Is there 'light' in Enlightenment? (On Einstein)

Namaste Sri Ananda,

>Einstein's basic approach was simply to ask what reality is

>seen in common, beneath the varying appearances that depend

>on different points of view. And he saw that while space and

>time are varying measurements, light shows us a background

>continuity that does not vary in this way.

It was enjoyable to read what you said about relativity and Advaita.

Here are just a couple of comments to consider.

Einstein's theory of relativity really rests on one fundamental

pillar, not two or three, as sometimes reported. It is that the

fundamental laws of nature are the SAME for all observers.

For example, Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism are the same for all

observers, and hence the speed of light is the same for all

observers, since this follow directly from the equations. From the

constancy of the speed of light, everything else in the special

theory follows, namely that spatial and temporal measurements of the

same events will be different for different observers in relative

motion.

So the spatial and temporal measurements differ, but the laws are the same.

I can't help but think that this uniqueness of the laws must be a

manifestation or reflection of the fundamental advaitic unity of the

divine nature. It seems like too much of a coincidence otherwise.

That is, when the 'unity' of the divine consciousness manifests in

the multiplicity of phenomena, the laws governing those phenomena

somehow reflect the underlying unity of the divine source, which

remains latent in the swirl of multiplicity.

But I draw a further conclusion from relativity, which nobody else

seems to. If measurements of the same events differ for different

observers, then this can only mean that there CANNOT be any objective

reality outside of consciousness corresponding to the events. For

example, if the measurement of the length of a rod is different for

different observers, then there cannot be a 'real' and unique

material rod external to the observers, which they are all looking

at. If there were such a unique rod, external to consciousness, then

it could not have a varying length. This is my own unorthodox

interpretation of relativity, which most physicists would probably

deny.

The various rods are thus only in the consciousness of the observers,

which is how they can have different lengths in the first place.

They are all images in the minds of the observers, or else they are

purely hypothetical entities derived from images (i.e. observations).

I make that last remark, because sometimes scientific measurements

are made without being able to see an image, e.g. on meters and dials

and so forth. In that case, the alleged object is entirely

fictitious, but since this idea is so radical, I won't belabor the

point. (Some would argue that this is in fact a reason to

reintroduce realism, but I am prepared to fight them to the death.

Well, I guess we don't need to be so melodramatic.)

Anyhow, relativity can be used to give INDEPENDENT confirmation of

idealistic principles, which I already believe in for entirely

different reasons. And the proper philosophical idealism is the true

interpretation of Advaita, which makes it all clear and reasonable.

That is why I am so enthusiastic about it, even though many others

stubbornly resist it, because they do not fully understand it.

And I might add that other unrelated developments in quantum

mechanics are totally consistent with this viewpoint and are

virtually inexplicable except in terms of some kind of idealism. It

is not New Age nonsense to claim than modern physics cries out for

the principle that Consciousness is everything. The arguments are

very subtle and profound and require the utmost intelligence. This

represents the current frontier of human thought, and the recent

developments are astonishing, even more so than the original

relativity and quantum mechanics of the early 20th century.

Regards

Benjamin