A Sense of the Cosmos

[Nick_A]

Hi All

JT on the “Knowledge and Understanding” thread inspired me to begin this thread. IMO to really consider this question from a human perspective requires becoming aware of something that has largely been forgotten: cosmology. Though on my path I’ve become somewhat used to the idea I also know that very few have ever been introduced to it in any sort of way that makes any sense.

Jacob Needleman is one of those rare men who is not only philosophic and scientific, but also has a keen awareness of what I believe all the great teachings past referred to in their own way though rarely being understood.

Anyhow just so you know, he does have a reputation in the academic world:

Jacob Needleman is a professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University and the author of many books, including A Little Book on Love, Time and the Soul, The Heart of Philosophy, Lost Christianity, and Money and the Meaning of Life. In addition to his teaching and writing, he serves as a consultant in the fields of psychology, education, medical ethics, philanthropy, and business, and has been featured on Bill Moyers’s acclaimed PBS series A World of Ideas. His newest book, The American Soul, was released in February.

A while back he wrote a book called:

"A Sense of the Cosmos; The Encounter of Modern Science and Ancient Truth "(Doubleday),

He explains the deep idea of cosmology in a way that is understandable without sacrificng its depth. Once a person begins to appreciate cosmolgy, the limitations of the literal mind begin to become obvious and I believe a person can get a sense of what else is needed to acquire true human understanding.

So JT and whoever else, I hope you appreciate the chapter of this book. It can be found: rawpaint.com/library/intro.html

Just look for:

Jacob Needleman’s Chapter One: The Universe
The Universe as A Teaching
Pragmatism and Desire
A Conscious Universe
What Is Consciousness?
Microcosmic Man
The “Parable” of Geocentrism
The Face of Reality
Against the Literal Mind
Heliocentrism

Then hopefully we can share impressions and questions on this thread.

[Uccisore]

I’ve read through to the section Against the Literal Mind, and I have a few comments if you’ll permit them.

 First of all, the section on Pragmatism is spot-on.  A big part of our understanding of the world comes from the motivations of scientists, and I also think that part of the reason science and religion seem to be at odds is their different goals and reasons for exploration.  The gun analogy comes with a hidden presumption that the 'cosmos' has a 'real purpose' like a gun does, and that science is the cave-man using the gun as a club.  Being a religious sort, I have no real problem with this, but a skeptic would say that the universe is more like a rock with no [i]internal[/i] purpose, in which some people find a tool, others a weapon, others a mere annoyance. 
 In the Against the Literal Mind section, though, there is a problem I do disagree with personally.   The modern rationalist who analyzes the Bible for its paragraph structure, or sees nothing more to the universe but a collection of thin gases and energies [i]is a problem[/i], but the author seems to say the problem is part of the nature of rational thinking or 'literal mindedness', and that's where I disagree.  Rather, the problem stems from a certain type of [i]reductionist materialism[/i] which is very dominant in certain fields. It happens to be that reductionist materialists refer to themselves as 'rational', and may well list 'rationality' as a quality which seperates and elevates them from other views.  But why agree with them? Why go so far as saying "Yes, a literal mind results in seeing the universe as the reductivist does, so let us turn to alternative ways of thinking"?  It seems clear to me that rationality, even very stuffy binary rationality, [i]need not [/i]lead to reductionist materialism in the first place.

[tentative]

Hi Nick,

It’s going to take awhile to digest all nine statements, but just a cursory observation on the Universe as a Teaching. It’s a novel way of looking at the experience of reality, but I understand the need for the teaching. In some ways, it is difficult to see how we could have avoided the need to be ‘teached’. Self awareness is immediately an abstraction and a form of alienation from integral self. Instead of ‘being’, it is ‘here I am being’. The act of abstracting self creates an externalization that make’s alienation unavoidable. It seem’s as if we are literally designed to screw up from the get go and then scramble to get back in position. Is this man’s ‘test’ of his humanity?

JT

[Nick_A]

Hi Uccisore

I’d rather try and discuss initially in the way the chapter is presented to avoid become all scattered. Also before beginning to experience the limitations of the literal mind it is necessary to get a glimpse of the higher reality being presented. Then everything begins to fit together where the literal mind does what it is supposed to in the context of our complete “being” reason.

Hi tentative

I know it is awkward at first since we are so used to assuming the universe revolves around us. But he is suggesting which I agree with, that the universe is performing a necessary function in which man unlike other life on earth can not only live as organic life does, but through the development of consciousness, can begin to play a higher role in universal structure and purpose which is rightfully man’s place.

So we’ll see who else is interested, let digestion take its course, and then try and make sense out of it.

[liquidangel]

Hi Nick_A

Thanks so much for this post. It was very interesting reading and you know, I’m guessing that all of it is true…to an extent that is. My head is about to explode with all these words. This is not new information. This guy is too clever man. The truth is far more simple and the mystics have been teaching it for centuries. Was there ever a question that we are the same as the universe? Granted, if one wants to learn what is inside, one can observe nature, the stars the planets, whatever…but if one wants to know what is in the universe, one just has to look at what is inside - everything externally is a reflection of what is internal. We are not seperate, we are ONE. There is a much easier way.

[Nick_A]

Hi liquidangel

We are not seperate, we are ONE. There is a much easier way.

What is this easier way to allow a person to experience that in reality the universe and themselves is “a ladder of processes, a great movement and exchange of energies.” as suggested below? It is one thing to say we are “one” but quite another to see it as a series of steps. Buddhism used to reflect it in its cosmology but in the west it is forgotten. Yes, the idea exists in Alchemy but how many understand Hermes’ “As is above, so below” as a cosmological description.

How many of those professing to be Christian would be able to admit to exeriencing the crucifixion within themselves and how the truth enters into distortion and the need to resurrect it?

How to think about this equation of the universe and a great teaching? It is tempting, for example, to see a teacher such as Mohammed or Bodhidharma, who brought Buddhism to China in the sixth century A. D., as the bearer of an extraordinary energy which is distributed to the world in the form of ideas, actions, events, schools, factions and the organized efforts of the community of followers. To compare this sort of pattern to a universe would require that we think of reality not in terms of things but as a ladder of processes, a great movement and exchange of energies. A teaching would then be a copy of this cosmic process on the scale of human time on earth. To receive such a teaching in ourselves, one’s own life would have to become yet another copy of this process.

Thus, taking Christianity for a model, one must ask: What was the teaching of Jesus? Was it only what he said? Or does it not also include what he did and suffered? But does the teaching stop even there? A critic may claim that Jesus failed because Christian life has become what it has become. But is not the distortion, the crucifixion of the teaching, also, in a larger sense, part of the teaching itself? And if a man is to become a Christian, perhaps it is absolutely necessary that he witness the same process of distortion within himself. How else will he understand that it is in one’s own thought and emotion that the “crucifixion,” the distortion of the truth, really takes place?

What is the easier way we can come to understand our limitations in the context of understanding universal principles? Prof. Needleman writes:

Yet another line of speculation–again purely by way of opening this issue: Spiritual teaching is often spoken of as indirect. What is meant by this, I think, is that such a teaching does not act by persuasion, which is a form of compulsion and seduction, but rather by providing certain kinds of experiences. For a man who is searching for truth, these experiences are such that they cannot be assimilated only by a part of himself, the isolated intellect, for example. They require that a person receive them with the whole of himself.

What is the simple way to receive with the whole of ourselves if we don’t have the self knowledge to know and value what the whole of ourselves is and experience life only through changing parts of ourselves?

I’m all for easy ways and I will agree that we make it difficult for ourselves getting in our own way but I’m at a loss to understand how to explain this first thing of the tradition that is lost after its appearance on earth which is its conception of cosmology.

[liquidangel]

Hi Nick

What is this easier way to allow a person to experience that in reality the universe and themselves is “a ladder of processes, a great movement and exchange of energies.” as suggested below? It is one thing to say we are “one” but quite another to see it as a series of steps. Buddhism used to reflect it in its cosmology but in the west it is forgotten. Yes, the idea exists in Alchemy but how many understand Hermes’ “As is above, so below” as a cosmological description.

Do you see that you have asked a question but are leading the answer? Further you are assuming that there is an ‘allowing’ of a person to experience… I don’t want to get caught up in words, but your choice of words assumes responsibility for others… Not up to me or you. Up to the one that wants to experience but that has to come from the one that wishes to experience.

Seeing the universe as a series of steps is only necessary as a guide to seeing that all is One. Once we connect with our own inherent true nature – know and understand ourselves – then there is no longer a series of steps to follow. These are merely the universe’s tools. Like with medicine, once the body is healed, there is no longer any need for the medicine.

How many of those professing to be Christian would be able to admit to experiencing the crucifixion within themselves and how the truth enters into distortion and the need to resurrect it?

a) I’m not interested in how many Christians ‘get’ it. I’m not trying to convert them to my way of thinking. Seriously, what is the motivation behind such a statement? It is more important that I ‘get’ it. Then one’s real work begins. I can see that you are sincere in trying to ‘help’ them to ‘see’ but they will not see unless they want to see and you can not get your point across unless you have already moved beyond the process (the steps as you put it), unless you can fully and completely understand the process from the perspective of your heart, the mind is merely the starting point. Of course there are levels of process, but you knew that already.

b) How can the truth enter into distortion? Absolute Truth is absolute Truth. It doesn’t change because humans have a distorted point of view. The truth is not dead and therefore does not need to be resurrected!

I’m all for easy ways and I will agree that we make it difficult for ourselves getting in our own way but I’m at a loss to understand how to explain this first thing of the tradition that is lost after its appearance on earth which is its conception of cosmology.

As you profess, know thyself. For example, I have lived in Tokyo. I know what it is about. You may have all the knowledge under the sun on Japanese culture, you may have studied the texts, read about the geography, know about the architecture, even you may have more knowledge than I do – you may even have an understanding of what it may be like to live there, but unless you have actually been there, lived there, experienced the place first hand, there is going to be something missing in your understanding. You will never be able to express it in the same way that I would because I have been there. So unless you actually know yourself, you will never be able to express who you are. And when you know yourself in the ultimate sense, then words will not get in your way, because your true nature does not operate inside our dualistic realm.

[Nick_A]

While I do believe that it is of primary importance for the person wishing to make sense out of existence to become familiar with the ramifications of cosmology, It may also benefit society by expanding the human sense of meaning and purpose.

Such ideas though always known, were lartgely forgotten and are now in their infancy again as far as sparking serious interest because of the imbalance between technological knowledge and the needs of the human heart. First a little catching up with something that was sent to me a long while back:

Individuals and societies, scientific and non-scientific, are trying to pierce the veil that hides the future. it is obvious to all that mankind is in a serious crisis and even some doubt if we can survive. In all these studies, we can find scarcely anywhere recognition that the first question to ask is whether or not the existence of this earth and of mankind with it serves any useful purpose. this is strange because we are constantly asking this question about subordinate entities such as human organizations, activities, and constructions. Indeed we congratulate ourselves upon our utilitarian attitude and are ready to sweep away and obliterate whatever serves no useful purpose; and we are proud of man’s ability to turn natural resources to useful account.

Life on earth is a highly improbable state of affairs. it is a mechanism so ingenious in its capacity, not only to maintain its very own existence but to evolve to more complex and improbable states, that it really is astonishing that no one else asks what purpose it serves…

…This should be a natural question, but when we ask why it does not occur to every thinking person, we penetrate to the depth of our human situation. We are so much concerned with our subjective problems that we do not stop to ask ourselves the objective question: “What do I exist for?” For more than two thousand years philosophers have been trying to answer such questions as “What is reality and how do we know it?” They put aside the question “Who made it and why?”, either taking it to be unanswerable or handing it over to the theologians to make good the deficiencies of knowledge by revelation and faith.

Theologians agree that the first part of the answer has been revealed: life on earth and man himself have been created by God. The second part, Why? , is put aside as inscrutable. A skeptic might echo the words of Anatole France: ‘If God did it, he committed an act of supreme imprudence’. The comment seems even more relevant today than it was eighty years ago, Those outside the religious tradition and especially those who doubt or deny the existence of god, are left without an answer and generally are satisfied to reject questions of origin and purpose as meaningless. It is accepted that the purpose of creation must be tied to the existence of a creator, God and Purpose seem to stand and fall together; yet, if God needs nothing, he cannot be said to have purposes either. There is something deeply unsatisfying here. If we turn to the Eastern religions and philosophies, we find that they pay little attention to purposes and so do not think it necessary to account for anything whatever.

Buddhism, in all its forms rejects such questions as futile and insists that the aim of existence is man’s own need to escape from duhkha, which does not mean suffering so much as the conditioned state of incarnated self. the one significant exception is the old religion of Zarathustra, which taught that both life on earth and man endowed with intelligence were created to be allies for the good spirit Ahura Mazda in the struggle with the powers of darkness…

Now we’ve even come to the point where even some modern religions say that nothing exists and it is all our imagination.

But the point is that we are so caught up in ourselves and in endless debates over details that the broad question of the meaning and purpose of existence goes unnoticed. The fear is that this fragmentation from specialization void of its understanding in the context of higher perspective can quite seriously lead to serious calamities, both physical and psychological, if not our destruction.

However, there are people aware of the dangers of this fragmentation and some brilliant minds are gathering not for the sake of argument or posturing but to seriously try to fathom the common truths that lie behind their specializations.

For any that come in the future and find this thread, I thought it may be worthwhile to post one such organization and their aims. It will probably be different from what you are accustomed to but if you, like me, sense there is a serious problem that fragmentation and endless debate and posturing conceals, you may find such organizations inspiring. For that purpose, I’ll introduce you to CIRET which is not your ordinary global view group though they understand the global perspective of the problem. If it was the usual politics or New Age fantasy, I wouldn’t be interested.

Anyhow, its founder Basarab Nicolescu is well credentialed in the academic sense: nicol.club.fr/ciret/biobn/bibnen.htm

Click on nicol.club.fr/ciret/index.htm to reach CIRET and click on “anglais” to read in English. From there you can learn about what transdisciplinarity strives towards and its moral principles. For example from the transdisciplinarity button you see in part:

As the prefix “trans” indicates, transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline. Its goal is the understanding of the present world , of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge.
Is there something between and across the disciplines and beyond all disciplines? From the point of view of classical thought there is nothing, strictly nothing: the space in question is empty, completely empty, like the vacuum of classical physics. Even if it renounces the pyramidal vision of knowledge, classical thought considers each fragment of the pyramid which is generated by the disciplinary big bang as an entire pyramid; each discipline claims that it is sufficient unto itself. For classical thought, transdisciplinarity appears absurd because it does not appear to have an object. In contrast, within the framework of transdisciplinarity, classical thought does not appear absurd; rather, it simply appears to have a restricted sphere of applicability.

In the presence of several levels of Reality the space between disciplines and beyond disciplines is full just as the quantum vacuum is full of all potentialities: from the quantum particle to the galaxies, from the quark to the heavy elements which condition the appearance of life in the universe. The discontinuous structure of the levels of Reality determines the discontinuous structure of transdisciplinary space , which in turn explains why transdisciplinary research is radically distinct from disciplinary research, even while being entirely complementary. Disciplinary research concerns, at most, one and the same level of Reality ; moreover, in most cases, it only concerns fragments of one level of Reality. On the contrary, transdisciplinarity concerns the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once . The discovery of these dynamics necessarily passes through disciplinary knowledge. While not a new discipline or a new superdiscipline, transdisciplinarity is nourished by disciplinary research; in turn, disciplinary research is clarified by transdisciplinary knowledge in a new, fertile way. In this sense, disciplinary and transdisciplinary research are not antagonistic but complementary.

I see this as the gradual unity of the technological scientific knowledge of the West with the qualitiative Wisdom of the East and its emphasis on ones inner life if we can get that far. But for any of you “black sheep” out there, it may be inspiring to know that others have always known this and because its need to be is becoming more vital, more of a minority has begun looking for it and through the efforts of some open-minded brilliant minds, will be able to find centers of kindred spirits both in education and in personal and collective esoteric spiritual practice.

[liquidangel]

Hi Nick,

I realise that you are passionate about what you have found, but honestly, all this intellectualising… really does my head in. The Truth is right here in front of you, you just have to stand aside in order for it to be revealed.

A

[Nick_A]

Hi A

The Truth is right here in front of you, you just have to stand aside in order for it to be revealed.

From the Gospel of Thomas

(

3. Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”

First you have to exist in order to be seen so as the Truth can be revealed. It is more than wishful thinking and intuition but beginning “to be”. This requires the self knowledge being alluded to that exists at the core of fragmentation and connects to it.

[liquidangel]

Nick

I haven’t made myself very clear. I apologise. I take it for granted that everyone will simply understand, I mean, I understand myself. WORDS. Argh. I meant that the mind is the only thing standing in the way of perceiving Truth. If that part of yourself that just is, can direct the mind….well now, we have contact!

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by “…being alluded to that exists at the core of fragmentation and connects to it”. I’m a bit simple, can you explain please?

[Nick_A]

Good morning A

I meant that the mind is the only thing standing in the way of perceiving Truth. If that part of yourself that just is, can direct the mind….well now, we have contact!

I don’t believe it to be the mind itself but rather a particular quality of the mind which is its ability for association tht has been corrupted in its interpretations. By itself, as a quality or tool, it is useful and necessary. This lower or associative mind should be subordinate to the higher conscious mind that makes use of it. However, as so many ancient traditions say, man is “asleep” and needs to awaken; his conscious mind must begin to function.

The unawakened man is completely governed by how he has learned to interpret his assumptions which are our habits. We habitually react to the influences of external life. The consciousness of the awakened man is unnecessary for this quality of life.

The higher mind or the degrees of conscious mind is I believe to be the “just is” you are referring to. Our mistake is in trying to conceptualize the conscious mind from the perspective of our literal associative unconscious mind. It cannot do it. It must be experienced. One must awaken a little. Even a short experience of awakening is worth more than a thousand associative associations. This is the great attraction of “gnosis” or the direct experience of this higher truth.

It is the activation of the conscious mind that begins the awakening and allows us to be seen.

Basarab Nicolescu is a brilliant scientist with highly developed thinking skills. Yet for him they are secondary to his need to become fully human where his power of thought serves as a tool in relation to higher consciousness rather then worshipped by themselves.

But conscious of what? This is connected with what Prof. Needleman explains as man as a microcosm or made in the image of God and Creation.

We use the expression “I am” very cheaply. Normally we define the entirety of ourselves by an attribute. We say I am a student or I am a professional or I am angry or any of a multitude of definitions. But there is a big difference between saying for example, I am angry then I have anger. In the latter anger exists inside of you but is not “I”. “I” is reserved for something far more important which is the entirety of ourselves which is far more then student, professional, or anything else.

“I” is unity. “Am” is its necessary and lawful expression into diversity or creation WITHIN itself. “I am” is the simultaneous existence and connection of no-thing with every-thing.

The conscious experience of the divisions of this connection is cosmological and can only really be experienced consciously. Ideas can point the way to its experience but cannot in itself experience. This experience of self knowledge is the experience of “I am” which is why it is the “way”.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by “…being alluded to that exists at the core of fragmentation and connects to it”. I’m a bit simple, can you explain please?

“I’” or the awareness of unity or “no-thing” is at the core of its lawful fractioning into fragmentations of itself which we call skills and talents at this cosmological level. Without consciousness unifying them, they exist separately and often in opposition to each other connected only through imagination. When people of diverse skills unite not to fight but in the recognition that each contains a part of the whole, the desire is not to unify their knowledge but instead to experience what connects them on a higher level of reality where they exist as complimentary facets of perception of a higher “wholeness”.

A scientist and an artist can remain scientists and artists but can profit from each other through the combined awareness of their common origin.

From part 5 “Microcosmic Man”

At this point the question becomes serious: What does it mean that all this is man? And not only in man as separate processes in all their variety, but as a cosmos, an ordered whole under the rule of a ladder of governing, lawful intelligence? The response seems clear: In whatever sense and whatever way all this is in man, it is not in my awareness. I, this individual person, pursue my life nowhere near an awareness in myself of this incredible spectrum of time, force and structure, not to mention the intelligence that governs it from without and within. This realization is the key to the idea of the microcosm. And it is precisely this key that is missing or unemphasized in almost every account of it that we may come upon: Man is a microcosm, but I am not that man.

" That man" comes into existence through self knowledge and is “I am” as a level of being incomprehensible for us as we are. It is the conscious experience of ourselves and that which can be truly seen in the objective sense.