Irrefutable Scientific Evidence That We Are All One – Follow Up
This article is a follow-up to Irrefutable Evidence That We Are All One
Christina Sarich, Contributing Writer
We Didn’t Come From the Big Bang, We Came From the Big Blend
In an effort to be inclusive rather than exclusive and to “relate harmoniously with each person as a conscious individual,” (Mothman777) I offer first that I did not include every author of proposed TOEs in my original posting, as they are numerous. I did mention in my previous article that many scientists (since Einstein and definitely much sooner, if you consider spiritualists, theorists,) have elucidated upon a TOE.
I realize that I will not have listed all of them, even at the conclusion of this article, but this is a blog post, not a book. Perhaps I should write one, though, considering there is so much wonderful dialogue going on about this subject. I see that as a good thing, because it means that we haven’t all been so tragically dumbed down by beer and hamburgers, to borrow a phrase from Mr. Halsey, who contacted me directly to eschew, politely, a TOE and offer his HOE (Hypothesis of Everything), that we can discourse on such an elevated topic.
Furthermore, and respectfully to “Anonymous,” yes, Thomas Campbell offered a TOE, but so did Antoni Garrett Lisi, Lee Smolin, MacDoweel-Mansuri, and less recently, Isaac Newton, Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam, Einstein, (though his wasn’t completed before he died) and a host of superstring theorists. Even CERN scientists (super collider) have a TOE. I was not intentionally leaving anyone out.
As an aside, Skip Garibaldi and Stephen Hawking say there is no TOE, as do a slew of other scientists. Marcia Bartusiak likens making the two mainstream TOE theories compatible to “bowling with tiddlywinks” or “jump-starting a car with an eggbeater”. I think she is right were we to rely on rational thought alone.
I would also add, in reference to comments from Anon4fun, Anonymous, and others, that yes, adepts of more than 5-10,000 years ago lived as though there was a confirmed TOE. Only, it wasn’t a theory. It was part of their daily experience. Rishis expounded upon a ‘higher consciousness’ as ‘one who speaks the truth’ by meditating in caves, and other non-intellectual practices, thereby circumnavigating the linear mind. As my new friend, Mr. Halsey pointed out, “the Universe is like a bittersweet bread. . . but it is remarkably simple.” He also stated that “no two things occupy the same space at the same time without change.” He calls it a dual singularity – I imagine that is similar to the wave/particle problem discussed at length by physicists. He explained further:
How is it that a seemingly infinite Universe can have countless objects within it? A finite object cannot be infinite and the reverse is true. We actually came from a Big Blend, rather than the Big Bang.
I love this way of describing it.
While this is extremely simplified, I offer and, yes this will sound like the New Age jargon many of you are used to scoffing at, “what we resist persists.” In other words, what we focus on IS reality, at least insofar as we experience it. So, yes, since the infinite cannot occupy itself, nor can a finite thing occupy infinity, it must forever create more ‘things.’ You can call that God. You can call that an organizing principle. You can call it Krishna. You can be atheist and call it science, or any combination of that. Name your post-modern, existential flavor.
I am reminded of my cousins’ (Dr. Jessica Lu) recent scientific theory based on observing deep space and dark matter in black holes looking through the massive telescopes on Maunakea in Hawaii. She told me, the latest theories about dark matter are being debunked because new stars are not supposed to be able to grow inside of black holes. Forgive me if I resort to poetry here, instead of scientific speak, but how else could light grow within dark?! If they are truly polar opposites – as Afshin stated in comments to my original post – how could one beget the other, unless, as he alluded, they were equal parts of yin and yang, but yes, Afshin, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in a linear context are definitely relative terms. There is simply, in my mind, what we want to experience and what we don’t. By focusing on a particular reality we ‘create’ that reality. The bee dreams up the flower and the flower dreams up the bee.
We are all quite mutable in fact. What we take as a concrete object, lets say on even a biological level, isn’t. Recent research in diverse fields have taken us down that rabbit hole, but look at Dr. A.B. Burkalov’s experiment with fish eggs. He grew larger and healthier fish eggs in hermetically sealed containers from a weak stock under a hunch that they could “see” each other. Dr. Peter Gariaev, father of wave-genetics, also irradiated ordinary seeds, which would normally kill them, but when he shined a hologram of healthy seeds on the irradiated seeds, they came back to life. Holographic images are simply vibration – like a radio signal.
You can also look at the ancient Sri Yantra symbol, purportedly shown to a yogi in deep meditation, not intellectually designed, though it is based on divine geometry and the 3.14 ratio of Pi, and compare it to the sound of ‘Aum’ on a tonoscope. The images are, arguably, exactly the same. It is pretty amazing what science is supporting evidentially that the ancients knew intuitively. Again, it is a matter of vibration. Thought has vibration, therefore, you can live as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ as you focus your vibration.
Overly simplified again, but do you prefer a bouquet of roses or a pile of excrement? One grows straight from the other. Yes, I also want a bouquet of roses, but I realize that the pile of crap is just another vibration in an ever shaking and quaking universal play of the It experiencing Itself.
“The wound is the place where the light enters you.” Rumi
I think the reason there are so many versions of God, and so many metaphors to explain the experience of an enlightened reality (where there is no separation) is because language does fail it – even highly educated, extremely intelligent people struggle with it. Rilke, Shakespeare, Ovid, Whitman, Nietzsche. . .
A new idea is delicate. It can be killed by a sneer or a yawn; it can be stabbed to death by a quip and worried to death by a frown on the right man’s brow.” Ovid.
I won’t hide my own cultural and intellectual sway either, because I can’t. None of us can. So, in a confessional tone, I am a yoga teacher. I am an avid reader of both scientific and spiritual books. I have been to India and the ruins of South and Central America, and marry impressions gleaned from experiences there with the western-linear-scientific mind. I also lived in Hawaii for a long spell, and find that people do that there almost naturally. I am not the first to merge science and mysticism, though. Fritjof Capra did the same in The Tao of Physics:
“Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. It shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated “building blocks,” but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole. These relations always include the observer in an essential way. The human observer constitute the final link in the chain of observational processes, and the properties of any atomic object can be understood only in terms of the object’s interaction with the observer.”
Amit Goswami, professor of Physics at Oregon University would support my original argument. Physicist, William Tiller and John Hagelin would agree with me. Neurologists, Dr. Stuart Hameroff, Andrew B. Newberg, and Dr. Joseph Dispenza would probably agree with my original premise. Dr. Michio Kaku would most certainly agree with me. The list is almost inexhaustible at this point.
Additionally, I am a musician and a die-hard, as my mother once said, “Pacifist.” I’ll take that one on the chin. As Colman McCarthy said, “Everyone’s a pacifist between wars. It’s like being a vegetarian between meals.” I think; however, that you simply cannot stop the vibration of war, and the thinking that goes with it, with more violence. That is not an original stance, I realize, (‘An eye for an aye makes the whole world blind.’ – Mahatma Gandhi) nor was my original posting (thank you very much Bonnie, who also emailed me a rather trite and angry email in response to my original posting).
I am no shaman, and no adept; I am neither a quantum physicist. I am just a woman with a questioning mind and (as often as possible) an open heart. That is what I aspire to above all. Calling my article ‘plagiarism’ is pure malice, since I give obvious reference to the most predominate ideas in my posting just below it – referencing 101.
I digress. I believe that all of these theories are useless unless put to practical use, but I am also born and bred of the current age and I seek proof positive that such a profound idea – that we are all one – is so.
“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” Friedrich Nietzsche
I do also realize that sane can look crazy in this world. It probably always was the case. While the adepts of ages past learned through meditation, and not through intellectual discourse, since the mind will always alter reality to serve its egoic needs – that is, keep it in the dark about ultimate reality, because it will always see ‘itself’ through an object-subject lense, I do think we have reached a time when these two leanings, intellectual and intuitive can merge. As I will explain – one leads to the other anyhow. Einstein was one of the first scientists to admit that his ‘scientific’ ideas came about in rather non-traditional ways, and not through a purely scientific method. He ‘day-dreamed’ in his patent office. Even if we take the allusion no further, where is the science in that?
Disciplines, renunciations, detachments, rituals, the practice of virtue,all these, however noble, are the process of thought, and thought can only work toward an end, toward an achievement, which is ever the known. Achievement is security, the self-protective certainty of the known. To seek security in that which is nameless is to deny it. The security that may be found is only in the projection of the past, of the known. For this reason, the mind must be entirely and deeply silent; but this silence cannot be purchased through sacrifice, sublimation, or suppression. This silence comes when the mind is no longer seeking, no longer caught in the process of becoming. This silence is not cumulative, it may not be built up through practice. This silence must be as unknown to the mind as the timeless, for if the mind experiences the silence, then there is the experiencer who is the result of past experiences, who is cognizant of a past silence, and what is experienced by the experiencer is merely a self-projected repetition. The mind can never experience the new, and so the mind must be utterly still. The mind can be still only when it is not experiencing, that is, when it is not terming or naming, recording or storing up in memory. This naming and recording is a constant process of the different layers of consciousness, not merely of the upper mind. But, when the superficial mind is quiet, the deeper mind can offer up its intimations. When the whole consciousness is silent and tranquil, free from all becoming – which is spontaneity – then only does the immeasurable come into being. – J.Krishnamurti
I would tend to add, in reference to Blair T. Longley’s comments, that we have indeed been purposefully kept in the dark about certain spiritual assertations that are long standing, perhaps even encoded into our DNA. Fluoridation of our water, genetic modification of our food, blatant and mind-numbing images in every form of media that could be no less outright than the political sloganeering of the Third Reich, meant to desensitize us to our inherent humanity, and thereby reducing the possibility that we would see ourselves as a Oneness, and if we did, only superficially, as Afshin wrote. . .”we may all interact, but we are not all one. We are distinct and infinite, that is not an illusion.”
In conclusion, any exogenous theory of containment of an Infinite Universe is silly to me, but I do think that we collectively will always be striving towards a ‘knowing’ of what ancient sages and adepts had a hunch about.
Capra, Fritjof. 1975. The Tao of Physics. Berkeley, California. Shambhala Publications.
Commentaries on Living, Series I,44 J. Krishnamurti
Gerber, Richard, M.D. 2001. Vibrational Medicine, Third Edition. Vermont, Rochester. Bear & Company Rochester.
Email discussions with S.R. Halsey, dated 8-10-2012.
About the Author
Christina Sarich is a musician, yogi, humanitarian and freelance writer who channels many hours of studying Lao Tzu, Paramahansa Yogananda, Rob Brezny, Miles Davis, and Tom Robbins into interesting tidbits to help you Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga For the New World.
This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.
~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…