Finding God, one way or another

 

Comparing the likelihood of finding the God particle through scientific research vs spiritual quest:

#1

In the former method, there is a scientist(who is the observer) looking for a finite object that can be quantified, qualified and consistently identified. 

In the latter method, the traditional teachers have insisted dissolving the observer to be able to experience the God principle. Those who have been brave enough to follow the instructions of their teacher have independently arrived at the experience and found it to be consistent with the experience of other seekers. 

#2

In the former method thinking( intellect) and function of sense organs such as eyes, hearing are essential tools for gathering information. Needless to say the reality of these instruments is firmly insisted upon, not doubted or questioned. 

In the latter, the spiritual masters proclaim thoughts, objects and experiences that involve the two, to be in the realm of imagination ( kalpana) and not an absolute reality. The students are required to verify these claims independently through self experience.

#3

The presumptive God particle of the scientific community is tinier than the tiniest known particle to date and therefore different from the human observer in both size and form. 

The god particle described by the enlightened spiritual masters is not distinct from the observer himself. Their conclusions are summed up in the various mahavakyas: Tat tvam asi ( That thou art) , Aham Bramhaasmi ( I am Brahman), or Sarva Khalvidam Bramha( All this is that). If looked at closely all these statement point to the same inference: the uniformity and all pervasiveness in all visible and invisible universe. 

#4

Each community considers the other as delusional, though not always saying it aloud or politely.  

Each one is right from their point of view. Often not making an effort to understand the other’s point of view.

The one significant difference to be considered is that independent spiritual seekers dating back centuries have proclaimed experiencing the ultimate reality and conclusively affirmed the imagination hypothesis of the visible universe. The scientific community in contrast has yet to prove and collectively accept the existence of the God particle. 

For an individual with self experience of the state of non-dual existence it is not difficult to understand the reasons behind the elusiveness of conclusive and irrefutable evidence and with that clear understanding, to sympathize with the scientific brethren. It is the limitations of the tools used by the latter that stand in the way. And perhaps the refusal to doubt the authenticity of their own tools and methods rather than only that of others.

Humans, including the spiritual followers, owe a great deal to the committed scientific community for their contributions. There is no doubt about it. But the last frontier calls for self doubt before self discovery. And perhaps it is an opportunity to consider the point of view of the spiritual brethren with more respect and curiosity than disbelief and dismissal. It needs to be remembered that both communities have their own share of quacks, mediocre members and geniuses. Collaboration between geniuses from both sides is the best hope for humanity. One without the other is simply incomplete.