One. The nature of mind

Introduction

Science has helped shape religious thought since the earliest days of civilization.  When humans learned to farm, the study of the heavens became so important that it brought with it a sense of divine order or cycles, and moved the source of the divine in man's imagination from mother earth to the skies.  The scientific revolution brought profound changes in our view of the divine.  Scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo and Newton who described the universe as orderly and governed by unchangeable laws led some to picture God as a watchmaker, who set the process in motion and then stepped back to let it run by itself. Charles Darwin later modified this image to a blind watchmaker since he saw evolution proceeding by blind chance.  More recently, quantum mechanics and relativity have restored uncertainty to the equation while causing a revival of interest in eastern religions with its emphasis on the unity of all things.

Perhaps the most significant new theory, in terms of its potential religious significance, has been James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis which argues that life on earth has acted as though it were one huge organism in that it regulates its environment for its own survival, even to the point of creating the very conditions necessary for the higher life forms to evolve.  Gaia theory has come in many shadings and the teleological implications vary greatly depending on the particular interpretation.  Jim Kirchner has suggested five different levels of Gaia theory:

1.  Influential Gaia, the weakest hypothesis, asserts that biota have a substantial influence over certain aspects of the abiotic world, such as temperature and the composition of the atmosphere.

"The Gaia hypothesis.. states that the temperature and composition of the Earth's atmosphere are actively regulated by the sum of life on the planet" (Sagan and Margulis 1983).

2. Co-evolutionary Gaia asserts that the biota influence their abiotic environment, and that the environment in turn influences the evolution of the biota by Darwinian process.

"The biota have effected profound changes on the environment of the surface of the earth. At the same time, that environment has imposed constraints on the biota, so that life and the environment may be considered as two parts of a coupled system" (Watson and Lovelock 1983).

3. Homeostatic Gaia asserts that the biota influence the abiotic world, and do so in a way that is stabilizing, by negative feedback linkages.

"The notion of the biosphere as an active adaptive control system able to maintain the earth in homeostasis we are calling the 'Gaia' hypothesis" (Lovelock and Margulis 1974).

4. Teleological Gaia asserts that the atmosphere is kept in homeostasis, not just by the biosphere, but by and for the biosphere.

"the Earth's atmosphere is more than merely anomalous; it appears to be a contrivance specifically constituted for a set of purposes" (Lovelock and Margulis 1974).

5. Optimizing Gaia asserts that the biota manipulate their physical environment for the purpose of creating biologically favorable, or even optimal, conditions for themselves.

"...it is unlikely that chance alone accounts for the fact that temperature, pH and the presence of compounds of nutrient elements have been, for immense periods, just those optimal for surface life. Rather, ... energy is expended by the biota to actively maintain these optima" (Lovelock and Margulis 1974).

Faced with criticism that the Gaia Hypothesis was too teleological, Lovelock wrote a second book, The Ages of Gaia which portrayed Gaia more as a self regulating machine than a living organism.  Scientists generally have expressed preference for the weaker versions of the hypothesis.

Is there any teleological meaning to by found in Gaia?  Any possibility that Gaia is a sort of neo-pagan divinity?  In looking for support for a conscious Gaia, another major body of work stands out as fascinatingly similar--Carl Jung's theories of the collective human unconscious, a repository of thoughts, ideas and archetypes that influence that influence individuals' psychological development.  Although some look to locate these collective memories within the workings of cellular DNA, others see the collective unconscious as independent of the physical body.

Could Gaia be an independent conscious entity similar to the collective unconscious?  An intriguing model emerges if we weave the Gaia Hypothesis together with several works concerning mind and consciousness.  Gregory Bateson's seminal work on mind and nature establishes general criteria for viewing mind as a system.  A critical concept for Bateson is the importance of information which is something in the physical mind that has been given abstract meaning beyond its physical nature.  This is important because it makes the physical and nonphysical inextricably linked.  Since Bateson's criteria for mind all apply to the Gaia system, the obvious question becomes, is Gaia a mind, and if so what is it's nature? 

Another recent work of importance is David Chalmers' "Facing Up To The Hard Problem of Consciousness."  Chalmers argues that consciousness cannot be explained away by the physical functioning of the mind.  Consciousness is likely a fundamental property of the universe unexplainable in terms of any of the other fundamental properties.  Adding this to Bateson's work, we can postulate Gaia as a mind, very probably endowed with some form of consciousness, although the exact nature of that consciousness may be unfathomable to us.

Finally, we must note the longstanding belief among all mystical religions in the oneness of all things, a revelation that echoes the unity suggested by the Gaian system.  Typical is the experience of Jacquetta Hawkes, whose enlightenment left him with the awareness that "his mind is one infinitesimal mode in the mind present throughout all being." Buddhism goes as far as calling the divine source of all things the "One Mind.  In light of recent scholarship, the ancient Buddhist concept may be the most useful in forming a new picture of the world and it's divine origins. The concept of mind works on many levels; it helps to bring light to the mystery.

Consciousness

Consciousness has proven to be one of the most difficult phenomena for scientists to study, although that has not stopped them from trying, as a quick check of books in print will verify. The central debate revolves around the question of whether it consciousness is merely a function of the physical properties of the brain or whether it is something separate and distinct, operating through the brain.

A provocative recent essay on the subject by David Chalmers convincingly argues that the information processing functions of the mind cannot explain consciousness itself. Chalmers separates the issue into the "easy" questions--those involving mental states and processes, and the "hard" question, which is the problem of experience; "Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? ... It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how is so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?"

Separating the experience of consciousness is the hard part. Chalmers notes that philosophers and scientists commonly try to explain the experience of consciousness by reverting back to the easy problems of mental processes, leaving untouched the basic question of the experience taken from those processes. Like a TV blaring in an empty room, the physical functioning of the brain could exist quite nicely without a consciousness there to experience it.

To account for consciousness, Chalmers argues, "we need an extra ingredient in the explanation." There are plenty of contenders available, including quantum mechanics, where some theories hold that consciousness plays an active role in the collapsing of the quantum wave function. But nothing like this is satisfactory to Chalmers; "You can't explain conscious experience on the cheap."

Chalmers proposes a "nonreductive" explanation. Conscious experience, Chalmers argues, may be a fundamental phenomena not explainable in terms of anything simpler. For example, nineteenth century physicists discovered that electromagnetic processes could not be explained in terms of the mechanical processes of previous physical theories, so Maxwell and others introduced electromagnetic charge and electromagnetic forces as new fundamental components of a physical theory. To explain electromagnetism, "the ontology of physics had to be expanded." Physicists were forced to develop new basic properties and basic laws to give a satisfactory account of the phenomenon.

A theory of consciousness, Chalmers suggests, should take experience as fundamental; "we know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness." Taking conscious experience as fundamental would not tell us why there is experience in the first place. But this is the same for any fundamental theory. Nothing in physics tells us why there is matter in the first place, but we do not count this against theories of matter.

Consciousness--the essence of the human soul--Chalmers suggests, is a fundamental property of the universe, along with matter, energy and time. Even more intriguingly, Chalmers notes, "it would be surprising for [consciousness] to arise only every now and then, most fundamental properties are more evenly spread."

The universal experience of mystics of all faiths of an expanded consciousness present in all things may be the closest we can come to proving Chalmers. Mystical experiences are not the sort of controlled laboratory evidence preferred by scientists, but the accumulation of many similar experiences over the millenia suggest that they represent something real. This evidence may be "soft" but similar evidence is accumulating from many different sources. Taken together, they can be woven into an impressive tapestry.

Empirical Evidence for Consciousness as a Fundamental Property

One area that of scientific scrutiny  that suggests that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature is the question of perception in plants.  Numerous researchers have conducted experiments attaching polygraph equipment to plants to measure their reaction to outside events.  Although Darwin once theorized that plant behavior suggested that they have sense organs and "some sort of nervous system," this is not readily apparent and the responses observed by scientists are difficult to explain,

Cleve Backster conducted some of the most notable experiments during the 1960s.  Baxter concluded that plants have what he called "primary perception," an undefined sensory system or perception capability existing in cell life.  This "primary perception" operated regardless of distance, and extended at least as far down as the single cell level.  Indeed Baxter obtained reactions from fruits and vegetables until they were completely rotten, various single celled organisms, and even made some observations using minerals, metals, and triply distilled water that suggested that this perception may exist in the non living world as well.

Baxter's case for "primary perception" powerfully supports Chalmers' argument that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature.  The plants in these experiments are registering a clear experience of the events taking place around them.  They are demonstrating  a "rich inner life" with none of the sensory organs or complex functions of mind that have been used in an attempt to explain the existence of consciousness in higher animals.

In one of his earliest experiments, Baxter had failed to get a response when he dipped a leaf into a scalding cup of coffee, so he decided to get a match to burn the plant leaf being tested.  At the instant of this decision, there was a dramatic change in the tracing pattern on the polygraph, suggesting that the tracing might have been triggered by the mere thought of burning the leaf.  In another experiment, Backster had live brine shrimp dumped into boiling water at random times determined by automated equipment, to remove the possibility of human interference.  In a series of experiments with three philodendron plants, each located in separate rooms, polygraph readings showed that five to seven seconds after the dumping of the shrimp, the instruments registered a large burst of plant activity that Backster concluded could only have come from the shrimp.  

In subsequent experiments with fresh fruit, vegetables, mold cultures, yeasts, and single celled life forms including scrapings from the roof of a human mouth, blood samples, paramecia, amoebae, and even spermatozoa, Backster's experiments demonstrated the same sort of primary perception.  The results obtained by Backster demonstrated that "besides some sort of telepathic communication system, plants also possess something closely akin to feelings or emotions. ... They appreciate being watered.  They worry when a dog comes near.  They faint when violence threatens their own well-being.  And they sympathize when harm comes to animals and insects close to them." Similarly, Lynne Margulis claims that even the simplest one-celled organisms have what she calls a "simple consciousness."

Others have performed similar experiments. In 1993, the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command conducted experiments where white blood cells were scraped from the mouth of a volunteer then centrifuged and placed in a test tube. A probe from a recording polygraph was inserted into the tube. The donor was seated in a separate room and shown a television program with many violent scense. When the volunteer watched scenes of fighting and killing, the probe detected extreme excitation in the mouth cells even though they were in a room down the hall. The experiment was repeated with donor and cells separated up to fifty miles and two days after the donation and showed the same results.

These experiments not only seem to confirm Chalmers' hypothesis that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, but they indicate that consciousness is a unified experience--stimulations to one organism can be experienced by an unrelated organism.  The communication of conscious experience did not occur within any known channels, could not be shielded by ordinary means, and did not seem to be affected by distance.  "It seems," Backster concluded, "that the signal may not fall within any known portion of our electrodynamic spectrum."  The experience of consciousness, as illuminated by these experiments, fall closely in line with the mystical understanding of the universe as a unified whole--that all consciousness is ultimately one.  

The question that remains glaringly unanswered is how does the experience of individual consciousness arise?  It is clear that none of us experiences an undifferentiated, universal consciousness.  Other than the rare mystical experience, our consciousness is limited to, and appears to arise from, the input of our physical senses.  How can we explain this in light of the apparently unified nature of consciousness experienced by plants and single celled life forms?  To begin to explore this question we need to take up the theory of mind.

Mind

The concept of consciousness as fundamental is not by itself enough to understand the workings of life. Consciousness needs an organized system to interact with the physical word. Consciousness needs a mind, and the nature of the conscious experience depends greatly on the nature of the mind.

Gregory Bateson, (Mind and Nature) in an attempt to generalize the nature of mind, has listed six criteria necessary for a mind;

• A mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components.

  This first criterion may seem obvious, but Bateson felt it important to distinguish from the ideas of people like Samuel Butler or Teilhard de Chardin who proposed theories of evolution which assume some mental striving to be characteristic of everything in the physical world. While many have seen the divine in everything, Bateson's distinguishes the divine spark, or consciousness, which is present everywhere from the concept of mind as an organizing principle that drives the forces of evolution.

• The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference, and difference is a nonsubstantial phenomenon not located in space or time; difference is related to negentropy and entropy rather than to energy.

  Mental processes respond to differences perceived in the physical world, in contrast to physical processes which are caused by some force or impact exerted upon some part of the material system. For example, move your finger over a bump and you mind registers the difference between the bump and the smooth part. The sense of sight is similar--the eyeball has a continual tremor, called micronystagmus, which is a vibration through a few seconds of arc that causes the optical image on the retina to move relative to the rods and cones. The receptive organs continually receive events that correspond to outlines in the visible world. Gradual change is notoriously difficult to detect because, although we have high sensitivity to rapid change, we also accommodate to conditions that don't change. Organisms become habituated as in the old story of the frog sitting quietly in a saucepan that is raised to boiling.

  Changes or differences in the physical world are processed by the mind as information. Information is perhaps the key concept in understanding the workings of mind, and the development of life in general.
  
  

• Mental process requires collateral energy.

  When you kick a stone, it moves with the energy imparted by your foot. When you kick a dog, it reacts with energy from its own metabolism, in response to the stimuli of your foot. You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink--the decision to drink is a function of his mind. This is the element that implies consciousness, for where else does the collateral energy come from?

• Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination.

  Nonliving things survive by resisting change. Living things survive either by correcting change or by changing themselves to meet the new conditions, or by incorporating change into their own beings. Stability may be achieved by continual repetition of some cycle of smaller changes, which return to the status quo.
  
  

• In mental process, the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (i.e. coded versions) of events which preceded them. The rules of such transformation must be comparatively stable (i.e. more stable than the content) but are themselves subject to transformation.

  The mind deals with information about the world, not with actual elements of the world. Information is key to the organization of both the living and non living worlds, but it is taken to a higher level in the living. Information contains a physical component of its own, separate from but relating to the features of the world the information represents.
  
  

• The description and classification of these processes of transformation disclose a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena.

  More complex interactions, particularly among more advanced organisms, involve, not only the message itself, but the context of the message as well. The mind of the organism must know the coded symbols of the message and the meaning to be taken from the clues the environment send about the context of the message. This larger class of messages are called metamessages, and the classes of messages can be arranged in a hierarchy of logical types. In order to function, the more sophisticated minds must not only be able to decode and interpret symbols, but make judgments about the meaning of the metamessages as well.

Bateson argues that the phenomena which we call thought, evolution, ecology, life, or learning, occur only in systems that satisfy these criteria. One may argue with his criteria for mind, but by attempting to distinguish the general nature of mind, Bateson has made an important contribution in the attempt to understand conscious behavior. If we start with Chalmers' hypothesis that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, we still need to understand the way in which consciousness interacts with the physical. Some sort of system of the type Bateson calls a mind is required. The mind may be self contained and obvious such as the human mind, or it may be an unbounded system such as the Gaia Mind which has no hard physical boundary but which contains all the criteria that Bensen outlines.

The Gaia Sutra combines Lovelock, Bateson, and Chalmers and proclaims a planetary Gaia Mind a complex system system that meets Bateson's criteria for mind, born of the One Mind that is the ground of all being.  A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the Gaia Mind does indeed have some form of consciousness. Since the nature of the Gaia Mind is different from the nature of the human mind, it is reasonable to suppose that the nature of Gaia consciousness is different from that of human consciousness. Perhaps the Gaia Consciousness represents one of the higher levels of consciousness that many religions have described. But whatever it's nature, it is real.

Life against entropy

There are two central differences between the living world and the nonliving world. The living world shows a continuing and unending move toward increased complexity in form and function; and the living creates its own conditions necessary for survival; from the development of energy rich compounds and building blocks, to the creation of an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, to the maintenance of stable temperatures. The non-living universe, on the other hand, follows the dictates of the principle of entropy which suggests that without continual input of new energy, all things tend to move from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, and from energy rich to energy equilibrium.

Explaining why living systems apparently defy the law of entropy has been a difficult problem for scientists. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that nature tends to go from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity. The arrangements of mass in the universe tend to go from order to disorder due to the random motion on an atomic scale produced by thermal energy. Put another way, entropy is the measure of the probability of a given arrangement of mass and energy within a system. High entropy corresponds to high probability; and a random arrangement is highly probable.

The basic building blocks of life (DNA, proteins, etc.) are more energy rich than their precursors (amino acids, heterocyclic bases, phosphates, and sugars), so classical thermodynamics would predict that such macromolecules would not spontaneously form, leading some biologists to the conclusion that Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right. The maintenance of a system far from equilibrium may be explained by the constant intake of energy from outside the system, but the establishment of such a far from equilibrium state is much harder to explain. H.J. Morowitz has estimated that, even in the simple bacterium Eschrichia coli, the increase in the chemical bonding energy needed to form the bacterium from is precursors would be thermodynamically equivalent to having water in your bathtub heat up to 360 degrees CelSius spontaneously.

Beyond merely defying entropy, the processes of life actually create the very conditions necessary for further life; they actively operate on their environment. This pattern is repeated on many levels. For example, it is widely agreed that both protein and DNA are essential for living systems and indispensable components of every living cell today, yet they are only produced by living cells.

Finally, there is the unending nature of negative entropy in living systems. Crystals form naturally into highly ordered arrangements of atoms, in seeming contradiction of the laws of entropy, but their order is simple compared to the building blocks of life, and repeats in one pattern endlessly. Polymers also carry ordered arrangements of information in their makeup. Crystals and polymers are similar to the building blocks of life in that they carry information, and as we have seen from Bateson's work, information is an essential element of mind. But the complexity of information carried by living systems is an order of magnitude greater than the non-living, and shows the ability to continually adapt to even greater levels of complexity.

The law of entropy does not necessarily prove that larger forces are at work in living systems. Recent work on chaos theory, far from equilibrium states, fractals and other studies of complex systems have shown that order can arise out of disorder, that much of what seems like chaos is really just a complex system of order. But here again, none of the new theories has yet explained the extent of the phenomenon of negative entropy in living systems or the order of magnitude difference between living and non living systems. And while complex systems spontaneously arise among non living things, only life helps to create the preconditions for its own further development.

Non living systems of information storage achieve and maintain their order, but nothing else; while life continues to evolve into ever more complex, higher energy, negative entropy states. One celled animals evolve into simple fishes which evolve into amphibians that can leave the cocoon of water; which evolve into reptiles that can function entirely on dry land; which evolve into mammals; a more complex and efficient form of land life; which evolve into humans which have their own independent, self conscious mind. Only the conscious mind can create and recreate itself.

Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

Quantum Mechanics, the field of science that explores sub-atomic particles, has opened up major new areas of exploration that have great relevance for the study of consciousness.  Quantum Mechanics has revealed a world so strange and mystical that it has been said that, while there may be a dozen people in the world who fully understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there is nobody in the world who fully understands Quantum Mechanics.  Nonetheless, scientists generally agree that the theory of Quantum Mechanics is reliable in predicting the behavior of sub-atomic particles, so that no matter how wild the explanations of QM, it appears to be a reliable theory.

There is compelling evidence that the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them; the most famous example of this is that fact that the electron behaves like a wave until it is observed and then it behaves like a particle.  Physicist Nick Merbert says that he sometimes imagines that the world is "a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup."  But whenever he turns around and tries to see the soup, his glance instantly freezes it and turns it back into ordinary reality.  Danish physicist Niels Bohr, a founding father of quantum physics, argued that subatomic particles only came into existence in the presence of an observer, that it was meaningless to speak of a particle's properties and characteristics as existing before they were observed.  

Another aspect of quantum reality is a strange state of interconnectedness that seems to exist between apparently unrelated subatomic events.  For example, David Bohm's early work at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory with plasmas--gases containing a high density of electrons and positive ions--revealed that once electrons were in a plasma, they stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were part of a larger and interconnected whole.  Vast numbers of electrons were able to produce effects that were surprisingly well-organized.  Like some amoeboid creature, the plasma constantly regenerated itself and enclosed all impurities in a wall in the same way that a biological organism might encase a foreign cist.  So struck was Bohm by these organic qualities that he later remarked he'd frequently had the impression the electron sea was "alive."

Drawing from his studies, Bohm came to a radically new view of physical reality.  One of Bohm's most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image.  Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world.  Bohm calls this deeper level the implicate order and he refers to our level of existence as the explicat order, arguing that the manifestations of all forms in the universe are the result of countless enfoldings and unfoldings between the two orders.  

Bohm's theories, while controversial and not universally accepted, provide an important link between theories about consciousness and the physical universe.  In fact, Bohm's view of the interconnectedness of the universe implies that consciousness and physical particles are inseparable; they are one and the same.  Just as Einstein's E=MC2 demonstrated that energy and mass are the same, Bohm's theory could be taken ad E=M=C--energy equals mass=consciousness.  Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order.  As Bohm puts it, "The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mindlike already with the electron."

Bohm's theories give scientific underpinnings for Chalmers' philosophical beliefs that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous principle of the universe.  In fact Bohm goes Chalmers one better in that he claims there is no difference between consciousness and the other fundamental properties of the universe-they are all one.  In fact, Bohm's theories sound very much like some of the universal themes found in mystical religions around the world.  For one final piece of the puzzle, we must take a brief look at the themes found in mystical religions.

The Mystic understanding

The discussion of mind and consciousness raise interesting comparisons with the mystic traditions within established religions.  Certain universal themes run through all of these traditions, so much so that Aldous Huxley could term them the "perennial philosophy."  The basic characteristic of the mystical experience is an intuitive perception that we are part of a universe that is a unified whole.  As the third-century Roman philosopher and mystic Plotinus wrote: "In this seeing, we neither hold an object nor trace distinction; there is no two.  The man is changed, no longer himself nor self-belonging; he is merged with the Supreme, sunken into it, one with it ..."  Jacquetta Hawkes reported a short, intense experience of heightened sensibility. "The fact that such experience comes most surely with love, with possession by the creative eros, suggests that it belongs near the root of our mystery. Certainly it grants man a state of mind in which I believe he must come more and more to live: a mood of intensely conscious individuality which serves only to strengthen an intense consciousness of unity with all being. His mind is one infinitesimal mode in the mind present throughout all being, just as his body shares in the unity of all matter."

As with Bohm's theories, this unity flows from a more basic level of reality.  Douglas Sharon  claims that, "Probably the central concept of shamanism, wherever in the world it is found, is the notion that underlying all the visible forms in the world, animate and inanimate, there exists a vital essence from which they emerge and by which they are nurtured.  Ultimately everything returns to this ineffable, mysterious impersonal unknown."  The Hindus call this level of reality Brahman.  Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back into it in endless flux.  The same concept can be found in Judaism's mystical Kabbalistic tradition.  "The entire creation is an illusory projection of the transcendental aspects of God," says Leo Schaya, a Swiss expert on the Kabbalah.  However, it is not complete nothingness, "for every reflection of reality, even remote, broken up and transient, necessarily possesses something of its cause."

This vital force, flowing from the fundamental ground of reality provides the life energy that animates life.  In India, sacred writings that date back over five thousand years refer to this life energy as prana.  In China, since the third millennium B.C> it has been called ch'i.  In Kabbalah, this vital principle is called nefish and is believed to form an egg-shaped bubble of iridescence that surrounds every human body. Individual mystical experiences have often left people with this same insight.  Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin experienced the mystical while gazing on a picture of Christ. "First I noticed that the vibrant atmosphere which formed a halo around Christ was not confined to a narrow strip encircling him, but radiated into Infinity. From time to time what seemed to be trails of phosphorescence reached out to the furthest spheres of Matter--forming a sort of crimson ganglion, or nervous network, running across every substance."  Carlos Casteneda experienced something quite similar while a pupil of an Yaqui Indian shaman. "Suddenly I felt that my body had been struck and then it became enveloped by something that kindled me ... The sun was almost over the horizon. I was looking directly into it and then I saw the "lines of the world." I actually perceived the most extraordinary profusion of florescent white lines which crisscrossed everything around me. ... The lines were superimposed on or were coming though everything in the surroundings."    

Zen Buddhism strives to gain for its practitioners this very sort of experience. Through diligent practice of meditation, called zazen, and contemplation of koans--sayings that defy logic--Zen Buddhists hope to bring people to enlightenment. On rare occasions this occurs spontaneously; the Sixth Patriarch Eno, reportedly achieved enlightenment upon hearing the Diamond sutra recited, and master Harada-roshi reported a young girl hearing his introductory lectures, drawing a circle and declaring "the cosmos to be indivisibly One."More typical is the experience of a 46 year old American businessman who left his work and studied in Japan for five years until one day, while his master was lecturing him, "All at once the roshi, the room, every single thing disappeared in a dazzling stream of illumination and I felt myself bathed in delicious, unspeakable delight ... For a fleeting eternity I was alone--I alone was ... Then the roshi swam into view. Our eyes met and flowed into each other, and we burst out laughing ... 'I have it! I know! There is nothing, absolutely nothing. I am everything and everything is nothing!" (For more accounts of Zen enlightenment, see Roshi Kapleau, The Three Pillars of Zen.)

Summary

Quantum theorists and mystical religions seem to be moving toward a common understanding of reality that invokes a unity of all things, rising out of a mysterious underlying order, and suffused with an energy most often becoming visible to the mystic as a brilliant white light.  But this same energy seems to flow through everything, both living and nonliving.  Bede Griffiths, a Benedictine Monk, described an experience where "I had come through the darkness into a world of light. That eternal truth and beauty which the sights and sounds of London threatened to banish from my ears. The very stones of the house seemed to be the living stones of a temple in which this song ascended. It was as though I had been given a new power of vision. Everything seemed to lose its hardness and rigidity and to become alive."

The problem that arises here is the clear distinction between the living and nonliving that only the living can swim upstream against the relentless tide of entropy.  If the nonliving are equally produced by this force why do they not act like the living?  The answer to this comes from the concept of mind.  A mind is a complex system existing on the edges of chaos.  Through the functioning of a mind the universal life force, or ch'i, can achieve the quality of consciousness.  

There are several levels of mind; our own individual minds are the most obvious to us and it is through them that we can understand the larger minds. Human societies form a mind as well, and Jung's collective unconscious begins to describe the workings of this mind.  Gaia is a mind, the great mother that all other earthly minds come our of.  Naturalist Lyall Watson comments, "We did not come into this world.  We came out of it, like buds out of branches and butterflies out of cocoons.  We are a natural product of this earth, and if we turn out to be intelligent beings, then it can only be because we are fruits of an intelligent earth, which is nourished in its turn by an intelligent system of energy."  Ultimately, it would follow, there is one great primal mind from which the universe itself was born.

---

This page hosted by Get your own Free Homepage