Chapter 6: The Irrational Rationalist
And not only the mystics say so; now even the physicists - who are not mystics at all - what they are saying is incredible. Let me quote a few things. The physicists are now saying the same old nonsense as the mystics used to in the ancient days. The so-called rationalists have always called those mystics mad. Certainly whatsoever they say does not follow ordinary reason; it is something beyond. Now listen to what physicists are saying; they speak of a universe which is finite but unconfined. They say the universe is expanding, but expanding into nothing. They also tell us that electrons are capable of passing through space without make use of the term “quark” to describe a particle of which taking any time to do it. They are now even proposing to the essential property is that when three of them combine, their collective weight is less than that of any of them by itself, although nothing has been lost by their conjunction.
It is absurd. It cannot be so according to ordinary logic. But if you ask the physicist he says, “What can we do? We are helpless. It is so. We cannot change the reality. Just to adjust to your logic, we cannot change the reality. And the reality does not believe in your Aristotles. It does not suffer from Aristotle-itis. It does not bother about what your logic says; it goes on its own way.” So the physicists say, “What can we do? Change your logic. If it looks mad, maybe the universe is mad.”
It looks mad, but the mystics have always said so. In the Upanishads it is said, “Take the whole out of the whole, and the whole remains behind.” Now, Dr. Abraham Kovoor will call this man mad. If you take the whole out of the whole, nothing remains behind! This is ordinary mathematics and logic. But the Upanishads say, “You take the whole out of the whole, and the whole still remains behind. You go on taking as many wholes as you want, and still the whole remains behind.” The mystics have also stumbled upon the illogicalness of reality.
Now, what do you say about this “quark”? It fits absolutely with the Upanishadic idea. It does not fit with Aristotle. Bad for poor Aristotle! And bad for poor Dr. Abraham Kovoor!
I am crazy. I have seen the reality which does not fit with the mind. In fact, the mind is the only barrier to reality. It does not allow you to see the reality. The more you are confined in the mind, the less is the possibility of knowing. And if you insist that you will know only through the mind, then you will never know.
The mind is very ordinary. It is good for day-to-day use, but to penetrate the infinite, to penetrate the eternal, to penetrate that which is - the ultimate mystery - the mind is just as futile as if you are trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. It is just irrelevant.
The reality is irrational, the reality is nonsensical, the reality is absurd.
Now, Abraham Kovoor can be against the mystics, but what will he do against the physicist? And why have they both come to the same conclusion? Science has penetrated into reality from a different door, but the reality is the same. So have done the mystics: they have entered from a different door, but they have entered into the same space.