Well I'll just say, I work at a gas station, and we'll be totally empty one minute, then EVERYONE and their uncle decides to run in at the exact same time. There is barely ever just one person in there- people do tend to all come at once, and stay away all at once.

I agree that there are lots of energetic (and whatnot) grids around humanity. We are all connected and nothing happens no matter how small that doesn't affect the grids. The thing about artist, writers, and people of the creative sort, is that they pick up on the grid more than most people, and they mirror back humanity to itself. Its through artists that regular people get to know themselves, as i've noticed it.

So yes, I would bet that you're 'weird', archaic or revolutionary ideas are being picked up from the grids, from conciousness. The business folk who run the buisness aren't so connected to it, so they're brains can't always justify what your heart can.

best of luck in breaking that pattern!

Hi Sohaila,

Very inspiring...by the way, I have been experiencing the "shop mass" thing too. I think it could be several messages at the same time. You attract groups, you are the leader or others follow you etc.
I know what you mean by some of your ideas that don't make it because they don't fit into "mainstream". Funny thing is what is mainstream should not even be considered mainstream it is just a control factor. There are too many people that wish to see "that" change on screen.
I was thinking about how these days when great ideas start they tend to be very authentic in the beginning, then all of a sudden it changes into fitting "the agenda" again.
I'm thinking the people with these great ideas don't have the money, then when somebody comes along with the money they are bought out of their ideas and the ideas get replaced by how the investor wants people to think.
It's getting there, the power to put our ideas on screen the way we want.
That is a huge transformation we are stepping into, but just like the immune cells attacking when the butterfly is about to spread it's wings, not without an attack. (the attack is already)

Sohaila, when you enter that shop with the desire to explore it... whose desire is it? What do you call "I"? do you think you are a separate individual or are your desires arising in the wide field that is both you and everything else?

If you look at a flock of birds, when a desire to turn to the left arises, it arises in the whole vibrational pattern that is manifested as "a flock of birds", and if you're really attentive, you will feel their behaviour also influencing what you call "me". All the world is connected and you can't move something here without everything else moving. But it is the desire of the whole that is making things move, and you are that whole.

I see Eastern mysticism here.

One could believe, think and theorize anything. The ideas could be commercial success without any underlying reality.

This nonsense of "different manifestations of the one Cosmic Consciousness" is rooted in Upnishadas and other religious texts in India. So long there is no proof to it, it remains as nonsense, except to those who have no scientific bent of mind and rely on any bull-crap coming from the money grabbers.

So what you say is weird. However you can make money on weird things, simple because they are weird!

Hi,
I don't know how people react to new things or new themes. Chetan Bhagat wrote a book on IITians called "Five Point Someone" and it became a big hit. While discussing about the book and the content with a few friends I came to know about their views on the book. Their view was the book might have done well and became famous but it was crap.
1.There was nothing like this in the market.
2.Had it not been written with the IIT background the book would not have done so well.
3.Even though its a fictional story, it forms a picture about IIT on the reader's mind, which is exactly not what IIT is about.

Neverthless the idea was fresh, new and a movie was being made on IITians. One of my friends, who is passionate about movies and has taken film making as carrer also thought of making a movie on the IITians. It was an idea which was really challenging, considering the kind of money involved and its his first such project. He had the determination and now his movie is in the final stages. He will be releasing it very soon. There are many who think that its weird and might not work. But that didn't stop him from making the movie. I think thats the spirit.

"I think of an unsual theme which gets rejected outright by either the actors or the TV producers."

Isnt that what always happens when something ingenious is done? Arnt people always apprehensive of trying out something which is a bit away from the traditional lines?

"herd mentality amongst humans "

There are few things evolutions couldnt wipe out from us. After all, we were monkeys before and you know very well that any animal has to have this herd pyschology if he has to survive. Man, no longer requires to be in the herd to survive now but few habits die hard as they say.

Hi Sohaila,

I think its a simple matter of missing the boat. In showbiz, there's something about being the right place at the right time. It isnt odd at all that your ideas become part of popular culture a few years down the line. There are plenty of thinkers/writers/artists who are ahead of their times...think van gogh, etc. The point is that these people were in the wrong place at the wrong time because they were thinking beyond their times. Its a pity that society is lagging behind your ideas, but it has nothing to do with being part of some cosmic conciousness as you seem to suggest. About entering a shop and having people do the same following you, its simply called the Law of Averages...perhaps there hadnt been people in there for a while before you, according to the Law of Averages, at some point while the shop is open, people would go in, maybe in large groups. This happens to everyone, so if we're all doing something and there seem to be large numbers of people doing what we're doing it has nothing to do with other people being connected to your conciousness at the gas station or the store!

cute! :) no, i mean it. cute!

my 2 annas: i don't currently feel like delving into much depths or keying-in at length. have just had a really filling mutton-biryani, followed by 3 huge, really soft and warm gulab jamuns. so i hope you can understand why the hurry to just quickly state the shortest ... theory! according to evolution. things got favorable throughout; the climate, the temperature, the terraine, everything. life sprouted everywhere, around the globe, simultaneously (give or take a coupla centuries). and that's how its been happening since. call it life, or an idea. its just that it's time has come.

about everyone following you into empty shops you enter. you said it. herds! happens with everyone. everyone who makes a start.

we're not really, but we do so want/wish to be connected at a subtler level of consciousness. it makes us feel secure, and good. its the basic human need for company and communicating, again just for the sake of feeling, not alone.

Sohaila, World famous biologist J.Bronowski has written in his book The Ascent of Man, "It seems ideas discover man than the other way about." Though he has said "it seems" I know it is true. So it is true when you say that:

The fact is that the trend or idea is already in the air, or in the rarified air so to say. And you are at the cutting edge of a particular stream of human evolution and so has developed intuition enough to catch it.

Perhaps in your childhood or even later people used to say that what you say comes out to be true or comes out to happen? It is also because of the similar reasons.

The like has happened in my childhood and has been happening even now with me too. I have written and self-published a book Self Designed Universe (www.selfdesigneduniverse.com)last year. I simply KNOW that what is written in it is true. People will have to come to accept it a few years or decades down the line. And in fact I also knew even before showing it to any publisher that I will have to publish it mysef. Now I have already mentioned in it many things, directly or indirectly, which western scientists 'discover' in parts every other month or year now.

For example, I have written in it that woman is on the lower ladder in terms of intellect. (Don't misuderstand, they are ahead in feeling and intuition, behind in reasoning and intellect). I said it in my book about two years back. Now a few months ago there was a great news in newspapers that such and such scientists have discoverd that a woman's IQ is less than man. There are many other things like that in my book.

As finally the universal scheme of things is the play of only one all-prevading spirit, it should not be very difficult to understand that as we will go nearer and nearer to that spirit, we will begin to sense things happening at deeper and deeper levels which will though come to the surface only later.

These days there is even a fact of science behind such phenomenon. In scientific jargon it is called the phenomenon of 'non-locality.' It says that if previously two sub-atomic particles were in one configuration (imagine two electrons in one or the same atom or molecule)they will remain in touch with each other no matter by how much distance we separate them later on. That is to say, if we will later move one particle to any particular direction the other separated particle too will respond by changing its direction accordingly. It has puzzled the scientists much. Because, according to Einstein's relativity theory nothing can move with speed greater than the speed of light. On the other hand this change in an other particle takes place almost instantly. Scientists wonder what makes this change possible. What is the medium through which this change takes place, or through which message of one particle reaches the other almost instantly.

Now considering that the whole universe itself is a one great configuration because of one all-prevading spirit, it will be obvius that every sub-atomic particle in it will be in touch with every other sub-atomic particle in the same way and so will respond accordingly to any change. Now we come to your or mine experiences. If we are 'deeper' persons, that is, if we or our "I" 'lives' at comparatively deeper levels of our beings, at the level of sub-atomic particles so to say, it is no wonder that we will respond to changes taking place at those levels anywhere which though may manifest at the surface only later. It is in this way that we sense the coming of things before hand. I have avoided details but the general explanation is the same.

You might have heard about our chakras. Our moving on them from one to the other, from lower to the higher only represents the movement of our "I", or our basic consciousness to deeper and deeper levels. Finally when we are at what is called the Heart Chakra, we are almost one with the all-prevading spirit. When we are at the chakra which is identified with our naval, we are at our shallowest levels, and see just physical things or things as they are at the surface, or see things through our senses. Then as we evolve, we move to our heart chakra (our physical heart chakra). Here we 'see' things a bit deeper and through our feelings. It is intuition at work but at yet shallow levels. Then we or our "I" moves to the third chakra which is said to be in our head. Here we have moved in the third phase depth-wise. Here we 'see' things through reason or intellect. Laslty, we move to our spiritual Heart Chakra said to be two digits to the right of our physical heart. Here we or our "I" is at its deepest. We are at the peak of our intuitive powers. We feel almost one with the whole world and through that with the all-prevading One Power. It is only when we are here that we begin to have the powers of sensing the happening of things before hand all around.

Hope a few words will stick.

Harb.

"Hope a few words will stick"
LoL... you mean, as Sohaila is a woman?

Sohaila

I feel so much in sync with what you have expressed that it is almost a feeling of deja vu. I was recently complaining to my husband that I discuss a theme with him and soon someone beats me to it. It appeared almost as if I was being continually watched,heard,monitored. Ofcourse that was only my ego reacting. The truth of the matter is being linked, tuned,in, highly sensitized to, or wahtever one may describe it , to the prevailing realm of ideas. If one were to take it a step further, it could translate as,us being only the media through which an idea whose time has come, chooses to express itself. Therefore, on that level, keeping in mind the universality and oneness of our consciousness, it is immaterial as to who finally wears the crown. The idea saw the light of the day, in the manner best intended and that is that. Amen

So, yes, even on the idea of your post, there is a consensus , in our small community. On a micro level if the truth has appeared so glaringly, then on the macro, it is bound to be manifested more emphatically.If anything this enthuses me to send waves of peace, compassion and goodwill to the ailing, suffering and those in anguish.

Awesome Thread Sohaila.

You want to know what is weird, I clicked on your profile and I just last night had a dream and someone looking just like you, that was a writer, was in it. They were telling about a project(s). I don't remember the detail now such are dreams but it was very normal matter of fact. Just thought I would mention it.

I can relate to all of what you are saying. I have been observing connected behavior for some time.

I become aware of things long in advance such that I think I am somehow creating or triggering them, and perhaps I AM. I often wonder did that many people read what I wrote? Or is it a spontaneous manifestion in multiple minds?

I have also seen and I am developing methods to capture the spontaneous manifestation of an idea in multiple minds because it appears on the Internet. it is hard to isolate fom the physical manifestation on the net and that coming from the mind.

I SUSPECT "THEY" MIGHT BE THE SAME MIND only appearing to be separate.

In Infinite Play The Movie (docmentary) this is exactly what I am exploring and capturing on video. Watch the Dream Cruise for example.

I would call it part of the Mysterious Force.

We let it happen and it does and capture the events on video, it is almost like a multi-faceted creature. There are no actors they are real people.

People would approach us with something that needed to be said or had a perfect contibution to the theme. We were on the street corner and everyone there and every event that occured was "ON PURPOSE". It had a purpose. Some people would avoid us.

It was as if there was an unseen director, or we are all communicating at another level.

I have experienced the same thing with the shopping, and a long time ago I worked nights at a gas station and people would come in clumps.

ON PURPOSE ?

Yes, I think you are on target.

Now that we know it exists how can we further explore it and play with it.

I have noticed that whenever people see me buy something, or even pick it up, they buy it.

Perhaps I should be doing commercials?

Sohaila

Lately I was thinking of the globalization of love and compassion.Where we resolve difference by exchange of ideas , not violence and killing. Where the leaders of countries are altruistic for the common good of all, not just to profit themselves.We can resolve poverty in the world. It may appear as lack of food , water and shelter, but it is the poverty of the soul.

Lol, Aurora, I said this not because Sohaila is a woman but because what I have said is not very easy to understand and on top of it, as wrting is not really my cup of tea (when intellect begins to give place to intelligence writing something becomes difficult as compared to speaking at the spur of the moment)I thought I have not been able to express myself very clearly and systematically.

Havn't I also said that deeper intuition is even beyond reason and that means beyond intellect? And Sohaila to me would be at this deeper intution level.

Harb

Sohaila:

Good point here.. Remember the FOUR MINUTE MILE - when Roger Bannister ran it .. before that it was considered impossible.. and within a few months after he did it.. at least 4 others got it too!

Beyond the Gross consciousness - as we look at and what the drugged folks try to get connected to - is the subtle consciousness.. THAT is ONE.

cheers,
Desh

Personal Blog: www.Drishtikone.com

Sohaila,

Thank you for your post. I enjoyed reading it. I believe that we are all connected on some level (or many levels) that has yet to be explored. I look forward to a time when that level will be taken seriously.

Love, Bo

Sohaila...It was Just beautiful!!

Harb, I was just pulling your leg :) I think you express yourself very well, and the important thing is that you yourself are aware of what you're doing and why. Like comparing IQs :)

EVERYONE HAS MISSED THE MARK!!!!!!!!!

HERE IS WHY,

EVERYTHING IS COMMING FROM THE SAME PLACE :-

THE IDEA, YOUR THOUGHT ON THE IDEA, YOUR EXPLANTIONS.

Aurora:

Sorry guys I had to jump from Aurora's first (maybe only) post and hereas Aurora has completely stated what I was thinkimg as I read the post.

Spot on Aurora.

Look forward to reading more.

Great post all.

So, Laurence, there were thoughts "in the air" and I happened to write them down before you did. Were they mine, were they yours or is it so that "you" and "I" are an agreement in the imagination of something that you and I both are?

I vote for an agreement in the imagination.

"Me" too :):):)

Arjunan:

Great point!!

"EVERYTHING IS COMMING FROM THE SAME PLACE :-"

EVerything does not "come" from one place.. but is ONE.

In Gita Krishna says - the Hawan you do, Arjun, is me.. what you offer is me, what you ask for .. is me.. What you get finally is me!

And "Me" not as in Krishna .. but "Sachhidanandaghan Parmabrahm Parmeshwar" or the Universal Consciousness!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Sohaila, excellent. I think dreams play an important role in receiving/transmitting information from the collective consciousness. I have found personal solace in some of the writings of Jung and Campbell.

Hi, Sohaila

Wow, so interesting -- thank you! Your final sentence, "And that probably brings us back to that mother of all philosophical debates about us being different manifestations of the one Cosmic Consciousness" is important.

A few years ago some popular books were published about chaos theory. Chaos theory says that mathematical order can often be found in things or events that appear to be random or chaotic. (When the math underlying an apparently chaotic thing or event is graphed on a computer, patterns emerge and change over time -- they actually evolve. These graphics are called fractal patterns, which are rich, organic-looking images.)

When chaos theory books were first being published and publicized, there was a lot of discussion that chaos theory took mathemeticians and scientists back to the realm of what we call God -- a universal presence -- because it allowed even the most apparently disordered and tiny things to be related back to some kind of order. That idea developed from the following thoughts: If the universe came out of a big bang of a small superdense object, and if it developed as clusters and threads of matter and energy that continued to expand and evolve from the original superdense object and its explosion (these are currently the prevailing theories, though who knows if they're real or right), then we are all stardust, as the song goes. More importantly, we (bodies, souls and minds) are all little whorls of mass and energy that have evolved out of that one central event. We are all related yet unique, in bigger, deeper ways that we can imagine, with the relationship going back to the beginning of the universe. Whatever was part of the original event -- a superbeing, God, a Universal Conciousness, we are all unique manifestations of that original object/event. Chaos theory seems to support your central philosophical idea, that we are all "different manifestations of the one Cosmic Consciousness".

An important aspect of chaos theory is that the objects or events that evolve from some original object or event have a both commonalities and uniquenesses, and that the differences that develop in the pattern develop in a patterned way that evolves to include new uniquenesses. As the pattern evolves, some manfestations are more like the original pattern, and some are less like, but all manfestations are both similar to and different from the original, and it all continues to evolve, and stay related yet be ever-changing and unique. Also: Whether viewed from a distance or close-up, both the overall pattern and the individual unique manifestations are always visible to some degree.

So, assuming we started from a universal event or pattern...some people would have a stronger connection with the universal pattern, and some would have less. And some would be positioned on changing edges or areas of the pattern, perhaps. Such people may sense what appear to be future directions or changes in the pattern either because they are already standing on that future, or are feeling it ready to vibrate to its next iterative change.

You appear to be someone like that. You are very modest about your ability to accurately sense the next gestalt or paradigm in certain areas of this life. Yet seen from afar, how exciting it must be for you to be "surfing right on the curl" of a universal wave. How valuable it would be to keep a record of your predictions! Not only would that be interesting to read a few years later, but also a history of your ideas' predictive accuracy would add weight to your voice as you market your ideas.

My personal answer to your question -- are you influencing others, or are you aware of a pattern shift before it occurs -- is this: You are aware of the shift because it is occurring for you before it occurs for others. You are a leader, in that you stand on ground that is moving before it moves for others. In other words, I personally think it's your option two that's prevailing: "Am I tapping into some kind of collective cultural consciousness that determines what will work in the near future?"

Again, how exciting for you to have this capability!

Harb,

Women do not have lower IQs. Women have been so discouraged from pursuing realms of the higher intellect and in addition they are taught to suppress the rational/reasoning side which you brought up. Anyway, your theory makes no sense b/c high IQ is supposed to directly tie in to the ability to make creative, intuitive connections and to have creative/intuitive grasps of different ideas. Women with lower IQs--utter nonsense! You are defining IQ in a very narrow way--math talent, etc. is not the only manifestation of IQ. Anyway, isn't the person with the highest IQ--the lady in Parade magazine--a woman? Go ahead and say men are "stronger", but you are wrong to say women aren't as smart.

Men just think they are smarter--that shows you how irrational they truly are!

Harb - I totally disagree with your statement about women having lower IQ's than men. Studies in the social sciences do not conclusively prove anything, they are often based on fantastic presuppositions, and your intuition is the last thing in the world I'd consider meaningful in this context. Perhaps it takes a higher IQ to see the reality :)

Sohaila - I vaguely remember reading something about monkeys - if even one monkey learns to do something, within a short while other monkies on completelty different continents pick up the same trick.fa

Always remember:

WE ARE ONE.

HARB:

As I spend more and more time at this site I have noticed a dramatic decrease in my desire to comment off the cuff. I don't responde from my reationary self which, these days, has a very weak voice, I am indebted to the participants of this site. All of them.

With that said I most lovingly wish to point out that if anything women are of a higher intellect then men.

This is based on direct observation and is not a theory.

Peace out

HARB:

As I spend more and more time at this site I have noticed a dramatic decrease in my desire to comment off the cuff. I don't responde from my reationary self which, these days, has a very weak voice, I am indebted to the participants of this site. All of them.

With that said I most lovingly wish to point out that if anything women are of a higher intellect then men.

This is based on direct observation and is not a theory.

Peace out

how come the concurrent complementing thought and action of martyrdom and 72 virgins does not arise in 5/6th of humanity sharing the same"grid", air, water and the planet when almost daily there is a 'martyr' blowing himself/ herself up?
LPB: In this regard women have certainly equalled themselves to the intellect of their male counterparts and want to be present at the pearly gates of heaven when the martyrs get to frolick with the 72 virgins.
Their God must be a male chauvanist to have made no provisions of having virile raging stud males to service these women who have just arrived after proving their equal intellect and valor.
Consensus on similarities and their ensuing association while ignoring the obvious differences will lead to the logical fallacy of nescience and ignorant science which seems to be the basis of 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN".

Here here Mr. Brown! I have had this direct experience as well.

Re. the IQ discussion - I believe that defining IQ largely based on math abilities is wrong. I do see the so-called IQ definition experts have moved away from that bias, including other aspects like talent in music, emotional intelligence etc. Anyways, I totally believe that IQ is not correlated to gender.

But what piqued my interest was this comment by dulcie: "You are defining IQ in a very narrow way--math talent, etc. is not the only manifestation of IQ." This implies that women are inferior to men on math talent. When I've made that argument (never for the average person, but for the highest of achievers - the Fields Medallists for instance), I have always got beaten up and ridiculed. So I was wondering if there is any credence to an assertion that women are inferior to men in pure math abilities. BTW dulcie, the Parade magazine columnist you refer to, Marilyn Vos Savant, is exceptionally talented at math.

Back to the original post by Sohaila:

"Unfailingly. I know one can deduce that it is the herd mentality amongst humans which makes them emulate one another. That can happen once or twice, but everytime?"

I think the shop incident is a poor example to use. If herd mentality is at play, it still satsifactorily explains why it will work every time. Perhaps the most famous experiment with herd mentality is one where a large amount of experimental consiprators are seated in an exam hall, with regular subjects. A fire is lit outside with thick smoke bellowing through. None of the conspirators leave, and this causes none of the actual subjects to leave either, even when they start coughing and tearing. The experiment has worked consistently across cultures. It shows that herd mentality is at play *every time*.

Emotionally, I believe that forms of inter-personal communication are unexplainable in modern science. But logic forces me to accept that such incidents have never been proven under rigorous observation.

Sohaila, your blog is so rich with important questions and comments that each needs individual responses. So I am going to quote the questions ((Q) and comments (C) you make, and then answer (A) or respond (R) each one individually one after another.

Q1 “Do we, as a species, have an inbuilt radar that communicates with fellow humans?

A1. The human species is actually a single comso sapiens. As such each individual human is merely a unique combination of a unique observational standpoint and a unique instrument for interaction with the larger physical body of this cosmo sapiens (or physical universe of the Cosmic Spirit).

Although the unique cultural programming imposed upon each individual human while growing up contaminates one to the point of sealing oneself into a closed discrete entity, the potential for data to flow across all individuals within the cosmo sapiens manifests mostly among those individual humans who are less individuated conceptually.

Among these relatively less contaminated and ‘open’ individuals, there is more flow of the contents of one another’s experiences, assumptions, and intentions, and this might be what you are referring to as “inbuilt radar”, when perceiving the phenomenon from the perspective of a single individual. So yes, there is considerable flow of content within individual brains among all other ‘open’ brains within our social unity as the cosmo sapiens.

Q2. “Do we generate telepathic waves that that actually help determine the way human civilisation develops?”

A2. Yes wherever truth, i.e., a conceptual configuration that accurately represents some part of the entire cosmic intelligence system, occurs in an individual brain, such truth tends to more easily and quickly get recognized as such.

Those who view this swift proliferation of such truth from among many individuals – from the perspective of individual humans – then tend to interpret this phenomenon of the flow of truth within the cosmo sapiens as phenomenon as cases of telepathic waves among individuals.

Q3. “Am I instinctively `reading' a trend developing without being overtly aware of it?”

A3. As you seem to be one of the more ‘open’ individuals in the cosmo sapient system, you are more likely either to make the accurate interpretation and thus generate truth within your brain, or be one of the earlier recognizers of the truth.

If it is the first case, you are forming the trend without knowing it, and in the second case, you are ‘reading’ it earlier than most. In either case, it is much earlier than those who are less ‘open’ receive that truth, which might explain why the actors or TV producers you work with seem to reject it then.

Instead of interpreting this rejection as another way of interpreting this phenomenon is that the actors and TV producers you happen to be dealing with happen to be among those who are less ‘open’, and that you might consider actively looking for actors and TV producers who might be more open, and therefore, at least almost as receptive as you are to the same truth, and thereby, less resistant to it when you suggest it.

Q4. Am I tapping into some kind of collective cultural consciousness that determines what will work in the near future?

A4. You are thinking of this question in this way because you are still regarding this phenomenon from the perspective of what will get more popular or more successful fairly soon.

However, if you tried to regard the same phenomenon from the perspective of a truth that has emerged, from one vantage point or the other, then you will see that it is really the extent of the accuracy with which it is representing something about our common world that gives it the power to get more widely recognized and accepted, and it is this recognition and acceptance that drives which is what allows it to “work in the near future”.

Q5. “Does it (people appearing to follow me) mean that at some level I am communicating my desire to explore that shop and influencing their thoughts too?

A5. Again, you are interpreting this from the perspective of you being an individual ‘initiator’ of the shop mela. But if you consider yourself to be one of the individuals who received the notion of visiting the store a little earlier than the others, would you interpret their following their notions to be a case of their following you into the store, i.e., as you being an initiator of their coming to the store?

C6. “I personally think we're all connected at a subtler level of consciousness. That there's much thought and emotion sharing at that level, which ultimately influences our behaviour. And that probably brings us back to that mother of all philosophical debates about us being different manifestations of the one Cosmic Consciousness.”

R6. Yes indeed, and even more than connected. We are all actually one whose conceptual programming at different vantage points delude us into the notion of being discrete and separate beings.

If you would allow yourself to consider that everything you are looking at in front of you (including all those other people) is actually seamlessly contiguous with you at the sub-nuclear level of reality, that stuff is flowing in exchange across the boundary of your skin between what was ‘inside’ and what was “outside’ your skin; you would break out of your isolation as a discrete and separate being, and allow yourself to flow more harmoniously within our greater body, as different extensions of the selfsame cosmo sapiens.

Yes, emotions are the most immediate response of our common consciousness to what experiences and interpretations are coming in through each vantage point. Our emotions inform not only our experiences, but also our interpretations, and the resulting imaginations and intentions. All these become fodder for observation and interpretation and imagination from other vantage points according their respective openness and receptivity.

Sohaila, the more open each of us are, the more authentic and in greater harmony we are. It is this ‘loss’ of our mistaken isolation that releases us into the ease of being who we always were, the one and only being there is in the entire universe. This is why it is so necessary for this unity to be broken out of its abstract form within philosophy to a tangible and palpable reality that all of participate in directly and viscerally everyday.

We need a new language that arises only out of addressing reality from the perspective of all of us being indeed this selfsame cosmic consciousness.

How would we talk to one another if we all knew for a fact that each of us is simply a different observational vantage point within one and the same being?

How would we feel for one another if we felt for one another as your right arm feels towards your left?

How would you as a film maker make this experiential form tangible and direct for your audiences?

A.K.,

Thank you for pointing out a serious flaw in the way that I worded my argument. I should have said that even if Harb had any evidence to say that women lag behind in math's "rational/reasoning" abilities (which I felt he was claiming), he was still completely misdefining what it means to have a high IQ. I can see the point that you are making. I think women are equal in math abilities also--I should have been much more clear about that. Suffice it to say that women have been consistently discouraged from pursuing math/science. My apologies for any implications women are not as good in math/science. I believe with all of my heart that men do NOT have higher IQs--and was trying to point out that Harb's definition of high IQ was totally antiquated--if Einstein had no
intuition/creativity how far would he have gotten?

A blurb on the back cover of the book "Consciousness Speaks", Conversations with Ramesh Balsekar:

ALL THERE IS, IS CONSCIOUSNESS

" If that is understood, completely, deeply, intuitively then you need read no further. Put the book down and go on joyously with the rest of your life. If, however, you belong to that massively large group of people who consider themselves people, then perhaps there may be something here for you."

And a haiku to express our inherent nature as the light of consciousness"

You're not the pale moon
You're the light of countless suns
in all it's glory

Sohaila, see, there are many takers ;)
What a fantastic topic! I love it! I love the great responses too. It seems like there's something percolating in the air. More and more so. Or maybe we are just more and more in tuned to it. I definately have had some of the same experiences that you have, including people walking into an otherwise empty store immediately after I do, as well as being 'tapped into' something 'before it's time'. I have also had the experience of thinking about something and then come to find that someone has posted that exact thing here on the blog. Sometimes I like to play a little game....when I'm on the phone with someone, I focus my attention on something, be it a word, an idea etc and just see if the other person 'picks up' on it and mentions it. Strangely enough (or not so strange depending on how you look at it) they do tend to pick up on it. It's really wierd/cool! Anyways, we are definately more connected than many of us know :)

Jagdeep Kaur: " have just had a really filling mutton-biryani, followed by 3 huge, really soft and warm gulab jamuns"......YUM!!
I think I've got to get myself some gulab jamun this weekend.....my favourite...especially warm :)

Hello Everybody!

We all know that women are more emotional while men are more rational. Which is rather why 99% of science and rational philosophy Nobels are won by men. I also call this being rational as being intellectual and in fact consider the IQ I am talking about as Intellectuality Quotient.

I know most people call this IQ as Intelligence Quotient but this is wrong. It is only Intellectual Quotient.

Intelligence for me is something higher than even intellect and both men and women can reach it. Men by outgrowing intellect, women by partially bypassing it. It is because of this that women can compete and even excell in arts, music etc, the products more of intelligence or rather intuition than intellect.

Sometimes some women can still look more rational or intellectual than men, but it is because of the wheels-within-wheels nature of our evolutionary progress, because of which while some men may be in their emotional phase, some women may be in their intellectual phase as in the long cyclical progress of their lives they pass through four phases of senses, feelings, intellect and intelligence.

Know truth by the amount it pinches.

There are, in fact, many more details to this but it is not the place for them. Thiswise some entire communities are rather female than men, for, on the level of communities they are the product of the emotional phase as a whole rather than of the intellect. Just as some others would be more males than female.

This goes even on west and east level. Western people are more emotional and intellectual, while eastern people are more sensual and intuitive. Which is in fact why we generally use such phrases as western science and eastern mysticism.

Just as west and east have their equal place in the overall scheme of things men and women have theirs. And again, this is the reason why, just as men are attracted to women and vice versa, west is attracted to estern mysticism and east is attracted to western science and tech.

Yet sorry if I have disturbed some souls here. Mine is only one voice. If women are NOT less intellectual I cannot make them by saying so. So reast assured in your confidence and convictions.

Harb.

Oh, Trinity's mention of Jagdeep Kaur's Gulam Jamuns has made me forget all arguments...

Aha, G U L A A B J A M U N S!!!!

Jagdeep Kaur jee,

Tuseen Trinity tay Harb bhra noon traih, traih garam, garam gulaab jamun bhej diyo jee.

Fir tuseen tino log gulaab jamun kha ke mil-jhul
ho jaao gay! Tay sareean pugleean theoreean da saboot mil jaway gaa.

Regards
TS

Lo eh main ki vekh rihan! Main tan samjhia ki Tanzan Senzaki koi japani aurat howegi. Oh ji tusi tan punjabi inj jande ho jiven kite jalandhur de hi howon. Bibi tusin kithe de rahen wale ho? BTW TS, excuse me if you are a male.

Harb bhra ji.

Very fascinating topic. I for one believe it is true, we are all connected at a certain level.

I have noticed one very peculiar thing. Couples who have been married for a long time, like 20-25 years begin to resemble each other. It is not just in thoughts or deeds, you can see their faces actually resemble each other. I have seen it many times. Perhaps they have integrated into each other so well that their body intelligence starts manifesting this oneness by transforming their physical appearance as well. I wonder if it is true.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Great views, folks.

I would like to to comment on Harb's theory of `non locality'here; about a particle responding to the changed behaviour/direction of another particle, by changing its own trajectory/behaviour and that too instantly. How did that message of a changed trajectory reach the other particle so fast, specially since nothing is known in the physical world to travel faster than the speed of light? And why did the message induce the second particle to emulate the first particle's behaviour? To me, there is a definite evidence of connectivity.... a connectivity that is stronger and faster than magnetism or the speed of light--forces of nature we are familiar with.

On the micro level this strange behaviour is seen in sub atomic particles, whereas on the macro level in phenomena like the black holes and the `superstrings'. Their effects are still being studied, and so no conclusions have been drawn about them.

My question is: Is this some new reality that we have chanced upon, that may bend or break the conventional rules of science?

They are part of the quantum theory, which has been explained beautifully in the layman's language, in Stephen Hawking's wonderful book, `A Brief History of Time'. (I was attacked for using the example of the quantum theory in my last post on science and spirituality).

The sceptics on these posts keep asking for scientific evidence to support my theories, which, for them, are `nonsensical'. But can they themselves give evidence that the physical world and the spiritual one are not connected and that they are not part of the same phenomenon called nature?

Talking of connectivity, this post is connected to my old one about science and spirituality (`Is Today's Spirituality Tomorrow's Science?') in that it is following the same argument. How do we know that what is in the realm of the non- physical is not really another aspect of physical reality that we are not advanced enough to recognise as yet (except at a deeper level of consciousness like the instinct)? How do we know that the particle in quantum physics that emulated its twin and jumped did not do it because of a bond between them? Or, as some scientists have exclaimed, that they have actually seen a sub atomic particle existing in two places at the same time....an impossible feat according to the current laws of science?

Are we talking of omnipresence here? Are we gradually stepping into the realm of the supernatural? Are the supernatural and superscience one and the same phenomenon?

These are some of the questions that the future generation will be grappling with.

--Sohaila Kapur

Hi Sohaila,
These questions you ask are for the asking Now, and not just for the future generation to come!
Thanks for a fantastic post, and follow-up!
~~ Kate

Connections of the Past - Consciousness Lost

As I wonder and come to this site to see if there is something new,
The mystic Indian mind has to say adding to our real knowledge of the world,
I find nothing new. The same old beating of drums, the same old blowing of trumpets
Of the greatness of God spreading his souls to all of us
And thus connecting us all together in super consciousness.
All theorizing, all hypothesizing, all talking, all concepts, nothing adding
To the evidence or anything concrete.

Unable to prove anything, they resort to the physics of quantum,
Quoting pseudo scientists and charlatans, linking their super consciousness to effects of quantum,
Proclaiming: Ah! They found the link of science to their gods,
They talk of all warped, garbled, confused concepts of space and time
They talk of action at distance, non-locality and non linearity of space-time,
Knowing not an iota of science professing themselves to be the gurus of this new age
Of science and consciousness.

What are they after to? Many times I wonder. Is their ego at stake? Or is it they too want to grab the money bags and not want to be left behind,
Where money is God and the truth of their connectivity of super-consciousness is all dust
Thrown into the eyes.

What are they after to, I ask again? Or perhaps they have developed views of the universe,
Every bit spiritual, but enjoy the fruits of material things bestowed by science on them.
Money grabber hypocrites? Cowboys without horses, challenging science to prove wrong the spiritual theories they ride on.

Science does not need them, it can live without them.
They cannot and demand the science to prove them wrong.
Science searches the truth, they impose on science their godly truths.
No thanks. Do not meddle with science. Meddle with your spirits and your gods.
Let scientists discover the world and you stagnate in spiritual thoughts.

Dear Tanzan,
I think there is more here, than you may realize. And it has nothing to do with hypocrisy, or riding phantom horses. Then again....nothing wrong with that. Sometimes getting lost, is an interesting experience, filled with discoveries!

What scientific blogs do you participate in? Is there an outlet for you, when you disagree so strongly about the 'content' contained in the articles, and comments, and the 'stagnation' of spiritual discussions, as you see, going on here.

Nothing 'profound' can I offer you. I am not scientifically gifted as many writers here.

I do offer you a Blessing.
~~ Kate

Excuse me Tanzan

you too have been doing the same tiresome thing throughout your blogs. Trying to make poetry out of your negativity, replete with your boring arrogance. You are falling victim to the same fault you ascribe to the `hypocritical, non scientific spiritualists' that you refer to.....stating your dogma and defending it with the tantrum of a kid denied a sweet.

Just as you ask us to prove prove our theories using the scientific paradigm, kindly do the same yourself. We're all here to be enlightened, remember?

Sohaila

Sohaila, these questions are not for the next generations but already explained by me in my book Self Designed Universe.

Nor is there anything supernatural about the instant connectivity. Call it superscience if you will. It all is the play of to what we call Matter. I have divided it into three categories for explaining the whole phenomenon: Matter Spiritual, Matter virtual and Matter actual(physical). The whole universal game including what we are talking about is the manifestation of interplay between these three forms of Matter. One can as well call it Spirit or Energy (but not usual) and then divide this Spirit likewise into three categories.

Please let me know your address and I will send you the book, it is not necessary that a person should be world famous for him to give new theories and explanations. I wonder why are you saying again and again that these questions are for the future generations, when I have already said that these are answered in my book. Do you think only a western scientist or spiritualitt can answer to such questions?

Remember, only Easterns can decipher things when they go to these depths of Oneness of all existence. Didn't we already gave zero and infinity to the world? These are beyond the usual bottom and top of the universe, and hence beyond western science or gaze.

Well said Kate. I have always been impressed by your posts though I have not found the time to comment on them.

Harb.

Sohaila,

Spirituality does not need science. We need to make that distinction. I cringe everytime Deepak chooses to talk about quantum this and quantum that.

Science addresses physical reality around us. Spirituality addresses our more profound questions about our existence and purpose. Both are ultimately models of reality but only models. It is as wrong to expect a spiritual theory to be scientifically proven as to expect a scientific theory to be validated by spiritual methods.

Scientifically minded folks tend to think that scientific inquiry is the only valid way of inquiry. May I remind them that it is but one branch of logic and logic can be applied in many different ways.

As the theory of relativity and quantum theory have demonstrated, reality is much stranger than you can imagine.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

well said.

sohaila

Sohaila,

I have questioned your views in this thread and the previous one. I went back and reviewed my comments. I don't believe I've ever attacked you, either personally or for your views even though I've clearly disagreed with them. If they appear to come through untastefully as a personal attack, my sincere apologies.

In your previous thread, I questioned what is meant by "quantum theory is beginning to prove that" when you opined that science and spirituality is one and the same.

In your comment on this thread, you mention Hawking. I have read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" - twice. I have even read the companion reader's guide to it. Absorbing the content, I am suprised if you believe from reading it that it even suggests that science and spirituality are the same. I never got an inkling of that thought from the book and would be much obliged if you can direct me to sentences or passages there that clearly suggest it. I have read well known reviews of the book that talk about it revealing the "mind of god". I interpret this to mean it carefully lays out the blueprint of our current understanding of nature. There is no doubt that these are theories, and we are far from realizing answers to some fundamental questions.

In a comment above in this thread, you mention: "The sceptics on these posts keep asking for scientific evidence to support my theories, which, for them, are `nonsensical'. But can they [viz. skeptics] themselves give evidence that the physical world and the spiritual one are not connected and that they are not part of the same phenomenon called nature?"

Now, that proof cannot be given to what you ask does not mean that your assertion has any credibility. What about the possibility that it is a difficult (may be even unanswerable)question, the answer to which remains completely unknown? And the theory you propose being inadequate and mostly irrelevant in gaining any insight?

In your last comment above, you say "well said". I assume it is in reference to Ravi's post. Ravi mentions "I cringe everytime Deepak chooses to talk about quantum this and quantum that" and adds "May I remind them that it is but one branch of logic and logic can be applied in many different ways."

While I disagree that some spiritually oriented theories are even logical, I do appreciate the point that it is a good idea to separate the two, especially when there is no clarity nor consensus. Hence, I am debating your assertion that quantum theory is beginning to prove anything beyond explaining specific experimental observations.

In a comment above, you add: "How do we know that the particle in quantum physics that emulated its twin and jumped did not do it because of a bond between them? Or, as some scientists have exclaimed, that they have actually seen a sub atomic particle existing in two places at the same time....an impossible feat according to the current laws of science?"

This is misleading. Scientists have never ever "seen" a sub-atomic particle. What you refer to above as "existing in the same place at the same time" are probability estimates that suggest co-existence according to observations and measurement. It is an open question of whether that measurement is itself understood, or a factor that influences the outcome in a hitherto not-understood way. It is also an open question of whether that co-existence conclusion, itself means the theory (of subatomic particles as understood today) is incorrect!

Physicists are unanimous in their acknowledgement that quantum theory poses very baffling questions and is incomplete. This calls for additional refinement or new theories so we can make forward progress at better understanding nature.

By citing "connectedness" as anything that explains this, we have NO new insight and are reaching NOWHERE forward. It is obvious and trivial for the physicists who recorded these singularities to make these very conclusions (of an uncharacterized "connecting" force that "explains" it). They didn't because it is not provable, is a tautology, and doesn't get us any new insight in a usable way. Hence the search for better theories and better insight continues .... in science. It likely will never end through our existence. And the same likely holds for spirituality.

In this blog topic, you mentioned the shop incident and said "That can happen once or twice, but everytime?". I posted a comment above that said, yes, this can happen everytime and it only strenghtens the hypothesis that 'herd mentality' or some equivalent of it can be repeatedly and consistently demonstrated. This explanation is more convincing than any uber-connectedness argument. You did not respond and of course, you may utterly disagree. One could equally disagree with Newton's laws of motion and say it is God's mind at work and the theories of mechanics are a diversion. Where do you accept that experimental validation is adequate to prove a mundane theory? Where do you choose to draw the line?

Finally you ask, rhetorically, "Are we talking of omnipresence here? Are we gradually stepping into the realm of the supernatural? Are the supernatural and superscience one and the same phenomenon?"

At this moment, we absolutely, are not stepping anywhere out of the grounded confines of what nature supports. If at all, we as a species MIGHT have lost out on some abilities that highlight nature's singularities even more sharply. I say this only because miracles, god-events, and espiodes of uncanny astrology and devination are comfortably tucked away in our past.

As we go forward, we all acknowledge that science will explain even more, while still leaving us with pressing questions. Thousand years from now, we will have theories and devices based on it that we can't even conjure today. I think you said as much when you mentioned the effect a light bulb may have had on our ancient civilization.

None of the realities of the future will be considered miraculous. And yet, we may never have the answer to the basis of existence and questions of the mind/soul/afterlife.

We will make this progress irrespective of spirituality wafting or waning. If history is any indication, they are not at all correlated. That is my fundamental disagreement with your view that anything integratively profound is "coming together now or in the near future", or that your views have presented any insight beyond the emotional. Thank you.

Well said A.K.!! I too cringe each time people wax forth like loonies. Gotta overlook it though coz they know nothing about either science or ___ (I'm not even going to use the S word)

A.K.
I could not have done a better job. Thanks. I am now waiting to hear any response from Sohaila that makes sense. Talking of her emotions, she accused me of throwing a temper tantrum like a child. I could not be able to respond to her earlier as anytime I clicked on her blog, my computer got jammed.

She tells me : "Just as you ask us to prove prove our theories using the scientific paradigm, kindly do the same yourself." I am afraid if she tomorrow starts seeing God, I will not be able to prove that she did not see God. So I think it is best to leave her alone. But on the other hand, scientists should not let the charlatans and pseudo-scientists mislead the public. In democracy, public opinion counts - and you know scientific projects are not being funded. So instead of going forward in understanding the world and applying the new technologies to the welfare of human kind, we are being pushed backward into the past by the influence of these so called learned gurus to whom the less informed populace lends an ear.

We must therefore debunk any junk put forward by anyone in any medium.

Divya - Your comment is very appropriate.

Krish- you write well. I hope you teach a word or two to the confused minds.

TS

Here is something I came across recently. As you likely know, Martin Gardner is a highly respected 'rationalist' who has been dismantling claims of the paranormal for the last 50 years. James Randi, a noted magician who offers the million dollar paranormal challenge is a good friend of his.

Personally, I hold (still hold) Jiddu Krishnamurthy's works in high regard. It was more than shocking to read about JK's personal demons and strife, if Gardner is being accurate. No reason to really doubt his veracity based on his unimpeachable past record. Gardner raises really valid points that I had never realized before.

David Bohm is someone who Deepak quotes very frequently - he is also mentioned by Gardner.

http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/martin_gardner_on_david_bohm_and_krishnamurti.html

And Deepak quotes Rupert Sheldrake too. Rupert would be offered the position of a tenured clown by Barnum and Bailey's any day (I posted a Salon article that draws a similar conclusion).

If you are really interested in understanding the scientific community position on consicousness theory and the quantum mind, the Wikipedia, as usual, provides an awesome starting point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR

I really wish that proponents and tag-alongs of ground-breaking theories spend some time to acquaint themselves of debates that have already occurred among the little more intimately informed. I hold that very yardstick to myself. My refutations are weak and incomplete compared to the more complete and informed, many of which are highlighted in the references.

A.K.- Science may never figure out consciousness. But the rishis in India have demonstrated their understanding of these matters in a very lucid manner since thousands of years. The knowledge has been well systemized, it is teachable, it is learnable, and it rests on a solid logical and theoretical foundation. In this respect I would say that the Indian traditions are every bit as sophisticated as science. But people who talk about QM tend to go totally overboard and are generally inaccurate in their characterization of these things.

Having said that, I do believe there is a very inexplicable and mysterious aspect to the systems of knowledge that exist in India. Read "A Search in Secret India" by Paul Brunton for a very well-written first hand account of travels in India around the time of the Raj. It is totally fascinating. Unfortunately charlatans abound and the New Age movement brings with it a certain circus to town so can't blame them either.

"But can they themselves give evidence that the physical world and the spiritual one are not connected"

I find this statement amusing. Why should scientists give evidence to say that physical world and spiritual world are not connected? They don't claim the connection. It is people like you in the spiritual world who claim the connection. Then the burden of proof is on you guys (the spiritual gurus).

"How do we know that the particle in quantum physics that emulated its twin and jumped did not do it because of a bond between them?"

"Or, as some scientists have exclaimed, that they have actually seen a sub atomic particle existing in two places at the same time"

The above two statements prove clear lack of understanding of Physics. If you can explain clearly what you mean by the above two statements, I can give a rebuttal to it and show your understanding of quantum theory is not correct.

"Are we talking of omnipresence here? Are we gradually stepping into the realm of the supernatural?"

This is not needed for quantum theory. There is no scientific basis to it.

If you want to talk about pure spirituality, you can go ahead and talk whatever you want. If you are going to talk about science, you better have proof. Trying to ridicule people who ask for proof doesn't serve any purpose.

Well said A.K. Since A.K. has already given a nice rebuttal to your argument, I am withdrawing my statement in which I asked you to explain what you mean by those statements in order to give a rebuttal to it. I thought I will show you that your understanding of quantum theory is flawed. As Ravi has told, it is better to keep spirituality away from science. Spirituality doesn't need justifications from science and vice versa. In my opinion, spirituality aims to describe the "inner self" and science explains the "outer self". Let us just leave it right there and not confuse both.

The only reason why I don't have respect for spirituality is that spiritual gurus like you try to find justification in science. I would have respected that branch of understanding if it had just stood on its own legs without trying to borrow support from science or poke its nose trying to interpret science.

I also want to point out that the only experimentally verifiable interpretation of quantum mechanics is "Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics". Attempts by "spiritual gurus" to use Bohm's argument to justify their claims doesn't serve the purpose.

Tanzan, I first thought the post is just a spiritual one and didn't even read it. Only after seeing A.K. comments, I got curious and read the post.

It is too early to make statements that "science may never figure out consciousness". Wait and see is my reply to such arguments.

Thanks for your concurrence, Tanzan, Krish, and Divya.

Divya, thanks for the Brunton recommendation. You said: "rishis in India have demonstrated their understanding of these matters in a very lucid manner since thousands of years. The knowledge has been well systemized, it is teachable, it is learnable, and it rests on a solid logical and theoretical foundation."

Two questions:

1. Any suggestions on what written material, if any, exists to understand this further? If there is no worthy written material, how does an interested person like me find out more?

2. Also, are there any admissions in this body of knowledge / theories that state "We don't understand X at present. Our theories are limiting in that (singularity) Y cannot be explained. Our theory claims Z even though observation indicates otherwise". From a mainstream scientific viewpoint, any far-reaching modern theory comes with such constraints and disclaimers. Would you agree that it is a start if consciousness theories exhibit similar humility and fallibility?

Thanks.

A.K., Krish, Divya

Thanks for your attempts to enlighten Sohaila. Shekhar and DC also appear to think more or less along her lines. However, lately DC has been steering himself away from this sort of garbage. I read somewhere DC had earlier some mentor from India with background in physics. That's where he perhaps picked up some physics and chutnified it with his spirituality and Aruvedic medicine.
I, however, tend to agree with his views on political and social issues.

No money grabber should be allowed to misuse physical sciences to justify their spiritual agenda. It causes confusion in the minds of the unfortunate, less literate public that has the equal voting rights in democracy. And we all know politics shapes science policy.

It is also public deception, knowingly to grab money or unknowingly to harm science.

Regards
TS

TS,

"No money grabber should be allowed to misuse physical sciences to justify their spiritual agenda."

I wouldn't agree with that though I do support your argument that pseudo science should not be tolerated. In my opinion if Deepak or someone else is smart enough to make money by writing books on these topics, it is nothing wrong. People who buy his books do it willingly. So for me the criteria is not whether people make money selling such concepts. I oppose such science-spirituality interactions for just one reason. These interpretations are plain wrong. Thatz all.

Hi All,

The whole argument of the followers of 'hard-science' as I would call them here, seems to be: Why don't you spiritualists leave us alone.

But, why this disturbs you, why are you afraid?

You seem to be like the youth who hopelessly lost in an emotional affair yet does not want to listen to reason. Only, now you have lost in reason and don't want to go beyond - to listen to intelligence, where direct experiences and direct perceptions are more important then even reason.

There are two points in your arguments here, to which I would like to respond for the time being. One is:

That we are concerned only with what science has to offer. We don't want to go beyond and listen to socalled spiritualits because for one, they don't talk in terms of science and for an other, they don't have any proof of what they talk.

Now, science can never make us realize the exact experience of love-at-first-sight or more to the ground, of even our sleep. Now what is bad in it, or even illogical, if one were to say that please you can know both of these only by actual experience and not be reason alone. As they say, the proof of the pudding is exactly in the eating here.

Now, the experience of superconsciousness or God or One or Oneness or even of Superscience of a mystic is just love-at-first-sight with the only difference that the particular person of opposite sex now gets replaced by the whole of nature. Why is it so? Because a mystic has gone further deeper, and actually to the deepest, into his innerself, into his mind as compared to the experiencers of ordinary love and so from there can bring the whole world into his focus as compared to the ordinary lover who can bring only the particular person of his beloved. It is just like, deeper any theory of science has gone into things the more world it covers as to its scope or application.

In fact, science's quantum theory and ordinary love-at-first-sight experience are on the same footing, only one is in the objective realm and the other in the subjective. While the experience of the mystics as yet has no comparable scientific theory. Perhaps it can never have simply because at that level there will remain no objective world altogether. In fact this is the reason science's Grandunification theory fails to click. Or, this is the reason science's GUT has zero and infinities in it. These zeros and infinities simply collapse the space and time and hence the whole of the objective world. Over to the mystics!

I said above, the quantum theory and love-at-first-sight cover limited phenomenon, (limited phenomenon in the case of quantum theory and lmited or particular person in case of love)while a mystics experience covers the whole of nature or unlimited phenomenon so to say. Below is Fritzof Capra trying to convey the same in his own way (I am quoting from my book Self Designed Universe (www.selfdesigneduniverse.com).

"The reality of the Eastern mystic cannot be identified with the quantum field of the physicist because it is seen as the essence of ALL PHENOMENON in the world...The quantum field, on the other hand, is a well-defined concept which only accounts for SOME OF THE PHENOMENON.

Anyway, the second point I would like to respond to is that, some people here have said that scientific theories are usuable implying socalled spiritual theories are useless.

Is all talk of love, all poetry written in praise of love is useless? If not, how come all talk about that which is rather the FOUNDATION of all usual love (which is what a mystic experiences and which really is towards which all this so-called spiritual talk or spirituality is alluding to)can be useless? It is the essence of life and any talk about it can never be useless. It is, in fact, where even our science with all its efforts is tryig to go. What is bad about it if some point towards this goal rather directly? Actually it is spirituality's job, to point the goal. It is what it is doing. While the goal of science is to actually go there, even though at the end it will have to lose itself to spirituality for the purpose.

Here I would like to narrate a story the source of which though I have forgotten:

A farmer was shown a vast stretch of land and was then told that he will be made the owner of as much of this land as he could cover by running. He ran and ran and died running.

What would be more useful to tell him that is, before he dies of running in the pursuit of owning more and more of land? Wouldn't it be that he should first take care of himself than how to get more and more of land? That he is first and land is only secondary to him. Similarly, spirituality talks of us ourselves rather than of knowledge to how to get more and more of land' which science does. Yes, land will be useful but we come are first, usuable knowledge is fine but the user comes first.

Harb.

Krish

But they are selling pseudo-science in the guise of spirituality. Their pseudo-science arises from their attempts to link science to spirituality. Is this service to science? Is this justifiable? Is this excusable? Is it moral especially when they do it to grab money? If some segment of the public is ignorant, is it alright to augment their ignorance by strengthening their baseless spiritual beliefs through the sale of pseudo-science?

TS

Here is some more for the great knowers of science here (I am referring to their saying that spiritual poeple don't know science which obviously implies that they themselves know much of it).

Do you know more science than even from those who are at the cutting edge of it? Here I refer to some cutting edge scientists and how they felt that science has come to a dead end and for further progress we will have to look towards the spiritualists. I am quoting from my book:

"If we are ever going to find an element of nature that explains space and time we surely have to find something that is deeper than space and time - something that has no localization in space and time." John.A.Wheeler.

Now, what science will do here ad how when it is based on duality? Will there be any duality left when there will be no space and time? Wouldn't then we have to turn to mystics, or to those who teach us that now please look inwards, or go ahead by direct experience. There is nothing outside of or separate from you. Here is one more:

"The logical unity of the universe demands a single invariance that remains unchanged in the face of all the complexities and transience we see about us, from the smallest sub-atomic scale to the farthest reaches of the outer space..."

"Perhaps the search for the theory of everything will reveal to us that these fundamental forces of nature, whose unification we have expended so much effort upon, are like the inhabitants of Prospero's isle...ALL SPIRITS..."

WHAT IS THIS UNCHANGING, ALL SPIRIT? Can scinece go to it, no, it too will have to be known only through direct experience. Is there any proof? Yes, because many mystics have had realized it by alike experiences, (all mystics had alike experiences, of fundamental unity of ALL THERE IS, the difference was either in decription or explanation depending upon the times and also because of oftentimes misinterpretation by their followers. Here is the similar experience and here is one Nobel scientist Erwin Shrodinger writing about it in his book "What is Life?"

"The mystics of many centuries, independantly, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas), have described , each of them, the unique experience of his/her life in terms tht can be condensed in the phrase: Deus Factus Sum (I have bcome God)."

Why it is not a proof? Many people having similar experience? Why compare them with charlatans? If there are charlatans should we leave what the real mystics have to say altogether?

Further, would talk about it be all nosense? And again, would it be all nonsense if we try to relate at least to the extent we can, it to the latest advancements in science? Why most of the cutting edge scientists then begin talking about mysticism directly or indirectly if we on the cutting edge of mysticism cannot talk about science? The fact is that their unification is the need of the hour and so nature compells both the parties to look towards each other and try to understand their findings in terms of the findings of the other. Because only in this way that unification can be achieved, because only in this way the many and two would finally become One.

Harb.

"Any suggestions on what written material, if any, exists to understand this further? If there is no worthy written material, how does an interested person like me find out more?

A.K. - There is so much written material that one lifetime would not be enough to study even branch of knowledge based on the written material. Broadly, Hindu philosophy has been divided into 6 formal schools: (1) Nyaya is the school of logic. (2) Vaishesheka - is based on particularities (3) Sankhya - this is "non-theistic in its classical form (4) Yoga - accepts Sankya metaphysics and further expounds on discipline and control (5) Purva Mimamsa - developed its own method of interpreting the vedas (6) Uttara Mimamsa, also known as Vedanta is a subtle study of conscioussness.

All of the above schools are based on the Vedas - one school does not contradict the other, but either builds upon or rejects some aspects of the other's philosophy.

In addition to all of these well-systemized schools there is Buddhism, Jainism and the Charvaka philosophy - all of them giants of cognitive sophistication in their own right. Then there are the Tantras. There are 64 major tantras and at least 108 known lesser tantras. These are not based on the vedas but there is a major overlap.

There are many, many, many more branches and sub-branches, each with its own literature. I emphasize again, the corpus is so huge that one will need lifetimes to go through it. Of course, one doesn't have to study all of it since all of these schools are different pathways to the same basic goal.

"2. Also, are there any admissions in this body of knowledge / theories that state "We don't understand X at present. Our theories are limiting in that (singularity) Y cannot be explained. Our theory claims Z even though observation indicates otherwise". From a mainstream scientific viewpoint, any far-reaching modern theory comes with such constraints and disclaimers. Would you agree that it is a start if consciousness theories exhibit similar humility and fallibility?"

Science attempts to understand the nature of things. Hindu philosophy does the same. However, they are different approaches. There is nothing about systemized Hindu philosophy that science can challenge in its own terms. It can only say it does not know. Hindu traditions make consciousness their object of study. The traditions say that this consciousness cannot be understood by the intellect and the way to grasp its nature is through meditation. *This is their method.* There is no way around it. In this respect science has some catching up to do. The Hindu traditions cannot bend for science here although efforts can be made to narrow the gap as much as possible. Moreover, this knowledge that we are talking about is ultimately *experiential* in nature. The proof is in the experience. It is scientific to the extent that it can be replicated and falsified if necessary. However, the way to go about it would be through yoga and meditation.

Thanks for taking the time and the summary you provide, Divya. I only have superficial familiarity with a few of the schools through English books on the topic, mostly Yoga philosophy through translations of the Bhagavad Gita.

When I asked the question, I thought you were referring to something specific. I reread your earlier comment about the rishis, and it is in line with what you have just described. I don't know why I assumed it was something more concise. Probably just my urge for a short cut. I guess that is the way it simply is - no Cliff Notes capsules for quick digestion. As you mention, it requires a lifetime and then some to comprehensively read and absorb. Even learning about a single school is an imposing task.

I am still at sea when it comes to understanding more about consciousness without devoting my full-time to it. I am not a physicist, yet like many others, I went through an exacting school and university regimen learning about basic science. In university, I have pulled my hair out attempting to understand the basis of electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics. This 'due diligence' through 9 years of study (6th grade through to second year of university) allows me to pick up a Scientific American article, or Nature special issue and read through a summary of state-of-the-art without being clueless.

Most of us have had no education on these schools of philosophy. Beyond an irrelevant history class in grade 10 where we would have to regurgitate the names of the six schools with their English translation, most of us have had no semblance of education on the bodies of work from our cultural, philosophical and intellectual heritage. So it is left to us as mature adults to catch up in ad hoc ways, based on interest and time. The guru-sishya schools of yore had the sishyas within the system at a very young age. So there is no reason to believe that the education can't start when young (like when we had our first physics class in grade 6). And there is no epistemological reason that it *can't* be done in parallel with the rigorous science curriculum in middle and high school.

It is lamentable that our Indian education system has still not explored this. I don't believe this has anything to do with fears of accusation of saffronizing the education - which will no doubt take root. It requires authorities with good intent and an apolitical outlook to implement. Easier said than done.

Anyways, where I am leading with my ramble is: if we had such a basis at an early age, we wouldn't be misled to loosely and flippantly tie together concepts from each domain (science, philosophy) and pawn it as something profound. I am sometimes guilty of this, because I understand more in science and love the elegance of mapping something from one domain onto the other, when it is likely far from the truth.

Hi AK - I agree with most of your thoughts. One caveat though - we must bear in mind that consciousness studies, although well systemized and recorded, hinges around the practice and needs to be taught by adepts in practice.

Harb, there is nothing called hard science and soft science. There is just science. We are not afraid of spirituality. We are just saying that spiritual gurus are misusing science to justify their half baked theories.

Don't misquote Wheeler or science please. Thanks for your cooperation.

Tanzan, I agree with you on the misuse of science part. But I wouldn't say they make money in illegal ways. What they do is legitimate. I would only blame the people who buy the books than people who write the books. If they are foolish and pay money for such books, then it is the buyer's problem not the author's.

A.K, Tanzan and other people who are really interested in science, there is a 12 hour webcast from CERN, geneva about Einstein's theory of relativity and beyond. Check out the link at

http://beyond-einstein.web.cern.ch/beyond-einstein/

Not sure if spiriual gurus will find this useful but people interested in science will find this really interesting.

Divya

you seem to be confused. On the one hand you rubbish spirituality and on the other you wax forth on hindu philosophy, yoga and meditation, which are in the realm of spirituality. or are you claiming hindu philosophy is a cut and dried branch of science? you have started sounding like the `pseudo scientists' you and your supporters like krish and tanzan love to rip apart.

and a.k., your comment that reviving the study of indian philosophy through the guru shishya system, alongside a rigorous science curriculum in schools would help us fight the tendency to "loosely and flippantly tie together concepts from each domain (science, philosophy) and pawn it as something profound" is fundamentally wrong. indian philosophy actually ties together these concepts because if believes in the one-ness of all phenomena...exactly what i have been saying in this post and you have been contradicting.

If you scientists criticise spiritualists for confusing matters and `selling' rubbish to the poor, `iignorant masses' (what supreme arrogance!) i would accuse you of the same fault. get your reading done first, before you try and wax eloquent on philosophy.

sohaila

Dear Sohaila, without reading any other posts first(hmm, almost sounds like a confession!); I'll offer my view/opinion; un-interupted by others views/opinions.

I tend to agree with you Sohaila; that we are connected on a mind-level. I tend to also believe; that our "instincts" inherent of our species; allows us roaming ability and vision; to connect with others through the mind. My family and I, from time to time; have undoubtable connections.

Considering science "says" that humans use such a small piece of the mind; how can science contradict the possibility of endless connection between the human mind; when they don't know what is in that void capacity, hidden within the mind?

Who will be the One, to open that gate? Science, or Spiritual Seekers?

Considering the entire game of life; is played out in the mind; in "lieu" of life-events; why can't we create a "butterfly effect?" I think we can; and, as we evolve; it will become more opened; I think; this is your experience; and how cooL is that! Very!

Dear doubting, scientific minds alike: now that I have read some responses; here's my two sense's worth:

I keep trying in futile effort to explore that hidden door; key-locked in my mind; but, that doesn't mean I might not succeed one day - and I've never held a million dollars in my hand; but, that doesn't mean it isn't possible...

http://xs56.xs.to/pics/05473/crystal.b2.ds.jpg

)smiles n'chuckls(

North

Sohaila, you said:

and a.k., your comment that reviving the study of indian philosophy through the guru shishya system, alongside a rigorous science curriculum in schools would help us fight the tendency to "loosely and flippantly tie together concepts from each domain (science, philosophy) and pawn it as something profound" is fundamentally wrong. indian philosophy actually ties together these concepts because if believes in the one-ness of all phenomena...exactly what i have been saying in this post and you have been contradicting.

As I have admitted Sohaila, I am less than novice with Indian philosophy. You are gifted to have absorbed it deep enough to cite a "oneness of all phenomena" argument to apparently justify making statements like quantum theory has "proved that", and using probability estimates related to wave-particle duality to support your angle of "connectedness". Now I know my quantum theory better than my philosophy and therefore ask, prove exactly what? Your evading clarity on the scientific snippets you casually weave in is far from convincing. Please neglect the philosophical gunk and waxing eloquence and please explain your point/s on quantum theory. And you have also not responded to the herd-mentality-every-time likelihood suggested.

You are right about comments being arrogant. Some of them certainly are. But way before I saw any of these in this thread, I saw your statement in the blog: "Very often I think of an unsual theme which gets rejected outright by either the actors or the TV producers. They are considered either too archaic, revolutionary, or simply weird, because they are against the prevailing trend. But I am very sure of their being surefire commercial successes and a few months/years down the line, the themes are; not just in India, but the world over." Pot. Kettle. Black?

sohaila: "indian philosophy actually ties together these concepts because if believes in the one-ness of all phenomena"

Indian philosophy pre-dated quantum mechanical theories. But since the former believes in the "one-ness of all phenomena", everything we ever propose or discover scientifically in the near future is trivially included? So who are the authorities who declare such encapsulation, unless it is so trivial that it is moot?

It is one thing to say "science and spirituality are one and the same" and use the argument that spirituality is after all the one-ness of all phenomena. It is a totally different matter to add "and quantum theory had proved that". Why that niggly attempt of validation by buzzword dropping when the premise "oneness of all phenomena" is itself completely inclusive of everything. Does it clarify any?

"If you scientists criticise spiritualists for confusing matters and `selling' rubbish to the poor, `iignorant masses' (what supreme arrogance!)"

What do you mean by arrogance? Are you saying that calling something which doesn't conform to the rigorous scientific methods as "no science" is arrogance? Wow!! In fact, you are a perfect example of someone exhibiting arrogance for the following reasons.

1) You don't give a proper scientific proof for your claim that quantum mechanics proves the existence of god

2) You don't accept that whatever you say is not science even after knowing that it will fall flat when tested by the scientific methods

I have no problem if you talk spirituality and I will respect you for that. But this is neither spirituality nor science.

sohaila,

"your supporters like krish and tanzan love to rip apart."

This is the best joke I heard in Intentblog. I think Divya will agree with me (for a change) on this. ROFL.

Hi all,

It amuses me to find myself on the side of so-called spirituality while I have always considered myself to embrace both science and spirituality.

It could not be my fault that though I was a civil engineer by profession and hence obviously on the side of science, I found myself lost in what one may say are the eternal questions of mankind even when my colleagues were busy in building up their careers.

Who am I? Where have I come from? Where am I supposed to go after my socalled death? Has my “I”, my being some permanent point of reference or it is merely a chance bubble floating meaninglessly in the wilderness of space? What is space? Where this world ends? What is beyond that? What is good and bad? Such were some of the questions which were then my constant companions.

Then I had what my call my first experience of oneness with the whole of nature. It is easy to call this a deception of the mind, but it is not easy to expel all one’s doubts as to the answer to the above questions with such mere deception. All I can say is that really only he who has gone through such an experience can understand it. It opens up your whirlpool-like existence in the flow of the universal scheme of things so that you feel one with the flow, one with the whole.

Anyway, and interestingly, after this experience of oneness, I rather indulged in a life of total abandon rather than become a Godman or the like which most of the people with such experience would have certainly become. Owe it to changing times, owe it to my scientific temperament, owe it to the fact that it just made me realize my total fundamental freedom as French Philosopher Sartre had put it somewhere, this I leave it to you.

I would rather ridicule all those who talked of any religious rite or ritual or anything connected with it. Perhaps because I had known by my experience that there is nothing beyond this universe and so by implication any talk about or of God or related subject was meaningless. There was nothing ‘out there’ beyond the Universe.

After I enjoyed life to my full n the above way, I felt as if I have nothing more to do. I questioned myself as to what I have got to do with my life now. Also in the meanwhile I left my govt. service. Not that I had any reason to do so, though all I can say is that I always knew that some day I will leave it.

What now? I decided to self-psychoanalyze myself to see if there were some hidden thoughts yet waiting to manifest in my mind from which then I could take a clue as to what to do next.

As I was going through my self-psychoanalysis at the same time I happened to lay my hands on Fritzof Capra's book The Tao of Physics. This book introduced me to the latest developments in physics from which then scientists’ reducing all the forces working in the universe to four basic ones of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak drew my special attention.

Thus, while my self-psychoanalysis was taking me to my roots deep down in my being, in fact to the same oneness I had experienced earlier in a flash as I came to know it in retrospect, and was emptying me of all the previous content in my mind in the process, the reading of Fritzof capra’s book was filling me with a fresh body of it.

And then one day, I must have reached the bottom of my being, at the oneness I had already experienced some ten years ago in a flash, when, while walking, my attention was drawn to almost a wordless dialogue going on inside me:

"Mystics, philosophers have always spoken of freedom, moksha, nirvana highly, ULTIMATELY for whom and from whom? one voice seemed to ask." (To explain, which meant that ultimately what in us or otherwise was to get freedom or moksha or nirvana and from what.)

"For this oneness and from those four forces," came the reply from an other voice. (Meaning that ultimately the underlying oneness was to get freedom, nirvana etc and from four basic forces.)

And almost simultaneously, the whole universal panorama of evolution opened up before my mind's eyes in quick succession. I could clearly see in it the oneness getting freedom from four basic forces at all imaginable levels. It was like the explosion of an atomic bomb only with no sound and accompanying fury and covering in its scope the whole of the universe.

Now, around this very time, I came to know that the scientists were trying to unify all the four basic forces into one single force and thus arrive at what they called grandunfication theory. Also, that they thought that seen from and in the light of that grandunified theory everything will explain itself just in terms of a neat mathematical formula.

All things began to fall into place for me.

That the science was also trying to reach the same oneness I had already experienced, for, grandunification could be nothing else but grand oneness.

That just as I had experienced, if in going down towards big bang in an effort to reveal the secret of big bang and of subsequent evolution, the four basic forces were being unified into a single force, then obviously while seen from the side of oneness obviously acting somehow as the foundation of that big bang, the same forces will again be getting separated. And it then needed no great intellect to know that thus all the expansion or evolution of the universe beginning from big bang or oneness outwards would just be the result of separating away of those four basic forces, JUST AS I HAD ALREADY INTUITED IN A FLASH.

It also became clear to me that science will not be able to go there because there all duality will cease to exist. So from there, from that side outwards, from that oneness outwards we will have to explain it in term of what I may call soft science or science, philosophy and spirituality all mixed up.

This I did in my book Self Designed Universe.

I am sure that never will we get a neat mathematical equation to describe all and every phenomenon in the universe just by filling in the values of certain variables as is done in hard science. That from now one, for describing the things from the side of grandunification or oneness we will have to resort to human intuition, understanding and imagination.

I am sure that some day the main theme of my book that all evolution is basically because of oneness’ passing through four basic forces, or BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATING AWAY OF FOUR BASIC FORCES AT MYRIAD LEVELS will become as accepted as Darwin’s theory at some point of time.

I will expect all people here at intentblog to then be witness to the fact that I had already explained it first in my book.

I may also add here that it should be obvious from the above explanations that as single force originating from and in fact synonymous with oneness is the cause of all the phenomenon in the universe, it will just be all-pervading and we all will be connected at its level. This is what spiritualists here are fighting for. In fact this is just what science would have proved had it succeeded in achieving its grandunification theory.

Harb.

The Wonder Rabbi of Chelm (a Polish folktale)

It is said that a wonder rabbi of Chelm once saw, in a vision, the destruction by fire of the study house in Lublin, fifty miles away. This remarkable event greatly enhanced his fame as a wonder worker.

Several days later, a traveler from Lublin, arriving in Chelm, was greeted with expressions of sorrow and concern, not unmixed with a certain pride, by the disciples of the wonder rabbi. "What are you talking about?" asked the traveler. "I left Lublin three days ago and the study house was standing as it always has. What kind of a wonder rabbi is that?"

"Well, well," one of the rabbi's disciples answered, "Burned or not burned, it's only a detail. The wonder is he could see so far."

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish"

- David Hume

Sohaila,
"get your reading done first, before you try and wax eloquent on philosophy." ~ Sohaila Kapur

Would you please enlighten us further with your profound knowledge of quantum physics and guide as what to read?

Does your quantum mechanical proof of the existence of God encourage the pseudo-thinkers to be foolhardy? Do they not have a word 'laughingstock' in their dictionaries?

What for are you accusing AK, krish, Divya and me if we do not agree with you? None of us are in the 'ripping' business - if I may take the liberty to talk on behalf of others. My main concern is that you are misusing quantum physics to validate your all oneness/connectedness theory, and thus you are misleading the public. This is no service to science. Science is after truth and reality. You mask science.

You talk of your ideas as commercial ideas: "But I am very sure of their being surefire commercial successes and a few months/years down the line, the themes are; not just in India, but the world over. Of course, by then I have lost the opportunity of exploiting them, because of people's disbelief."

Do you plan to exploit science by misusing it to validate your consciousness/connectedness/oneness concepts and then to sell it to the masses? If it is for your personal consumption, well and good. Otherwise, it is dis-service to science.

TS

Here is a story to illustrate the differences between science and spirituality.

Four blind men chanced upon an elephant and began to move their hands over its body to know what it really was.

The one who moved his hand on Elephant's leg said that it was a huge pillar. The second who moved his hands on its ear said that it was a huge fan. The one who moved his hands on its middle body said that it was a huge drum. The fourth moved his hand on its trunk and opined that it was a huge rope.

While they were thus guessing a man with normal vision came there and told them that it was, in fact, an elephant.

Science's knowledge of the universal scheme of things is like the knowledge of the parts of the elephant of those blind men. Science has even become specialist of those parts. But yet it is as far from seeing the whole picture as the blind men are from seeing the whole elephant.

Spiritualits see the whole 'elephant' of the scheme of things. It is an other matter that they do not know or are rather not interested in the details of various parts.

Interestingly, when they tell the ones who considers it a huge pillar, fan or drum etc that these are, in fact, the leg, ear and middle body of the elephant and are connected to the whole elephant in this and this way, they rather begin protesting that why do they interfere in their work. They will only know the whole of the elephant in their own way.

Will they ever, in this way??

Harb.

Hello all...

I've been following the discussions on this thread, and I see a lot of really wonderful people with different views, with lots of knowledge and intelligence, but not so much tolerance for the views of the other. I have enjoyed reading every one of your posts and have found something interesting in all your respective points of view, something to learn or think about.

I so much wish that such discussions could happen without anyone feeling the need to accuse or disrespect the other, after all, these are only ideas, and ideas have always changed. But our right to be respected doesn't change. And if we are to be respected, we have to respect the other.

I know it's not someting anyone here might necessarily be interested in, I was just wishing aloud.

Aurora

Funny that we have almost the same experience. One difference being that I can not learn much from any of them. The arrogance is so blinding.

A.K., Krish, Tanzan and Sohaila:

The positions you take