AMIT GOSWAMI AND EVOLUTION

Is there a purposefulness in evolution?  Could terms like "intelligent" and "creative" apply to evolution?

I recently learned of Amit Goswami and began reading his book "The Visionary Window - A Quantum Physicist's Guide to Enlightenment."

His initial basic point (as best I can summarize it) is that western science looks at the universe and all life in it as built up from objects with no consciousness, providing no explanation of where consciousness comes from, while eastern thought sees consciousness as the starting point for all being, with physical objects manifested from the universal consciousness. In other words, consciousness is the ground of all being; it is not the byproduct of a physical object like the brain.

Evolution was the topic that prompted this blog post, which is mostly a quotation from "The Visionary Window". I have always felt intuitively that there is some kind of creative and directing force in the evolution of life on earth, and that the astonishingly precise adaptations of living creatures to vastly different environments cannot be explained by mere chance. Despite the denials by Darwinists, I feel there is some kind of purposeful direction toward a goal involved, as in the flounder whose eyes migrate to one side of its head, or water creatures who develop lights because they live where no light can penetrate.

Goswami writes:

Science finds that "We are insignificant on the cosmic scale. . . . From [the initial creation by the Big Bang], the evolution of galaxies, star systems, planets, and life are all seen as the play of chance statistical fluctuation.

"Does the esoteric ontology -- conscious as the ground of all being -- offer a resolution of cosmologies as well? . . A number of coincidences in cosmology suggest that the universe evolves toward the manifestation of life and sentience . . .

"The gaps in the fossil record suggested to quite a few biologists that Darwinism is not the complete story of evolution . . . Creationism also does not make complete sense; though the Christian contention that God intervenes in the affairs of the world, even in biological evolution, to align the world with purposiveness, is credible in a science within consciousness. . . . But in science within consciousness, we can look at the fossil gaps as the signature of creative conscious intervention -- purpose enters evolution creatively."

From THE UNOBSTRUCTED UNIVERSE

Here I am going to paraphrase or quote some statements from THE UNOBSTRUCTED UNIVERSE which interested me. I particularly want to pass on the passage about prayer because prayer has been discussed in my Weblog and will be discussed more in the future. I described the book in my previous post. Betty is the deceased wife of the author, purportedly speaking through a medium.


The obstructed universe compared to the unobstructed universe is like a black and white photograph compared to a color photograph of the same scene.

“The only reason,” Betty said, “that you cannot exist and operate in the ENTIRE universe, as I do – for I operate in your universe as well as in mine – is because you are not able to step up your frequency.”

Consciousness is the only reality. “Consciousness, in degrees, is the one and only reality.”

All things have consciousness in some degree. Each degree has its frequency.

The whole of consciousness, the fundamental reality, is in evolution. The principle of evolution operates throughout the universe.

“As for me [Betty said] when I shall go on into my next life [she is already in an afterlife] I do not know. They tell me it will be something comparable, but not quite as I know it here. I know there are future manifestations of consciousness, but I do not know their characteristics. . . . There is an ultimate or supreme degree of consciousness.”

“All consciousness is limited by its degree until it evolves into the supreme.”


The following is a shortened dialogue about prayer:

Darby said: “I am wondering about the wisdom of using the work ‘prayer’. It has such various connotations in people’s minds.”

“I think most people understand, dimly at least, what prayer really is,” said Betty. “I don’t think the exact meaning of the word is discarded.”

“To most it means that you are trying to influence a power beyond you in your own behalf,” pursued Darby. “It is directed to a god with magic power to answer it. That is not the conception we have. We need some different devotional word to indicate contact with unobstructed consciousness, do we not?”

“The majority of people cannot aspire to such contact,” pointed out Betty. “Their degree is not yet high enough. The formulation of a need into a thought, a petition, with the sure submerging of self, that comes with prayer to what is higher and greater than self, is a beneficent operation to the individual, and is a definite projection into the unobstructed universe.”

Anne (like Betty, an inhabitant of the unobstructed universe) said: “The world has got along very well on a belief in prayer, for the voicing of a desire or an emotion makes it concrete. It clears it in your own mind, if nothing else. And maybe when you have formulated it, you find you do not want it; or if you do.” [Just like my – Fleming’s – idea that flipping a coin has value because if you feel pleased or disappointed at the outcome you know what you want to happen.]

Betty’s husband now asks her a question and gets an answer that, in its final part, puzzles me but which may be more meaningful to others:

“Well, now,” said I to Betty, “you have always been beyond the anthropomorphic idea, yet you were always fond of repeating the Lord’s Prayer. What did you have in your mind? To whom did you address it?”

“To consciousness,” replied Betty.

“Did you think of consciousness with personality, warmth – such warmth as comes with personality?”

“As though I were drowning in a great sea, and there was a shipful of people, any or all of whom could help me,” replied Betty promptly.