<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>29 physic.htm</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>

<table border="0" width="100%" cellpadding="6" style="border-collapse: collapse">
	<tr>
		<td>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
		<b><font face="Times New Roman"><i>Physics or Philosophy</i></font></b></p>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">WHAT is the world that we see really like? Is it mental, is
it material? This is a question, we know, philosophers are familiar with, and 
they have answered and are still answering, each in his own way, taking up one side or other of the
antinomy. There is nothing new or uncommon in that. The
extraordinary novelty comes in when we see today even
scientists forced to tackle the problem, give an answer to it,—
scientists who used to smile at philosophers, because they
seemed&nbsp; to assault seriously the windmills of abstract notions
and airy concepts, instead of reposing on the <i>terra firma</i> of
reality. The tables are turned now. The scientists have had to
start the same business—the <i>terra firma</i> on which they stood
as on the securest rock of ages is slipping away under their
feet and fast vanishing into smoke and thin air. Not only
that, it is discovered today that the scientist has always been a
philosopher, without his knowledge—a crypto-philosopher,—<br>
only he has become conscious of it at last. And further— <i>mirabile dictu</i>!—many a scientist is busy demonstrating that the
scientist is, in his essence, a philosopher of the Idealist school!</font>&nbsp;

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Physical Science in the nineteenth century did indeed
develop or presuppose a philosophy of its own; it had, that
is to say, a definite outlook on the fundamental quality of
things and the nature of the universe. Those were .days of its
youthful self-confidence and unbending assurance. The view
was, as is well-known, materialistic and deterministic. That is to say, all 
observation and experiment, according to it
demonstrated and posited:</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman"><i>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; First,</i> that this universe is made up of particles that push
and pull each other, the particles having certain constant
values, such as in respect of mass and volume.</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 230<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman"><i>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Secondly,</i> that the laws governing the relations among the
particles, in other words, their push and pull, are laws of
simple mechanics; they are fixed and definite and give us
determinable and mensurable quantities called co-ordinates—
by which one can ascertain the pattern or configuration of
things at a given moment and deduce from that the pattern
or configuration of things at any other moment: the chain
that hangs things together is fixed and uniform and continuous
and is not broken anywhere.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The scientific view of things thus discovered or affirmed
certain universal and immutable facts—axiomatic truths—
which were called constants of Nature. These were the very
basic foundations upon which the whole edifice of scientific
knowledge was erected. The chief among them were: (1)
conservation of matter, (2) conservation of energy, (3) uniformity of nature and (4) the chain of causality and continuity. Above all, there was the fundamental implication of
an independent—an absolute—time and space in which all
things existed and moved and had their being.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The whole business of experimental science was just to
find the absolutes of Nature, that is to say, facts and laws
governing facts that do not depend for their existence upon
anything but themselves. The purely objective world without
any taint of an intruding subject was the field of its inquiry.
In fact, the old-world or Mediaeval Science—there was a
Science even then—could not develop properly, did not strike
the right line of growth, precisely because it had a strong
subjective bias: the human factor, the personal element of
the observer or experimenter was unconsciously (at times
even deliberately) introduced into the facts and explanations
of Nature. The new departure of Modern Science consisted
exactly in the elimination of this personal element and making
observation and experiment absolutely impersonal and thoroughly objective.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, the old-world spirit has had its revenge complete and
absolute in a strange manner. We are coming to that presently.
Now, the constants or absolutes of which we spoke, which.
were the bed-rock of Modern Science, were gradually found
to be rather shaky—very inconstant and relative. Take, for
example, the principle of conservation of matter. The principle</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 231<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">posited that in a given system the quantity of matter is constant
in and through all transformations. Modern Science has
found out that this law holds good only in respect of gross
matter belonging to man-size Nature. But as soon as we
enter into the domain of the ultimate constituents of matter,
the units of electric charges, the infinitesimals, we find that
matter is destroyed and is or can be recreated: material
particles are dematerialised into light waves or quanta, and
light quanta are precipitated back again into electric particles
of matter. Similarly, the law of conservation of energy—that
every= mv2 <i>(m</i> being mass, <i>v</i> velocity)—does not hold<br>
good in respect of particles that move with the speed of light:</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">mass is not a constant as in Newtonian mechanics, but varies
with velocity. Again, in classical mechanics, position and velocity are two 
absolute determinates for alt scientific measurement, and Science after all is 
nothing if not a system of measurements. Now, in the normal size world, the two are easily
determined; but in the sub-atomic world things are quite
different; only one can be determined accurately; the more
accurate the one, the less so the other; and if both are to be
determined, it can be only approximatively, the closer the
approximation, the hazier the measure, and the farther the
approximation, the more definite the measure. That is to
say, here we find not the exact measures of things, but only
the probable measures. Indeed, not fixity and accuracy, but
probability has become the central theme of modern physical
calculation.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The principle of indeterminacy carries two revolutionary
implications. First, that it is not possible to determine the
movement of the ultimate particles of matter individually
and severally, it is not possible even theoretically to follow
up the chain of modulations of an electron from its birth to
its dissolution (if such is the curve of its destiny), as Laplace
considered it quite possible for his super-mathematician. One
cannot trace the complete evolution of each and every or
even one particular particle, not because of a limitation in the
human capacity, but because of an inherent impossibility in
the nature of things. In radioactive substances, for example,
there is no ground or data from which one can determine
which particle will go off or not, whether it will go off the</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 232<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">next moment or wait for a million years. It is mere chance
that seems to reign here. In radiation too, there is no formula,
and no formula can be framed for determining the course of
a photon in relation to a half-reflecting surface, whether it
will pass through or be reflected. In this field of infinitesimals
what we know is the total behaviour of an assemblage of
particles, and the laws of nature are only laws of average
computation. Statistics has ousted the more exact and rigid
arithmetics. And statistics, we know, is a precarious science:</font>&nbsp;

<font face="Times New Roman">the knowledge it gives is contingent, contingent upon the particular way of arranging and classifying the data. However,
the certainty of classical mechanistic knowledge is gone, gone
too the principle of uniformity of nature.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The second element brought in in the indeterminacy picture
is the restoration of the &quot;subject&quot; to its honoured or even more
than the honoured place it had in the Mediaeval Ages, and
from which it was pulled down by young arrogant Science.
A fundamental question is now raised in the very methodology
of the scientific apparatus. For Science, needless to say, is
first and foremost observation. Now it is observed that the
very fact of observation affects and changes the observed fact.
The path of an electron, for example, has to be observed; one
has then to throw a ray of light—hurl a photon—upon it:</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">the impact is sufficient to deflect the electron from the original
path. If it is suggested that by correction and computation, by a backward calculation we can deduce the previous position, that too is not possible. For we cannot fix any position
or point that is not vitiated by the observer's interference.
How to feel or note the consistency of a thing, if the touch
itself, the temperature of the finger, were sufficient to change
the consistency? The trouble is, as the popular Indian saying
goes, the very amulet that is to exorcise the ghost is possessed
by the ghost itself.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So the scientists of today are waking up to this disconcerting
fact. And some have put the question very boldly and frankly:</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">do not all laws of Nature contain this original sin of the
observer's interference, indeed may not the laws be nothing
else but that? Thus Science has landed into the very heart—
the bog and quagmire, if you like—of abstruse metaphysics.
Eddington says, there is no other go for Science today but to</font>

		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 233<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman"><b>&nbsp;</b>admit and delcare that its scheme and pattern of things, as
described by what is called laws of Nature, is only a mental
construct of the Scientist. The &quot;wonderful&quot; discoveries are
nothing but jugglery and legerdemain of the mind—what it
puts out of itself unconsciously into the outside world, it recovers again and is astonished at the miracle. A scientific law
is a pure deduction from the mind's own disposition. Eddington
goes so far as to say that if a scientist is sufficiently introspective
he can trace out from within his brain each and every law of
Nature which he took so much pains to fish out from Nature
by observation and experiment. Eddington gives an analogy
to explain the nature of scientific law and scientific discovery.
Suppose you have a fishing net of a particular size and with<br>
interstices of a particular dimension; you throw it into the
sea and pull out with fishes in it. Now you count and assort
the fishes, and according to the data thus obtained, you
declare that the entire sea consists of so many varieties of
fish and of such sizes. The only error is that you could not
take into account the smaller fishes that escaped through the
interstices and the bigger ones that did not at all fall into the
net. Scientific statistics is something of this kind. Our mind
is the net, and the pattern of Nature is determined by the
mind's own pattern.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Eddington gives us absolutely no hope for any knowledge
of an objective world apart from the objectification of mind's
own constructs. This is a position which a scientist, <i>qua</i> scientist,
finds it difficult to maintain. Remedies and loop-holes have
been suggested with what result we shall presently see.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Einstein's was, perhaps, the most radical and revolutionary
solution ever proposed. Indeed, it meant the reversal of the
whole scientific outlook, but something of the kind was<b> 
</b>art<b> 
</b>imperative need in order to save Science from inconsistencies
that seemed to be inherent in it. The scientific outlook was vitiated, Einstein 
said, because we started from wrong premises; two assumptions mainly were 
responsible for the bankruptcy which befell latter-day Science. First, it was assumed
that a push and pull—a force (a gravitational or, more
generally, a causal force) existed and that acted upon isolated
and independent particles strewn about; and secondly, they
were strewn about in an independently existing time and</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 234<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">an independently existing space. Einstein has demonstrated,
it seems, successfully that there is no Time and no Space
actually, but times and spaces (this reminds one of a parallel
conception in Sankhya and Patanjali), that time is not independent of space (nor space of time) but that time is another
coordinate or dimension necessary for all observation in
addition to the three usual co-ordinates (or dimensions). This
was the explanation he found of the famous Michelson-Morley
experiment which failed to detect any difference in the velocity
of light whether it moved with or against a moving object,
which is an inconsistency according to the mechanistic view.1
The absolute dependence of time and space upon each other
was further demonstrated by the fact that it was absolutely
impossible to synchronise two distant clocks (moving with different speeds and 
thus forming different systems) with perfect accuracy, or determine exactly 
whether two events happened simultaneously or not. In the final account of things,
this relative element that varies according to varying particulars had to be eliminated, sublated. In order to make a law
applicable to all fields—from the astronomical through the
normal down to the microscopic or sub-atomic—in an equally
valid manner, the law had to divest itself of all local colour.
Thus, a scientific law became a sheer mathematical formula;</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">it was no longer an objective law that governed the behaviour
of things, but merely a mental rule or mnemonics to string
together as many diverse things as possible in order to be able;</font>&nbsp;
<font face="Times New Roman">to memorise them easily.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Again, the generalised law of relativity (that is to say, laws
governing all motions, even accelerated motion and not
merely uniform motion) that sought to replace the laws. of
gravitation did away also with the concepts of force and
causality: it stated that. things moved not because they were
pulled or pushed but because they followed the natural curve
of space (they describe geodesies, <i>i.e.,</i> move in the line of least
distance). Space is not a plain surface, smooth and uniform,</font>

		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
&nbsp;<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font size="2" face="Times New Roman">1 The constancy of the velocity of light, it must be noted, is not altogether an
objective fact: it is a supposition by which Einstein tried to explain certain<br>
anomalies in previous theories. It is really, as some have pointed out <i>(e.g.</i> Hans
Reichenbach—<i>Atom and Cosmos—</i>p. 136), a mental formula, part of a built-in<br>
structure, arbitrary to a certain extent which is so arranged that the speed becomes constant and equal for systems in different states of motion.</font><font size="2">
</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 235<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">but full of dimples and hollows, these occurring in the vicinity
of masses of matter, the sun, for instance, (although one does
not see how or why a mass of matter should roll down the
inclined plane of a curved surface without some kind of push
and pull—the problem is not solved but merely shifted and
put off). All this means to say that the pattern of the universe
is absolutely geometrical and science in the end resolves itself
into geometry: the laws of Nature are nothing but theorems or corollaries 
deduced and deducible from a few initial postulates. Once again, on this line of enquiry also the universe
is dissolved into abstract and psychological factors.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Apart from the standpoint of theoretical physics developed
by Einstein, the more practical aspect as brought out in
Wave Mechanics leads us into no less an abstract and theoretical domain. The Newtonian particle-picture, it is true,
has been maintained in the first phase of modern physics
which specialised in what is called Quantum Mechanics. But
waves or particles—although the question as to their relative
validity and verity still remains open—do not make much
difference in the fundamental outlook. For in either view, the
individual unit is beyond the ken of the scientist. A wave is
not a wave but just the probability of a wave: it is not even a
probable wave but a probability wave. Thus the pattern that
Wave Mechanics weaves to show the texture of the ultimate
reality is nothing more than a calculus of probabilities. By
whichever way we proceed we seem to arrive always at the
same inevitable conclusion.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So it is frankly admitted that what Science gives is not a
faithful description of actuality, not a representation of material
existence, but certain conventions or convenient signs to put
together, to make a mental picture of our sensations and
experiences. That, does not give any clue to what the objective
reality may or may not be like. Scientific laws are mental
rules imposed upon Nature. It may be asked why does Nature
yield to such imposition? There must be then some sort of<br>
parallelism or commensurability between Nature and the
observing Mind, between the pattern of Nature and the Mind's
scheme or replica of it. If we successfully read into Nature
things of the Mind, that means that there must be something
very common between the two. Mind's readings are not</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 236<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">mere figments, hanging in the air; for they are justified by
their applicability, by their factual translation. This is arguing
in a circle, a thorough-going mentalist like Eddington would
say. What are facts ? What is life ? Anything more than what
the senses and the mind have built up for us?</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeans himself is on the horns of a dilemma.1 Being a scientist,
and not primarily a mathematician like Eddington, he cannot
very well acquiesce in the liquidation of the material world;</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">nor can he refute successfully the facts and arguments that
Science itself has brought forward in favour of mentalism.He wishes to keep the question open for further light and
surer grounds. In the meanwhile, however, he is reconciled
to a modified form of mentalism. The laws of Nature, he says,
are surely subjective in the sense that astronomical or geographical concepts, for example, such as the system of latitudes, longitudes, equator and axis, ellipse and quadrant and
sextant, are subjective. These lines and figures are not drawn physically upon 
the earth or in space: they are mental constructs, they are pointers or notations, but they note and point
to the existence and the manner of existence of real objects
in a real world.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In other words, one tries to come back more<b> </b> or less to the
common-sense view of things. One does not argue about what
is naturally given as objective reality; whatever the mental
gloss over it, it is there all the same. One accepts it, takes it
on trust, if you like—one can admit even that it is an act of
faith, as Russell and the Neo-Realists would maintain.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But Jeans' position is remarkable and very significant in
one respect. When cornered in the process of argument, feeling
that the world is inexorably dematerialised and mentalised, he
suggests an issue which is natural to a philosopher, a mystic
philosopher alone. Well, let him state his position in his own
words, the passage, I repeat, is so remarkable and significant:</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;When we view ourselves in space and time, our consciousnesses are obviously the separate individuals of a particle-picture, but when we pass beyond space and time, they may
perhaps form ingredients of a single continuous stream of life.
As it is with light and electricity, so it may be with life; the
phenomena may be individuals carrying on separate existence</font>

		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
&nbsp;<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="2">1 <i>Physics and Philosophy,</i> by Sir James Jeans.</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 237<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">in space and time, while in the deeper reality beyond space
and time we may all be members of one body. In brief, modern
physics is not altogether antagonistic to an objective idealism
like that of Hegel.&quot; (p. 204)<sup>1</sup></font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman"><i>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A la bonne heure!</i> That runs close to Upanishadic knowledge.
It means that the world is objective—it is not the figment of
an individual observer; but it is not material either, it is
consciousness in vibration. (Note the word &quot;consciousness&quot; is
Jeans' own, not mine).</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeans is not alone to have such a revolutionary and unorthodox view. He seems to take courage from Dirac also. Dirac too
cannot admit an annihilation of the material world. His
proposal to save and salvage it follows a parallel line. He says
that the world presented or pictured by physical science may
not be and is not the actual world, but it posits a substratum
of reality to which it conforms: the pattern presented by subjective laws is so composed because of a pressure, an impact
from an analogous substratum. There is no chain of causal.
relation in the pattern itself, the relation of causality is between
the substratum reality and the pattern that it bodies forth.
Here again we find ourselves at the end of physical inquiry
driving straight into the tenuous spaces of spiritual metaphysics.
We have one more example of how a modern physicist is
metamorphosed into a mystic. What Dirac says is tantamount
to the very well-known spiritual experience that the world as
it appears to us is a vesture or symbol of an inner order of
reality out of which it has been broadcast—<i>sah paryagat</i>—and
the true causes of things are not on the surface, the so-called
antecedents, but behind in the subtler world called therefore
the causal world, <i>karana jagat.</i></font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Even Eddington is not so absurd or impossible as it may seem
to some. He says, as we have seen, that all so-called laws of
Nature can be discovered from within the mind itself, can be
deduced logically from psychologically given premises: no
empiricial observation or objective experimentation is necessary
to arrive at them: they are found <i>a priori</i> in the subject. Now,
mystic experience always lays stress on extra-sensory knowledge: it declares that such a knowledge is not only possible,
but that this alone is the right and correct knowledge. All</font>

		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
&nbsp;<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font size="2" face="Times New Roman">1 op. cit.                                    '
</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 238<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">things—matter and mind and life and all—being but vibrations
of consciousness, even as the colours of a spectrum are vibrations, electro-magnetic waves of different frequency, mystic
discipline enables one to enter into that condition in which
one's consciousness mingles with all consciousness or with
another particular consciousness (Patanjali's term is <i>samyama),
</i>and one can have all knowledge that one wishes to have by
this inner contact or concentration or identification, one discovers the knowledge within oneself, no external means of
sense observation and experimental testing, no empirical inductive process is needed. We do not say that Eddington had in
view anything of this kind, but that his attitude points in this
direction.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That seems to be the burden, the underlying preoccupation
of modern physical science: it has been forced to grope towards.
some kind of mystic perception; at least, it has been put into a
frame of mind, due to the crumbling of the very fundamentals
of the past structure, which is less obstructive to other sources
and spheres and ways of knowledge. Certainly, we must admit
that we have moved very far from Laplace when we hear
today a hard-boiled rationalist like De Broglie declare:</font>&nbsp;

		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
&nbsp;<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The idealisations more or less schematic that our
mind builds up are capable of representing certain
facets of things, but they have inherent limitations and<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
cannot contain within their frames all the richness of
the reality.<sup>1</sup></font><sup> </sup>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
&nbsp;<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The difficulty that modern Science encounters is not, however, at all a difficulty: it may be so to the philosopher, but
not to the mystic, the difficulty, that is to say, of positing a real
'objective world when all that we know or seize of it seems to be
our own mental constructions that we impose upon it. Science
has come to such a pass that it can do no more than take an
i.: objective world on trust.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Things need not, however, be so dismal looking. The difficulty arises because of a fundamental attitude—the attitude of
a purely reasoning being. But Reason or Mind is only one
layer or vein of the reality, and to see and understand and</font>

		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
&nbsp;<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="2">1 <i>La Physique Nowelle et les Quanta,</i> by Louis de Broglie, p. 12.</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 239<hr>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">explain that reality through one single track of approach will
naturally bias the view, it will present only what is real or&nbsp;
immediate to it, and all the rest will appear as secondary or a&nbsp;
formation of it. That is, of course, a truth that has been clearly
brought out by the anti-intellectualist. But the vitalist's view is
also likewise vitiated by a similar bias, as he contacts reality
only through this prism of vital force. It is the old story of the
Upanishad in which the seeker takes the Body, the Life and
the Mind one after another and declares each in its turn to be
the only and ultimate reality, the Brahman.</font>

<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
<font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The truth of the matter is that the integral reality is to be
seized by an integral organon. To an integralised consciousness the integral reality is directly and immediately presented,
each aspect is apprehended in and through its own truth and substance. The 
synthesis or integration is reached by a consciousness which is the basis and' continent of all, collectively
and severally, and of which all are vari6us formations and
expressions on various levels and degrees. This is the knowledge
and experience given by the supreme spiritual consciousness.</font>
		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="center">
Page 240<hr>

		<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0" align="right"><b><font size="2"><a href="-00_Contents">
			<span style="text-decoration: none">HOME</span></a></font></b></td>
	</tr>
	</table>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0" align="justify">
&nbsp;

</body>
</html>