The Deeper Aspects of Form

It seems obvious to me that Baba is speaking about a giant terror bird that went extinct two million years ago. The potential size of these creatures was only realized in 2006 when a complete skull was discovered in Argentina. But note that Baba did not speak in past or future tense. He spoke in present tense, of a bird that is. It seems clear that Baba is speaking of the form of the bird and not the bird itself.

If you can grasp this concept, you can have a better understanding of what evolution is.

For Baba, the forms are necessary and right media for the experience of impressions. Rather than Random and purposeless niched phenomena, they have a definite purpose that is fructified in the human form.

The purpose of evolution is to give the soul full consciousness. This is achieved in the first human form. And it is in this perfect form that God-realization is at last possible. This obviates the need for a "master race." It also renders as meaningless the concept that man will evolve into anything else. Once we understand the purpose of attaining a human body, to attain enlightenment, we see that caring for our brothers and sisters, regardless of their condition, is far closer to the real purpose of life.

He is born in vain, who having attained the human birth, so difficult to get, does not attempt to realise God in this very life. (Ramakrishna)

Imposing our ideas onto Baba

The subject here is Part 2 of God Speaks, The Initial Urge and the Journey of Evolving Consciousness, with emphasis on an editor's note on page 14. In this section of the book there are numerous uses of the word "most" as in "first-most," "next-most," etc. Many people comment on the fact that this is a hard part of the book to read, largely due to this odd way of writing. Here I explore the possibility that this was an addition made by the editors due to a misunderstanding of what Baba was saying.

In 1954, when Meher Baba's major book God Speaks was written, it would not have been hard to think that Baba's explanation of evolution agreed with an evolutionary fossil record, the physical processes of which were already well understood by this time. In truth, within a couple of decades of the publication of God Speaks the fossil record began to reveal a very different story than was originally anticipated. It was found that fossils, far from showing signs of constant random gradations in all stages as Darwin's theory predicted, were showing signs of species that evolved and then remained surprisingly static. Fossils, it turned out, were falling into discrete forms.

It is my personal view that God Speaks conforms more to these findings than anyone could have anticipated when it was written. I also think that, to deal with what probably looked like an oversight by Baba, in which Baba spoke of forms and species as if discrete rather than finely blurred, the editor added the prefix "most" throughout the section on evolution.

... The conscious soul must exhaust these impressions of the most-last species of the metal-form by the consciousness of the soul experiencing these impressions through some appropriate medium. And the appropriate medium to spend or exhaust these impressions of the most-last species of metal-form is the most-first species of vegetable-form. This species of vegetable-form is nothing but the consolidated mould of the impressions of the most-last species of the metal-form... (GS p. 17)

I've noticed that the chapter in God Speaks that includes these additions of the word "most" is far clearer without them. This made me wonder why they are there. The fact that they are an addition by the editor seems to be the assertion of a particular footnote. Consider the note by the editor on page 14 of God Speaks, 2nd edition.

The reader should not think the oft-appearing “mosts,” such as most-first, most-next, most-finite, are superfluous or redundant, because each species of a certain form - stone, for instance - has numerous repetitions with slight variations before going on to the most-next species of that same form, and it seemed necessary to differentiate. “Most-last” is used to mean the form most recently encountered, i.e . , the highest and latest evolutionary form of the species, and should not be construed as the form furthest down the scale. Ed.

In this footnote the editor appears to be giving the thinking he used in making the additions. The evidence of this is his admission that it "seemed" necessary. If you read the footnote carefully you will see that the editor gives not just one reason but two.

Reason 1. The editor explains that had the word "most" not been added to the word "next" the reader might not have realized that species have "numerous repetitions with slight variations." He goes on to explain that the soul must pass through these repetitions and variations before going onto the "most-next" species. This makes no sense. The soul has to go through species gradations before it can go on to the next species gradation?

In the text of the book, Baba talks about many species of a particular form, such as stone-form. So there are numerous species of stone-form prior to moving on to the vegetable form. But the editor seems to be mixed up. "...each species [of stone-form] has numerous repetitions with slight variations before going on to the most-next species of that same form?" What is he saying?

I think I know. The clue lies in the assumption that he makes in the footnote. Where did the editor get his information about repetitions and variations? It is not corroborated anywhere in the text of God Speaks or in anything Baba ever said. Baba seems to be speaking exactly as I have been saying, of forms that are discrete. The editor seems to be imposing his own personal notions about evolution onto the work and using the footnote to make his assumptions more clear. As explained already, Darwin conceived of evolutionary species as non-discrete, blurring into one another randomly and in all directions.

The editor seems to want Baba's book to appear more scientific - in the sense of adhering to prevailing scientific notions of that time period. I think the editor did not want the reader to understand Baba to be describing discrete species, as would have been implied in simply "the next species," but wanted to give the impression of a more blurred and random process as is found in Darwinian theory. But in fact "the next species" I think is exactly what Baba did mean and Baba did not have in mind the repetitions and slight variations that the editor did.

Reason 2. The second reason the editor gives for the additions of "most" is that in cases where Baba uses the word "last" the reader should not think Baba means 'the very last' on a scale. The editor explains that "last species"

"...should not be construed as the [species] furthest down the scale. Ed."

but rather

"...[the species] most recently encountered"

Actually the editor has it completely backward. But let me explain a little of what he's talking about.

There is an ambiguity in the English language whereby "the last" can mean 'the previous instance in a sequence' or it can mean 'the very last of that entire sequence.' In other words, in English the word "last" can mean either 'previous' or 'last.' When we say "I took my medicine with my last meal," we could mean we took it with our most recent meal or we took it with our very last meal in our lifetime, as in the meal that a man on death row has prior to his execution. However, very slow careful reading of God Speaks reveals that Baba's wording is such that, even if one omits the additions of "most," no such ambiguity arises.

This is because in every instance where the words "first" and "last" appear, Baba very clearly is talking about "the very first" and "the very last" species of that form. For instance "the first stone species" means 'the very first species of the stone-form.' Baba never means merely the species most recently encountered as the editor worries that he might have. This can be determined beyond even the slightest doubt simply by examining the context.

I'll make this even more clear. The reason that the ambiguity over the two English senses of "last" (as 'previous' or 'last') never comes up is that Baba describes the process of evolution in a truncated fashion, mentioning only the very first and very last species of each class of forms that he talks about. He never once talks of any species in the middle. Again, in every instance that the word "most" is added to "last," the word "last" obviously refered to the very last species of that form. So the term "last" is sufficient, and the addition of "most" is redundant and adds no new information. In fact it obstructs reading.

To illustrate this, note in the section below that Baba is talking about the bridge between the metal-form and the vegetable form. The very clear point Baba is making is that the impressions of the final species of one form forge the first species of the next form. This precludes any instance where Baba might have only meant the previous on a scale as the editor worries. I have omitted the word "most."

The conscious soul must exhaust these impressions of the last species of the metal-form

{{here Baba means the actual last species of the metal-form, and not just the previous, because he is talking about the bridge to the first vegetable-form}}

by the consciousness of the soul experiencing these impressions through some appropriate medium. And the appropriate medium to spend or exhaust these impressions of the last species of metal-form

{{again he means the very last metal-form species, amazingly the very meaning the editor doesn't want the reader to assume}}

is the first species of vegetable-form. This species of vegetable-form is nothing but the consolidated mold of the impressions of the last species

{{again, the very last in the sequence}}

of the metal-form.

Another clue that the editor is confused about Baba's use of terms is his use of the phrase "the highest and latest evolutionary form of the species." In God Speaks Baba refers to the first, next, or last species of form but never once the form of the species. For example Baba speaks of there being numerous species of fish-form, but never a 'first form of fish species.' To my eyes it is quite clear that the editor is reading his assumptions into the text and then imposing them. And this is the source of his confusion.

Ishwar state of God

(Infinite Intelligence page numbers are the PDF browser page numbers of the 328 page online PDF version)

It is God as Ishwar that imagines the forms (as they really are) that constitute the Universe. However, Ishwar does not see or experience (think or realize) his imagination. God only experiences (thinks or realizes) the Universe when he is thinking falsely as an individual experiencing itself as those forms. Thus God is not in the same state when he creates (imagines) the Universe as he is when he experiences (realizes) the Universe.

With the beginning of thinking, the formless Infinite Mind (Ishwar), although Infinite, does not realize the universe as in the real Infinite Mind state of Sadguru; in the case of the latter, i.e. the Sadguru case, the Infinite Mind has no connection with the universe or Imagination at all, whilst in the former case of Ishwar, the Infinite thinking is for thinking the unthought Imagination, i.e. producing the universe and thus cannot realize Itself because Its work is with the creation (preservation and destruction) of the universe. This means that Its connection being with the universe or Imagination (as It has thought the unthought Imagination) Its thinking has been for the universe or Imagination ((for the purpose)) of manifesting the Imagination, i.e. universe and not of realizing the Imagination, i.e. universe. Therefore, It naturally takes to realizing the universe instead of realizing Itself. But the universe, subtle and gross, now has form, subtle and gross, and the formless Infinite Mind cannot realize what It Itself has created in subtle and gross form, ((which is)) the subtle and gross universe having the subtle and gross form. (Infinite Intelligence, PDF p. # 203)

The Infinite Mind or Ishwar becomes most finite when taking subtle and gross form, to realize the subtle and gross universe, which It has created in Infinite aakar [form] from Its most finite nirakar state. (Infinite Intelligence, PDF p. # 206)

Thus, there are the three states of the Infinite Intelligence:-

I.

Infinite Intelligence or Paramatma as Ishwar is the Infinite Mind, creating, preserving and destroying the universe but not realizing it.

II.

Infinite Intelligence or Paramatma as human is the Infinite Mind, realizing the universe, but not creating, preserving or destroying it.

III.

Infinite Intelligence or Paramatma as Sadguru is the Infinite Mind, neither creating, preserving or destroying the universe nor realizing it, but realizing Itself. (Infinite Intelligence, PDF p. # 214)

Note, however, that one ought not understand Baba as saying that God designed the world prior to experiencing it, i.e. that state I (creating) originally came before state II (realizing or experiencing as those forms). Rather these are the same process as seen from the vantage of two different states.

Baba's use of the words "form" and "species" in Infinite Intelligence and God Speaks

(Infinite Intelligence page numbers are the PDF browser page numbers of the 328 page online PDF version; God Speaks page numbers are the regular printable on-page numbers from the online PDF version)

Baba is not absolutely uniform in his use of the terms "form" and "species" but rather appears to use them in slightly overlapping ways. However, a few generalizations can be made. In Infinite Intelligence Baba's references to "species" are almost exclusively limited to his repeated use of the phrase "84 lakh species." (Eight million four hundred thousand species) This appears to be the same as what he terms "the natural series of evolution," as can be gleaned from the one instance he refers to these same species as a series :

there is a series of 84 lakh formations that the Intelligence has to pass through in order to become fully conscious." (Infinite Intelligence PDF 283)

In both God Speaks and in Infinite Intelligence, the use of the word "form" appears most often in association with discussion of a dominant shape or posture, though it can also mean a state or condition as in "form of the mind" (Infinite Intelligence PDF 217, 246, 275...), "form of a bubble-drop" (Infinite Intelligence PDF 312) and "form of impressions" (Infinite Intelligence PDF 276), etc. The dominant use of the word "form" as referring to a dominant shape or posture is exemplified here:

So from the stone form to the human form, i.e. from the raising of the leg in a circle till the head is raised erect with leg down, there is a series of 84 lakh formations that the Intelligence has to pass through... (Infinite Intelligence PDF 283)

In short, we include in the worm-form all species that tend to crawl... (God Speaks 20)

In God Speaks, the seven classifications of form are at another point called "Kingdoms." (see God Speaks Part 3, Characteristics of the Different Kingdoms). It's worth pointing out that in Part 3 of God Speaks Baba always refers to the forms (plural) and never the form (singular). For example: "stone-forms," "vegetable forms," etc. Thus, at least in this chapter the word "form" is not used as a broad classification. There are innumerable forms within each Kingdom. Baba might be understood, then, as referring to the 84 lakh species referred to in Infinite Intelligence.

However, in both Infinite Intelligence and God Speaks Baba most often refers to seven different major forms (stone-form, vegetable-form, fish form, etc.) - species being subcategories of forms. Thus you have numerous species of each form.

In stone-form, too, there are varied species, and the consciousness of the soul has to utilize each and all of these species as appropriate media, one after the other, (God Speaks 11)

In Infinite Intelligence, but not God Speaks, Baba speaks of both the individual and universal form.

As of the universal so of the Individual. All the innumerable Individual stone forms (subtle & gross) are the drops of the universal stone form ocean and so on. (Infinite Intelligence PDF 50)

Right now my best guess is that the universal form is the Platonic shape imagined in the universal mind (Ishwar) that God as the individual jiv takes on or identifies itself as or experiences its life through.

The universal Infinite Thinking's subtle & gross form advancement is universal.

Universal subtle & gross stone form to

Universal subtle & gross vegetable form to

Universal subtle & gross animal form to

Universal subtle & gross human form.

As of the universal so of the Individual. All the innumerable Individual stone forms (subtle & gross) are the drops of the universal stone form ocean and so on. (Infinitie Intelligence PDF 49-50)

Evolutionary eras are discrete

Scientists believe that evolution occurs at an even and continuous rate, in all species, and at all times. In fact it is more complicated than this. The assumption that it is continuous at all times in all species is conditioned by the assumption that it is governed by random, mechanical, aimless processes. But Baba disagrees with that assumption. Baba says that the driving force of evolution is actually "not mechanical but purposive." (THE JOURNEY OF THE SOUL TO THE OVERSOUL, Discourses by Meher Baba, 6th ed., Vol II, p. 141)

It is widely assumed by scientists that evolution has no teleological significance. Teleology is the study of purpose or telos. It seeks to answer the question "why?" or "to what end?"

Aristotle taught that change always has four kinds of cause: material, formal, efficient, and final. Final cause, or telos, is defined as the purpose, the good, or the goal of something. For example, the final cause of a pen is decent writing. Aristotle believed that the final cause is the most important of the four causes. He also believed that the final cause determined the three other causes. Even in his day Aristotle complained that the atomists (predecessors to today's materialists that created modern evolutionary theory) made the error of overemphasizing material causes. Baba teaches that the telos of evolution is God's drive to realize Himself.

Today scientists believe evolution has no telos, but is governed purely by mechanical forces. In other words they emphasize efficient causes. These efficient causes are constituted of numerous accidents that occur all the time in nature. These accidents, which scientists feel they have isolated, add up to produce an aimless mechanical process - much like an aimless blind machine with fortunate results. Briefly those efficient causes are as follows. Accidental random mutations (shape alterations that occur by the law of chance) occur constantly in nature, mostly unseen. Out of millions of tiny mutations, ones that promote survival persist in the gene pool while others are culled by external forces for failing to promote survival. The control mechanism is thus constant random mutation plus a harsh environment. The world is a big accidental breeding ground for good survivors. There is no purpose in it, no theme, no end goal. It is not purposive.

For evolution to be without any goal, for it to be without any underlying theme or purpose of any kind, for it to be blind and mechanical, it is essential that science insist that evolution is uniform and never ceases. For instance if evolution ceased to occur in one class of organisms, but continued to occur in a higher class of organisms, this would be a sign that it was not random. For to cease to change would bespeak an end had been reached in the static class while an end had not yet been reached in the higher class.