EsoBites: Real I: The Master Within (8)

October 13, 2016

Dissecting Brahman-Atman Operational Theory (2)

Dear friends, today’s post is going to be a short one, as I spent most of my day dealing with legal matters before the supreme court of Georgia–and I am not even an attorney nor do I generally hire such. If I am going to lose at least, it should be from my error and not anyone else’s. It is off the subject, but I am a staunch Constitutionalist and human rights advocate.

Before, we leave Brahman and proceed with a discussion of the concept of One Oversoul, or Atman, we need to finish another delightful course in our philosophic repast. I can imagine many are smiling at the moment, but forsooth, sharing good food, good drink, good cheer, and spiritual conversation at the dinner table is an ancient esoteric tradition dating back tens of thousands of year. Perhaps, one day all of shall share a meal together and toast each other’s efforts. I would like such very much.

Yesterday, I hope most will agree that Brahman, as the Absolute Foundational Source for the Creation and Maintenance of all psychomaterial universes, is the simplest, most rational, and a genuinely pragmatic Spirito-Physical Model (without the inclusion of any co-present Being, Entity, or personal Deity).

As is true for all theological and philosophical theories, our models provide tentative hypotheses as to how the universe and mankind came into existence and what purpose is served by both, it does
not answer the more pressing questions:

1. Compared to the universe, does Brahman exist or not exist?
2. How did Brahman, or God, come to be in the first place?
3. Is there a time when Brahman was not?
4. Why Something rather than Nothing?

I imagine that many of you would add some more fundamental questions to the above. Though, I think these four are sufficient for the moment. Let us commence with the first question as it can be answered simply.

The word ‘existence’ refers generally to material energy configurations which can be observed by us, inanimate and animate. Such observables include entities as small as single atoms in a crystal array and as large as supergalaxies. The scale of observables ranges from the order of 10(-8) cm for an atom up to 13 billion light years or 10(28) cm for the known universe.

In addition, all of us create and function psychoistically within a virtual copy of our surrounding physical world. Though, we cannot find observables to measure within this dreamscape, each of us feels strongly that such dreamscape, awake or asleep, exists. Similarly, when queried as to whether or not feelings, thoughts, wishes, hopes, and desires exist, all of us would answer ‘of course,’ even though we can isolate and point to where such ‘aphysicals’ live.

Moreover, all observables and aphysical experiences are finite in space and bounded in time. We appreciate that the possible thoughts and feelings we can experience in a lifetime are limited in number and so are potentially countable and finite. Our material universe had a beginning and so must have an ending (secondary to continual cooling with expansion and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) and so in bounded in time (though not predictably). All life forms are born and eventually die, by aging or catastrophe.

Observation of our own minds, bodies, and material objects is limited to that which is finite in space and bounded in time. Mathematical infinities are purely conjecture and do not appear to apply to finite universes.

Subsequently, the word ‘nonexistent,’ by linguist default, is allocated for describing ‘that’ which is neither physical nor aphysical, neither an observable nor a mental symbol, image, thought, or feeling. Being restricted conceptually by our neurobiology and its linguistic structure, human understanding of the word ‘existence’ is finite in spacetime and definable, while ‘nonexistence’ is a true infinity not bounded by space time and so is not definable.

So, dear friends, even the simplest of questions has led us into a quandary which appears to be unanswerable by human cognition. Tomorrow we shall continue with Brahman.