For aeons humans have sought knowledge of the universe. The great spiritual traditions, the mystics, sages and saints of all times, have taken the path of direct familiarisation with the source of all that is leading them to embodied realisation and profound insight.
Curious and intelligent people in humanity’s emerging civilisations came to seek their own understandings through permutations of the mind and observational capacities, from which developed the field of philosophy.
In answer to the deep and powerful questions raised by philosophers over the centuries, the fields of science arose. Leaving aside for now all the political reasons why science has taken the stand it has in regard to matters spiritual – we can understand it as a natural part of the evolution of human consciousness, and as an exacting and thorough attempt to answer some of the most perplexing problems which arise on account of the human capacity to think.
There are ‘shortcomings’ with all of these paths to knowledge of the universe;
– the direct approach leaves us short on adequately accurate, and satisfactorily applicable descriptive terminology,
– the philosophical path also has this problem, at a higher level of abstraction,
– the scientific path, whilst it renders accurate and verifiable descriptive, analytic and representational models, is difficult for the human mind to grasp without special training in the methods of abstraction used. As well science generally fails to connect at the level of direct appreciation available to practitioners on the spiritual path, and to a lesser degree possible to attain with the inspiration available to philosophers.
At the current stage of conscious evolution we have all three streams emerging simultaneously, rendering various interpretations of the information available to them via their respective methodologies. Some of these interpretive frames are very complex indeed. However, the fact that an individual has the opportunity to engage with all three streams concurrently is a recent development (as least as far as the current civilisation is concerned).
Endeavouring to simultaneously inhabit these potentially complimentary yet apparently disparate vantage points, seems to be the next major task of the units of consciousness which are adequately prepared to do so. To these fortunate folk will fall the task of rendering the various discourses comprehensible to each other. No minor challenge! Just developing the capacity to comprehend each of these approaches at the depth of profundity they provide, is in itself an admirable aspiration. We have a situation arising, however, which dictates the imperative for this work to be done, both efficiently and effectively as well as relatively expediently.
For this, we are required to inhabit an enhanced, evolved structure of consciousness – one which is being built from out efforts to do so as much as it is drawing us toward itself by the imperative which drives us. So, the philosopher can be the bridge builder and unifier in the situational context, by disciplining them self to the task described, and thus serve the evolution of consciousness, and the best interests of all beings.