destroyed or neutralized or canceled out by itself. How then can such a thing exist? It appears to exist, and very convincingly too and we all get totally lost when we hear philosopher’s talk about its unreal nature. Nevertheless, it is absolutely true and if we assert that time and space are real, then it will have to follow that human logic is totally false. One or the other and you cannot have both! Do scientists understand this and if so, why are they wasting every-one’s time by diverting our search and attention on to endless non-existing particles and non-existing universes? For those who may not understand, let me elaborate further. Take space for instance and let us pretend that the universe is completely empty. Imagine you are a conscious point in an empty universe and one thing you will immediately notice is that you have no idea at all where you are. Whether you are at the center of the universe or the edge of the universe or at some point in between makes no difference at all; you cannot say where you are. In actual fact, you will not even be conscious that you are in any kind of space; the concept of space will not even arise if you had no memory of earlier experienced space in a world like ours. The reason is, space is completely and fully defined by its boundaries; the space in your room is defined by its walls; the space of our universe is defined by the spatial positions of the 8

planets and stars relative to each other. Take away these boundaries; take away the walls, take away the planets and the stars and space itself ceases to exist. Put another way, by its very own intrinsic nature or the quality of space itself you would expect our universe (observable or non-observable) to end somewhere at some kind of boundary. But what could this boundary be? It would have to be in yet a deeper space or else in another dimension and then you could theoretically go on ad infinitum to deeper and deeper space of whatever dimension but the need for some kind of final boundary remains as it is an intrinsic quality of space itself. Thus, space negates itself by its very own quality. The same in principle is true of time. Whereas space is defined by spatial boundaries and ceases to exist once the spatial boundaries are removed; time is defined by temporal boundaries and ceases to exist once these temporal boundaries are removed. I am sure that everyone has noticed that the year 0 or 1 of the western calendar is purely a matter of convention. The Muslims, the Hindus and I think the Chinese and other cultures all have different year 0’s. That is because no real year 0 can be defined in time. The Big bang theorists may claim that Year 0 is the date of the big bang but it makes no difference to the fact that time is an illusion. Time is defined by the interval between two events. Even our caesium clocks define a second as the interval between a certain number of oscillations. Take away the two events which encapsulate the interval and time collapses and ceases to exist even as a concept unless you have prior experience. That is actually putting it very badly, because even your thoughts and its associated logic cease to exist when time itself has ceased to exist. Your thoughts, you see, including your mental sense of self (although not your being) depends on time to exist. Now this truth about the unreality of time and space has been known since ancient times; I don’t remember the names but I think quite a few Greek and Medieval philosophers commented on it. I assume that any modern-day scientist worth his salt would have known about it. The problem is no-one knows what to make of it, seeing that here we are in this all so real world; or that is how it seems to appear to our senses! How do we go around pretending that the world is an illusion? If time and space doesn’t exist, then it follows that all the numerous objects within it, including our bodies is at best another full-blown illusion. Time and space are like the paper on which these words are written; we ignore the paper whenever we read a book but without it, the words cease to exist. How and what do we even start to do with this insight into the nature of this universe? Objects which appear to be real, floating on a medium which itself is unreal! The usual nature of modern-day science is to ignore everything that does not corroborate its version of truth. When facts arise to disprove its assertions, simply ignore them. Humans feel that they must know, if they don’t, then life itself becomes meaningless. I am not sure if my readers have noticed it; but I have always noticed that in complex situations in my own life where I end up having absolutely no idea on what is to be done, all I need to do is to let things be but most importantly without trying in any way to deny any of the facts of the situation. Wisdom and knowledge are never gained by denying the plain facts before us. Sooner or later, something or other happens to enlighten us or resolve the situation but that can never happen so long as we insist that it is our interpretation of the situation which is correct.

9

I am sure many of the readers here would have seen whether at first hand or through the media, the human phenomenon known as contortionists. Basically, human beings who have the skills and are trained to do such things as flip their body and legs backward in a ring, so as to touch their face with the soles of their feet and so on. There are many variations of bodily contortions possible which the common man or woman cannot even begin to attempt. Obviously, the people who can, attract attention for their abilities and are rightfully esteemed for their skills and for showing what the human body is capable of. Here, we are in the land of all possible bodily contortions and some of the contortions are simply amazing to witness. Physical contortions however constitute a very small range of possibilities as compared to the almost infinite variety of mental contortions possible. Do you understand what I mean by mental contortions? Some of you may have heard of the mathematical infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + …… and on and on. For those who haven’t, I suggest you look it up on You-tube or google it. Basically, the mathematicians have found that by manipulating it in various ways, you can prove that the sum of this series is a measly minus one-twelfth [-1/12]. What that actually says is that infinity equals -1/12. The mathematicians practically swear by it however, as it seems that this formula has been proven to be accurate in proving or confirming various aspects of modern string theory and God knows what else. I have no way of knowing [and I absolutely have no wish to know] whether what they say is true; as I assume that the mathematics involved, not to mention the various aspects of string theory, is extremely complex and abstruse. The above somehow sums up modern science. Offhand and for anyone with a little bit of common sense, there is no way in heaven or hell that infinity can ever be equal to a small negative number. Mathematicians forget that they are wrestling with mental concepts (that which is not real in itself or at least less endowed with reality as compared to the various objects in this universe). Numbers are mental concepts of the descriptive kind; there is no number 1 or 2 to be found anywhere in the universe. Similarly, the mathematical sign for equal is a human mental concept. No two objects can be found anywhere in the entire universe which is exactly equal. No, not even two electrons in their fancy large hadron particle collider or two leaves of the same tree or two drops of rain. Based on these halfbaked concepts, obviously all that can come out of it is nonsensical nonsense. If this is not mental contortions par excellence and of the first order, tell me what is? Then we come to the grand accomplishments of science in the 20 th century; that of the Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. It is said that even during Einstein’s time, there were only about a dozen scientists in the world who understood the theory perfectly. I can understand that well enough; obviously it will take a loony to understand another loony’s theories. I am being extremely harsh, you say? What of all the grand achievements and practical uses which has developed and arisen based on these theories, not to mention those awful bombs? We have already proven that in reality, time and space do not exist, although it appears as such to our human senses. How can something which does not exist like space-time even bend? What exactly is bending here? Our brains perhaps? I am not discrediting scientists in general; although some of them in my opinion do not deserve the appellation of scientist at all. Some I feel, are indeed of very small minds and just because they are mathematical whizzes or specialize in some areas with innumerable academic titles do not entitle them to any kind of glory. Most scientists like Einstein though

10

did indeed contribute, but to me it is more in the realm of ideas and not in their fancy theories. Einstein put into the public mind this idea of relativity; that everything is relative to each other and that there are no absolutes in this universe. All human knowledge including our fancy mathematics, is but a comparison of one thing to another; the attributes of one relative to another. Even our very language depends on this. I wonder why most physicists have from this concept of relativity of Einstein, not gone on to reflect that similarly, the attributes we call ‘small’ and ‘big’ are nothing but relative terms or concepts. Something is big or small only in relation to some other object; there is no inherent smallness or bigness in any object. The microcosm and macrocosm are but opposite and yet similar ends of the cosmic scale. In theory, quantum science and the science of our vast universe should work out to be the same. To prove it would however require the ability to encompass the vast distances and vast scales of time for the universe; and the ability to delve deeply into the infinitely minute distances and infinitely minute scales of time in the quantum world. What makes the scientist think that infinitely large or small objects does not correspondingly require infinitely large or small space-time continuums to operate in the manner that humans locked into an intermediate space-time continuum are able to comprehend? [The infinitely miniscule scales of time required in the quantum world is probably the reason why scientists are unable to predict precise positions of any particle; because they are trying to do it on minute, but still human time scales where it will then tend to appear as a probability]. When we try to formulate a theory based on human scales of time and human distances, I doubt very much that it can work in either the microcosm or the macrocosm Anyway, to go on, the scientists themselves say that an observer effects the nature of whether a particle appears to behave like a particle or a wave. This is known in physics as the duality paradox although the part about the observer is normally played down or totally ignored as it seems incomprehensible and immune to any means of investigation that any scientist can possibly dream up. I sometimes wonder how this fact is factored in to all the mathematical calculations involving particle collisions and findings in their large hadron colliders. Is it even possible to factor it in? In my youth, I read about an explorer scientist who visited the rain-forests of Brazil in an attempt to enumerate and list all the beetle species he could find. At that point, he already knew of the existence of thousands of species. As he went on in his study, he kept finding more and more different species by the thousands and more. When I check on the web, currently it seems the count on different beetle species is in the range of 400,000. This story has somehow stuck in my mind all these years. Even eminent scientists have been known to say that this universe on investigation appears to be more like a giant thought awash with materialized concepts rather then what it appears to be. If an explorer can find more and more species of beetles on an unending scale in this world, how much easier must it be for scientists embroiled to the depths in abstract mathematics to find a series of infinitely miniscule particles hatched up in their imagination in the chambers of particle accelerators and colliders. What do scientists mean when they say a particle is both wave and matter? Human knowledge has as its core characteristic, fixed definitions for anything and everything. There is no way that a pinpoint particle and a wave are the same thing. If you insist that is so, then we have entered the realm of metaphysics

11

where the ideas and theories of the physical world as experienced by humans may no longer apply. Among physicists it is said that a strong grasp of mathematics is necessary for an understanding of physics as a whole. It seems mathematics has aided in pointing out discrepancies in their theories which has on occasion even given rise to new completely unexpected real-world discoveries and more inclusive theories. I do not dispute that but what makes physicists think that there is any difference in essence between physics as against higher order mathematics? Both are birthed from the same parents and merely look different as children of any family may appear to be. The common parents are finely tuned concepts which appear to approximate reality but are anything but reality! Why would children of common parents contradict each other? Instead they will back each other up and anyone following them ends up in greater and greater perplexity as anyone can see of today’s physics. The physicists insist they are making great progress with the ultimate beneficiary being the whole world and humanity. Really? Of what ultimate use is it for anyone to know that the world is made up of 24 or 48 ultimate particles which can only be isolated and verified in billion-dollar contraptions and with voodoo mathematics? The benefits are like space science, you say, with their trickle-down effects which benefit every sector of the economy. What has space science done so far for the poor of the world, for the millions who may go to bed with empty stomachs? I understand this logic that knowledge is sufficient unto itself and fully agree with that dictum. But at what cost? One has to ponder that deeply! This is not true knowledge; this is devilry with the scientists forming consortiums of their own kind so they can indulge together in mental masturbation. The governments and the various funders with the deep pockets on the other hand are forever in a quandary; if they fail to fund this or that scientific venture they may come out on the losing end. What if somebody somewhere were to discover the secret of the ultimate particle and use it to create some super-duper weapon which can annihilate entire countries as opposed to only entire cities before this? What if someone somewhere became capable of colonizing Mars and extracting billion-dollar minerals there? What if someone somewhere manages to create new technology that will make all their citizens fully compliant to their whims and fancies? The progress of science currently is therefore far from being without an unselfish agenda so let us stop pretending that it has ever been so, right from the time big government and big corporations started muscling in on its earlier achievements. Scientists should therefore get off their high horse and look carefully at all the implications of their work. They may end up finding that they are working for the Devil rather than humanity at large; much like in the case of organized religion which went to bed with the governments of the day and in some cases until today and finally lose their own purpose for existence. Getting back to our topic, the explorer scientist in Brazil found more and more beetles, as that is what he hoped and thought he would find in his world of consciousness. The string theorists who find redemption in nonsensical concepts find what they think the world is made of! Is it too much of a stretch if I say that the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics appear to function (though never on all occasions and to the degree expected) because that is what the scientists expect and that the practical applications appears to be successful because it is grossly over-hyped and aided on by the strong faith and

12

unquestioning nature of the public in their scientists (accomplished by scientific propaganda which would have done the Nazi party proud). Yes, it is quite a stretch, but think very carefully about this. Sages and even scientists have been known to say that the universe or the world moves or changes in tune with our thoughts and expectations. This statement is usually taken in with a huge dollop of sarcasm as hey, just because I think day and night that I am the proud owner of a shiny new Ferrari does not actually make it so, try as I might! But the relation of human thought to the external world is not as crude or as blatant as we seek to assume; the external world only mirrors instantaneous human thought when our knowledge arises from our true being. In all other cases as with our normally confused minds with its innumerable thoughts going in all kinds of direction contradictory to each other; what we get is a confused world staring back at us and only vaguely corresponding to our thoughts; thoughts that in most cases we are not even conscious about! The scientists look on the general public with condescension; anyone who wants to rise in the scientific hierarchy had bloody well follow all official scientific dogma. Only loonies are allowed through by ensuring that science is so full of gobbledygook that normal humans have no patience to go through with it, let alone understand a damn whit about it! Everything in science today is predicated on abstruse mathematics and even more abstruse concepts. Somehow modern science seems to have this idea that all scientific truths should be as complex and abstruse as possible, as only therein can be found profundity. This is what is known as progress. God is simple, man on the other hand is so chock-full of concepts that he has loss all sight of his being. Do you understand now what I mean by mental contortions which while interesting and useful to a certain extent; can never answer or satisfy humankind’s ultimate questions and desires? In ancient times (and to some extent, even today), the priesthood controlled everything. They did that by claiming only religion (as taught by them) can give men and women salvation; while paying only superficial attention to their own. That would have caused a mad rush for everyone to join the priesthood and the advantage held by the priests would have dissolved in no time. That could not be allowed to happen, so they clamped down on access to literacy and education and books and promoted obscure languages like Latin and Sanskrit to keep as much of scripture hidden and secret and then went on to fabricate all kinds of fancy religious doctrine and dogma to keep the masses out. Only official dogma was allowed to flourish and anyone with other ideas on salvation were mercilessly prosecuted or murdered. Tell me, how is it any different from what the official scientific priesthood does today? There is a hauntingly beautiful poem written by the poet, Francis Thompson known as ‘The Hound Of Heaven’. In it, he describes the ways of the human mind in its blind attempts to make sense of itself and the world, as the blind running away from the One and “down the labyrinthine ways of the mind”. We have always failed to appreciate and be wary of the labyrinth like nature of the mind. In all our wild torturous imaginings and mental contortions, we have even managed to cast doubt on the most obvious fact evident to all men and women, the fact of our being and consciousness; that undeniable fact beyond the reach of all doubt. In all the esoteric lore of each and every one of humankind’s religious and spiritual traditions, it is stated that the Divine has always been there right before your eyes and is present in all our

13

trials and tribulations. Let those who have the eyes see, and those who have the ears hear! The modern scientist appears to have gotten lost in this mind labyrinth. Will he or she find the humility to admit it and then attempt to find a way out? For the good of all humankind, let us all hope so. Note: *Apparently in Einsteinian physics, objects are only limited to moving below the speed of light when said object is travelling through space. It seems however that space itself can expand, and that too at speeds exceeding the speed of light; accounting for this anomaly between observable and non-observable universes. As usual, holy science has a pat answer for everything and the only thought which comes to my mind is the phrase “shifting the goalposts in the middle of the game”! Space it seems not only bends, but also expands and it follows that it can shrink and do somersaults as well and it takes great care to indulge in such feats only in galaxies far, far, far away! Have the scientists any actual proof that space can expand beyond some stupid mathematical formula? Or is this ‘faster-then-light’ boundary indicative of the change in the space-time continuum due to the macrocosm moving into an even greater macrocosm? Your guess is as good as mine. * I am not referring to sex toys here.

14