Usual Storyline


Schrodinger’s Way

You know, it’s getting harder to meet the highest consciousness through religious way. Religion body is getting busy with human relation affair, and it’s getting complicated because the earth is getting crowded with us, the human.

Whether you call the highest consciousness as God, Allah, Yhwh, or Force, well that’s your problem, not mine though. Sometimes, getting closer with the universe consciousness through math and science is much more interesting, than religion, truly.

How come? As I’ve said before, religious institution is getting more and more busy with human relation affair, while you may understand that mankind’s problem has the sky as the limit, you won’t find the end, apparently. While religion may need population of human, but spirituality is very private. Religion is public, and spiritual is private space.

I found that a nobelist such as Erwin Schrodinger may had reach the level of hakekat, you know hakekat? Hakekat is the highest level of sufi at tasawwuf. Sufi is the arabic term for a lover, a lover of universal esthetic way, the way to get closer with Allah, people call it ma’rifatullah. And how could I decide to labelled Schrodinger as a hakekat man? How he may took the way of ma’rifatullah? Let’s read his thought below:

Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary…

It is not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. But not in this sense — that you are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it… For we should then have the same baffling question: which part, which aspect are you? what, objectively, differentiates it from the others? No, but, inconceiveable as it seems to ordinary reason, you — and all other conscious beings as such — are all in all. Hence, this life of yours… is, in a certain sense, the whole…

In physics we have dealt hitherto only with periodic crystals. To a humble physicist’s mind, these are very interesting and complicated objects; they constitute one of the most fascinating and complex material structures by which inanimate nature puzzles his wits. Yet, compared with the aperiodic crystal, they are rather plain and dull. The difference in structure is of the same kind as that between an ordinary wallpaper in which the same pattern is repeated again and again in regular periodicity and a masterpiece of embroidery, say a Raphael tapestry, which shows no dull repetition, but an elaborate, coherent, meaningful design traced by the great master.

We must therefore not be discouraged by the difficulty of interpreting life by the ordinary laws of physics. For that is just what is to be expected from the knowledge we have gained of the structure of living matter. We must also be prepared to find a new type of physical law prevailing in it. Or are we to term it a non-physical, not to say a super-physical, law?

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the “world of energy.” We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it. Not only my own body, but those of my friends, also of my dog and cat and horse, and of all the other people and animals. And this is my only means of communicating with them.

The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term “subject” for the observing mind. … For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the “world of energy.”

There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. The material world has only been constructed at the price of taking the self, that is, mind, out of it, removing it; mind is not part of it…Matter and energy seem granular in structure, and so does “life”, but not so mind.

Nature has no reverence towards life. Nature treats life as though it were the most valueless thing in the world…. Nature does not act by purposes.

Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge… It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. No self is of itself alone. It has a long chain of intellectual ancestors. The “I” is chained to ancestry by many factors … This is not mere allegory, but an eternal memory.


Erwin Schrodinger, 1933

What a wonderful mind Dear Sir Schrodinger, so incredible thought. You may had reach the level of hakekat, through your ma’rifatullah way Sir, respect!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on October 3, 2015 by in Review and tagged , , , , , .
%d bloggers like this: