Posted on 26 June 2012, 9:31

Think about the table in the room where we are sitting: it appears to have colour, to be opaque with nothing passing through it. But a study of optics will show that there is no colour as such in the object that we perceive, but rather the wavelength or frequency of the light reflected from its surface is translated by the mind and the brain and produces the experience of colour.

Similarly with sound: vibrations of certain wavelengths are transmitted through the air, interpreted by the ear, the brain, and consciousness as sound.

We understand the table to be solid, but are told that the atoms of which it is composed consist of 99.99% empty space.  The same is true of our bodies. Our minds interpret the sound and light waves as sound and colour, and the near emptiness of the atoms and molecules of the table as hardness.

If we live in a city, radiation from a number of TV stations and many radio stations is passing through the walls of the building that we inhabit, through the table and through our bodies, just as if they weren’t there. We are only aware of it when we switch on our radio or TV sets.

Do our senses provide us with an objective representation of reality? Hardly. Consider how much our perceptions are shaped by our experiences as human beings in the society to which we belong, how much by the language we speak, the things we have learnt in school, by the religious and the philosophical beliefs that we may have, and by our emotional make-up. To get around this problem, the human mind has invented the methods of science, which are wonderful ways for people of varying philosophies and beliefs to arrive at approximations of an objective truth out there that command general assent.

Is there any world out there independent from our minds? Three hundred years before many modern quantum physicists came to regard the whole of the sensory physical world as a mental phenomenon, the Irish Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753) (below) put forward the theory that denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of the perceivers. Yes, his theory seems to defy common sense, but we need to take it seriously, and try to grapple with the counterintuitive discoveries of these quantum physicists.

I have been fascinated by a book called, Bridging Science and Spirit, Common elements in David Bohm’s physics, the Perennial Philosophy and Seth, by Norman Friedman. He mentions the work of the French physicist Louis de Broglie’s wave-particle duality theory of matter, based on the work of Max Planck and Albert Einstein on light. He saw that the duality was an absolutely general phenomenon extending to all physical nature.

A useful comparison to help us picture the wave-particle duality is the numerous TV and radio waves present in our rooms, and blanketing the country. In the absence of a TV set, where is my favourite TV program?  The answer is, Blanketing the country (as radio wave frequencies), but   nowhere in particular. But if I switch on my TV, the waves become perceived locally as a TV show seen at a particular place, – the wave has become a “particle”, so to speak.

This is a useful but actually misleading comparison, because we are actually thinking about levels of reality. In this regard, Plato taught that there were Ideal Forms producing the physical world,  David Bohm did this with his writing about the Implicate-Explicate universe, and so did Jane Roberts’ (below) “Seth” and Thomas Ashman’s “Stephen the Martyr” in their own ways.  It was a misleading comparison because the radio waves are everywhere, whereas the implicate realm is spaceless, timeless.

Seth speaks of “the outer and inner ego.” Friedman writes, “In Seth’s language, ‘the outer ego’ refers to our normal waking consciousness, which operates in the three-dimensional world. The inner ego organises the inner level of consciousness, thereby creating the substances in the three-dimensional world… The inner ego is a higher level of consciousness, much more active and knowledgeable than the outer ego. The outer ego deals day by day with the physical reality created by the inner ego. The inner ego (or unconscious mind) is both purposeful and highly discriminating.…  The outer ego is the offspring of the inner self. The inner ego has access to a huge library of knowledge (of a collective unconscious) and through its creation of the physical world provides stimuli to keep the outer ego constantly alert and aware… Seth uses the analogy of the outer ego acting out a play which the inner ego has written. In a sense, the outer ego is spoon-fed – given only that information, including feelings and emotions, that it can handle. This information is usually in the form of data picked up by the physical senses. Matter, in short, is that shape the basic experience takes when the inner ego projects into the three-dimensional world. The similarity between the collective unconscious [of Carl Jung] and the implicate order (of Bohm) is apparent.” (p.117)

Friedman: “Essentially, (for Bohm) the laws of quantum mechanics relate the multi-dimensional order to our observed three-dimensional order. The three-dimensional consciousness is certainly more subtle than matter, it is limited compared with the 3n-(multi) -dimensional consciousness…” (p.119)

Seth : “There is however a portion of you, the deeper identity that forms both the inner ego and the outer ego, who decided that you would be a physical being in this place and in this time. This is the core of your identity, the psychic seed from which you sprang, with a multi-dimensional personality of which you are part.”(p.119 Jane Roberts: Seth Speaks: the eternal validity of the soul, 1972)

Physicist Roger S Jones: “I had come to suspect, and have felt compelled to acknowledge, that science and the physical were products of human imagining – that we were not the cool observers of the world, but its passionate creators. We were all poets and the world was our metaphor.” (p.122 Friedman)

Friedman: “the reality of classical physics consisted of matter and the fields including gravitational and electromagnetic. Other fields were added in the 20th century, but the basic assumptions did not change. Quantum theory essentially erased the difference between matter and fields, making reality a unity that exhibits the properties of both. This single, unitary stuff gave rise to the fantastically successful algorithm now used by physicists in all calculations involving quantum theory. But nobody knows what the unitary stuff really is. Seth of course defines it as CUs, (units of consciousness), which have essentially the same attributes as the quantum stuff (waves and particle attributes). Most quantum physicists, of course, stopped short of calling this unitary substance ‘consciousness.’ ”  (p.123)

In a short blog like this we can’t go into much detail, and we may not quite understand exactly how quantum physicists are so sure of the mental basis to reality. But when we think about incidents of synchronicity, dreams that foretell the future, with all sorts of other paranormal phenomena, then solid and matter-of-fact as the world may appear, we can see that in the last resort it must be dream stuff. 

But doubts will come to our minds: and we may think back to the philosophy of Berkeley and ask him, “Do you really think that the table and chair in my room cease to exist if I go outside?”

The following limerick suggests the answer:
“There was a young man who said, ‘God,
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be

REPLY:

When there’s no one about in the Quad.’
‘Dear Sir: Your astonishment’s odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that’s why the tree
Continues to be,
Since observed by,
Yours faithfully, God.’”

If we define “God” as “what is in all, through all, and above all” we can think of a universal network of consciousness that translates the wave into particular reality. We do not know the process that brought about the Big Bang bringing into being countless galaxies of the cosmos. But we can see how all the phenomena of the paranormal give the game away for supposed “physical” reality, and at least in the world as we experience it, everything is ultimately the product of mind.

That this has been a brief sketch of what quantum physicists and Seth have to say about the world as a production of the Mind.

Stephen says much about the subject: we may perhaps agree that Stephen does not differ from Seth, except that he expresses himself more especially in the language of poetry and feeling. Here are two examples:

In   Afterlife Teaching from Stephen the Martyr, we read: [Section 8.] Stephen: “Think of yourselves as you gaze upon your image in the pool which, for all intents and purposes, be your mirror.

[Here, Stephen is addressing our eternal selves looking at themselves in the mirror of this world:] Just one more step with your thoughts, and you might be able to see yourselves.  Think of yourselves as you gaze upon your image in the pool which, for all intents and purposes, be your mirror. How often, as a child, have we looked into this pool and our consciousness has gone into that one which we see. This then is the state that our conscious mind is in, in the one of that image. What we see and perceive are reflections, or so be it, symbols of what truly is, but because of the unreality of that image it can either be good or not-good as we ourselves choose to see.” …..

9. Question: “What is the role of the Physical, as opposed to Spiritual?”

Stephen:  It was created in the image of the Father as an extension to the Source. 

How can one explain and give a concrete example of love?

What is an extension of love but love?

What is an extension to the air that you breathe but air?

We speak of “the Father”, for in this way we can conceive in our minds a tangible image of what is intangible.

The essence of what is a father is in the image of the Source that created it.

What is a father, but a source of love, protection, a teacher, comforter and a strength?

This is a father, therefore. We were made in this image.

To create thus from base material requires this material to be refined, to insert and influence emotions with other emotions.

We have listened to the words that we must step outside of ourselves and look inwards. This would be confusing if it were not for the image that we are conscious of ourselves as. Imagine now, each one of you, your reflection in the pool. Then imagine that you are that reflection. Now I say to you, step outside of your consciousness, and look within yourself that you might see the image.”

Afterlife Teaching From Stephen the Martyr by Michael Cocks is published by White Crow Books and available from Amazon and other bookstores.

Paperback               Kindle

Further Reading.

Next blog, July 10

Posted on 12 June 2012, 8:01

I have suggested that there is a lot in common between Conversations with God,  A Course in Miracles and Afterlife Teaching of Stephen the Martyr.  All claim to be teaching from the world of Spirit. The teacher in “Conversations” is supposed to be God, in ACIM it is said to be Jesus, in “AT” the teacher says he is Stephen the Martyr. Such teachings are received when someone is sufficiently persistent in asking questions of the Unseen.

Such receiving through intuitives and mediums is sometimes clear and deep, sometimes distorted and shallow. (A bit like receiving through wireless.) That is the reason why we must check the answers we receive in prayer, and the answers we receive from teachers in Spirit. We should be wary if a teaching contradicts the consensus of most other spiritual teachers, or contradicts what spiritually minded scientists suggest.  No teaching is of any avail for us, whether it be false or true, if we cannot fit it in with the rest of what we know or feel.  In saying this, I do affirm the importance of these teachings: I just caution that one should not be uncritical.

I am not surprised that ATIM and Conversations had their origin in the USA. One could argue that there is a cultural bias here.  Stephen’s cultural bias is derived from the Middle East of 2000 years ago, even though he is fully aware of present day thinking. The cultural biases should tell us that we may not be dealing with absolute truth (if such exists.) When Stephen completed his teachings, he warned us that they were derived from his experience, and of his likes and dislikes. He also warned us to be careful in passing judgement on teaching offered to us by others. He exhorted us to receive for ourselves, and also to check what we receive as to whether or not we can fit it in with the rest of what we know or feel. His advice in regards of these three Teachings would be to take to ourselves what we feel is useful to us, and regretfully leave to one side what we cannot use.

In future blogs I hope to continue discussing what the three teachings have to say about a number of topics. Right now, I mention the need for caution, in general, but also with regard to the question of the illusoriness of physical reality.

A scientific basis for seeing physical reality as an “illusion” is to be found in the work of quantum physicists such as David Bohm and his allies, whose work I have mentioned on several previous occasions.

Our three Teachers are also agreed about this illusoriness. But in the case of ACIM there is one aspect that I find difficult to understand. In its introduction we read, “Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.”  ACIM agrees with the other Teachings in seeing the physical world as an illusion projected from a “higher” level of reality, and furthermore sees an illusion as being “unreal” and therefore “not existing”. If someone harms you, it is argued, you must forgive them, and the reason you must forgive them is that this has happened in this world of illusion which is unreal and therefore does not exist. Of course the corollary of that is that if a person does something good for you, that is also illusory and does not exist. God did not create this illusory world, it is said, we did. Many exercises are provided by ACIM to help us see through this illusion to the only reality, the Absolute God. Aspects of the afterlife are also seen as illusory, so we must practice relating to the only reality, the Absolute God of love.

What drives the ACIM picture? As I see it, ACIM is wrestling with the problem of how a loving God can be omnipotent and allow so much apparent evil to exist in physical creation. It is a problem that all religions and spiritualities find it hard to come to terms with. But to say that the world is illusory and therefore does not exist, it is perhaps a step too far.

There seems to be confusion about what we mean when we say that the physical world is an illusion. Synchronicity, together with some discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics, and teachings delivered through some of the best mediums, suggest that the “universe is a great thought”: that the physical world and the mental events that occur within it are the product of thought originating in a more basic dimension of thought. The physical world is indeed an illusion in the sense that it is the product of thought. But the thought is real, and does exist, and what we think and do in this physical world does have consequences either positive or negative. ACIM denies that God (as they understand the word) has anything to do with the physical world, whereas there would be a wide acceptance of the opposite proposition that God is in all, through all, and above all.

Perhaps “illusion” is not the best word: we should perhaps rather speak of “products of thought.” And as said, thought is real and has consequences.

So far as you and I are concerned (together with the rest of humanity), almost everything that we can see and touch owes its existence to the activities of countless incarnate minds. Beyond that, synchronicity and other phenomena suggest that there is also an ordering of mental and so-called physical events from a deeper level of mind.

ACIM sees the human ego as an enemy and strives to abolish it in order to achieve union with the Absolute.

Stephen on the contrary said, “The ego is the product of your mind and its concepts. That mind, and that body, and those concepts, must also be of the Whole. Is this not so?

For nothing can exist that is not part of the Whole. You have spoken of the dissipation of this ego and yet have not considered that this is also an instrument of the Whole. For we have spoken about the recording of experiences that are necessary for the Whole. For why would what is perfect need to have created all that we consider material, which includes the mind and the product of that mind which is the ego, if these experiences were not only desirable but necessary? One might as well say that a body with a limb that is useless, that cannot operate, that that limb should be cut out and destroyed.”(p.276)

One might well argue that our spiritual growth does not consist in trying to abolish the ego as a centre of consciousness, but rather in the abolition of egotism and selfishness. We develop spiritually by selfless serving of others and through ever increasing ability to see others as “children of God”.

This is also the understanding of spiritual development that we get from afterlife communicators: selflessness and reaching out to others is seen as the means of growth in that realm also.

George Johnston (below) addresses this aspect of ACIM in his article: “Is The Disappearance of the Universe a valid interpretation of A Course in Miracles ?”

He writes: “Christian, Muslim and other traditions, encourage us to focus on the good in life. By so doing, we become more aware of the beauty in nature and the goodness in human hearts. We learn to embrace all that is, with love, seeing God in all. Thus, God becomes a living presence in our lives. Even though the world as we see it with the body’s eyes is not real in the way that God is real, and is an illusion, nevertheless, it is part of God as the One, and God as the One is present in it.

“The path of seeing God in the world appears to contradict the Course’s teaching that the world is unreal. Yet, even a dream or a movie - though an illusion and, in a sense, unreal - can reflect beauty, love, and Truth, and many have found God by seeing the good in the world. Even in the Course, Jesus teaches that we must experience the world with the light of Christ shining on it in our minds - what he calls the forgiven, or real, world - in order to become fully enlightened. But for many, it is very helpful to begin by denying the reality of the world, in order to remove feelings, such as guilt, unworthiness, and fear, that keep us from freely expressing and accepting love. By denying the reality of sin and evil, and of the world, as most of us experience it, and by affirming the reality of God, Spirit, and Heaven, and their presence just behind the ever-changing phenomena experienced by the body, the Course helps us to shed unconscious guilt and a host of other deeply rooted illusions that block awareness of God and leads us toward realization of God in the here and now.”

Thus, Johnston seems to suggest an interpretation of ACIM as an oversimplification designed to persuade us to surrender to an eternally loving God, and to return like the Prodigal Son to the welcoming arms of his father.

We do indeed need to remember that we are citizens of heaven in children of God. But basking in that knowledge is not enough: and spiritual growth depends on our facing the many and varied challenges that our physical lives present to us. Scientific research is not to be set aside but rather seen as steps towards better appreciating the Father’s mind; art, literature, music and more are steps towards experiencing dimensions of the Father’s love; psychic research gives instances of departed spirits playing their part in these enterprises.

It must be the case that if our concepts of God become too restricted, then we may stumble in our relationships to others.

I look back to our years of conversations with St Stephen with profound gratitude both for that relationship and for the teaching that we received. But I also look back with some sadness and guilt at our frequent failure to act on and be changed by his teachings.

I personally understand God to be in all, through all, and above all. I should therefore look in all directions to receive the teaching and guidance from my God. A valuable direction to look in, are the teachings of Conversations with God, A Course in Miracles, and Afterlife Teachings from Stephen the Martyr: and , dare I suggest?, the holy scriptures of the great religions, together with the writings of their mystics. Let us not limit God.  Such material received from Spirit needs to be read a little at a time, felt, savoured, digested and incorporated -  with discrimination.

Further reading
“Is The Disappearance of the Universe a valid interpretation of A Course in Miracles?”
The disappearance of the universe.

Afterlife Teaching From Stephen the Martyr by Michael Cocks is published by White Crow Books and available from Amazon and other bookstores.

Paperback               Kindle

A Course in Miracles: Original Edition is available in eBook formats from White Crow Books.

http://whitecrowbooks.com/ebooks/page/a_course_in_miracles_the_original_edition/

Next blog, June 26

http://whitecrowbooks.com/blogs