Apparitional Causation
The first great change in the map of modern science, and on which is based what we now call modern physics, was Einstein's discovery that space and time are seen as a pair of opposites on an underlying identity. (It is not that he saw things in quite this way, but rather that this way of seeing things follows directly from his equations.) The second great change was in our ideas of mass and energy, and the third was in our ideas of causation. Classical physics, the physics of Swamiji's day, like Sankhya, believed only in transformational causation. It was materialistic and mechanistic and took for granted the separation between the perceiver and the perceived.
We know now that the physics of Swamiji's day was wrong. We know now that the universe cannot arise by transformational causation. It is observational rather than actual and must arise by apparition. We see now that the discrimination between mass and energy has melted away. The discrimination between space and time has melted away. And we shall presently see that even the discrimination between mass-energy and space- time has melted away. We can see now what Swamiji must have seen then, that Advaita Vedanta could never be squared with classical physics. The physics wasn't ready. He, himself, tried to straighten it out by assigning to Nikola Tesla the task of showing, mathematically, that mass and energy (Akasha and Prana) are one. (Complete Works, Vol. V, Fifth Edition, 1947, p. 77). At that time, Albert Einstein was just a boy. Had Tesla succeeded in this effort, the history of modern physics might have been very different indeed.
We have noted the fundamental changes introduced by relativity theory in our understanding of the interrelationships of mass, energy, space and time. Now we must study the changes which those changes have wrought in our model of the "objective reality" which, it was thought, must underlie the universe of our physics. We must see, now, where our quest has led.
Our quest was for an utter simplicity underlying the world of our perceptions, and the quest took the form of a pursuit of what we thought was the objective reality. It was this pursuit of objectivity that led to the breakdown of our notion of the separateness of space and time and, through that, to the breakdown of our notion of the separateness of mass and energy. As mentioned earlier, in the last century we believed that the universe consisted of real particles with real mass and real energy moving through real space in real time. Mass, energy, space and time were all considered to be independent entities.
Since 1905, however, we have come to understand that the horizontal line drops out of the diagram because space and time are not independent of each other, nor are mass and energy. But we now see that the vertical line must also drop out of the diagram because the mass-energy discontinuum on the left is simply a geometrical wind-up against the space-time continuum on the right. The electrical and gravitational fields are features of the space-time framework against which the particles are wound up. Yet without the particles there would be no fields. Each structures the other. Without the fields there would be no particles, and without the particles there would be no fields. It must be borne in mind that we are here talking physics. We are not talking philosophy. It might be conceivable, from the standpoint of our genetic understanding of space and time, to think of space as an empty nothingness existing in the absence of matter. But space is not an empty nothingness. It is characterized by the electrical and gravitational fields which themselves determine both the structure and the behavior of the material particles. Just as mass and energy structure space and time, so also space and time structure mass and energy.
Now when these lines of demarcation between mass, energy, space and time are obliterated, all our lines of demarcation are gone, for without the notion of mass, length or time it is impossible to define any quantity referred to in our physics, and we are left not with a model of a universe, but only with a question mark.
?
What is the reality behind the world of classical physics?
Here it becomes impossible to make any positive statement about the reality which underlies our physics, but our inquiry is not yet closed because we can still ask some roundabout questions and get answers in terms of negation. We can still ask, "What could not exist in the absence of space or in the absence of time?" These questions can be answered. We have already seen that dividedness and smallness can exist only in space and that change can exist only in time. What exists beyond space and time must, therefore, be changeless, infinite and undivided.
? = changeless, infinite, undivided
It should be noted that these are purely negative statements, but that they must apply to whatever exists behind the appearance of the primordial hydrogen which is, itself, divided, finite and changing. Hydrogen is very finely divided. It is divided into atoms. It is grossly finite. It is composed of minute electrical particles. And it is continually changing. It falls together into galaxies and stars.
Our problem is, "How, if the reality is changeless, infinite and undivided, do we come to see the changing, the finite and the divided?" First, it is perfectly clear that our present perception of a changing, finite and divided universe could not have come about by transformational causation. The changeless could not have been changed into the changing, since that would require change in the changeless. Also, hydrogen is made out of energy and energy cannot arise by a transformation of energy. That would be like making milk out of milk. Milk is not made out of milk. It is made out of a mixture of cows and grass. Just as gold cannot be made by remolding gold, just so energy cannot arise by transformations of energy. The only kind of causation, if it can be called causation at all, that could give rise to energy — that could give rise to change in the changeless — is a causation by apparition. It is the kind of thing that happens when you mistake a rope for a snake, or when you mistake your friend for a ghost.
Now when you mistake your friend for a ghost, three things are necessary. First, you must fail to see your friend rightly, or there would be no mistake. Second, the ghost must be different from your friend. Otherwise, again, no mistake would be made. And third, in order to mistake your friend for a ghost you had to see your friend. It is your friend whom you have mistaken for a ghost, and the characteristics of your friend will show up in the ghost. If your friend is tall and thin, the ghost will be tall and thin, and if your friend is roly-poly, you'll see a roly-poly ghost.
If, then, we have seen the changeless, the infinite, the undivided as something else, that else must be changing, finite and divided because in this case there is no other else.
It was pointed out long ago by Shankara that in order to mistake a rope for a snake we require the mental impression left from the previous experience of a snake. It is only on the basis of such an impression that we conjure up the illusory snake rather than an illusory stick or an illusory crack in the ground. Whatever we conjure up we conjure up on the basis of some previous experience. Likewise, he suggested, when we mistake the changeless, the infinite, the undivided for the changing, the finite, the divided we require the previous experience of the latter. In this case however, we need not fall back on the necessity of previous experience. Seeing the changeless as anything else means seeing it as changing. Likewise, seeing the infinite and the undivided as anything else means seeing it as finite and divided since in this case there is no other else. There is one further difficulty with his suggestion. Time is part of this else. To what, then, could "previous" refer?
Now in order to see the undivided as divided, we had to see the undivided. In order to see your friend as a ghost, you had to see your friend. And just as the characteristics of your friend must show up in the ghost for which he is mistaken, Just so the undividedness must show up in the divided for which it is mistaken, and that is what we see as gravity. If you see the reality as divided and dispersed, it will show the tendency to all come back together like a stretched rubber band. Likewise, in order to see the infinite as finite, we had to see the infinite, and that infinite, seen in the apparently finite, is what we see as electricity. If you see the reality as minute particles, those particles will necessarily be electrical (i.e., the electrical energy of an electrical particle goes to zero only if the size of that particle goes to infinity). And, finally, in order to see the changeless as changing, you had to see the changeless, and that changeless, seen in the apparently changing, is what we see as inertia If you see the reality as moving, it will show a tendency Space is not that which separates the many, but that which seems to separate the one, and in that space that oneness shines, therefore falls whatever falls. Again, space is not that in which we see the small, but that in which the infinite appears as small, and in that space that vastness shines, therefore bursts whatever bursts, therefore shines whatever shines. And finally, time is not that in which we see the changing, but that in which the changeless seems to change, and in that time that changeless shines, therefore rests whatever rests, therefore coasts whatever coasts.
It is hopeless to try to understand this universe without understanding apparitional causation. Swamiji, of course, knew that. The only reason that Swamiji failed to square Advaita with physics was because the physics of his day could not be squared with fact. The theory could not be squared with the observations. It was only after the introduction of apparitional causation, through relativity theory, that it became possible to square our physics with the observations, and with Advaita Vedanta. Swamiji said in London (Complete Works, Vol. II, Seventh Edition, 1948, p. 130) that, "This absolute has become the universe by coming through time, space and causation. This is the central idea of Advaita. Time, space and causation are like the glass through which the absolute is seen, and when it is seen on the lower side it appears as the universe.
It is here, in apparitional causation, that we understand, for the first time, the physics behind gravity, electricity and inertia. It is apparitional physics — what we shall here call "square one physics."
It is here, in apparitional causation, that we understand the physics behind those old Sanskrit terms Asti, Bhati and Priya. Here, too, it is apparitional physics. Every object of our perception is said to be characterized by existence, Asti, perceptibility, Bhati, and dearness Priya. Asti is the changeless, seen in the apparently changing. Bhati is the infinite seen in the apparently finite. And Priya is the undivided seen in the apparently divided. Whatever transformations we see here are ultimately driven from square one. Mass and energy, space and time, gravity, electricity, inertia and the conservation laws arise in square one. The intergalactic hydrogen arises in square one.