4. The new discoveries of physics and Tantra yoga
An article by Gregorian Bivolaru
It’s the new discoveries of physics that obviously urged us to the current approach. Among contemporary physicians, David Bohm is maybe the one who had the best intuition and who best succeeded in translating his equations into common terms. His expression “implicate order” seems quite inspired to me. His book” Wholeness and the Implicate Order” contains some extremely interesting chapters.
But because the fields of this science and the ones of metaphysics are of course complementary, we still have to avoid their amalgamation, because their means of approach are different. As its etymology indicates, the metaphysics is situated “beyond” physics, even this is only a matter of Aristotle treatises chronology. Still this fact remains significant: we have to pay attention to the mind abuses and moderate our enthusiasm. When physicists start plunging into philosophy or, even worst, into mysticism, this often generates a veritable catastrophe for the science, which risks losing its status.
By its traditional definition, the role of science is limited to observation, determination of some models, rigorous experimentation, finding some mathematical proofs, expanding, ordering and completing knowledge. Through its very semantic definition the science dissects, divides and analyses: it doesn’t unite. Its main sense is to cut up and not to know. Thus it cannot pretend about knowledge, otherwise it is surpassing its functions and is not anymore what it should be. Because, the wise men say, the true cognition is never just the sum of various knowledge.
The One (the Integer) is never the sum of its components, even if we suppose we know all of them. Let’s not take confuse and addition.
For better understanding we are going to appeal to some analogies which hopefully will better clarify for you the subject of world unreality or reality, as well as of its corollaries: duality or non-duality, determinism or non-determinism. We particularly hope we are going to prove the vanity of any logical discourse.
First of all it is preferable to focus our attention on clarity and avoid confusion, especially regarding expression.
Let’s note the words recall some reality but still they are made of some letters in the alphabet that by themselves have no meaning. The same words may be used, for instance to expose two contradictory theories, without modifying their meaning by that. They remain exactly the same but lend themselves to any possible arrangement. There we can say, by using a decreasing approach, that letters and words are more true than the theories we build by using them?
If we arrange the vocals, the consonants or even the words apparently at random we will get nothing to make sense. The result will be just nonsense (incomprehensible). This is what makes our point: these constituents of the coherent language which are the letters and the words belong to a universe of probabilities where indeterminism and hazard make the rule. One can never be sure this or that sign or word will be the perfect choice and will be placed in that specific place, nearby another, to give the best definition for a thought or to form a simple correct sentence. We are even less sure when it is about an assembly representing a sophisticated mental construction, as for example a system.
The indeterminism grows higher at the level of alphabets and their ultimate components, because the languages and dialects being multiple, their combination to create words and then significant phrases becomes infinite and less and less predictable. Still, thanks to these fundamental constituents which are the letters and the words, conveniently arranged, any concept and any system will subscribe itself to a perfectly deterministic order. Thus it will be known where it derives from and where it is leading. Here we are in the presence of an apparently irreducible paradox, which we can compare to that which is so much disturbing the modern physicists. But in our first example the custom baffled the contradictions. The language customs became so familiar to us that we don’t find at all necessary a unified theory to re-establish the relation between an expression and its constituents. The world of modern physics responds to a similar scheme, but it still didn’t contrive a synthesis. There are nowadays two schools of physics which are facing out and which we could compare, by keeping the proportions and some already mentioned reserves, with the confrontation between the dualist Samkhya and the non-dualist Vedanta. The two physics schools are also somehow searching for a “TANTRA” to unify them. And David Bohm’s vision certainly evinces propensity in this respect.
The ingredients of matter, under all its forms: liquid, gaseous or solid, don’t respond all to the same laws. At common perception the matter seems to be compact and it is ordering itself in a completely predictable universe. It follows thus the principle of causality. In contrary, the elementary particles which represent the fundamental constituent of matter, don’t subscribe to this law but they rather relate to the void, because their movements are apparently random. The small infinitum is thus indeterminist and doesn’t really obey to causality; its approach can thus be only probabilistic. Thus the physicists who consider themselves exclusive supporters of quantum mechanics are at risk to consider the materiality of a universe composed of particles whose movements seems to be random, being that unconscious and void, this is somehow doubtful. Therefore could the elementary particles of an indeterminist universe change status and combine to constitute the matter of a deterministic universe? If the first statement proves rightful it will naturally lead towards the concept of immateriality of the matter, whose compactness would be an illusion.
It’s logic that compels scientists to reason this way; that’s why they are sometimes tempted to confirm by their conclusions some illusionist metaphysics. For there is just one step from immateriality to unreality. Let us make it clear: we don’t reproach these physicists the fact they make this step but wish to underline the inadequacy mixture of different genus’s rather leads to confusion than clarity, and the extreme conclusions are almost always the outcome of an excessive hurry and zeal.
Finally, there is one more aspect which must comply with the first ones, the relativistic physics. The correctness of Einstein discoveries in this field cannot be doubted nowadays. The perfect verified theories of limited relativity and generalized relativity are in perfect accord with the determinism; while the quantum theories demonstrate in their turn, without any doubt, the fundamental particles universe is indeterminist. Thus it became necessary to study and find a link between these two approaches, both verified and confirmed, though apparently contradictory. It is a must therefore to produce a certified unified theory, which is not fulfilled yet, even if there are some steps already done in this respect. We cannot tackle here the details regarding the unified fields theory or the measure of gravitational waves.
Please read now about The significance of contemporary physics discoveries in the light of spirituality…