赛斯谈科学及宇宙的本质——给一位物理学家的答复（上）

此段摘自《个人与群体事件的本质》第855节

今天早些时候，鲁柏想知道我是否会口述更多的内容以回复你们那位科学家的来信。当他在猜测的时候，我很简短地作了回应，大意是既然我们持有如此不同的观点，事实上很难给出我所认为的完整答案。我可以口述一份足以令他满意的答复，但很可能越想让答案适合他的理解，越会造成扭曲。

鲁柏不掌握科学词汇并非巧合，虽然他确确实实不仅有直觉的心智，还有科学的头脑。我亲爱的朋友，想要以你们目前所了解的科学术语来描述实相，这个企图本身就对这样一套词汇致以了过分的敬意，因为它会自动把更大的概念缩小，以适合它的严苛。换言之，这种企图进一步加剧了这个问题——思索一个看似客观的宇宙，并以一种客观的方式去描述它。

这个宇宙是一种心灵、精神或心理的显化——你可以选择你的字眼，而非你们常用词汇所说的一种客观现象。

目前，科学、宗教或心理学都没有一种哪怕是近似的概念框架，能够解释、甚或间接描述这种宇宙的多重维度。它的性质是心理性的，遵循着心灵逻辑，而你们所了解的所有物理性质都是那些更深东西的反映而已。再说一次，每个原子与分子——以及你们所能想象的任何粒子——都拥有意识。除非你们接受这个说法，至少把它当作一个基础理论，否则我的很多资料都会显得毫无意义。

因此，任何新的科学理论，若希望在获得真知的路上发挥任何作用的话，就必须以这个说法为基础。

Earlier today, Ruburt wondered if I might dictate more in reply to your scientist's letter. As he wondered, I very briefly responded to the effect that since we come from such different perspectives, it is actually quite difficult to give your scientist what I would consider a full response. I could dictate a reply that would satisfy him well enough, but it would perhaps be the more distorted the more it was geared for his understanding.

It is no coincidence that Ruburt does not possess a scientific vocabulary, though he does possess a scientific as well as intuitive mind. The very attempt to describe reality in scientific terms, as they are currently understood, pays, my dear friend, undue tribute to a vocabulary that automatically scales down greater concepts to fit its rigors. In other words, such attempts further compound the problem of considering a seemingly objective universe, and describing it in an objective fashion.

The universe is ? and you can pick your terms ? a spiritual or mental or psychological manifestation, and not, in your usual vocabulary, an objective manifestation.

There is presently no science, religion, or psychology that comes close to even approaching a conceptual framework that could explain, or even indirectly describe, the dimensions of that kind of universe. Its properties are psychological, following the logic of the psyche, and all of the physical properties that you understand are reflections of those deeper issues. Again, each atom and molecule ? and any particle that you can imagine ? possesses, and would possess, a consciousness. Unless you accept that statement at least as a theory upon which to build, then much of my material would appear meaningless.

That statement, therefore, must be the basis for any new scientific theories that hope to accomplish any performances at all leading to an acquisition of knowledge.