|
|
||
|
|
What Is a Scientist-Philosopher? Q: In all the things I have heard, and
I have read your book—it sounds pretty far out. I have been searching for
knowledge. I find myself in this position and I want to know is there
anything you can say or prove that this is the path? What makes this
different from the others? Why is the spiritual message
given different from the Catholics or whatever? RK: It is obviously different from several things. We still talk
about the same personalities and try to put, if nothing else, an alternative
interpretation on some of the events that have occurred
historically and what the import of what these different happenings are.
There are no magic words we can use to convince somebody that
our interpretation is correct. Just as a person who absolutely refuses
to believe in God there is nothing you can say to him to make him believe in
God, a person who is thoroughly convinced that there is one there is nothing
that you can that can unconvinced him. Let me put it this way a little bit:
We try to show or reconcile some of the things between the metaphysical
approach, or the religious approach, to Truth and the
scientific approach to Truth. Obviously, religion and
science are both attempting find out what is the Truth. One comes from
“revealed” sources and the other one tries to analyze it to come up with the
best deductions they can from the evidence they uncover. When it comes to a
point when something is absolutely true, both of
them, eventually, have to come to the same answer. It does not make any
difference which direction you come from. If it is true, then both people
will find it true. Some takes longer one way and sometimes
it takes longer another. There are some things which
religion has just not gotten around to deciding if they could even be a valid
thing to investigate. For instance, just thirty-five years ago if you talked
to any scientist at all about the possibility of clairvoyance, he would
immediately write you off as a nut. But, scientists
are now beginning to investigate people who claim to be clairvoyant and find
that regardless of what culture they come from they, indeed, all report the
same kind of things and their EEGs are identical when they say they are in
this certain state. The same with people who claim to have been psychics and
could heal through just the power of the mind. That sounded pretty “far out”
to scientists not so long ago, but scientists are the ones who have been
investigating these things and find, indeed, religion was right all along:
there are people who can heal and maybe Christ was one of those kinds of people.
So, whenever people decide to investigate they begin
to find, indeed, there is some truth to it. There are
a lot people who say, “Well,
those cities that are written about in the Old Testament are just myths. But, archeologists are digging up the very places that
they talk about and finding some evidence, in translating papyri or
clay-tablets and so forth, that is the name of that place and that is the
place it should have been and, indeed, people were there at that time. I do
not know why it is that people who approach things from a
scientific view seem to feel that it has to go according to scientific dogma
and people who, in a religion, say it has to go according to religious dogma. What I am trying to do in
this book, that I published, is to show that if you let down your prejudice a
little bit and let some information in you may shed some light on some dark
corners that really would be valuable to forming a balanced view of what the
Universe is like. Indeed, there are many people who
are Nobel Prize winners who, obviously, are the tops in their scientific
fields who believe in God. That disturbs a lot of
scientists that somebody who is a Nobel Prize winner should believe in God
because there is no proof of God. But, the mind is capable of different kinds of logic.
There is a kind of logic where you can add up one and one and get two, and take
certain deductive kinds of logic and come up with an answer which holds up to
pretty rigorous arguments. Yet, there are people who find that there are
intuitive ways of coming up with information that are equally valid to them
even though they cannot prove it according to the same scientific rule. I
think we need to be sensitive to both forms of perception: that which is
intuitive and that which is scientific. Indeed, most scientists say they intuited the answer before they came up with proof on a
scientific basis. So, we do have to observe both
ways. If, reading The Ultimate Frontier, some people can
be reconciled to both systems and see that they blend together,
and something can be brought from both, then that is a very important thing
that I have managed to have gotten across in writing that book. Indeed, there
are a number of things in The Ultimate
Frontier which have been verified scientifically since the time it was
printed; at which time it was hanging out there all by itself and unsupported.
That is very gratifying to me because I was acting on information that I had
no way of proving personally. After a period of testing the information that had been given to me by my Teachers, I began to trust more
and more the information that They gave me. When I tried it out in my life or
tested my world-view in accordance with the principles they gave me, I found
satisfaction out of it. So therefore, what They do tell me, I pay close
attention to. Unfortunately, I still happen to be the “doubting Thomas” type
and I always want to test it out first before I pass it along. What I have
passed along in The Ultimate Frontier
are those things which makes sense to me. (03-1983) |
|
|
|
|
|
