Man's Fate and God's Choice, Bhimeswara Challa [best free ereader .TXT] 📗

(and all that goes with it) as a result of some special act of creation, or if it just happened as a result of evolution through natural selection. Theologians like William Paley (Natural Theology, 1802) argued that complex biological structures, such as the human eye, offer evidence of a creator. Rationalists like Richard Dawkins have refuted that argument by citing the enormous time spans involved, the selective advantages conferred by even small incremental improvements in such a sensory organ, and the fact that the eye has evolved separately in various forms of life. But the question is, while the human species has been around for millions of years, when, why, and how did ‘intelligence’ suddenly appear about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago? Some even say it is much more recent, about 30,000 years or even 3,000 years ago. And what prevented ‘intelligence’ from evolving even earlier than that? Some occultists and theosophists question the basic premise that our hoary ancestors did not have ‘intelligence’. They say that in fact the ‘original humans’ were far more enlightened, if not intelligent. Madame Blavatsky in fact calls our ancient ancestors “animal plus a living god within his physical shell.”475 If it were so, did ‘intelligence’ actually transform us from ‘god in animal form’ to ‘animal in human form’?

 

 

 

475 H.P. Blavatsky. The Secret Doctrine: the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy. Vol. II. Anthropogenesis. 1978. The Theosophical Publishing House. Adyar, Chennai, India. p.81.

 

Without a proper understanding of concepts like mind and consciousness, and heart as an organ of cognition, we cannot comprehend or come to terms with ‘intelligence’. But this much, drawing from the balance sheet of what intelligence has done to our species thus far, we can ‘rationally’ infer: we cannot retain the same type of intelligence and expect any kind of real transformation. For, the intelligence that created the problem in the first instance cannot be the problem solver. And, there can be no change in the type of intelligence, unless a change is brought about in the very source of that intelligence — consciousness. ‘Intelligence’ is a generic term often used to describe some or all of our mental capacities, such as to reason, to plan, to analyze and solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend complex ideas, to use language, and to learn quickly, and to adopt effectively to environment. In other words, ‘intelligence’ is most often used simply to denote nothing more than information processing. Intelligence, in our times, is equated with being brilliant, bright, smart, and socially savvy. It has monetarized and militarized human society; the only two kinds of ‘intelligence’-derived powers that we respect are money and the ‘barrel of the gun’. Our society values intelligence and clear thinking much more than integrity and clean thinking; not the quality of decisions, but their speed. Not even physical beauty and strength are so valued. Even actresses, supermodels, and beautiful women want ‘highly intelligent’ men to ‘father’ their babies. Marilyn Monroe presumably married Joe DiMaggio, the baseball legend, for his physical prowess, not for his cerebral brilliance, and later, Arthur Miller, the playwright, for his creative intelligence, not for his looks; her rumored ‘affair’ with John Kennedy was presumably for a brush with his presidential power. Intelligence is often contrasted with intuition. Intelligence, it is usually posited, you can inherit, sharpen, and enhance through application and training. On the other hand, intuition, sometimes called ‘gut feeling’, it is said, you cannot do much to enhance externally. Brain- or mind-generated intelligence dominates human life today. Should there be any extraterrestrial ‘intelligence’ (in forms that we cannot even recognize) ‘staring us in our face’, as astronomer Martin Rees surmises, they must be perplexed as to how any ‘intelligent’ beings could behave the way we do, and be so quarrelsome, reckless, and destructive. The fact of the matter is that our intelligence has not given us the tools to enable us, at a minimum, not to oppress when we can oppress, not to exploit when we can exploit, to be kind when we can get away with cruelty, to be just when we get nothing out of it — that is practical morality and true spirituality. In reality, it lets us get away with cruelty and callousness, injury and insensitivity, pollution and profligacy, wanton waste and vandalism. Our intelligence adopts double, indeed manifold standards when it comes to morality. We need intelligence that expands the ambit of morality from personal purity to social relevance, and includes acts that are collectively compatible. For example, adulteration should be as reprehensible as, if not more than, adultery, and morality should be as important at the workplace as, if not more than, at home. We must remember that even the smallest act that we do (or do not) is a moral choice. In turn, this brings up related questions. Why is man so prone to evil, and why does goodness take such a struggle to surface? We may all condemn evil, which we often think is what people we do not like do to us, and not what we do to them. The French writer and social philosopher Simone Weil aptly said, “Evil, when we are in its power, is not felt as evil, but as a necessity, even a duty.” She added, “I would suggest that barbarism be considered as a permanent and universal human characteristic which becomes more or less pronounced according to the play of circumstances.”476

 

 

 

476 Simone Weil. BrainyQuote.com. Accessed at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/simoneweil147174.html

 

People who commit atrocities, wage wars, and kill thousands, often do not think that they are doing anything out of the way, but just that they are doing their duty or that they are compelled by circumstances to do so. Such is the genius of our intelligence. If morality and spirituality are “hardwired into our genes,”477 as Dean Hamer says, then why are they so subdued in the human condition? Is there any genetic basis to saintliness? Why do some humans reach the ‘high end of human continuum’ while the vast majority remain at the lower end? Although several probable theories have been advanced, the science of genes has so far been silent on this. Dean Hamer argues that indeed “spirituality is one of our basic inheritances; it is, in fact, an instinct.” He says that spirituality “has a biological mechanism akin to birdsong although a far more complex and nuanced one” and that we “have a genetic predisposition to spiritual belief.”478 While Hamer’s theory awaits the test of scientific replicability — even Hamer says that it is not ‘the’ gene but ‘a’ gene — it at least offers a glimmer of hope that the very genetic manipulation that is dangerously violating the laws of Nature and encroaching on God’s preserve, would also clear a path to human betterment.

Along with the discovery of the heart as a source of intelligence and energy independent of the brain, this could, if it does not meet the same fate as other short-lived theories, be the Holy Grail of the human search for the origins of spirituality. And it could be the master key to the meaning of the universe referred to by Jalal ad-Din Rumi, the great Afghan-Persian mystic, when he said that if men knew the splendors of the spiritual universe, they would hardly look elsewhere.

Well, we will have to see. Men of Rumi’s time were differently ‘intelligent’. Firstly, we will debate to death what ‘spiritual universe’ really is. Secondly, how does one see the spiritual universe when our minds are full of the physical universe that is soaked in sensual pleasures? Last, even if we could ‘see’ the spiritual universe, how long will that gaze remain focused? We also read about the ongoing research on ‘applying quantum mechanics to consciousness, spirituality and human potential.’ What is still unclear is if all the exciting insights and ideas like heart coherence and heart code and God-gene, etc., are sufficient to design the transcendental ‘operational’ tools for human transformation. Piero Scaruffi, the Italian poet, philosopher and scientist who has done pioneering work on the issue of quantum consciousness, says that a new “consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter” but that quantum theory “allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or extra- material.”479 Scaruffi says that in the quantum model of consciousness, a virtual nervous system could be produced which can direct the behavior of the real nervous system, and that consciousness is (can be) driven by quantum laws, even if the brain’s behavior can be described by classical laws.480 It is impossible for the lay mind to comprehend their implications for human transformation. There may be some promise and potential, but that has to be properly harnessed for the common good, and should not be allowed to end up in some military laboratory, manufacturing some sort of ‘supermen soldiers’ or ‘terminators’

 

 

 

477 Dean H. Hamer. The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired Into Our Genes. 2004. Doubleday, New York, USA. p.6.

478 Dean H. Hamer. The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired Into Our Genes. 2004. Doubleday. New York, USA. p.6-8.

479 Piero Scaruffi. Quantum Consciousness. Thymos: Studies on Consciousness, Cognition and Life. Accessed at: http://www.scaruffi.com/science/qc.html

480 Piero Scaruffi. Quantum Consciousness. Thymos: Studies on Consciousness, Cognition and Life. Accessed at: http://www.scaruffi.com/science/qc.html

 

who can see but cannot be seen, who may have a consciousness but no conscience, and who can kill but cannot be killed. It is really hard to discern what all these portend for the future, and whether they could catalyze into a new human consciousness presaging a New Man. But there is little doubt that for any kind of human progress we must ascend to higher levels of consciousness. What is not so clear is where we are on the ladder of consciousness. Is the present a beginning of the beginning, or the end of the beginning, or beginning of the end in the evolution of consciousness? Is it the twilight of the dawn or dusk? We really do not have the consensual answers within the realm of human capacity. But what we do know is that our consciousness is the wellspring and springboard of much of what man has accomplished, as well as of what afflicts modern man. The Buddha said that “certain fundamental afflictions of the mind are the source of the distress we experience”. Given the dominance of the mind, those ‘afflictions’ are ipso facto the afflictions of our consciousness. Our consciousness created a culture and a context of life that became increasingly distanced from its moral moorings as well as from the milieu of Nature. And those afflictions transformed man into a narcissistic and nihilistic creature, steeped in self-righteousness, self-love, and self-hate.

Mind-controlled consciousness has become a divisive and destructive force and has pushed man on a collision course with Nature. And our ‘conscience’, the one expected to check our vanity and venality and serve as a moral watch dog, is simply overwhelmed by the increasingly assertive evil in our consciousness. We are tuned to think that if we have a working ‘conscience’ our innate ‘goodness’ is impregnable. That is another ruse the mind plants on us to leave consciousness to its wiles, and to get us bogged down in the morass of conscience. If our consciousness is sullied and scheming, there is little conscience can do. On the other hand, if we have a genuinely compassionate consciousness, perhaps we do not need a conscience. The truth of the matter is that in ‘good conscience’ we can do bad things, but not with a good consciousness. With consciousness of the right kind, we will not be able to hurt, insult, or humiliate another person, because he or she will be seen as an extension or projection of our own selves. With