Philip Sherrard

The Science of Consciousness

On why a knowledge of the nature of consciousness does not lie within the competence of the modern scientist. 1. It is with my consciousness that I perceive whatever I do perceive. 2. Thus how something appears to me depends on the mode of my consciousness. 3. I can perceive only what I am capable of perceiving, observe only what I am capable of observing, understand only what I am capable of understanding. 4. Hence my understanding of the nature of something can only be according to the mode of consciousness that I possess; and this means that the true nature of what I perceive may be very different from that which I perceive it to be.
1 Editor's Note: At the beginning of January 1992, an International Symposium organized by the Athenian Society for Science and Human Development was held at Athens, to discuss the theme, Science of Consciousness. The participants were nearly all scientists of one kind or another, but a few non-scientists were invited. Among these was Dr. Philip Sherrard (1922 1995), author of The Rape of Man and Nature (1987) and The Sacred in Life and Art (1990). In the event, Dr. Sherrard decided not to attend the Symposium, and he explained his reasons for this in a statement which he sent to one of its organizers, this being followed, in response to a reply from the organizer, by a letter. 1

5. A higher mode of consciousness than mine will be capable of perceiving the true nature of something more clearly than I can perceive it; and so on, up to the highest mode of consciousness. 6. These same propositions apply also to a knowledge of the nature of consciousness itself; my understanding of the nature of consciousness can only be according to the mode of consciousness that I possess. 7. Nothing can be known except according to the mode of the knower. 8. A higher consciousness than mine will be capable of a higher understanding of the nature of consciousness than that of which I am capable. 9. Ultimately, to know what the nature of consciousness is in itself I must have attained the highest mode of consciousness that it is possible to attain, namely, that which is one with consciousness itself. 10. Only such a mode of consciousness can experience and in this way verify a knowledge of the nature of consciousness. 11. Only my experience of the nature of consciousness in itself can constitute knowledge of and evidence for it. 12. Short of that my understanding of the nature of consciousness can be but hypothetical, mere opinion tailored according to the limitations of my particular mode of consciousness, vitiated by the ignorance which these limitations impose, and totally inaccessible to verification through experience. In such circumstances, how consciousness appears to me will be very different from what it actually is.

13. The highest mode of consciousness, or consciousness in itself, is that in which there is no dualism between knower and what is to be known, observer and what is to be observed, consciousness and that of which consciousness is conscious. 14. This means that so long as there is in my own consciousness any dualism of this kind I can be sure that I have not attained the highest mode of consciousness that it is possible to attain. Hence my conception of the nature of consciousness can be but a hypothesis or opinion, distorted by the ignorance that pertains to any consciousness still in the thrall of the dualism in question. In the nature of things such hypothesis, or opinion, cannot constitute knowledge. 15. As the mode of consciousness effective for the modern scientist is one that is still in the thrall of such a dualism for if this were not the case he could not be a modern scientist it is only too clear that a knowledge of the nature of consciousness does not lie within his competence. His competence, in this respect as well as in other respects, is necessarily limited to hypothesis, opinion, speculation, and none of these can be said to constitute knowledge. 16. By definition, any attempt to understand the nature of consciousness that is not based on the experience and knowledge of those whose consciousness has transcended every form of dualism is doomed to futility. There is no point in wasting time on enterprises that a priori are doomed to futility. 17. Moreover, to proceed to an investigation of the nature of consciousness otherwise than through the study of the testimonials of those divinely inspired metaphysicians, mystics, seers, prophets who through direct experience have attained a knowledge of the nature of consciousness would be a manifestation of extreme arrogance, not to say sheer impudence; for to proceed otherwise than through such study
3

would be to assume the possession of a degree of understanding and insight superior to those possessed by the finest intelligence known to the human race. It would in fact be an unexpected bonus to find at a conference such as the one proposed even a single scientist who has studied in depth that is, with at least the same diligence and dedication as he has studied his own discipline the writings of such people. Yet unless he has studied these writings in this way, what qualifications does he possess that entitle him to speak to any purpose on the theme under discussion? The blind cannot lead the blind. 18. And if in response to this last question it is claimed that the question itself is irrelevant because consciousness continually evolves and therefore our understanding of consciousness is in a continual state of evolution, what additional evidence is needed in order to demonstrate both the bankruptcy of the mind that can make such a claim and the pointlessness of any further discussion?

Dear . . .2 I didn't mean to provoke such a response by sending you my short statement though even that does rather illustrate my point, doesn't it, about the difficulty of having any fruitful discussion unless one has already resolved certain preliminary questions questions which modern scientists on the whole don't ever take into account and are even completely unaware of. I suppose these questions might be called purely epistemological, in the sense that they are concerned with such matters as what conditions must be fulfilled before anyone can be said to know anything at all. I personally have never found such questions tackled by any scientist. And yet what is the point of trying to obtain a knowledge of something if you haven't first fulfilled the conditions which permit you to
2 Editor's Note: Dr. Philip Sherrard thereafter prepared the following letter which further elaborates on his eighteen points listed above. 4

obtain it? My statement was simply meant to affirm that no modern scientist (so far as I am aware) has even begun to fulfill the conditions which would permit him or her to obtain a knowledge of the nature of consciousness. I thought my statement did explain this clearly, but obviously it doesn't. I suspect that in any case there are at least two virtually insurmountable interrelated barriers to making it clear to scientists. The first is that very few, if any, scientists, even if they recognize supranatural realities, seem to realize that there are not two sciences, the one concerned with the material and outward aspect of things extended in time and space, and the other with their spiritual and eternal dimension, unextended in time and space. There is only one science. But what there are, on the other hand, are two dominant modes of consciousness in man: the first, what might be called ego-consciousness, which is the lower mode of consciousness, corresponding as it does to what is most inhuman and satanic in him; and the second, his angelic or spiritual consciousness, which is his higher mode of consciousness. The higher or spiritual consciousness perceives and experiences things as they are in themselves, inner and outer, spiritual and material, metaphysical and physical interpenetrating and forming a single unsundered and unsunderable reality. The profane or ego-consciousness cannot perceive and experience things as they are in this way. It can perceive and experience only what its own opacity permits it to perceive and experience, and this is merely the aspect of things extended in time and space, as though this aspect of things possessed existence and being, and even reality, in its own right. This kind of consciousness the egoconsciousness does not realize or understand that separated or sundered from its inner and spiritual dimension nothing belonging to the world of phenomena possess any reality at all, whether physical, material, or substantial, and that the notion that it does so is merely an illusion or distortion inherent as such in the viewpoint of the ego-consciousness. In your letter, for instance, you say that a distinction must be made between consciousness and its formal expressions, and that while the scientist cannot study the former, he can study the latter. But this is precisely to posit that dualism in reality which is simply a selection of
5

the fact that the ego-consciousness is sundered from the spiritual consciousness. And as such a dualism represent a totally illusory and distorted state of mind, and does not correspond to anything in reality itself, what knowledge of things not equally illusory and distorted can be gained by studying them as though it did correspond to something in reality as though, that is to say, things do possess being and existence in their own right and apart from their inner and spiritual dimension? I can put this another way: everything that possesses form is an expression of consciousness. How, then, can I possibly study the nature of a formal expression of consciousness if I am ignorant of the nature of the consciousness of which it is the expression, and in which its being and existence inhere? To think that one can gain a knowledge of consciousness by studying its formal expressions is as dotty as thinking that one can gain a knowledge of the soul by analyzing, dissecting, quantifying etc. etc. the structure of the human body. Plato knew better: If the soul wishes to know itself it must look into its own self. Exactly the same applies where a knowledge of consciousness is concerned: such knowledge can be gained only by consciousness looking into itself. No knowledge of it can be gained by studying its formal expressions. In fact, no knowledge of anything extended in time and space on the horizontal plane can be obtained without a prior knowledge of its spiritual and eternal dimension its vertical dimension unextended in time and space. There is absolutely no point in discussing the nature of consciousness at a conference unless this is understood. That is the first point. And the second point, related to the first, is this: that it is extremely rare so rare that one can say that it constitutes the exception that proves the rule for anyone to attain the mode of the higher or spiritual consciousness without pursuing a path of spiritual discipline under the guidance, direct or indirect, of a qualified spiritual master. But even apart from this, to be in a position to discuss things as it were at second hand, after a study of the writings of such spiritual masters, or to be able to use the universal language of metaphysical discourse coherently, requires at least as long a training as it does to master the conventions of higher mathematics. And, as I said before, I
6

have never come across a scientist who has learnt this language. When Einstein ventures into this sphere what he says is positively embarrassing in its naivety. And the few things I have read of people like [Niels] Bohr make it clear that they are little more than novices in these matters. The same goes for [Frithjof] Capra. In all cases those preliminary questions I spoke of at the beginning of this letter are simply ignored. So what dialogue can one have? I hope this may have made it a bit clearer or at least not have confused things more. The point to grasp, surely, is that the main determinant of knowledge or of what we think is knowledge is not the object about which we seek to obtain knowledge, but the mode of consciousness we possess when we seek to obtain it. If one can grasp that principle, the rest falls into place. Yours, Philip Sherrard

The text above is from the book Psychology and the Perennial Philosophy: Studies in Comparative Religion edited by Samuel Bendeck Sotillos studiesincomparativereligion.com worldwisdom.com

MIKROTHEOS