In one of my first times at Michael Jeffreys’ Eckhart Tolle Meetup he asked the group if we could accept “not knowing” – the entreaties of the Ego which require answers to the questions that keep popping up in our skulls from the “voice in our head.” When he looked at me I shook my head vehemently because I took myself quite seriously as a “seeker” and the notion that there were no answers to my questions, at least not through the mind, was very troubling. Michael and I shared a laugh and the sense of openness to what is, rather than what can be “known” has been of immense help and relief ever since. But if not knowing was once hard to accept — what about knowing? For example, our mind creates a linear sense of time, but our technology has allowed us to expand it. So on a mundane level, for example, when you are enjoying a sports event – someone or something can “divulge” the result. Yesterday morning I deliberately did not go on Facebook because I had recorded the French Open Tennis final –and knowing who won –which is frequently revealed on “what’s trending” would have ruined the “suspense.” Looking at this more deeply, this is precisely the game of life –life seems to relish playing within a field of possibility where our true nature remains hidden from our “selves” –perhaps it is revealed when we die –but paradoxically we have no way of knowing. But science and technology have taken this even further in the realm of biology, Apparently within our DNA we have “encoded” the propensity for various diseases; if we have certain genetic markers we may get certain diseases due to a predisposition for those ailments. As renegade biologists like Bruce Lipton have pointed out in the growing field of “epigenetics” however, our genes do not seemingly determine outcomes –they instruct bodily functions and may predispose us. It is still the interaction with our environment which may allow us to “turn off” the expression of certain genes or put it off –even through mental processes like our inner programming or belief systems. On the other hand, genetic research has only decoded a small fraction of the genome –what it has not accounted for specifically it has categorized as “junk DNA;” in typical scientific arrogance we have decided that what we don’t know can’t have much value. But what if the opposite is true? What if, for example, somewhere in our Junk DNA, which has presumably been programmed by whatever immense intelligence may be operating in reality, like the milk in our refrigerator, we came with an “expiration date?” What if somewhere in the billions of genes we have not decoded there is the determination of precisely when this illusory existence we are living is going to end? Many people already don’t want to know if they’re predisposed to Alzheimer’s or other genetic disorders. But what if you knew for certain, for example, that your heart would stop beating on April 1, 2019? Entire industries would be in upheaval. Insurance, for example, would never cover you past that date. Financial planning for retirement would be a lot easier. If I knew that I only had five more years to live, for example, I wouldn’t have to be concerned with running out of money.
The stock market would crash. On the other hand if this were commonly known, the entire fear factor would be taken out of death. It would be what it actually is – just another aspect of reality which we need to accept. No big deal. And in fact, let’s remember that many of the “primitive” cultures around the world truly believe that “everything is written” –so that perhaps what science now deems as junk DNA does hold the answers to many questions that we are simply unable to ask, or formulate using language.
These, again, are precisely the questions that science assiduously avoids; for example, the issue of consciousness. What exactly is it that knows anything? And what is there really to know? Even neuroscience is now at the point of discovering that our identity is “nonlocal” –there is no part of the brain, or the body, that is exactly “us.” So that while our body may have a genetic expiration date, what does that mean for “us.” So that once again we can see that the confluence of DNA and the software that we have created “in our image” suggests that some sort of conscious intelligence must exist apart from ourselves; after all the programming in our cells preceded us by billions of years. Would fully decoding our DNA spoil all of our surprises? Or would it instead lead us to the ultimate edge of what we can never know—life’s infinite capacity to playfully surprise itself with infinite possibility? .
Read the full article at the original website