"He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe is as good as dead." (Albert Einstein)
In all likelihood, Einstein was not staring at the marvelous formulas of his theories of relativity when he uttered those words. Rather, it was the beauty of the Universe that his equations could not possibly capture, mesmerized him…
Building on arbitrarily chosen axioms and sense-based information – including some scientific facts, this article – Presence, composes inferences that argue for the existence of an infinite, independent consciousness. The article asserts that we can grasp – chiefly by reasoning aided intuition, the presence of this absolute invisible being within all that physically exists.
So, where can we find Absolute’s hiding place? Can our logic-bound, crawling mind track it down?
"I enjoyed your lecture on the Principles of Absolute, Sage. However, I need clarification on some of the points that you made. Do you have the time now or can I come tomorrow," asked Junior Monk as they were leaving the Temple of Wisdom where Sage prefers giving his lectures?
"I have the time now. We go to my place and you can make us tea while I settle down," answered Sage.
"What is your preference, Oolong or Matcha," asked Junior Monk after he closed the shrieking door behind them?
"Why don't we have some delicious Oolong tea this time? Let me hear your issues that are clouding your mind," prompted Sage .
"Well, I have more than one issues I want to discuss with you. Here is the first one. We opted to describe Absolute this way: If something holds all it needs to be and exist, then that thing is absolute, the Absolute Energy Essence. How do we prove there exist a being like that, an Absolute," asked Junior Monk?
"To find answers to your question, we make use of axioms that – as you recall from our earlier studies, are self-evident assertions. Axioms are propositions that we accept as needing no further proof since our mind can see their truthfulness just by considering their meaning. For example, by First Axiom, we assert that if something is not nothingness, if it is or exist in some manner then that something — let us call it Object, must have a cause that grants its existence. We have two possible instances. In the first scenario, the Object is the source of its own existence. In the second scenario the Object depends on other things that are outside its being. Do you remember, we discussed this subject last year," asked Sage?
"I recall you explaining the nature of Absolute to us in one of last year's classes, yes. We agreed that Absolute must own everything it needs to be and exists to claim that it is absolute. Based on that, I infer the object in first scenario is the Absolute. Am I correct," asked Junior Monk?
"Your reasoning is correct. The second scenario is when the object needs outside help to be, to exist. In this case, the object depends existentially on another object, and therefore it is not absolute. Do you think Absolute takes part in the second scenario in any way," asked Sage?
"I think objects that are not absolute can be the cause of other objects. It appears that in this case we do not need the absolute object to play a part all the time. Is that an accurate reasoning," asked Junior Monk?
"I agree with you: that is the appearance. Let us consider this a bit more carefully though. The dependent object — call it Object A, plays the role of being the cause of another dependent object which we call Object B. We assume that neither Object A nor Object B is absolute. For example, Peter (Object B) is a child of Mary and John (Object A). Peter's life depends on Mary and John who are his parents; therefore, Peter is not absolute. As we know, Mary and John both have their own parents. Since none of these objects holds everything they would need to be and exist, we can infer that none of these objects is absolute. Can we go on for ever, indefinitely, always proposing the cause of a dependent object is another dependent object," asked Sage?
"If we were to accept that then every object that is not absolute could exist with inadequate cause. It looks like we need to get an absolute object that would supply enough energies or support in some form to all objects that are not absolute. This would ensure that we do not allow objects exist with not enough existential support," replied Junior Monk.
"Your answer is correct. Let me ask you this next. What would you think how many absolute objects would we need to ensure that all objects in Reality — this means in all Universes combined, have enough energy to exist," asked Sage?
"If Reality is an all-inclusive collection of everything there is, then we have only ONE Reality. Next we can ask whether we can have or need two or more absolute objects in one Reality? Would they not limit one another," mused Junior Monk, not certain how to avoid going into the trap that Sage maybe setting up for him?
"Tell me this: would you accept that an object is absolute in your ONE Reality if it is not powerful enough to be the only source of energy that all dependent objects need - to be, or exist, there," asked Sage?
"I think we should not accept an object being absolute if that were the case. An object does not have the potency to keep all dependent objects in existence is not absolute. If we accept this assertion to be true, then the second or the third absolute object would be superfluous that no other objects would need," answered Junior Monk with relief, hoping that he not walked into any trap. Sage is not entirely innocent in this regard.
"You demonstrated a remarkably disciplined thinking, Junior. I propose to improve our description of absolute object as follows.
An object is absolute if it has all it needs to be and exist. Also, absolute object has the potency to be the necessary energy to bring about and keep all dependent objects either in potential or in existence status.
What do you think," asked Sage?
"I agree. This also means that it is cumbersome to worship multiple gods. Those who engage in such practices never have a chance to speak with the real God," answered Junior Monk.
"You are right, but let us carry on as philosophers. We can now state the first axiom we need.
Axiom of Existence
If there is or exist energy in any form (for example, dependent objects like birds, flies or stars), then there must exist one and only one Absolute Object (aka All That Is, Absolute, Iz).
This axiom also referred to by many as the 'Axiom of Existence'. Do you have any comments," asked Sage?
"I have a question. If we adapt this axiom, do we still need to prove there is an Absolute," asked Junior Monk?
"A good question; the axiom itself does not state the existence of Absolute Object. It only affirms a condition as being self-evident. However, relying on Axiom of Existence, it is a simple matter to back up the existence of Iz. To do this, trusting and using our senses, we go to find out if we can see objects with our eyes, touch any object with our hands, or feel the heat of sunshine on our face. Let us assume that what we sense is not the Absolute but they are dependent objects. If we see the stars when we look up in the night sky, or hear the purring of our cat when we stroke her, then we can be certain there is one Absolute Object, Iz, the only God. This conclusion rests on facts that our senses report to us - on one hand, and on the Axiom of Existence - on the other hand," replied Sage.
"Building on this result, could we go a step further? We talked about the reasons Absolute must be an integral part of, and be present in the make-up of dependent objects that are not absolute. As you stressed, a dependent object might have any degree of awareness. For example, I am a non absolute object, and so you are as well. Other examples are the energy in a winter storm, the nuclear infusion that burns hydrogen inside stars, and star-eating black holes in the center of galaxies. I wonder if there is an axiom that would help us investigate the presence of Iz in objects that we run into in Reality," asked Junior Monk?
"Yes, Junior, we do have an axiom we can use in our explorations of the existence and nature of Presence.
Axiom of Presence
Energy that creates and upholds an effect or result, is an integral part of that result.
"I want to hear what conclusions could you draw using Axiom of Presence," instructed Sage.
"Here is my thinking, Sage. I think it is safe to infer that Absolute Object, Iz, must be present in all dependent objects since they rely on the energies of Iz to be or exist. We can follow the method that we were using when we proved that Iz is. Like there, we simply apply Axiom of Existence that tells us there could be only one Absolute; and Axiom of Presence demands the cause of effects to be present in dependent objects. This allows us to infer that Iz is continuously present - without 'gaps', in all dependent objects, including me and you," proposed Junior Monk.
"Well thought out, Junior; we can say that Iz is inside of all dependent objects, being part of their make-up. As you progress with developing your inner sights, you will be able to see the light, shimmering within all beings, and hear the peace loving humming of Absolute throughout Reality. The sparkle of Iz vibrates this light that gives existence energies to dependent objects. Iz governs Reality through the forces of this inner fire that gives all beings an opening into its inexhaustible energy. It is correct to say that Iz turns itself into dependent objects by imagining itself to be dependent objects. Iz knows and loves itself into being dependent objects. Some call this process ‘creation’," finished Sage.
"I thank you Sage for helping me understand the important truth about the roles Absolute plays in Reality. I have two more issues I'd like to discuss with you. Perhaps I should make some more tea," asked Junior Monk?
"How about some coffee this time? Please make it strong with little water in the coffee - for me. You find TOHEAP close to where I keep the coffee," said Sage .
(Note: perhaps you did not know, TOHEAP stands for 'Thought Operated Heating Plate'.)
"I will have it strong too then to keep it simple. Perhaps we could have gone for a walk into the woods as we routinely do; maybe after the coffee," suggested Junior Monk.
"We can go for a walk after we reviewed all your issues. Let me hear your next question you want more clarity about," said Sage.
"What is universal awareness? We can detect the signs of various degrees of awareness in plants and animals — that I can easily see. You made a brief comment about the universality of awareness in your lecture today. I'd like to explore the idea of energy awareness in general. Are all objects aware in some sense? For example, is your TOHEAP aware as being a TOHAEP? How about its part objects? Are they aware that they are part objects of your TOHEAP and could be part objects of other objects," asked Junior Monk, hopping that his questions will not bore Sage?
"I am glad that you want to explore the nature of awareness. It leads us to the task to explore the nature of the Mind of Absolute," said Sage.
"Do you have axioms in this area too that we need to assert, similarly to the Axiom of Existence and Axiom of Presence," asked Junior Monk?
"A few comments are in order before we continue, Junior. We will limit our discussions on awareness to dependent objects. Awareness has a direction — you can easily see this. Through self-reflexion, you can direct your awareness inward. You can also direct your awareness toward objects that are outside of you. Thus we have inner awareness and external awareness. We can now draw up Axiom of Inner Awareness as follows.
Axiom of Inner Awareness
Dependent objects are inward aware if and only if there exist at least one external stimulus such that when applied to dependent objects, they resist change to preserve their identity, the state they are in. In case when outside objects move them into changed energy states, they have the inclination to return to their preferred, original state.
"For example, when you boiled the water to make coffee, you induced elector-magnetic currents in TOHEAP with your thought energy. TOHEAP resisted your intervention into its resting circuits. You had to exert energy to produce heat. As soon as you stopped producing electrical currents, TOHEAP started to cool down, returning to its resting state. You may also consider the act when you create new matter particles by reconfiguring elemental components of normal matter. You can also look out the window and notice the fruits on my apple tree that has a sophisticated inward awareness that lets it know what to take from the soil, and what is the use of sun rays that bath its leafs. These are all instances of the inward awareness of dependent objects. Inward awareness is the most elemental awareness and all dependent objects have it," finished Sage.
"Is it correct to accept the instances you mentioned in the examples you gave, as prove of the existence of external stimuli such that they prompt dependent objects to display inward awareness," asked Junior Monk?
"Yes, you are correct to infer the presence of inward awareness. However, you need to provide evidence of experiencing what I described in the examples if your intent is to prove there is inward awareness," answered Sage.
"I understand now that by seeing the apples on the apple tree, I corroborated the apple tree is inward aware. I assume that we need another axiom to help us explore external awareness," volunteered Junior Monk.
"You are correct in thinking that we need more awareness axioms.
Axiom of External Awareness
Dependent objects are outward aware if and only if they can launch and send out energy signals with the intent of affecting other dependent objects in some manner.
"For example, you showed external awareness when you made coffee for me; or when you asked me if you could come along and discuss various axioms at my place. You can come up with many other examples by just recalling what you do throughout the day," ended Sage.
Junior liked the progress they made. Was it the tea or the coffee that made these discussions progress so natural?
"I have another question to ask, Sage; we assert the Presence of Absolute in dependent objects in Axiom of Presence. This suggest that Absolute Object might be aware in dependent objects in some manner. Is this the case," asked Junior Monk?
"You want to know the third aware axiom. There is an axiom that helps answer your question, Junior," answered Sage.
Axiom of Absolute Awareness
Absolute is both inward and outward aware in dependent objects if and when it, the Absolute, creates conditions to enable dependent objects to carry out purposeful actions.
"The Axiom of Absolute Awareness asserts the property the Absolute Object must hold so it can uphold an aware presence in dependent objects. Building on the five axioms that we complied above, we can prove that Presence of Iz is an aware presence. Would you like to try it, Junior, to prove that Absolute upholds an awareness in all dependent objects, so much so this awareness is an essential ingredient of their internal make-up?" Sage asked Junior Monk, giving him a chance to prove his grasp of these important subject areas of Ontology, the study of the nature of reality.
"I can try, Sage. This is how I would reason. We proved that Iz is the existential cause of dependent objects. We also proved that Iz stays in dependent objects through its Presence, and it is an integral part of their identity. We see many actions of dependent objects that show purposeful, directed actions. According to Axiom of Absolute Awareness, Iz must own both inward and outward awareness in dependent objects since we notice purposeful actions they perform. What do say, Sage? Is my reasoning correct," asked Junior Monk?