Recently we met a reader of our blog who asked us why we refer to ourselves in the plural. He said,” you are Redhawk and you alone write your blog, so why do you refer to yourself in the plural? That is either very deceptive or very pompous, like kings who used to refer to themselves in the plural.” I smiled and then explained the reason for doing so. You see in my life long journey to discover the “true nature” of our reality (and that journey is well over 60 years) “we” came to understand unequivocally that “I” don’t really exist as “I”. Instead “we” all exist as one entity, one reality.
This revelation occurred nearly 15 years ago, when researching dear old Albert Einstein, we discovered that he spent the last 5 years of his life working on a mathematical formula to prove the existence of God! Thus began, for us, the search to determine if in fact dear old Albert was on to the greatest discovery of mankind; that being the science of our spiritual existence. If true, it could change the entire reality we find ourselves living in today. Think about it, science proving the existence of God.
Well as time passed and science, especially quantum physics expanded the understanding of quantum mechanics, that notion not only seemed more likely, it seems almost certain. There is this little thing called Quantum Entanglement. While pre-quantum/Newtonian physics is typically a good approximation for objects much larger than molecules, we know that this worldview is fatally flawed.
To illustrate the point, where initially it was supposed that nonlocal entanglement could not be evinced by anything other than quanta in specially controlled circumstances, we now know it is a fundamental aspect of reality. The entanglement of holmium atoms in a tiny chip of magnetic salt has been unexpectedly observed in the laboratory, showing that “big” things like atoms, and not just photons and electrons (individual quanta), can be entangled. More recently (2011), it was announced by a group of physicists that two diamonds approximately 3 mm in size and separated by about 6 inches were successfully entangled at room temperature.
Previously, it was believed that once things got to the level of atoms and molecules, the universe started acting strictly deterministically again, according to predictable Newtonian laws. This is no longer a scientifically viable view. A review of developments on entanglement research in March 2004 by New Scientist writer Michael Brooks concluded that “Physicists now believe that entanglement between particles exists everywhere, all the time.”
Wide scale or “nonspecific entanglement” has been experimentally validated in many ways. For example, around 1956 Pavel Naumov conducted animal bio-communication studies between a submerged Soviet Navy submarine and a shore research station. These tests involved a mother rabbit and her newborn litter. According to Naumov, scientists put the baby rabbits on board the submarine, but kept the mother rabbit in a laboratory on shore where they implanted electrodes in her brain. When the submarine was submerged, assistants killed the babies one by one. At each precise moment of death, the mother’s brain produced detectable and recordable reactions. Many examples can be found in Soviet literature dealing with dogs, bears, birds, insects, and fish in conjunction with basic psychotronic (psi) research. The Pavlov Institute in Moscow may have been involved in animal telepathy until 1970. Researchers such as David Wilcock and Richard Hoagland posit that these nonlocal interactions are facilitated by the hyper-dimensional torsion/spin waves of the unified field/aether (or gravity, as Wilcock emphasizes in The Source Field Investigations) we are all immersed in.
Once, the esteemed physicist Eugene Wigner remarked to Karl Pribram, a board-certified neurosurgeon and professor of psychiatry and psychology, that in quantum physics we no longer have observables (invariants) but only observations. Tongue in cheek, Pribram asked whether that meant that quantum physics is really psychology, at which Wigner beamed and replied, “yes, yes, that’s exactly correct.” “If indeed one wants to take the reductive path, one ends up with psychology, not particles,” says Pribram. “In fact, it is a psychological process, mathematics, that describes the relationships that organize matter. In a non-trivial sense current physics is rooted in both matter and mind.” Indeed, one of the main points R.A. Wilson made in Quantum Psychology was that “the laws of the subatomic world and the laws of the human ‘mind’ parallel each other precisely, exquisitely, and elegantly, down to minute details.”
Wigner, as a physicist, had said that “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness…[I]t will remain remarkable in whatever way our future concepts develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality.” Sir Arthur Eddington said that the lesson from physics and especially from quantum mechanics is that insofar as we can describe the world at all we are necessarily describing the structure of our own minds. By collating various forms of scientific thought generated over time, “we obtain the structure known as the physical universe.”
Wilson further said: “We have found a strange foot-print on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the foot-print. And Lo! It is our own.” Similarly, Goswami has puzzled that according to the new physics, the particle tracks left in cloud chambers are simply extensions of ourselves. The objectified, absolute, Newtonian linear-mechanistic view of the universe is dead. Quantum physics — as per ancient mystical perspectives — simply does not allow the luxury of the concept of the separate observer, because it is meaningless to conceive of the scientist as being separate from his equipment, or anything else. Wheeler has wondered: “May the universe in some sense been brought into being by the participation of those who participate?”
We are no longer dealing with interactions between two dissimilar entities — “mind” and “matter” — but with a single unified, conscious, holographic entity. Mind is “physical” too if you can rotate into phase with its contents/energies. “From science then, if it must be so,” wrote Paramahansa Yogananda, “let man learn the philosophic truth that there is no material universe; its warp and woof is maya, illusion.”
Consider what it tells us that a hard science like physics, which set out to investigate the so-called physical world, ended up running headlong into the nonphysical — consciousness. The mystics already knew why this would be so: consciousness is the ultimate reality and the foundation of all existence. It is the sine qua non of the cosmos. It is curious that some “scientifically-minded” types become irate at the mere suggestion that a mystic or occultist could have known something before the venerable institution of science found it out. They seem to forget that scientific research is an implicit acknowledgment of ignorance. If scientists already knew all the answers, scientific research would not exist, because science is, fundamentally, an inquiry; it is not an a priori presumption of omniscience. Science builds models of reality based on what little knowledge of reality it possesses — it does not build reality itself. We need to remember again not to confuse the map with the territory. A scientific theory of something is not the same as the tangible or experiential reality it attempts to describe.
In an interview about his theory of monistic idealism, the interviewer commented to Amit Goswami that “science’s current findings seem to be parallel to the essence of the perennial spiritual teaching.” Goswami responded succinctly: “It is the spiritual teaching. It is not just parallel.” Renee Weber, a philosopher at Rutgers University, actually raised the possibility that mysticism may, in a sense, be more committed to the spirit of scientific exploration than science itself. In fact, mystics have been described as “the most thoroughgoing empiricists in the history of philosophy.”
What identifies a mystic then? The true mystic is not a believer or a disbeliever — he or she knows the existential fundamentals, and in getting to the point of knowing, has discarded belief altogether. The mystic has direct insight into the nature of things, as opposed to having to rely on laboratory equipment, equations, theories, speculation, or educated guesses. For the mystic, as far as the fundamental nature of consciousness goes, there is no mystery. For millennia, mystics have known via direct cognition what Bell’s theorem has only fairly recently revealed to the world of science. The mystic experiences the nonlocal, interconnected/entangled nature of consciousness and reality directly, and in doing so, understands it (in a holistic, existential sense).
The mystic knows that human consciousness and our infinitely complex and elegant self-organizing universe did not come into existence through the random interactions of inert matter. This idea has been likened by Stanislav Grof to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a 747 jet. Noted occultist J.J. van der Leeuw pre-empted Grof almost a century ago, commenting that we might as well believe a heap of bricks could randomly form themselves into a building, if we are going to believe that the blind chance of “natural selection” is responsible for biological life and consciousness. It is a ludicrous proposition, in other words. Writing in the 1980s, Francis Crick, the co-(re)discoverer of the DNA molecule, showed the total mathematical implausibility of even a single protein emerging by chance. Van der Leeuw added that the data of science are not in any way incompatible with the belief in a creative Intelligence, directing and guiding evolution from within (as opposed to the external “man behind the curtain” scenario advocated by creationists). More than 90 years later this is overwhelmingly the case, as, for example, Yurth’s Self-Organizing Criticality model shows.
A growing point of view among physicists is that there must be a cosmic consciousness pervading the universe. Objects seem to spring into being when measurements are made, and measurements are made by conscious beings. Hence, there must be cosmic consciousness that pervades the universe determining which state we are in. Some, like Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner, have argued that this proves the existence of “God” or some cosmic consciousness. Wigner not surprisingly expressed an interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, in which the universe is pervaded by an all-embracing consciousness. This type of sentiment is becoming increasingly widely held by physicists who are realizing the implications of what quantum mechanics and other fields of research such as parapsychology are telling us In order to truly understand what mysticism is and the spirit of it, one has to have encountered a drastically expanded sense of perception or awareness that completely transcends the ordinary waking state of mind and its associated perceptual limitations. If one steps beyond the bounds of permitted thoughts allowed by the materialistic paradigm, one learns an awful lot about just how limited and myopic this reductionist view of life actually is, and how much fact it must ignore and deny in order to maintain its own survival The problem is that this belief structure can only survive within very narrow experiential and investigative parameters that not every human life can (or will) facilitate. If it could, everyone in the so-called developed world would be a materialist, or would have been, were it not for the advent of quantum mechanics. So, is any talk of or related to mysticism “pseudo-science” by definition? Categorically, no. Grof (for one) agrees, stating that the “pedestrian consciousness and world-view” have simply not caught up with mysticism or modern physics.
Another common misconception is that mysticism is analogous or related to Western conceptions of religion or religious zeal and/or faith. But the mystical experience is not a moment of intense faith; it is a moment of intensely deep experience beyond this ordinary world and/or its normal sense impressions. Do you have faith in the existence of the chair you are sitting on? No, you simply observe and sense that the chair exists, otherwise you would have landed rather sharply on the floor! By your experience you know it exists and can leave it at that. In contrast, simply believing in the chair would probably not be enough to hold you up off the floor, no matter how lovely and detailed a 2D schematic of it you might have drawn up! Thus, mysticism is based first and foremost on direct and lucid experience of expanded and altered states of awareness/consciousness and thus asks no blind faith. (A mystic also knows not to confuse the map with the territory.) In this sense, we can see that mysticism does not consist in believing in some abstract faith-based dogma. It is direct knowledge.
This reality we have known for some time now. But NOW is the time for us all to reflect on this reality that has now been “scientifically” proven beyond doubt. We are all part of a super consciousness and we are all one. The only question that remains is how does our world change we end our denial of these facts and how do we expand from here? We hope this can help you form “our” better thoughts of “ourself”.