Light in the Dark: Eyes Wide Open

prosperity.

Part 1: What kind of place is this world?

Before the concept of beginning is but The Void, an abyss of nothingness; and Nothing is All, and all is nothing - I AM throughout and beyond eternity.

In a sense God can be compacted into the contents of those two lines, but what does it all actually mean: What is, in fact, before, beginning, Nothing, All, or eternity - beyond words preceding this next sentence - and how and why is it all here?

Chapter 1: Reality

Yeshua (bar Yosef) said: If your leaders say to you: Look: the Kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will precede you. I say to you: The Kingdom is inside you and outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are poverty.

(The quote is from Gospel of Thomas where it constitutes Saying 3 - this Saying, as well as other Sayings from that non-canonical gospel, has been adapted from established translations for use here by someone who Knows the content and has wrapped his books around it, speaking from the Spirit of Truth. I also happen to recognise that Jesus is a Roman version of the name Yeshua bar Yosef, and I prefer to use the man’s real name rather than the name his killers used for him, so that is what I will do from this point on - whenever meaningful)

Some of the key questions man has always asked himself run like this: "Who am I, and why am I here?"

In a simple form, an answer can be derived from the Muslim view of us as the hand and the feet of God: As Yeshua tried to make us realise, we are God incarnated - a concept that may perhaps require a few brief explanations:

If you think of the physical world we human beings are living in, a number of universal principles seem all-penetrating. One of them is that you only really know, deep within, what you have experienced yourself - you need to get it under your skin, so to speak. Everything else is just something somebody tells you: You may be able to handle the information conceptually and mentally, but the feeling of knowing inside is not there until you get to experience. That is what God, the uncreated, gets out of the Created world: He gets experiences under His skin.

Another such principle is that in our world everything is something as distinct from something else - the chair you may sit on now is distinct from you, to pick an example readily on hand, and by observing what is different from you, you may become aware of you as you.

In the Created world, everything is also relative (to something else) - nothing is absolute: If you go to the zoo and look at an elephant, that elephant may strike you as big simply because it is so much bigger than yourself. However, if you placed the same elephant next to the moon of the earth, the elephant would suddenly seem absolutely tiny compared to the giant moon; yet the giant moon would seem truly tiny if placed next to the planet Jupiter. Going the other way, you might well seem big to the bird sitting in the tree behind you as you watch the elephant - yet that bird is the size of a world to the fleas living on and from it.

It is even so that everything is defined by its opposite as much as by itself: How could cold exist without warm? - or warm exist without cold - and how could darkness exist in the absence of light - or light exist in the absence of darkness?

There is a multitude of such principles penetrating the entire Created world and the principles are freely combinable, so it is rather apparent that the radiator next to my desk is warmer than the outside surfaces on this freezing February day in northern Europe: Anyone touching any of the two items can easily gain the experience to know that; yet the radiator would not seem warm at all if compared to our sun, and February in our country would not seem cold compared to the temperatures of deep space.

God, by contrast, is One, absolute, and there is nothing inside or outside, but in the Created world it is different, so out here in separation He can explore and learn about Himself, His own Identity and Nature; learning through experience (only) as the contrast to Knowing by default.

So God Created an immensely complex world of relatives and opposites through which to explore His own simplicity through our multiplicity, but what is the nature of this world that we live in, and how do we perceive it?

We may perhaps believe that we simply see, hear, smell, taste or feel this or that object or phenomenon, so by sensing and recording our world we know about objective reality - but how much Truth is there to that belief?

If you are in a room right now you may be able to reach out and touch a wall, and that is solid reality, isn’t it? What could possibly be more solid than a wall, and what could be truer than the sensation of the wall against your hand?

Yet: What do we actually know about that?

These days we have fancy instrumentation referred to as computers - electronic brains as they were referred to once - reflecting their nature as a very simple form of artificial intelligence. These computers combine three elements: Hardware - the physical components - software with programmes, and data - information - and when the appropriate software is installed on the hardware, the hardware can run programmes creating entire artificial worlds in the form of computer games.

In these artificial worlds, there may be people and objects - such as walls - and if a person runs into a wall in that world he will usually not pass through it but slam into it with stars appearing on the screen and a sound effect to tell that it hurts running into the wall. It is all in the matrix of the game.

From your perspective, as a human being in a physical body, how much reality is there to the stuff happening in the game? How real is the person or the wall? Are they not simply illusions coded for by the software displaying the game on the associated hardware?

That same person may also get blown up or shot - or stabbed - and suddenly he will be very dead. But is he actually dead then - and was he ever genuinely alive?

If he has conscious awareness of his own being, like we have of our being, all of it would certainly seem very real to him - or as the philosopher Descartes said in a famous quote: Cogito, ergo sum - I think, therefore I am.

Philosophers all over the world seem to side with Descartes but, if you consider what I just wrote, one may wonder how much substance there is to that conclusion - so are we, or are we not, and is there any reality to our reality?

That question also bothered the old Greek philosophers, and they found answers that are largely denied or ignored by the modern sciences - now that we know better.

Pythagoras, for instance, is, among many other things, famous for saying: A triangle is a triangle is a triangle. What he meant by that is that the primary existence is not our physical world, but a world of ideas or concepts from which our physical world takes form to reflect the world of ideas in a world of physical form. In the world of ideas there is, among other things, the concept of a triangle, and because the principle or the concept exists, all our triangles in their various appearances can be shaped from it.

In those days there were no computers around but what Pythagoras described sounds very much like a recipe for the virtual reality worlds we now create in our computers - doesn’t it?

Another of the great Greek philosophers was Plato, and this concept of another, more real, world hidden behind our physical world was beautifully described in his tale of The Cave, which to this day is part of the philosophy curriculum at many universities. The Cave has the form of a dialogue between Plato and his fictitious student fittingly named Glaukon - as retold here in my English translation:

Now I will tell you how it is with human beings and knowledge. Imagine a number of people who are in some sort of an underground chamber - like a cave. It has a long entrance which is as wide as the cave, and which opens towards the light. They have been in that room since childhood with their feet tied, and with their heads fixed so they can only look straight forward at the back wall of the cave. Behind them and a bit up, a fire burns at some distance. Between the prisoners and the fire there is a track across the cave, which is lined by a low wall in the direction of the prisoners. Like in a puppet theatre, figures are moved along the wall, and as a result shadows become visible to the prisoners.

Yes, I can imagine that.

Imagine now that figures of plants and animals and human beings are moved along the wall - all sorts of figures made of all sorts of materials - stone, tree, etc. While that happens some of the people displaying the figures talk, or make other noises, while others remain silent.

What an odd situation - and what odd prisoners!

Yes, but are they not just like us? Do you think that these beings ever have been able to see anything of themselves, of each other - of the world - other than the shadows on the wall in front of them?

No, how would they be able to, when they have their heads fixed like that?

If we assume that they are able to talk to each other, would they not wish to describe the objects they see and give them names?

Yes - obviously.

- And if the sounds from behind them echoed from the wall, would they not believe the sound to come from the objects?

Yes, probably so.

So we may say that the world of these shadows would be the only reality these people would know about?

Yes, that is true.

Then imagine what would happen if they were to be released from their illusions - if their bonds were to be broken: When they rise and face the light behind them, they will at first be blinded by the light - looking into it may even be a pain. What will then happen if they get to see the objects that formed the shadows - if they are told that all they knew previously was only illusions, that this is a truer reality? Might they not become uncertain about this new Truth and hold on to the belief that what they saw previously is truer than what is shown now?

Yes, indeed.

If they were then forced to look straight into the light, would their eyes not hurt, and would it not make them turn away - return to the shadows that are so much easier to watch - and would the shadows not stand clearer before them than what is shown to them now?

Yes, that is how it would happen.

But suppose now that one of them was forcibly dragged out of the cave - out into the sunlight - would that not be immensely painful to him - and would he be able to see anything of the new reality in that sharp light?

Not at first.

No, he would need time to get accustomed to it, I would think, and then he would first be able to see the reflections of things - like the reflections in a pond - before he would be able to see the actual objects. - And he would be able to see the night sky with the light from the moon and stars before he could see the sun and its light.

Yes, obviously.

But eventually he would be able to see the sun as it is and not just its reflections, and then he would be able to figure out what brings about the seasons and the years - what rules the visible and in a way is the source of everything that he and everybody else have ever seen.

Evidently, that is the conclusion he would reach.

But if he then thinks back to the cave and his fellow prisoners there, would he not congratulate himself with his progress and pity them?

Yes, he probably would.

But as for those who remained in the cave, would they not give honours and prizes to each other - hail those who have the sharpest vision, those who are best at describing and predicting the shadows and their occurrences? But would this man long for this, and would he envy those who were honoured in that world and who ruled it? - Or would he rather - in the words of Homer - prefer to work hard like a slave in the field to earn a day’s salary, employed by whoever needs his services that day, tolerate anything to not have to go back into the cave and live in those illusions again?

Yes, I think that is what he would prefer.

And if somebody forced him back into the cave, and onto his former seat, would he not be absolutely blind in the darkness because he just returned from the light?

Yes, he probably would.

Suppose then that he was back in the situation where he would have to once again compete with the other prisoners on who were best at watching and describing the shadows - would he not be the subject of laughter because he performed so poorly? And would they not say that his eyes had been ruined by the light - and that it showed that there was no good reason to go up there? And if some man then tried to free them, would they not fight that man with all their might - kill him if that had to be?

Yes, that is how it would likely happen.

Now, my dear Glaukon, if you apply this image to the ascension of the soul, you will have no doubts what I talk about.

------

- So with the tale in these books I venture into a land where many ancient wise men have been before me, and this debate may perhaps seem a bit old fashioned now that we have the sciences as a tool for learning the ultimate truth about everything.

In fact, I am some sort of elite scientist myself, trained in medicine and working in the Life Sciences with a career that lasted thirty years, bringing me awards and grants, a tenure track position as senior lecturer, numerous patents on technological discoveries, and close to a hundred publications in the field of molecular biology. So I am some sort of (ex-) priest in the Church of Scientism - perhaps even a once High Priest - and I should know, shouldn’t I?

According to the natural sciences it is all quite simple - at least in principle: The world was created by itself out of the big bang. There was no God or anything before the big bang created the entire universe, and life originated in this universe because the physical components gave rise to physical and chemical processes that produced ever more complex machines through random variation and natural selection of the fittest individuals in a system of well defined physical and chemical laws - and we are simply meaningless assemblies of atoms and molecules capable of maintaining and reproducing themselves for no other reason than selfish maintenance and survival.

According to this myth of creation it is all strictly mechanical, and we, the human beings, are quite simply the most advanced of these machines - so advanced that we have developed intellectual and mental processes enabling us to observe, describe, and discuss ourselves and the utterly meaningless world we live in.

That is very simple and tangible - isn’t it? Yet, if you think about it, how do we know that science is not merely concerning itself with shadows on the wall when it observes and explores this physical reality? Perhaps the art of the sciences just represent the art of describing shadows on walls?

An arch-scientist would dismiss that question easily by referring to the many experiments performed and to the fancy instrumentation we have these days: We can now objectively observe our reality with all sorts of instrumentation - describe it in greater and greater detail. So science can prove it is right - or can it?

If it is all just a virtual reality, would the instruments not also be part of the virtual reality world and might they not simply be designed to fit into and describe its artificial universe?

So what are the measurements worth in that context - do they actually prove anything of the sort?

Perhaps the great T.S. Eliot was right when in The Rock he wrote:

The endless cycle of idea and action,

Endless invention, endless experiment,

Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;

Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;

Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.

All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,

All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,

But nearness to death no nearer to GOD.

Where is the Life we have lost in living?

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries

Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust.

As you work your way through this book, and the next, you may hear the echoes of that poem over and again. However, while poets can write that kind of high-flying nonsense, and people like I may put it to good use, true scientists are not allowed any such liberty, neither in thinking, nor in action: You cannot be a part of the science priesthood and ask questions so deep that they seriously challenge the dogmas and doctrines the world of science is founded upon - it is simply not allowed.

Many wise men of ancient times may have pondered the very questions I try to answer in my writings, but now there is no reason for speculation, as we have progressed beyond superstition, into established truth and into canonised methods for interrogating it: Just like orthodox Christians are not supposed to question the words of the Bible, or Muslims may be stoned for questioning the Divinity of the Koran, scientists are obliged to believe in their Church and its dogmas and doctrines as the sole path to ultimate truth not to become persona non grata, shut out from grants, positions, everything: We are not here to search freely for Truth, but to search for truth through our Church and according to its specifications. That is what the ruling power dictates, just like it dictated it in the cases of the Bible or the Koran.

- Or as a colleague of mine phrased it when she heard of my alternative views and interests: When this gets out you are a dead man in science.

Indeed, as illustrated in Chapter 11 a holy war has raged between science and religion for centuries. It was not science who opened the war, but scientists have done their best to keep it going, though one may wonder how you can engage yourself in holy war, when you do not recognise anything holy.

- But perhaps this has also first and foremost been unholy war...

Where there are religions, Churches, and dogmas there must also be heresy, and there is the odd scientist who get to speak words of heresy - and who gets away with it. All it takes is that you are retired after having earned enough honours as an orthodox scientist - then you may become the old man who has a right to say things nobody has to take seriously anyway, as he is just an old fool by now, and who must still be given the word in the science media because of his distinctions.

One example of this phenomenon is a report by David Lindley in the leading scientific journal Science (ScienceNOW, Daily News, 16th March 2009). Science is published weekly by the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences (AAAS), so it does not get much more scientific than that, but the report was entitled Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner (d’Espagnat) and it contains much heresy - such as the statement that the reality revealed by science offers only a veiled view of an underlying reality that science cannot access.

To provide a scientific platform for such a view, d’Espagnat points out that whereas classical physics seems to support standard science views on reality, things are very different in the underlying world of quantum mechanics: The measurement of a quantum object can yield a range of possible outcomes, so that the original quantum state must be regarded as indefinite.

Albert Einstein, among others, objected to the inescapable implications the discovery of quantum mechanics lead to, stating that God does not play dices. As you work your way through my writings you may appreciate that in quantum reality God does in fact not play dices, but otherwise the good Albert Einstein was wrong on this matter as also pointed out by d’Espagnat, who proposes a more sophisticated philosophy of reality than naïve realism - a form of weak objectivity: The inherent uncertainty of quantum measurements means that it is impossible to infer an unambiguous description of reality as it really is. Behind measured phenomena exists a veiled reality that genuinely exists, independently of us, even though we lack the ability to fully describe it.

That veiled reality may be conceived in fragments through science, art, and spirituality, he points out, so recognising it may be a way of reconciling science and religion by putting all the arts at par.

Some war mongers in the two camps would prefer no such reconciliation - only the annihilation of the enemy - but the unification of the arts is also my project, and with d’Espagnat’s views and ideas we are going full circle back to the days and time before the birth of the modern sciences, for when he says that behind measured phenomena exists a veiled reality that genuinely exists, independently of us, even though we lack the ability to fully describe it we are thrown right back to Pythagoras’ words about the triangles and Plato’s tale of The Cave.

So is there really the world of the actual and the world of observed phenomena, and are the two worlds separated by a veil, or veils, science cannot look through, the veils of Isis, to quote a New Age name for what shrouds the real reality from our observation?

- And are we, the human beings, Homo sapiens, simply phenomena seemingly living in a perceived reality, an artificial world?

Any true scientist should ask himself such questions - or at least be open to them - rather than sitting stuck in dogmas and doctrines, but perhaps not surprisingly, other leading scientists were quick to react against d’Espagnat’s heretic concept of a weak objectivity that would put the natural sciences at par with arts and literature.

There is nothing unusual about such a response, for we live in an ego-world where loyal priests have always defended their idols; in this case the priests simply defended the absolute truth of the natural sciences.

Likewise, it is only to be expected that many hardcore Taliban scientists will distance themselves from what I write in my books - which is precisely why I must now leave the world of science with its dogmas and doctrines to seek Truth in its full and obtain my full freedom of speech.

Obviously, I could be wrong in what I am saying, but it is worth noting that dogmas and doctrines invariably create bias and blind people, forcing them to view reality according to specific default settings - settings that are never fully True.

Indeed, in later chapters I will present examples of recent findings by science that are thoroughly misinterpreted in the general science community because the interpretation must fit established dogmas and doctrines, whereas the same results would reveal something very different - something a lot more profound - if one were to let go of dogmatic views. - Or as a colleague of mine once said: If science has decided that a yellow flower is green, then the yellow flower is green, and as a scientist there is nothing you can say or do to change that.

Otherwise science claims to worship data - you can’t argue with data, as a saying goes - but I got a taste of the dogmatism some years ago when I submitted a scientific paper where the data did not fit the established dogma: While the conclusion was inescapable, and whereas no fingers could be put on the data, the referees insisted that something had to be wrong with the data somehow, and since the editor chose to side with this unsubstantiated claim the paper was never published. While it was a frustrating situation to be silenced through such idiocy, there was nothing unusual in it - or as a visiting American professor phrased it in a lecture on topoisomerases: What I am going to tell you now is the truth, but it is not what you will find in the literature for the Russian mafia has decided how things look and it does not allow anything else to be published.

It should be rather obvious that real truth - Truth - cannot be identified and defined through simple execution of power, however the power mongers got their power, so let us challenge the view of our world that science has instilled in us and continue the exploration of what shapes cave consciousness, the reality of the prisoners in the cave.

Chapter 2: Why should we bother?

Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches, and in these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: and whosoever then