You are both smart and have something that is not working well at the same time, Benjamin.
Your articles are often a (big) pleasure to read, but right with showing the essence you also go off the rails at a fundamental level and this is actually quite difficult to pinpoint. The difficulty is that somehow you mix something in there that should not be mixed in. Let me try pinpointing it.
-
Indeed, scientists will not reveal all that exists. If you look at the basics of science, then it is already limited in essence because it must follow specific instructions.
In short: The Scientific Reach will always be shorter than the Scientific Realm.
However, Enlightened is readily available. This is where I definitively see you go off the rails. You should not mix and match to your pleasing.
-
When applying a tool (science is a tool), then we can only find information that was discovered with the tool, and it will be tool specific.
As example, take a tape measure. It is absolutely correct in measuring how tall we are. But it is absolutely incorrect to say that we reached our personal heights because of the tape measure.
Same for Spacetime, it is 'just' a tool. It expresses how matter behaves in space. It does not define the universe for what that overarching reality fully is.
-
Are there pathways to uncover the ultimate mysteries?
There are pathways, but they do not uncover the ultimate question where Energy came from. No tool can discover the source of Energy. In science, it is therefore accepted as a given.
Nevertheless, we are energy ourselves, so we are part of the Source ourselves. We may exist in material bodies, but we are not just our material bodies. We are already that what existed prior to the materialization process.
As such, individuals are one step ahead of scientists in understanding the larger realm because each of us is from the larger realm. We are not tools (though we think that some of us are).
We are part of the essence, and the scientific approach is never part of the essence. Rather, scientists are completely bound by the role of observer of (whatever can be observed scientifically about) the essence.
-
Can we be enlightened? Absolutely. But don’t use the scientific method (exclusively) to find enlightenment. Your words about enlightenment are like mixing a tape measure with time and then making time being dependent on distance (or distance being dependent on time). That is very weird.
So, you are giving us the right answer, but you add something to it that is weird. It is like you make the baby and the bathwater one and the same.
As long as we recognize that there is a natural variety at the absolute level, then we can find enlightenment. The human brain must be conquered to achieve it.
For instance, if we are looking for the person who is male, female, young, and old, all in one person, then the Enlightenment ends up being that we asked a stupid question for which there is no actual answer. By recognizing our mistake of looking for a non-existing position, we enlighten ourselves.
Not sure if I helped you see yourself here. You are finding important truths, but then you add some rubbish to it. Somehow, you keep melding different aspects into One as if One is the natural state (and based on all your articles you should already know that the big picture does not combine into some kind of One).
