Reading these ongoing discussions so stimulates my gratitude and I thank you.

From above ... 2 quotes

"However, in order to engage in a serious and constructive dialogue with the scientific as well as spiritual/religious community, we must develop a sound theory that integrates the science of consciousness of the spiritual masters and mystics."

and

"In the scientific world, especially in the biological sciences, the neurobiological consciousness of the human brain-mind is commonly represented and studied as the only consciousness that exists as reality."

So it seems to me it is time for coordination with neurologists, chiropractors and Montak Chia or others like him.

I saw a movie once called No Such Thing. It was about the devil and how he was just an ugly telepathic guy everybody was talking about and he went and lived in a remote area on the edge of water to cut down on disturbing transmissions. Meanwhile a secondary plot had a lovely, sweet, well-intentioned girl having painful, painful spinal surgery she was required to be conscious for.

The magic of the spine and other nerve bundles functioning like brains can be the testable things that lead to proof that people need to confirm spirit (?) coordination in human functioning. So all brain/mind focus and assumption really may not render solutions.

It will help if people believe in the people who can see things others cannot see. Scientists do this often for they know that in a chemistry experiment, sometimes it is the weight of the residual that determines what happened during the process. They then deduce a conclusion.

So if a mystic worked with a neurologist, a chiropractor, a high-level master, a computer programmer, and a medical device creator ... you would have something more than a CAT scan and that is what may be needed.

Simple is good. Yet when I buy prepared meals I take a moment to picture the people who made that simple removal of a lid, then fork to mouth, and instant fulfillment possible.

The Divine Dream
The universe is dreamed into existence by The void. It is an eternal (ongoing) phenomena. Each of us is a player in The Creation Mystery. Even the most concrete scientific facts are merely momentary creations of the Cosmic Mind. All things conceivable to the mind are merely(patterns for the time being)! Human beings have walked on water, risen from the dead, performed countless so-called miracles such as teleportation, materialization of objects and all manner of events psychic. These events occured in sharp contrast to the (hard evidence) of the then current scientific norm. I have no doubt even more miraculous events shall occur as well as miracles unknown to the public eye. The Cosmic Mind performs these miracles through us all at one time or another. I like to keep the lucid dreamer in mind. When he knows he is dreaming his very thoughts become reality within his or her dream. He is waking up within the dream itself. The interaction of science and true reality is in it's infancy in this age. The greatest scientists will take into account the effect of the observer on the (thing) observed. Ultimately I see the current sciences disintegrating giving way to new sciences that are the materialization of what we are envisioning with this dialogue. The philosopher will become the scientist while the scientist will become the philosopher. The Cosmic Spirit will rule the Earth in all it's glory!
Todd

Dear DK,

Great post, read the first part, I will spend more time absorbing it later tonight.

The other day I was trying to comprehend "planes" in the metaphysical sense better than I do, what exactly are they?

So I was reading Wikipedia on the concept and I came across this.

Planes of existence are sometimes referred to as "eggs". For example, the Sanskrit term Brahmanda translates to "the Egg of God". In this context, Brahmanda is thought to encompass the Anda (astral or subtle) and Pinda (physical or gross) eggs, in a way metaphorically analogous to a set of Russian dolls — the larger containing the next smaller, which contains the next smaller, and so on.

So I am thinking would the outer most object of the Holistic Pyramid actually be an egg / ovoid?

Could the observer be a smaller layered ovoid with an eye?

With the 4 forces and science still being pyramids?

The ovoid is a very iteresting thing actually the Divine ratio is found in it just like the pyramid. In fact I think the 3 constants of divine design are in it.

The other thing about the 5th force. Could it be at the moment considered the "Mysterious Force".

Thoughts anyone?

My thoughts are very much on this lucid dreamer..........

To be more awake in our dreams and dream more when we are awake.

Avtar,

I liked figure one. I agree with most of your points and have also found validitity in similar thought based on reason, logic and experience.

They also still seem to be able to support the stateful nature of the universe, if that proves to be valid.

You did a good job of articulating goals and intention.

This is an interesting story, if it holds to be true for multiple reasons, one being that I face a similar situation. The one thing I would question was that the person referred to the CIA as restriciting access to their research in the past, and it has been my experience that the NSA is the active agent in this area not the CIA. In my case it was information technology related and involves no restrictions on me or the technology and was only a transfer of knowledge regarding the technology.

"Research into paranormal activity supported by the head of the nation's most prominent university has drawn the ire of members of its physics department, who accuse their chief of violating scientific ethics."

www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/02/02/2003347323

Or click my name below

Dear Tapestry:

” So if a mystic worked with a neurologist…’

This is already happening wherein neuroscientists are studying the brain and mind functions of meditating monks. What they find is intriguing that mind can change the neurology of the brain via meditation. You can read more at the Mind and Life institute’s website at the following link:

http://www.mindandlife.org

Dear Level7:

Let me provide a perspective on – Void or the so-called nothingness, which is nothing but an absence of matter. However, absence of matter is mistakenly regarded by mainstream scientists as well as common folks as the emptiness or nothingness. This is in direct contradiction of the modern science’s own finding that even the absolute vacuum or empty space is full of energy; so void is full of energy, which is also equivalent of mass according to Einstein’s theory- E=mC2. Hence, this whole concept of the void is outdated and misleading both scientifically and from reality point of view. Pure energy (such as consciousness) is as much a reality that exists as the matter. That is what leads to my statement:

“What exists now always existed in the past and will exist in future. Nothing can come out of nothing (void) without violating the laws of conservation. Nothing (void) never existed, nor will ever exist.”

Dear Richard:

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful comments.
Here are some of my thoughts on – “The planes of existence”. The consciousness of the observer is what determines the nature of the observed. While, the ultimate truth exists eternally and Omni presently un-manifested in space and time, the observed reality is entirely relative to the level of consciousness of the observer. Each different plane of existence in this sense is a reflection of the consciousness of the observer. This also explains the many parallel universes pointed out by quantum mechanics and string theory; these being the reflections of different levels of consciousness as shown in Figure 1 (that you seem to like). Theoretically, there could be infinite numbers of planes of existence (also space-time combinations) each reflecting a certain level of consciousness. For example, the so-called neurobiological or bodily consciousness reflects only the worldly consciousness of material universe that is afflicted with time and evolution. A fully conscious or enlightened mind such as Buddha, Nanak, Jesus, Krishna, will observe or be aware of the one wholesome universe beyond the affliction of the relativity of space and time.
In a nutshell, the planes of existence are nothing but different planes or levels of consciousness of the mind of the observer.

The Fifth Force:

It is not mystery at all; it is the consciousness, anti-gravity, or the expansive force of the vacuum or the zero-point energy that is also causing the observed expansion of the universe as measured via the Hubble Telescope. In my book, I provide a mathematical equation for this, which turns out to be the missing equation or Einstein’s “Hidden Factor”. It is the same phenomena ( I do not like to call it the force since it is not involuntary as the expansive energy represents free will) that allows a photon of light to exist (without any external or involuntary force being applied to it) all over the universe in the (expansive) wave form as has been proven by scientific experiments verifying non-locality of photons.

Please also see my comments on void or Ovoid above.

Love & Regards,
Avtar
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

I enjoyed this post of DK's, as many of the others on God & Science. I really liked the first picture. However, when I saw the light grid above the earth, there was no center point, but the outside straight lines curving in appeared to be similar, but the space was more open from my vantage point. So either I was the center or the earth was. But surely I was only seeing a portion of the earth's light grid and I wonder if the whole picture looks like what DK posted. Nice to see it again. BTW: I also saw exactly what I saw on the www (after I saw it myself), so I know other people have seen the earth’s light grid. It might have even been on the chopra.com website (?), but I do remember it was an artist’s drawing. I know .... it sounds strange and unbelievable.

Love, Char

Avtar,

You know it just clicked in my mind reading your comment that Ovoid contains the word "void".
O void

In geometry, an oval or ovoid (from Latin ovum, 'egg') is any curve resembling an egg or an ellipse. Unlike other curves, the term 'oval' is not well-defined and many distinct curves are commonly called ovals.

Interesting word meaning synchronicity?

Anyway there are some interesting properties of the ovoid related to energy and pyramids and the earth.

This page has been up for over a year I guess not just by coincidence it is part of the "clues" collection for assembly of the puzzle pieces into a complete picture. I think there are some strong clues in this material.

THE UBIQUITOUS OVOID

it covers

The Golden Egg
We are now in a position with this basic knowledge to consider a key shape in earth energies - The Golden Egg. This is a special case of the four arc ovoid model in which the distance around the egg - its perimeter, divided by the sum of the major and minor axes of the ovoid, gives the Golden Ratio, 1.6180339…

part of the conclusion

It has been shown that there is indeed very close linkage between the Golden Egg – the archetypal shape of life and the basic tetrahedral geometry of earth energies, as found for example in Stone and Crop Circles. An interesting mathematical relationship between the numbers of ancient science and the modern theory of Chaos has been uncovered.

It now starts to link even pyramid geometry with the Fractal Geometry of Nature – a rather new concept in mankind`s philosophy of the Cosmos. Although much work remains to be done, at least it is now possible to see that the ancient morphologies of Nature are consistent with the newer chaotic dynamic visions now emerging.

The missing link is that of Mind – the key to our ability to dowse. The connections here await an exposé at a later date.

link or click my name

infiniteplaythemovie.com/The_Golden_Egg.aspx

Dear Avtar,

If anything is relative, it's certainly the subject of beauty.

We have simply beautiful, positively beautiful,
absolutely beautiful, extraordinarily beautiful...

Nature provides a wide variety of flora and fauna,
sky and mountain, cave and gorge, and as such,
exhibits a creative complexity which is in and
of itself plane beautiful.

From the above and beyond models that are under discussion here,
it seems to me, if I were the I Am-God, and humans
were the only responsible party (regarding my existence),
it seems to me that I, being Omnipotent and such...
I should not have all my eggs in One basket, so to speak.
Why, I should have gazillions of Earths...
and mega-gazillions of human beings to go around.
Just in case they all fall asleep at the same time.
Well, not time, bad choice of Word.
The same moment...there, how's That?

Scienciousness? Spell-check doesn't like that Word either.
Conscience we already have, I hope.
Philosciosciousness? Sciereliconsisiveness?
Creatauniversaliousness? ^_^

Avtar,

I disagree and think the 5th force is a mystery that is why we are having this discussion. That is why science and spirtuality are not yet unified. That is why there is not a unified theory.

One may know the intention of the divine plan, but the details and what forms them is mysterious as in how we interact with it.

I think that for this project to be of greatest value it must result in two things other than providing an understanding.

1. A model for personal practical application that produces results.

2. A model that results / leads to practical scientific application.

As for #1 there appears to be one already just manifested by someone I know personally, and it is the type of thing any business, individual, or organization can apply, yet it is totally divine in nature yet not religious.

As for #2 there is an actual energy application a device that can be built for experimentation, now, firstly for proof of concept. How to manage it's functionality and the detail and precision need to be worked out what we are working on could fill those holes.

If it indeed works it would provide a cost effective storage component to the worlds energy infrastructure.

The key here is that no nation gets a monopoly on energy technology. Yes it could work as a weapon, this is why higher consciouness is key, as is the transfer of power and control to the people of the planet that operates in a collective fashion.

With this in place we can get rid of the nuclear arsenal, that all though it created a temporary stale mate is a risk to humanity (and perhaps others you are not aware of) and a waste of energy and expense.

If anyone is getting a grasp of where physics is leading to they would understand that this type of energy release could effect more than is observable to you, think of it as space pollution.

Which may be the reason, that there may of been a form of intervention during the cuban missle crisis, for those in a position to ask around there were events, that could have been lucky coincidence and this is simply fringe thinking, or maybe not.

Avtar: Are you the next avatar? So, there is that missing force the 5th, the four force theory is incompelete. The observations and perceptions are basically determined by the level of consciousness is quite true. We all are photons basically, not aware, that's why the mystics say we all are light.

To the honorable D.K.,

Since we must name this exploration, I like the wording of
Holistic Relativity better than Scienciousness.

The reason being(not me), we have this super old
information about all these supposed levels of Awareness
to attain to, and we plan to get to the bottom of the center.

Who knows someone who has gone up through all of these?
And lived to tell the story even though they would have
preferred to stay in the silence about it?
Is there anyone on Earth at this moment who hangs out
away up there beyond us normal people?
If so, could they explain what each and every level
feels like and what new information is found there?

If we cannot hang the proper carrot dangling from
a stick in front of everyone's nose they will disregard it.

What shall be the goal for the individual who has
lived with their feet on the ground all of their lives?
Does each level bring more peace, joy, love and understanding?
Will it make anybody rich? They'll all want to know that.
What's in it for me? Salvation? Liberation?
Some people will say, "I thought I already had that."

Have a nice day, Keith~

Dear DK,

There is already a Wikipedia post on Holism in Science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic_science

Perhaps it is a good idea to link the articles discussed here to that post?

With love, Mieke

Another interesting development for myself and perhaps for others in this thread was the following:

I googled "earth's light grid" and came on a Dutch site: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl and could download a free ebook about an effort to combine science and spirituality that goes from way back to the Egyptians, the Bible and the Veda's up to the present. The book is available in English and in Dutch.

Love,

Dear Avtar,
It is clear the void isn't emptiness or nothingness. In fact it is the complete polar opposite. It is infinite pure potential. Words cannot accurately describe it. Contemplating the laws of conservation of energy. Many seekers speak of masters who have lived there life and passed on. The laws of conservation dictate that people with similar levels of cosmic consciousness must exist today. Cosmic consciousness didn't die out with Jesus, Buddha or any other embodiment of itself. There is a trend toward infatuation with the (outer) world of forms and phenomena. A cosmic master lives within each person if he or she has the motivation to look for it. In fact, evolution dictates we are at a higher level of consciousness than a hundred or a thousand years ago. The enlightened master makes appearances in many places, ages and ways that are least expected.
Todd

You know a lot of this intellectual stuff goes way way over my head.
I get the overall jist of it, but I wish there was a master to expain it in terms that everyone could understand.

I'm not an intellect, I did not fit in very well with the school system, but I have enough snap to know how important this unification is.

Is there a way for the common person to at least get a basic understanding?

Do I just need to wait for my next life to understand?

Dear Doodleman,
Buy Deepak's
The Spontaneous Fulfillment of Desire
That book will take you where you need to go.

Richard,
I agree with your goals 1 and 2 in post #12. Goals such these make the whole dialogue more meaningful. I saw recently a DVD by Deepak, in which he explains how cosmic energy flows through the human body and strengths all parts and functions of the body. He also talks about a technique of meditation which increases this flow of cosmic energy, and even cures parts that are damaged and in pain. That seems to me like a step in towards goal #1.

Avtar,
I like your acronym GNM which stands for both Gravity Nullification Model and Guru Nanak Model!

Thanks level7 for the book refrence.

Dear DK & Friends:

Let me try to address some key comments and questions raised since yesterday by doodleman, syamala, and Richard:
1. Simple Explanation of Seemingly Complex Holistic Relativity Model GNM:

In plain simplest words, the model concludes – “It is all one” (Ek Onkar, Advaita). That is the ending sentence in my book – The Hidden Factor. There can be no simpler meaning than this oneness.

I can realize the difficulty a person unfamiliar with Einstein’s theory can have in understanding relativity theory and its vast implications to the universe and life. When I integrated with the simple message of oneness, it does wonders to explain the universe and its purpose. This miraculous wonder one can experience or realize only if one has time and energy to learn science and its details. I had almost no knowledge of the depth of the relativity theory six years ago, perhaps less than many of the folks on intentblog. But, the extended time and energy I spent in these past years was well worth it to realize and experience the real meaning of Ek Onkar and how it permeates every atom or life in this universe, and how accurately it represents the holistic relativity.

I also like the proposed name – “Holistic Relativity” rather than Scienciousness as I proposed in my book, as GNM is truly a Holistic integration of the general relativity theory.

2. Practicality

The most simple practical implication of GNM is –
“Dissolve the ego or mind to merge into the Oneness, so as to transcend time (birth/death) and space (desires) to achieve genuine contentment, which is the ultimate purpose of life.”

As you can see that these simple and practical messages representing the essence of the wisdom of the spiritual masters are not new. But the complexity and impracticality arises as the ego that represents the schizophrenia of the neurobiological mind, interprets these simple messages in terms of evolving complexity, chaos, and uncertainty of the bodily reality of evolution. And, hence, the scriptures are written by religions to try to answer thousands of questions and misinterpretations of the schizophrenic mind.

Bottom line – the root cause of the apparent loss of simplicity and practicality is not in the message but in the ego or mind afflicted with the evolutionary complexity, chaos, uncertainty, and increasing entropy.

Again, from practical point of view, some may achieve this realization of the ego enemy within by meditation or other means. The purpose of the Holistic Relativity model is to clarify and explain the fundamental truth and not prescribe means such as yoga, meditation, chanting, dancing etc as to how a person achieves it.

The Mystery of Fifth Force:

We must understand the concept of Force, which I think is the root cause of this misunderstanding. In science, the force represents a transfer of energy or momentum from one separated entity to another. Force can exist only on separated bodies, hence force by its very definition represents separation not unification. All forces must disappear in unification since there is no more separation in oneness.

Hence, a force of unification is by definition an oxymoron that is internally and scientifically inconsistent concept. What unifies cannot be a force, but an anti-force or energy. That is why even the new physics of particles is called the high energy physics and not the Four Forces physics. However, in metaphysics the word force is loosely or metaphorically used to represent the mysterious or unknown (God etc.).

Love & Regards,
Avtar
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

Avtar,
I am trying to understand how your scientific definition of "level of consciousness" as the ratio of the speed of a mass particle to the speed of light relates to what we mean by being conscious in ordinary English.
Here are some questions:
For example, inside an atom, are paticles which move with speeds close to the speed of light
at high levels of consciousness and free will (although not at the full level of consciousness of
the zero point energy)?
When they lose some mass and emit energy at finite frequencies and therefore finite wavelengths, is the converted mass, rather energy, fully conscious and has complete free will but not fully aware?
Does the light we see have free will and is it fully conscious but not fully aware?

To formulate different Physics definitions of consciousness and awareness, what is the difference in the meanings of the English words consciousness and awareness, did you use?

How do you define ego in the plot above?

This definition is in your paper not here:
“Consciousness is the kinetic energy of the extreme kind, wherein all matter in the universe exists in the complimentary state of the transformed eternal and non-local energy in fully dilated space and time continuum.” Since there is both matter and energy always in the universe, or at least as long as we know, does this extreme state coexist with every other state of the universe? Isn't there a contradiction there?

Dear DK,

"create a Wikipedia post on Holistic Relativity " ~DK

Perhaps, I looked at holistic science per Mieke and it was comprehensive and similar.

The intention -"Holistic Relativity seeks to integrate Spirituality and Science and also the four forces with the unifying fifth force..."- is unique and slightly different from but could be inclusive to Holistic Science.

What I wonder about is the context of the use of the word "Relativity".

It is my understanding that relativity and quantum physics don't work together. Also that the math of relativity fails inside a black hole, relativity explains a lot, and provides valid functions and understanding. It is if I am not mistaken mostly focused on gravity.

Of course this incongruity between relativity and quantum physics is a result of the missing link or element that would result in everything making sense when we discovered or comprehended it. it could also demonstrate that some erroneous assumptions have been made some where.

If relativity is somehow in relationship to the role of the observer in the converting potentiality to actuality then it could make sense.

So we spoke of the intention of Holistic Relativity but what is the definition?

With loving intention

Richard

Dear D.K.,

Thanks for the reply! You are fortunate to have been in the company of a Master. I have read a lot about
advanced spiritualists, mystics, adepts, etc.

If it is really, really true, that they can do what
no one else does, I'm dying to meet one...or a few.

I was looking for a statement from you that might be
perceived as a slogan, or a marketing idea.
The peoples interest must be caught and maintained
in order for any progress to be made, regarding our subject.
There is no product here to dispense so I hope
you can stay a not-for-profit research group.

There can be no monetary charges for the therapy
or the information that may be provided.

It is not only prudent but also wise, for us to
remember that this is being done for the good of humanity,
and not for any particular individual's gain.
Yes, one individual can make a difference but the
focus should be set on how we act and behave as a unit.
As in, the journey is as important as the destination
in the view of the public and examples we shall be.

"Love one another", basically sums up what needs to be seen.

The common man and woman cannot be left behind
in this endeavor. As has been pointed out, not
everyone will be concerned with the details or proofs.

The magic involved in investigation is the same
passion stirred by treasure hunting. We all know
something is missing. We just don't know who has it,
or where it resides...or do we?

Best wishes, Keith~

Dear DK and all here,
Here are a few statements from Deepak's latest book.
Whatever you are afraid to lose is unreal.
It is the soul which is real.
The essence will always remain.
Therefore you should celebrate loss.
# These statements I believe are from Ramana to Savitri. To contemplate these words of wisdom help to lessen the grip of illusion on your mind. They help to set you free from the trappings of existence.
Todd

Dear Richard,

You ask: 'what is the definition of Holistic Relativity?".

Could it be: "only Backwards Knowing what we all are going through" ?

In other words: we are gently pushed forward by this fifth force (Love), that might perhaps also be called Evolution.

Then: What is Evolution?

Evolution=Energy=Ether vibrations=Love

So L=(E)3 ?

Just some fantasy from my mind or a divine inspiration? I am vulnerable, but let it be :)

Loving intentions to you.

It takes the entire universe to manifest a single action. This powerful statement from Deepak is a great equalizer. Putting the so-called enlightened master and the seemingly ordinary person on equal terms. It unifies everything into a holistic whole!
Todd

Contemplating (It takes the entire universe to manifest a single action) dictates that even past, present and future events have an effect on each and every action. In other words the Cosmic Spirit pervades and acts through everything. In fact, (The Infinite) is manifesting everything!
Todd

Dear Richard,
When I read something that someone has written I try to let the words resonate with my spirit and (let the spirit) deliver a message. Of the many volumes of your writing I have seen the thing that stands out the most to me is-
The Full Immersion 3D Cosmic Movie
# Do you have any insights into these words?
Todd

Yes everything is everything, it's so simple. I don't understand it, but I know it, I can see it visually. Simple enough for even the common man or woman to see.

I see a convergence happening.

All the ingredients coming together, being stirred.

Once up to speed, like a gyroscope it will balance out and run smooth. Faster, smoother, balanced.

We just need to pull the string. With love.

peace comes from peace

derek

Dear DK & Friends:
Thanks for asking beautiful, thoughtful, and tough questions. This is what makes this Socratic Dialogue meaningful and enlightening. Please do not form or make any conclusions or judgments on what is being proposed or said here without searching for answers or true understanding of the very deep scientific and philosophical insights being discussed here.
Let me try to address some key comments and questions raised since yesterday by syamala, and Richard:

Richard has raised the questions regarding the incompatibility between relativity theory and quantum mechanics, and related unresolved singularities and paradoxes – black hole, dark matter/energy etc. These very issues have been resolved by the spirituality-based consciousness-integrated general relativity theory (GNM) in my book.
It is apparent (and I do not expect) that everyone has not had a chance to read and understood my book in its entirety. So, let me try to explain in simple words as much as I can.
What is miraculous and beautiful that the simple spiritual message of the spiritual masters – “Dissolve your Ego and merge into the One” translates into a mathematical equation (equation 3-2) missing from the Einstein’s general relativity theory. Integrating this equation completes the general relativity as the Holistic Relativity theory making it a theory of everything. It then resolves all paradoxes of relativity and quantum mechanics as described in Chapter 2 of my book below:

“In spite of the great milestones achieved by science during the past few centuries, unresolved questions and unexplained paradoxes remain that threaten to pull the rug from under the picture of reality painted by the combined knowledge of science. GNM resolves the open questions and paradoxes listed below:

1. Action at a Distance:

Theory of relativity [1] poses a limit on the speed at which a signal can be transmitted from one point to another in the universe. This limit is the speed of light, denoted by the constant C. Quantum mechanics, however, stipulates a connectivity or capability of instantaneous communication in the universe. Such connectivity has been further confirmed theoretically by the famous Bell’s Theorem [2] and experimentally demonstrated to be true by experiments such as those carried out by Aspect [2] in the past decade. This creates a big question –

‘Is there a limit on the maximum speed at which an event can influence another event happening at a different location in the universe?’

2. Nature of Reality [3]:

The human observer observes large objects such as stars, planets and small objects such as rocks, trees and particles. Some of these appear stationary and some are in motion. The classical mechanics theory describes laws of motion of ordinary small and large objects at relatively lower speeds than the speed of light. Theory of relativity describes the laws of motion at higher speeds close to the speed of light. Quantum mechanics describes the probabilistic behavior of small quantum particles based on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle [1] and wave/particle complementarity principal.

According to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, both the location and velocity of a particle can not be specified at any given time without an irreducible uncertainty that exists in nature. So a complete space-time description of a moving particle can not be absolutely specified in terms of deterministic parameters. This raises the following questions-

‘If a deterministic space-time description of small quantum particles is not possible, how is it possible for a human observer to observe objects that are made of small moving particles, with well defined spatial location and boundaries in real life?’

‘If the fundamental description of motion of small particles can only be probabilistic, then what makes the laws of classical mechanics so deterministic?

‘Does God play dice with the universe?’

3. Gravity:

Gravity provides the glue that holds the objects in the universe such as galaxies, stars, and planets together via attractive forces between masses of all sizes. While quantum models of all other forces existing in nature are possible, gravity has defied any quantum description in terms of any fundamental particles. This raises the following question-
‘What is the fundamental nature and mechanism of gravity?’
‘Does gravity exist as a fundamental force even if there were no mass in the universe? What leads to the force of gravity in the universe?’

4. Missing or Dark Matter in the Universe:

The observed universe is flat requiring that there is sufficient amount of mass in the universe to maintain its density close to the constant value of the critical density in spite of its observed run-away expansion. But the observed amount of mass is significantly insufficient to predict the flat and expanding universe. Predictions from credible theories show that more than ninety percent of the required mass is missing or undetectable through direct observation of the universe. The questions that arise then are-

‘Where and in what form is the missing or dark matter [4] in the universe?’

‘What are the constituents of the dark matter?’

5. The Big Bang:

Based on the observed Hubble expansion, it is now believed that the universe started with a Big Bang [4] at the beginning of time. This leads to a discontinuity or singularity in the universe model and several questions listed below:

‘What caused the Big Bang?’

‘What was there before the Big Bang? What were the initial and boundary conditions of the Big Bang?’

‘Will the universe collapse again and lead to another Big Bang?’

6. The observed Order, Simplicity and Comprehensibility in the Universe:

To the human observer the universe seems to be extremely orderly and following simple comprehensible laws that are fine-tuned for existence. This leads to the following questions-

‘What causes the universe to be so orderly and fine tuned?’

‘Why do we happen to be here at this time to comprehend the simple yet a wonderful and elegant universe? (Anthropic Principle [5])

‘Why is the universe so comprehensible to human mind?’

7. Number of Universes:

Quantum mechanics’ interpretations of the observed universe lead to the possibility of multiple parallel universes [2]. This model of multiple universes explains many of the observed quantum weirdness that can not be explained by a single universe model. But it leads to several questions-

‘Are there parallel universes?’

‘If yes, how many and how are they connected?

‘Do the same laws of nature exist in all universes?’

‘How are the events in one universe related or connected to the events in the other universes?’

‘Did all the universes start with the same one Big Bang or individual Big Bangs?’

8. Time:

More recent theories of time [6,7] point to the possibility that there is no real or absolute time in the universe. Theory of relativity states that time is a relative entity that depends upon the velocity of the observer. For an observer moving at the speed of light the clock stops and time completely dilates to zero. The questions that can be asked are-

‘Is time a real entity or only a perception of the human mind?’

‘If the age of the universe is about fourteen billion years, what is the frame of reference?’

‘What happens to time and how it is related in parallel universes?’

‘Did time start with the Big Bang? What was the time before the Big Bang? How much time remains until the next Big Bang? What happens to time in a Big Crunch?’

9. The Observer and the Scientific Method:

Science relies on the measurements made by either an instrument or the direct observations made by a human observer to arrive at a scientific conclusion. It is believed that the consciousness of the human observer [2] is what collapses the wave function in quantum mechanics into an observed classical reality. It is also assumed that a human observer is an independent entity unaffected by what is being observed. This leads to the following questions.

‘What is the physics behind the phenomena of the collapse of a quantum wave-function?’

‘If quantum mechanics stipulates connectivity of the universe, how an observer is independent and unaffected by the observed?’

‘Are the observed scientific parameters by classical measuring devices sufficient and adequate for describing the true nature of reality that is?’

‘Is the subjective (un-manifested or dark matter) part of reality more dominant than the so-called objective (manifested or material) reality? How do they relate to each other and to the universal reality as a whole?’

‘Is the reality observed by science converging or diverging or evolutionary with time?’

With so many of the important questions regarding the fundamental reality in the universe still remaining to be answered, it is premature to declare victory and the end of science [10]. The serious question is whether the classical scientific method, while successful in describing the material part of the universe, has any fundamental weakness that could make it incapable of revealing the true reality of the universe.

The motivation for this work is to accomplish the following:

1. Answer the above questions by reexamining the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method and widely accepted theories of science today.

2. Find the missing physics, which Einstein alluded to as “the Hidden Factor” in the existing theories. This missing link hopefully will close the apparent gaps between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, which are two of the most successful theories in their own rights. ‘The Hidden Factor’ may also provide answers to many of the open questions listed above.

3. Provide a physical and mechanistic basis to explain an apparent weirdness of quantum mechanics phenomena.

4. Extract some simple comprehensible insights that can benefit a common man to understand reality and to rejuvenate his confidence in science. Science has become too complex, as it requires understanding of complex concepts of uncertainty and probabilities that are too far removed from the grasp of a common man. Science has become a field for the super experts creating a wider gap with the common man. Simplicity and elegance of science needs to be restored to enhance its credibility, comprehensibility and acceptance.

5. Close the gap between science and religion. The ongoing debate between science and religion for the past centuries has been caused by the basic differences in the methods of science and religion to observe and perceive reality. Science observes reality by separating the observer and dividing the observed reality into particles of matter. Religion on the other hand has ignored scientific observations and relies on faith to propagate the concept of a creator- the God. Science has ignored the inherent spontaneity or consciousness in nature, while religion has ignored the actual observations of the universe. An integrated scientific model that includes spontaneity or consciousness will go a long way to answer the fruitless and endless debate between science and religion. The belief is that there is one common reality, which both science and religion attempt to describe in their own frames of references. This work is an attempt to build a bridge of consciousness between the two apparently different islands of science and religion.”

------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Definition of Holistic Relativity:

I propose the following definition of Holistic Relativity:

“Holistic Relativity consists of the Einstein’s general relativity theory in its original unaltered form but enhanced by the mathematical formulation of the well-established phenomenon of spontaneity or consciousness in nature as evidenced in the observed spontaneous expansion of the universe, spontaneous conversion of mass-energy in the wave-particle duality, and spontaneity or consciousness of the human mind. Since the original formulation of general relativity remains unaltered, the Holistic Relativity retains all the validity and predictability of a vast array of scientific experiments and universe observations. However, the enhancement or augmentation of general relativity by addition of an addition equation representing spontaneity or consciousness in nature not only resolves its known deficiencies and singularities, but also resolves all inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. The Holistic Relativity provides a mathematical framework that explains the inner workings of quantum mechanics and resolves its own unexplained paradoxes such as the Quantum Measurement or the Observer’s Paradox, parallel universe, Heisenberg’s uncertainty, non-locality (infinite speed of light) etc. Further still, the Holistic Relativity resolves the well known paradoxes of cosmology such as the Big Bang singularity, superluminous inflation, dark energy, dark matter, the paradox of time and evolution, and future of the universe etc. And most importantly, it builds a seamless bridge between science, spirituality, and religion resolving their log-standing conflicts related to creator, creation, purpose, meaning, and genuine happiness.”

--------------------------------------------------------------

Now, answers to syamala’s important questions:

In simple words, ego is equivalent of mass. Just as mass is nothing but energy compressed or confined in fixed space and time, ego represents the consciousness energy confined into the fixed convictions, beliefs, and emotions of the mind. Just as the boundaries of mass give it a worldly identity as a particle or thing, the boundaries of the ego (mind) give a human being a biological or worldly identity of “I”.
Consciousness is motion. According to the physics laws of motion, no motion can exist in the universe without consciousness or free will. Inanimate matter cannot move itself. Whatever moves cannot move without a motion or force being initiated or induced by a free willed entity. A car cannot move without a conscious being. Hence, consciousness is motion and the level of consciousness is the level of motion reflected in the speed. Since, the maximum speed cannot exceed the speed of light, the ultimate or highest level of motion or consciousness is represented by C, the speed of light, which also represents the full enlightenment.

Awareness is the actual being or knowing in space and time as represented by the extent of a wave signified by its wavelength. According to the GNM equation 3-2 that has been added to general relativity, when a particles decays its mass to completely to become radiative energy at the speed of light its mass goes to zero and wavelength becomes infinite signifying total or wholesome awareness of the entire universe.

Is light fully conscious or aware? Depends upon the frequency and wavelength, which again depends upon the actual mass of the particular photon ( note that so long a photon has a finite energy it has a finite mass, and hence a finite wavelength. The following is an excerpt (without equations since I am unable to paste them on the intentblog) from Chapter 6 of my book describing a God particle:

“Frequencies and wavelengths of a self-decaying photon with a rest mass of M0, can be calculated using equations (4-7) and (4-8) for varying values of velocity. Figure 4-12 shows photon wavelengths predicted by equations (4-8) for two different photon masses of 1x10-45 kilogram and 1x10-35 kilogram respectively. At zero velocity, the wavelength predicted by GNM equation (4-8) is zero and as V increases to C the wavelength increases to infinity. Since the wavelength is inversely proportional to the rest mass, the wavelength for the lighter rest mass is proportionally longer than the heavier one. In order to demonstrate the non-locality of a very light mass particle due to its dramatically large wavelength, we will calculate the ratio of the wavelength of a self-decaying mass given by equation (4-8) to the radius or size of the universe predicted by GNM Equation (5-21) describing the Relativistic Hubble Model (RHM):
(4-8)
(5-21)

Dividing the above two equations and simplifying gives the following,
(6-26)
For small velocity V<<C, the above equation simplifies to the following,
(6-27)
We can now calculate the rest mass of a particle, defined here as the God-particle for which the wavelength is equal to the Hubble radius of the universe as follows,
(6-28)
For a Hubble Constant of 2.27E-18 sec.-1, the rest mass of a God-particle is calculated to be 1.66x10-68 kilograms. Figure 6-8 shows the ratios of wavelengths to the Hubble radius calculated by equation (6-26) for a Planck’s mass, proton, electron and the God-particle. As is apparent, the ratios of wavelength to Hubble radius for a Planck’s mass, proton and electron are several orders of magnitude smaller (< 10-38) than the ratio of 1 for the God-particle. Hence, the God-particle has equal and 100% probability to be at all points in the universe, satisfying an ideal non-locality, as compared to the protons or electrons, which will be located or confined to much smaller regions of their wavelengths. Also, the God-particle will appear to be in perfect coherence and entanglement all over the universe because of its wavelength encompassing the entire universe.

In summary, GNM provides a mathematical and physical understanding of the observed Quantum Entanglement or Quantum Non-locality.”

Now, symala, answer to your beautiful question:
“Since there is both matter and energy always in the universe, or at least as long as we know, does this extreme state coexist with every other state of the universe? Isn't there a contradiction there?”

GNM establishes the mass-energy equivalence of general relativity, which states that all states of the mass-energy continuum of the universe are complimentary and equivalent, meaning that they all potentially exist. It is the observer’s consciousness (speed of the measuring device), that forces that state to manifest as the observed reality which matches the speed (consciousness) of the observer – this is to satisfy the continuity or conservation of momentum principle. Hence, the observer’s speed or consciousness selects or chooses a material reality to manifest in the matching chosen state out of all the infinite other possible states that exist as a continuum of the mass-energy-space-time continuum.

In a nutshell, the observer’s consciousness determines the observed reality, which is only a small or specific chosen subset of the wholesome ensemble of all possible realities representing the ultimate truth or consciousness.

Love & Regards,
Avtar
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

Once Again In case you missed it:

Proposed Definition of Holistic Relativity:

I propose the following definition of Holistic Relativity:

“Holistic Relativity consists of the Einstein’s general relativity theory in its original unaltered form but enhanced by the mathematical formulation of the well-established phenomenon of spontaneity or consciousness in nature as evidenced in the observed spontaneous expansion of the universe, spontaneous conversion of mass-energy in the wave-particle duality, and spontaneity or consciousness of the human mind. Since the original formulation of general relativity remains unaltered, the Holistic Relativity retains all the validity and predictability of a vast array of scientific experiments and universe observations. However, the enhancement or augmentation of general relativity by addition of an addition equation representing spontaneity or consciousness in nature not only resolves its known deficiencies and singularities, but also resolves all inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. The Holistic Relativity provides a mathematical framework that explains the inner workings of quantum mechanics and resolves its own unexplained paradoxes such as the Quantum Measurement or the Observer’s Paradox, parallel universe, Heisenberg’s uncertainty, non-locality (infinite speed of light) etc. Further still, the Holistic Relativity resolves the well known paradoxes of cosmology such as the Big Bang singularity, superluminous inflation, dark energy, dark matter, the paradox of time and evolution, and future of the universe etc. And most importantly, it builds a seamless bridge between science, spirituality, and religion resolving their log-standing conflicts related to creator, creation, purpose, meaning, and genuine happiness.”

Love & Regards,

Avtar Singh

In case you missed it above:

Proposed Definition of Holistic Relativity:

I propose the following definition of Holistic Relativity:

“Holistic Relativity consists of the Einstein’s general relativity theory in its original unaltered form but enhanced by the mathematical formulation of the well-established phenomenon of spontaneity or consciousness in nature as evidenced in the observed spontaneous expansion of the universe, spontaneous conversion of mass-energy in the wave-particle duality, and spontaneity or consciousness of the human mind. Since the original formulation of general relativity remains unaltered, the Holistic Relativity retains all the validity and predictability of a vast array of scientific experiments and universe observations. However, the enhancement or augmentation of general relativity by addition of an addition equation representing spontaneity or consciousness in nature not only resolves its known deficiencies and singularities, but also resolves all inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. The Holistic Relativity provides a mathematical framework that explains the inner workings of quantum mechanics and resolves its own unexplained paradoxes such as the Quantum Measurement or the Observer’s Paradox, parallel universe, Heisenberg’s uncertainty, non-locality (infinite speed of light) etc. Further still, the Holistic Relativity resolves the well known paradoxes of cosmology such as the Big Bang singularity, superluminous inflation, dark energy, dark matter, the paradox of time and evolution, and future of the universe etc. And most importantly, it builds a seamless bridge between science, spirituality, and religion resolving their log-standing conflicts related to creator, creation, purpose, meaning, and genuine happiness.”

Love & Regards,

Avtar

Avtar,
Thanks for the answers.
So, the answer to the question "Does the light we see have free will and is it fully conscious but not fully aware?" is yes. No doubt, it is conscious and has free will according to your physics definitions of level of consciousness, free will, and awareness. But is it conscious as what conscious means in English? Does it really have free will as what free will means in English? What about all those laws of physics that describe light phenomena? Don't they imply that light's behavior is predictable? Light strictly obeys those laws whenever it is presented with the situations specified in those laws. It has no ability to violate them. That is NOT free will. I remember in one of Amit Goswami's books, he described a phenomena where light changed its path from the source as though it knew that there was going to be a mirror at a particular point in its path and therefore behaved as though it knew the future! One such phenomenon that optics is unable to explain so far does not mean that light has free will. It may be just that there is something else to still to be learnt.
I agree ego is equivalent of mass, ie., metaphorically but may not be the same as mass. Similarly, consciousness is equivalent to energy metaphorically but NOT the same as energy. Energy which is created from mass (the dumbest thing in the world) according to a known formula E=Mc2 is obedient to that law. It has no ability to violate that law. How can you say it has free will? Similarly, your God-particle (I have no problem with that name, I love it) allowed you to calculate its rest mass using all sorts af rules; so it obeys those rules, it has no free will. I agree it is non-local but it need not be conscious. Consciousness is non-local but who says everything that is non-local is conscious? Isn't consciousness beyond speech and beyond thought ("vakya manateeta")? If you can define something by means of a language (which is nothing but a set of rules of grammer) or describe its behavior by means of a law or formula or theory, it is NOT consciousness because it is subject to those laws and hence has no free will.
Again, consciousness is equivalent to motion metaphorically but need not actually be motion. It is "nishchala" is it not? For example, that a car needs a conscious being to move it, is no longer true; nowadays, a robot can drive a car. Actually, in these days of Artificial Intelligence, one should ask the question "is there any thing at all that a machine cannot do and which a human being can do?"
Asking this question did give me some answers which I presented in some papers before the internet age. I posted some of it on http://primordality.com/consciousness.htm#living and on http://mindmatter.125mb.com.

You being a distinguished physicist, I do not doubt for a minute that your zero-point energy definition and approach are able to explain many paradoxes of physics and phenomena in nature that physics has not been able to explain so far. I have no problem if you call the zero-point energy as consciousness and free will but they would be consciousness and free will as defined in physics. I am not sure that it is the same consciousness and unifying love experienced by our spiritual Masters.

Dear Avtar and Syamala,
I am not a physicist. However one thing I am sure of is that through the penetration of the kundalini energy (consciousness) through the crown chakra a dissolution of the illusion of separation occurs. The effect of gravity is also lifted or subsides with this alteration within the human bio-energy system. I know this through direct experience and I feel others who have had a similar experience can validate what I am saying. In regards to the lessening of gravity within the body-mind energy system it stands to reason that the effect of gravity and the awareness of oneness are interrelated. Perhaps there is even another form of gravity that we in this discussion are not taking into account (spiritual gravity). Is it plausible that the spiritual energy within the body-mind system is subject to a spiritual gravity emanating from the spirit within us or perhaps even the spiritual universe. Clearly, a scientific philosophy or system that only accounts for material forces is incomplete. Is it possible we are all experiencing a tug of war between two universes (material and spiritual) and as we ascend to higher levels there is a higher unification of the two.
Todd

If Dr Avtar Singh's presentation resolves all inconsistancies as enumerated in points 1 to 5, and in addition is in concise MATHEMATICAL FORM, I fail to understand why DK should not take it to the scientific community at CERN or elsewhere and help him even win the Nobel Prize. No summary could be better than a mathematical equation. And mathematical equation will be as obvious and clear as 2x2 = 4 to any scientist.

Harb

yo, level7, I have had such experiences, absolutly real and mysterious. I do not hold to any belief system, scientific, religious, spiritual or anything else. So it's not connected to any rituals or education or meditation. Just very powerful.

I have understanding and awareness that is not typical of people I have known in my past. I somehow understand and follow what I read here. I have no formal education or religious study, and yet I have somehow been connected to something mysterious all my life. I believe even the common people of our time are becoming more aware.

This leads me to believe that what we are looking for is right in front of our eyes, literally, and that we spend so much energy trying to find it that we cannot see it. We have to change our focus and we will see it.

We are all connected and when the right set of circumstances converge it sparks a change. It's been happening for ever.

Everything that has ever happened has made everything that is here. Everything is everything.

All the debates, the scientific arguments, spiritual rituals, all are beautiful and provoking, but I believe, and this only my opinion, that they shift our focus from the simple truth that we are here and growing and changing and we can not know what we will become because the whole universe is growing and changing.

There is an unlimited number of solutions
There is unlimited potential in everyone
The only limits are set by ourselves

We are riding on the momentum of the creative force, like a surfer.

We already understand more of lifes mysteries than our ancestors, it stands to reason that we will continue to learn more. That we are about to learn more very soon, but there will always be more.

Can we somehow just be comfortable knowing how lucky we are to just be here, concious?

I know when I am trying to find a name for a pet I either already have one in mind, or when I don't I struggle with lots of names until I give up and then when I'm not thinking about it, the perfect name comes to along.

We cannot look to the future with the eyes of the past, that only continues the old dysfunctional cycles, nature does not do this or we would still have molten planet. The Earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe are all on a one way jouney,

Forward........unpredictable and unstoppable.

To me it is so important to appreciate this moment, there will never be another like it because we, I, move forward and change.

peace comes from peace

derek

DK: Avatar is definitely a good candidate to be a contributor here at IB. His contibution is far far better than most contributors here. If you can pass on this word to the host, if you take your work seriously that is, it maybe useful in seeing holistic relativity move fwd at least here. If not Amit goswami, at least we can have someone like him.

Todd,
You are very fortunate to have spiritual experiences. Kundalini and chakras may all be quite real. But I do not know whether any biologist has ever tried to see these chakras in the physical body. I think biologists probably cannot find them there because they are not physical. I may be wrong. Ramana Maharshi used to talk about a heart which he said is the seat of Self in the body. He also said that this heart is not the biological heart that biologists and heart specialists know. A war is most likely to occur when a biologist tries to find this spiritual heart and says either that such a heart is impossible or that he has found it! because in both cases, he has to prove it.
Derek and Todd,
No wars are taking place here on our blog. The arguments are because of the inherent difficulty in understanding spirituality by means of intellectual reasoning.

Dear DK and Avtar

Sometimes the material raises questions for me. One question is: Why is subconsciousness placed as the outermost layer in the GNM model of mind? My understanding of mind is body, then proto-consciousness, then consciousness. I conceive of subconsciousness as an expression of a complex, non-linear neural-level interface between proto-consciousness and consciousness. I also believe in the potential for development of super-consciousness, which for me is the result of a multi-directional expansion the interface between proto-consciousness and consciousness, to such a degree that full integration is achieved, i.e., the interface disappears as integration proceeds. The GNM diagram force lines seem to support my conception of the positions of body, consciousness and subconsciousness relative to each other. Another question is: If ego and mind are not synonyms, why does Figure 1 show them as interchangeable?

Can you define your use of terms such as ego, mind, consciousness, subconsciousness, awareness, etc., for readers? All these words' meanings are open to some interpretation.

love, Heath

Dear Harb:

Welcome and thanks for your comments. The challenge for the mainstream scientific community will be to find a reviewer that is not biased with particle physics alone but thoroughly familiar with theoretical general relativity.

Dear Syamala:

I am not a professional physicist and certainly not a distinguished one. Just a seeker, like everyone else curious to chase the mysterious.

I am impressed with the depth of your questions since I myself went thru the same questioning path a few years ago. The answers may be surprising and sometimes counter to the mainstream beliefs and convictions. So, please stay with me as I try to explain in the simplest and best possible way. It might take a few iterations to grasp fully some entirely new insights about the nature of reality, so we have to be patient as we dive deeper into it. What I have realized that many a times, the questions themselves dissolve as soon as the reality is revealed, without any need for an answer.

Now, symala, answer to your beautiful question:
“Light strictly obeys those laws whenever it is presented with the situations specified in those laws. It has no ability to violate them. That is NOT free will.”

I think you are implying that if a phenomenon strictly follows and predictable by the deterministic laws then it is not free will. Let me first surprise you with the counterintuitive answer below and then explain the basis for the answer.

Answer:

The free will cannot exist without the coexisting deterministic laws. If there were no deterministic laws, there would be no free will. Every entity and phenomenon in the universe, including the consciousness or free will is governed by the deterministic laws of the universe. It is only the laws that exist at their own will and nothing else. Hence, the universal consciousness is the laws. That is why the spiritual masters like Nanak call it the “Hukum” or the order of the universe.
“Hukume Andar Sab Koi, Bahar Hukum Na koi” meaning – “Everything in the universe is governed by the laws or order and not outside it”.

Explanation:

Imagine a free-willed person wanting to walk up straight. If there were no deterministic laws of gravity, this wouldn’t be possible. Imagine if gravity acted randomly and uncertainly, the person would never be able to exercise his/her will to walk up straight and keep falling as gravity changes randomly. Below is an article I wrote earlier explaining this in more detail:

A New Perspective on the Free-will Dilemma:

The reductionist approach of science is often tied to the determinism of the natural laws. The determinism, as seen by Einstein, is interpreted to explain away free-will, and indeterminism or uncertainty, defended by Neils Bohr, is seen as the idea that freedom actually exists. I would argue that a different or possibly opposite conclusion can in fact be supported by a deeper interpretation of the deterministic natural laws.

The natural laws simply determine the outcome of an input, and not a priori result, which is independent of the input. In other words, the laws only determine the process that applies to the input information, but the actual result or outcome is dependent upon the input itself. The free-will resides in the selection or choice of the input by the human scientist; as an input is changed at the free-will of the scientist the results changes according to the deterministic law. The ultimate result is in the hands or at the choice of the free-will of the human scientist. For example, the law of gravity is deterministic, but it does not determine whether a person would fall to the floor or walk straight up without falling. Any one of these outcomes are under the control of the free-will of the person or some external environmental factors completely unrelated to the determinism of the law of gravity. Hence, reductionism is a chosen (free-willed) interpretation or approach of a reductionist and completely unrelated to the determinism of the natural laws.

Similarly, uncertainty or indeterminism of the motion of a particle, such as an electron, has no relation to the determinism or indeterminism of the laws of nature but to the choice of the human observer or the frame of reference of the observation. Heisenberg chose to observe the location and velocity of a particle, which is moving close to the speed of light and under the influence of relativistic motion, in a fixed or Newtonian frame of reference of the classical science. As is well-known, space and time under relativistic motion dilate and are not the same as the Newtonian fixed frame of space and time. This very free-willed choice of the selection of the frame of reference by Heisenberg led him to the incorrect conclusion that the uncertainty is inherent in nature. The truth is that the uncertainty is an artifact of the choice of Heisenberg to select the Newtonian or fixed space and time, since almost all real-life experiments of science are severely limited by this practical limitation. Had he chosen a frame of reference or experiment wherein the observer moves at the same speed as the electron with equivalent relativistic effects, no uncertainty would be observed or seen in defining the exact description of the motion of the electron. On the other hand, an observer moving at exactly the speed of light would see all classical objects completely disappear due to the dilation of space and time. Hence, indeterminism or uncertainty is not the basis for free will, but an artifact of the choice or free-will of the observer.

Further discussion and details of these arguments can be found in my book: The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality, AuthorHouse, 2003.”

In a nutshell, counter to the mainstream or common belief that what follows the deterministic laws is unconscious or dumb; the determinacy of the universal laws is a necessary condition for the free will to exist.

Also you are saying that there exist two (duality or non-Advaita) separate realities – physics and spiritual? Are you implying that Nanak’s “Hukum” is a separate set of laws than the universal laws? Then why did Nanak also say – “Jo brahmande Soi Pinde.” (Whatever happens in the universe also happens in body/mind”. Again, what is the basis of your thinking that the two are different? You may not know, but if you say that the two are different, you are asserting not only violation of the spiritual laws of Advaita or Ek Onkar, but also the very laws of conservation of science. If your statement is true, it would be havoc both for science and spirituality.

GNM demonstrates that Holistic Relativity and Spirituality are one and same Non-dual (Advaita) truth (Ek Onkar Sat Naam) and supports Einstein as well as Nanak.

Dear Heath:

See my response yesterday to syamala wherein I define consciousness, awareness etc. The subconsciousness is shown at the outer circle since it is more hidden or implicit than the conscious mind. Ego and mind are same to me.

Love & Regards,
Avtar
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

Dear DK,

Yes, I have one.

David Deutsch in Oxford. He is one of the worlds leading theoretical physicists and distinguished fellow of the British Computer Society that also wonders "why do many smart scientists ignore the larger implications of quantum mechanics?" I think he might be inclined play a role in this endeavor and give it additional insight and credibility. He is a champion of the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics.

I know he made the following statements.

"Despite the unrivalled empirical success of quantum theory the very suggestion that it may be literally true is still greeted with cynicism."

he also said

"Even after someone dies they other copies of him might remain alive somewhere in the multiverse"

end of his thought

It is my thought that all the commonly held beliefs and assumptions about reality, even the oldest will be shattered when we come to terms with reality and refute the illusion we accept as reality.

Dear DK & Friends:
Let us discuss a plan and approach to get ready to submit our proposal to the mainstream scientific community. I have been dealing with them during the last four years even partnering and coauthoring several papers with a distinguished Professor of nuclear physics at Johns Hopkins University. We have struggled to get a serious attention from the mainstream physicists because of – “what is in it for me?” syndrome and why should one take risks with their careers mingling with the spiritual stuff. It is going to take a major initiative to penetrate the mindset on particle physics and almost fading interest in theoretical relativity today by the mainstream physics. My experience is that the particle physics scientists are hard core quantum mechanists or string theorists who dislike theoretical general relativity, which is no more a career progression path for them.

I propose that before we call on the mainstream scientists, we need to get together our own leaders in the scientific-spiritual community such as Deepak Chopra, Amit Goswami, Dalai Lama, Shekhar Kapur who is an astrophysicist, and others recommended people by these leaders. We should hold a one or two day seminar – a kind of internal review to sort out any obvious weaknesses in our arguments that need to be strengthened. We may also get new ideas to enhance the proposed approach. Only after such an internal review and addressing their recommendations and with their solid support, we will be ready to proceed forward to take on the hard core mainstream science.

What do you think? I am open to any ideas or suggestions.

Dear DK:
Could ATCA arrange such a seminar with proper attendance and representation by our community spiritual-scientist leaders?

Regards,
Avtar

Just don't forget the people, when it can be simple enough for the masses, you will have great support which can completely change the dynamics.

Very Imp point from Doodleman! This is where Deepak has been a big hit. Whoever simplifies quantum physics and presents it to the mass public in the most lucid language which they could understand based on their knowledge and their level of awareness would not only be a hit, but doing great service. Hope DK and Avtar make some contribution towards this.

Good points Heather. One big difference between the scientific world and spiritual world is this:
there is proper definition of words and universal agreement amongst the scientists, they leave very little space for ambiguity. Whereas the spiritual world is mostly Occult in the dimensions in which we live/exist and therefore quite loose. Different words mean different things to different people. For ex: there is no difference between consciousness and awareness to some. To some one is primordial, awareness that is and consciousness is only a reflection in a body/mind apparatus.

Sat/Chit/Ananda. Which means Existence Consciousness and Bliss respectively.

All there is, is consciousness and the manifested world which we see is a Superimpostion on that eternal existing reality of consciousness. The Ultimate goal of life being Self Realization!

Dear readers:

Personally, I think the word "spirituality" needs to be discussed and defined along with a few others such
as the ones on which Heather remarked. I wish you could recruit a
few psychologists and a couple competent psychiatrists.

Okay, go ahead...say I need a shrink like a TREE needs to think. I will definitely agree with you.

Here is a definition of the unconscious from Carl Jung's
collection. I believe he would have an alternative view of Figure 2.

First, from "Aion":

Theoretically, no limits can be set to the field
of consciousness, since it is capable of indefinite extension. Empirically, however, it always finds its limit when it comes up against the 'unknown'. This consists of everything we do not know,
which, therefore, is not related to the ego as the centre of the field of consciousness. The unknown falls into two groups of objects: those which are outside and can be experienced by the senses, and those which are inside and are experienced immediately. The first group comprises the unknown in the outer world; the second the unknown in the inner world. We call this latter territory the 'unconscious'.

Now: "The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche", C.J.

...everything of which I know, but of which I am not at the moment thinking; everything of which I was once conscious but have now forgotten; everything perceived by my senses, but not noted by my conscious mind; everything which, involuntarily and without paying attention to it, I feel, think, remember, want, and do; all the future things that are taking shape in me and will come to consciousness: all this is the content of the unconscious.

Ditto:

Besides these we must include all more or less intentional repressions of painful thoughts and feelings. I call the sum of all these contents the 'personal unconscious'. But, over and above that, we also find in the unconscious qualities that are not individually acquired but are inherited, e.g., instincts as impulses to carry out actions from necessity, without conscious motivation. In this 'deeper' stratum we also find the archetypes. The instincts and archetypes together form the 'collective unconscious'. I call it 'collective' because, unlike the personal unconscious, it is not made up of individual and more or less unique contents but of those which are universal and of regular occurence.

Back to "Aion":

The first group comprises contents which are integral components of the individual personality and therefore could just as well be conscious; the second group forms, as it were, an omnipresent, unchanging, and everywhere identical quality or substrate of the psyche per se.

Finale, "The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious":

The deeper 'layers' of the psyche lose their individual uniqueness as they retreat farther and farther into darkness. 'Lower down,' that is to say as they approach the autonomous functional systems, they become increasingly collective until they are universalized and extinguished in the body's materiality, i.e., in chemical substances. The body's carbon is simply carbon. Hence 'at bottom' the psyche is simply 'world'.

.

Good-night, cruel world. Love ya anyway, Keith~

Hi All!

I fully agree with Syamala and Todd that some very important part of the Whole is missing in Avtar Singh's Holistic Relativity thesis. To me, it restricts itself only to the physical (body) part, prematurely combines it with the spiritual part, and completely ignores the virtual (mind) part.

If one is familiar with Chinese Yin_Yang figure one would know that half of it is white while the other half is black. White in it represents the physical or body part of the universal evolution while black represents the virtual or mind part.

Avtar Singh's thesis, to me, takes into account only white or physical part of the Whole.

Considering that Yin-Yang figure is like day and night - which it really is to a great extent - Avtar Singh's thesis takes into account only the day part.

But since theoretically the day can also be said to extend through all 24 hours, any unification based on only this part also seems to say many things which are very close to the full holistic description but are yet not really the holistic description. It remains deficient to the extent it does not take into account the night part. It is this deficiency which Syamala and Todd are sensing in it.

Any real holistic description to me would take into account both the day and night parts, or white and black parts or body and mind parts and then fit them into the Whole dynamic universal evolution to be able to know it fully.

Even Guru Nanak's spirituality is based only on white or day or physical part in which he first sees duality in the form of "I" and "thou" or "I" and God or I as bride and God as Bridegroom and then seeks union with It/Him. Yet there is spirituality beyond, of the likes of Ramana, Buddha, Krishnamurti, Lao Tze who saw nothing beyond themselves and only sought to know themelves by asking the question "Who am I?" and then found the answer in "I am All." It is not really even unification. It is really only the discovery of one's own Self, of which the extended universe is then a mere extension. Then one will really not seek unification outside but will rather find it obviously there and will only see and describe it in terms of this already realized unity within as Rumi in fact did. And Perhaps in the same way the final answer is not to be found in any 'outside' mathematical equation or whatever but in ourselves, beyond words and certainly beyond equations.

Even otherwise, there have been two equally important theories describing the universe in the last about half century, i.e., the relativity theory and quantum theory. Unless we combine the two and describe the universal evolution in terms of them both I don't think we can claim to resolve all paradoxes as set forth in points 1 to 5. And I would not name that as Holistic Relativity but Holistic Relativistic-Quantum picture. As I see it, it is this: That the Holistic spiritual realm is indescribable, can only be known through self-experience. The Holistic Relativistic-Quantum picture is one in which, in the Quantum Realm the universe (or spiritual dimension or soul or spirit or consciousness-as-such)gets wound up into forces while in the Relativistic Realm it gets unwound from them. And indeed, as I understand it, relativity theory describes the universal evolution from One to Many (getting unwound from one to many) while quantum theory describes it as Many to One (getting wound up from Many to One, like a tree getting wound up into it seed.)

Spontaniety, consciousness is the property of the spiritual realm which manifests first in the black or mind part of the universal evolution to which I call the virtual realm, in which signals move beyond the speed of light, and only later manifests in the white or physical realm. By attributing this to only physical realm we are seeing/telling only half the story, and prematurely declaring it as holistic.

Also, all particles are divided into main two classes i.e., fermions and bosons. Which to me are like body particles and mind particles. Unless we combine them we again are seeing only half the story.

In fact, Avtar Singh restricts himself only to gravitational and electromagnetic interaction phases, the first two phases out of four thanks to four basic forces or interactions, which really belong to the 'out there' or extended physical world, the world of duality, and which is why he takes into account only the photons and has neither spoken of virtual particles or bosons nor of neutrinos, which take part in third and fourth phases, of strong interactions and weak interactions respectively.

In some previous thread, when he had unified everything (obviously physical)in terms of photons I had asked him that according to my knowledge photons can not travel long distances even though they travel at the speed of light and so they cannot be said to unify even the whole physical universe. By the same argument neutrinos since they can travel throughout the universe unhindered they and only they can unify whole universe. He had not answered to my query. I am not a physicist so he and Syamala may not find what I am saying above clear enough so to illustrate my point of difference between photon and neutrino I may quote a couple of lines from the book "Conversations About the Invisible" which is a trilogue between two accomplished physicists and one enlightened French film maker much like our own Shekhar Kapur.

"...the latest actor to appear on our strange stage...is affectionately called neutrino because of its exceptional neutrality. It carries no electrical charge and its mass is almost nil..Its speed is that of photon, that of light. But one could say that it is MORE SUBTLE THAN LIGHT which allows itself(and hence photons) to be stopped by any obstacle, while it can travel throughout the universe unhindered..."

Obviously Avtar Singh's unification based on photons is premature. And mind you photon does not take part (I know it just could not) in weak interactions, only neutrino does, so how we can claim to arrive at unification and resolve all paradoxes when we have restricted ourselves to only photos? Or have not taken into account weak interactions and its carrier neutrinos? Besides strong interactions and their carriers bosons as I said above?

Harb

Dear Harb,

Whether we call it day and night
or black and white or Yin/Yang,
we are seeing and perceiving
the whole mind/body system.
Inside and outside seems
to be as close as we can
get to explaining a very
subjective viewpoint which
ultimately lacks objectivity.
I think Rumi knew a little bit
about the divine, and I believe
he was aware that it resides in all
events and throughout physical processes.

"Become the change you want to see in the world."

Still we have our identity versus the world in which
we reside. Still two, subjective experience and
that which is the first cause of said experience,
whether or not it is felt as being in the mind only
or in that which takes place right in front of our eyes.

Jung coined the terms 'extrovert' and 'introvert'.
I see Avtar as presenting the former and you, the latter.
I see Avtar as a willing participant in the objective world,
whereas I see your view as more of a renunciation.
Avtar presents possibilities for proofs in the
biological scheme of things, whilst you present
the psychological possibilities for understanding.

It is one thing to say I am a part of the whole
and totally another to say I am the whole shabang.

The paradox being can be seen as either saying...
"I am God" or "I and the Father are one."
I personally don't think we'll find any proofs of
either proposal in this material existence, although
an individual may experience one or both in this life.

I wonder if the four forces could be reduced to two.
Then I would ponder whether or not I could reduce the two to one.

I hope you don't mind me. I know that I am not
one of the players here but rather a spectator.
Do I want to play or just watch?
Can I change the world which I see as imperfect
or can I only change my mind to see things differently?
Both at the same time, perhaps?

Thanks for listening. I tried to whisper.
Still here, Keith~

A bit to add about chakras.

Hi All!

Syamala said something about the difficulty a biologist will encounter were he to find or prove chakras.

I think when things go deeper and we fail to prove them because we can no longer 'show' them through our instruments, we may take the help of inferences as follows.

Now, for me, chakras are just centers of four basic forces or interactions in our bodies through which we move through quantum jumps as we evolve from childhood to youth to middle age to old age.

As already explained in my previous posts, we will be in the realm of gravitational interactions in our childhood, electromagnetic interactions in our youth, strong interactions in our middle age and weak interactions in our old age.

These centers of various forces also represent our "I"s of the phase as we progress through them respectively.

Now, just bring to your notice where in general we would point with our hand/finger are we to say "I" in our childhood, youth, middle age and old age. To wit, we would point our hand towards our naval in our childhood, towards our heart in our youth, towards our head/temples in our middle age and finally towards the point where we mark the center when we make a cross in our old age.

Now, just imagine where our center of gravity will be in our childhood were we a log of say wood. Obviously around our naval. So by pointing towards it we prove that in childhood we are indeed in the phase of gravitational interactions. As also that the chakra identifying with our naval is in fact the center of gravity of our bodies.

For others we can infer from the above example of gravity that:

By pointing towards our physical heart in youth we prove that since we are in the phase of electromagnetic interactions or interactions of attractions and repulsions in our youth, the center of this chakra or of this force lies with our physical heart. Similarly, the center of strong interactions we can identify with our head/temple and of weak interactions with our spiritual heart, which indeed should be two digits to the right of our physical heart as Ramana Maharshi said as, as we make cross with our right hand we make the center a bit to the right side of our physical heart.

Once we have understood this basic science of chakras we my well find many other proofs of the same.

Harb

Dear Harb and Keith,

You both are right in your own inner truth. That's what is important. Here the words of David Wilcock (who claims he is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce). Doesn't matter to me; what he says is true (to me) :):

"A spiritual person touches all whom they meet by the radiance that they give off of self-acceptance and self-understanding.

If another self on your plane chooses to judge you for any number of things, it is their position to do so and their right as a free will entity to do so. It does not mean that you need to take in this opinion in any way, shape or form.

Recognize it in yourself first.

Recognize that all is acceptable and that you are good in every way.
And then, move forth to see how all others are reflections of that One Infinite that can only truly be understood in its deepest ramifications within.

And therefore, the world is your mirror, as are all others."

And this reminds me of a part of the poem of Rumi in our thread that started this discussion:

It is your turn now,
you waited, you were patient.
The time has come,
for us to polish you.
We will transform your inner pearl
into a house of fire.
You're a gold mine.
Did you know that,
hidden in the dirt of the earth?
It is your turn now,
to be placed in fire.
Let us cremate your impurities.

With love, Mieke

A bit to add about chakras.

Hi All!

Syamala said something about the difficulty a biologist will encounter were he to find or prove chakras.

I think when things go deeper and we fail to prove them because we can no longer 'show' them through our instruments, we may take the help of inferences as follows.

Now, for me, chakras are just centers of four basic forces or interactions in our bodies through which we move through quantum jumps as we evolve from childhood to youth to middle age to old age.

As already explained in my previous posts, we will be in the realm of gravitational interactions in our childhood, electromagnetic interactions in our youth, strong interactions in our middle age and weak interactions in our old age.

These centers of various forces also represent our "I"s of the phase as we progress through them respectively.

Now, just bring to your notice where in general we would point with our hand/finger are we to say "I" in our childhood, youth, middle age and old age. To wit, we would point our hand towards our naval in our childhood, towards our heart in our youth, towards our head/temples in our middle age and finally towards the point where we mark the center when we make a cross in our old age.

Now, just imagine where our center of gravity will be in our childhood were we a log of say wood. Obviously around our naval. So by pointing towards it we prove that in childhood we are indeed in the phase of gravitational interactions. As also that the chakra identifying with our naval is in fact the center of gravity of our bodies.

For others we can infer from the above example of gravity that:

By pointing towards our physical heart in youth we prove that since we are in the phase of electromagnetic interactions or interactions of attractions and repulsions in our youth, the center of this chakra or of this force lies with our physical heart. Similarly, the center of strong interactions we can identify with our head/temple and of weak interactions with our spiritual heart, which indeed should be two digits to the right of our physical heart as Ramana Maharshi said as, as we make cross with our right hand we make the center a bit to the right side of our physical heart.

Once we have understood this basic science of chakras we my well find many other proofs of the same.

Harb

Here's a great link to Aligning the Chakras

http://healing.about.com/cs/chakras/a/alignchakras.htm

Hi Keith, every word you have written is true. I know, like all scientists Avtar sees things from outside in, I from inside out. And the rest follows as a matter of course lol.

Mieke, yes, everything in the scheme of things. Were we totally pure we would not be writing here. I for one would be dancing like Rumi somewhere rather than write here. Interestingly today I found an article about Rumi in our local newspaper. For one, he died on the same date December 17 I was born. And for an other, in that article he says the same things which I often feel and say in words that I belong to no ism, no religion no country, no community, that I am what I am. You know before I came here my username had always been WhatIAm as I told you already. After my first experience I did never feel the need to speak to anybody about anything connected with it. It all started when I felt forced to write the book...seems that brought me 'down' a few notches... again all for the best though and in the scheme o things...

Thanks and Love, Harb

Dear Avtar

If the subsconcious is more hidden, why would it be in the outer layer, which is implicitly externalized? Why do your arrowed force lines in Figure 2 imply that moving from body-driven thought to fully conscious thought is an inner-to-outer dynamic, with conciousness at the outermost layer? Doesn't this conflict with your saying that subconsciousness is external to consciousness? If ego and mind are the same to you, you should be able to substitute ego for mind everywhere. If ego-constrained terms such as "neurobiological ego", "subconscious ego", conscious ego", and so on, are valid for you, that's fine, but otherwise it seems to me that the words ego and mind are not interchangeable. It would be benefit you if you were to define your terms within your papers, thus ensuring symantic clarity for your readers (outside this forum). My writing about these issues is intended to be helpful, before you present in other forums.

love, Heath

There are still missing puzzle pieces. The puzzle has not been assembled to form the whole picture.

There are the vast new discoveries and understanding yet to come that would be a result of this initiative.

The final product should not require the understanding of equations or complex science, the foundation of the universe is simple giving rise to the complex.

I don't think there is a need, at least not from my perspective to have something reviewed or accepted by some scientific body.

There is no need to convince, for all truth becomes self evident with time through direct experience once a mind has been exposed.

If there is validity and substance, it will eventually be naturally embraced.

It needs only to be presented so that whoever might gain from it can.

This should make the quantum weirdness understandable.

THE CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGE

The theory, empirical evidence, and direct experience related to the quantum world represent a conceptual challenge for physicists and religiocists.

Consider the following experiment, based on an optical test first performed in 1801 by Thomas Young.

In the experiment, particles of light – photons- stream through a single vertical slit cut into a screen and fall on a piece of photographic film place some distance behind the screen. The image that develops on the film is not surprising – simply a bright uniform band. But if a second slit is cut into the screen, parallel to the first, the image on the film changes in an unexpected way (conflicting with our standard interpretation of reality): In place of a uniformly bright patch, the photons now form the pattern of alternating bright and dark parallel lines on the film. Dark lines appear in areas when just one slit was open.

Physicists usually explain the pattern by saying that light has a dual nature; it behaves like a wave, although it consists of individual photons. When the light waves emerge from the two slits, overlapping wave crests meet at the film to create bright lines; crests and troughs cancel out to produce dark lines. Now this is quite unusual in itself that something can be a wave (whatever that actually is) and a particle.
But there is a problem with this explanation: The same pattern of light and dark lines gradually builds up even when photons pass one at a time through the slits, as if each photon had somehow spread out like a wave and gone though both slits simultaneously. That clearly is not the case because the distance between the two slits can be hundreds, thousands or in principle any number of times greater than the size of a single photon. And of that is not confusing enough, consider this: If detectors are placed at each slit, they register a photon traveling though only one of the slits, never both at the same time.

Yet the photons behave as if they traveled through both slits at once. The same baffling results holds true not just for photons but also for particles of a matter, such as electrons. Each seems to be able to exist in many different places at once- but only when one is looking. As soon as a physicist places a tries to observe a particle – by placing a detector at each of the two slits, for example – the particle settles down into a single position, as if it knew it was being detected.

Most physicist when pressed would say that the lessons quantum physics has for us is that our concepts of how a particle should behave do not match reality. Of course the truth might be that our concepts of how particles behave are based on illusion and that is why they don’t match reality.

Some enlightened minds might say that the implications of the theory are clear: If in every case a photon or an electron or any other quantum particle appears to occupy more than one position at a time, then it clearly does occupy many positions at once and thus so do we, and so does everything else in the universe.

What we see in the two slit experiment is evidence of two overlapping realities, one where the photon travels through the top and one where it travels through the bottom.

__NEW AREA___

Below I express what is suspect to be a somewhat new perspective / question one regarding the concept of fate.

There are two possibilities in this split experiment, either both realities / universes coexists with multiple instances of the same observer that has split, or the single observer selects one reality via some mysterious process.

The first implies that we may have free will to present ourselves with a choice however it is fate that we arrive at either result because both paths are walked. The second implies that we through no tangible connection produce the observable universe which is dependant on the observer for it’s actualization.

Our false perceptions of reality are exposed as being as such, and most cannot handle it.

Mystics call it Maya or Illusion! The very dimensions of space and time are not absolute but relative. I'm here, I'm there, I'm everywhere:) Ahum Bramhasmi!!

Actually you are nowhere, something intangible has no place in time and space.

Harb,
Thanks for articulating my concerns so well "To me, it restricts itself only to the physical (body) part, prematurely combines it with the spiritual part, and completely ignores the virtual (mind) part."
Thanks for pointing out that you have a way to infer the locations of Chakras and the heart mentioned ny Ramana. All I was saying is when one is "infering" using logical arguments, they are most likely to encounter questioning from listeners.

I read Avtar's "Scientific understanding of Guru Nanak" in which he presented Guru Nanak's (GN)message very well. (Thanks Avtar, for sending it to me.) Avtar compares GN's spiritual message to Einstein's message of Relativity. He points out similarities in their approaches and outcomes. The former sought and realized the Truth about life,body, mind, and unifying Love, while the latter also sought the same Truth but in matter and therefore found the truth about matter, space and time. If we want to call this "unification of spirituality and science" I have no problem because in this presentation, Avtar did not define consciousness as light or ego as mass. It is simply a metaphor between the messages and approaches of GN and Einstein in which metaphor, consciousness is similar to light and ego is similar to mass. Both approaches needed clear thinking and critical analysis of subjective experience.

Here is an example of how we find "free will". I might have posted this story once before but long time ago.
Once there was a man, let us call him Truth Speaker, because he strictly practised the "speak truth" principle. He spoke nothing but truth all the time. One day, he was sitting in a grove and meditating with closed eyes. Suddenly, he heard the sound of running foot steps. On opening his eyes, he saw a scared man running for his life. The man stopped when he saw Truth Speaker and said with a gasping breath “I am being chased by robbers. I am running for my life. I cannot run any more. I will behind the bushes over here. Please do not reveal my where-abouts to anybody”. So saying, the man ran and hid behind the bushes without even waiting for Truth Speaker to reply. Truth speaker went back to meditation. A few minutes later, he again heard thundering foot steps of running men and opened his eyes. He saw some armed men. When they saw truth Speaker, they too stopped and said “We are looking for a man whom we saw come this way. Did you see anybody running past you a short while ago? If so, do you know which way he went?” Because Truth Speaker would thought never tell a lie he pointed to the robbers the bush where the scared man was hiding. The robbers then caught the man and killed him. After some days, Truth Speaker died but was taken to hell instead of to heaven. There, Truth Speaker asked the ruler of hell (a personification of justice according to Hindu Religion) - why he was brought to hell instead of to heaven which he deserved on account of speaking nothing but truth all his life. The ruler of hell replied “You spoke truth alright but by telling a lie you could have saved the life of the man who was being chased by robbers. You did not have a tiny bit of compassion. You were carried away by your arrogant observance of speak-truth principle and your selfishness to go to heaven. That is why you deserve hell.” The point in the story is not at all whether Truth Speaker went to heaven or to hell after death nor whether there is a heaven or hell. The point is a person’s ability to see when to speak truth and when not. Truth Speaker was following a rule which firmly stuck inside his head and his mode of thinking was that of a machine which was programmed to tell truth and therefore never lie. On the other hand, imagine that in the story, Truth Speaker told the robbers that he did not see anybody around earlier that day. Then that lie came out of compassion for a stranger. In this case, his mind did not execute an instruction in its memory expected to be carried out. Nor did it care for a future benefit, namely going to heaven. Thus the action of lying was directed neither by the past nor by a future goal. This ability to violate a rule of the past and act on one’s own is indeed free will. This ability refuses to be told what to do and refuses to be told by somebody else. A machine can never have this "think and do on its own" capability. A machines present behavior depends on its past. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to assume that a human being can make decisions ignoring both his past and future at least sometimes.

By the way, there is nothing wrong about being dumb. We need machines, they do tasks for us. Thanks to all the development in technologies that build more and more sophisticated machines for us.

Please read "Because Truth Speaker would never tell a lie" instead of "Because Truth Speaker would thought never tell a lie" (strike out "thought") in the above post.

Dear Harb,

If everything I said is true,
I'm older than I thought.
If it's the thought that counts,
I thank you for expressing it.

Dear Syamala,

We can see the opposites as on a pole.
We can fill in a circle with an arrangement
of poles like a clock chock full of hands.
The opposites thus comprise the whole in one
circle, and they all touch in the center.

From what I have gathered over the years,
Spirit has always been equated with Mind
whilst Soul has been likened to the Witness.

Since the Witness has 5 senses and emotions to boot,
I see ego as having activity only where masses are concerned.
Masses of people make for bigger egos and inflation occurs.

I don't see light or dark as the observer,
and I can't imagine an object without awareness.

The West may say Soul is the heart of the matter.
The East may say Mind creates all that really matters.

The West might say Love is an emotional force.
The East might say Spirit loves it's creations.

If Spirit allows Nature the freedom to create on it's own,
our mind's belong to Mind and our bodies belong to one Soul.

That's as far as I can consciously reduce it.
My soul tells me I shall live forever, and...
so far, so good! I'll watch the show in peace.

Excellent story Syamala, it is why true sages are said to flow with the flow, or that their actions cannot be predicted or explained.

To me ego represents the center of various basic interactions as we evolve. In this way it will coincide with our naval in our childhood or when we are in the phase of gravitational interactions, with physical heart in our youth, with head in our middle age or age of reason/intellect when we are in the phase of strong interactions and finally with our spiritual heart in our old age or when we are in the phase of weak interactions.

It is mostly identified with head because basically species man is the product of strong interactions which hve their center in its head.

Harb

More on consciousness and free will.

I think our use of the words 'consciousness' and 'free will' for what I may call One or Unification point or spiritual dimension etc owes itself to our erroneous belief, at least subconsciously if not consciously, that there is some man-like Super Being (God) out there who has consciousness or free will as He brings forth this universe from Himself. For, consciousness or free will must have some subject who is to be conscious or who is to exercise free will. . While in reality there is no such thing/Being at the beginning. It is just a manifestation of a form of matter to which scientists have begun to call supersymmetry, and I fully agree with them. It gives the impression of being conscious simply because it just reflects whatever change occurs on it as it later gets broken. It also seems to reflect those changes in a meaningful way just because it is again to realize itself and so deals with those changes in a certain way.

To realize itself again it eventually must get rid of those changes over it. This process is seen as getting freedom from those changes which when comes down to human level is seen as if HE is gaining/has free will. While what all he is doing with his free will is to further try to get that free will. But the scheme of things is such that beyond a certain point he just loses his ego and hence the need to gain further free will and just surrenders to the flow of things and eventually even becomes like non-living matter or plain matter or dust. From dust it all began and to dust it all returns. We are just the product of that dust somewhere on the way, which had neither conciousness nor free will at the beginning nor wil it have at the end.

Harb

Dear All,

There are many holders of the pieces of the puzzle. Such that Harb may have some pieces and Avtar some others. Mieke, Keith, Heather, syamala and everyone else may have some other piece or clue. Some researcher not yet involved may have another piece of the puzzle or supporting insight.

Some people may just indicate what makes sense to them and what does not, or where the project needs work or still has something missing.

The idea being to integrate all the concepts into a comprehensive whole.

So like DK suggested we would seek to integrate all these pieces here to be assembled in Wikipedia.

One thing that would help as Dk suggested is a glossary of terms so that everyone is on the same page.

I see we have a holistic relativity entry in Wikipedia so we could add a link to the glossary at the bottom of this page.

What we might do here on intent blog is have whoever feels inclined to generate and post lists of words they don't understand or those that they do, in any case those that they think should be in the glossary.

Then we could put them in the glossary in wiki pedia and add to them there.

I can set up a glossary page on wiki pedia and we can all create and edit the relevant words for understanding there. Many of them like "soul" would already have a wiki entry which we could link to and modify or append.

thoughts if you have any

Dear all

Is a discussion of David Chalmers' work approrpriate here? Reading some of his papers, it seems that it might be.

love, Heath

DK, #79 okay agreed.

Am I correct that we still have the other non-inverted pyramid representing the groups of four as well as the inverted one for science / observer?

In other words we are just adding the Ovoids, not removing yes? Later we can edit each part, reposition stuff and add what ever more detail.

Dear Keith

Thanks for bringing Jung's thoughts about the unconscious into the discussion.

love, Heath

DK, #91, thanks, I understand.

Dear D.K.

Numerous replies, consideration for others,
and thoughtful approaches suit you quite well.

We need all feel like a royal family
and take our rightful place in this mellow drama.

My saber has turned to shovel, all the better to
cultivate my understandings and turn over leaves.

Let us invite the force to a grand reception
and balance the beam between love and deception.

A Princess awaits Me2>>-->Cupid is waiting tables.
Get your reservations soon, no time to waste.
Space is available, no vacancy...ever.
Hearts on fire, mysterious menus
and suspicious appetizers
will bring you back
hungry and full
till we get
it right.
Chow!

"I'm here! I'm there! I'm everywhere" Krishna says that! I'm ness is all there. Manifestation is a projection of that I'm ness.

It's good to see Avtar writing at Intent! We can hope just by writing and interacting on the topic would keep the level of consciousness high!

That was Dead on target DK! The first part is to get motivated, explore and get into the groove. Which the traditional satsangs do with the Masters/Saints during the lecture. The Ultimate part doesn't come thru' this though. Meditation is one the keys. The consciousness has to shift from the waking state to the Turiya state. All those great saints which you people talked above went into those states and spoke about their experiences. As we live in the computer age, these interactions have the good potential to be like a satsang, wherein when a few people keep talking and discussing about the higher consciousness, automatically those who join or in and around will start resonating when they are ready for it.

One key point though DK: Do your duty/dharma but be not attached to the outcome! As the outcome is never decided by you. Then one can experience the magnificent flow of the Self!

Todd in his comment #40 has pointed towards such a profound truth through his words "spiritual gravity" that, while none here has even taken any notice, the leading physicists are fully engaged in discovering it.

Einstein's theory of relativity is also called theory of gravitation. And it is a hot subject in scientific circles these days that if we want a complete unified picture we need to unite it with the quantum theory (to which Todd most probably calls "spiritual realm"), thus making the holistic theory as "quantum theory of gravity," or "theory of quantum gravitation" as John D. Barrow puts it in his book Theories of Everything. "It is hoped that string theory may provide us with this theory" write he further in the above book.

In fact it is this very theory to which we have named here as Holistic Quantum Relativity.

Hats off to Todd's intuition! Harb

Dear Harb,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't gravity
the weakest of the four forces?

Is it the primary attractive force or a secondary condition
resulting from large masses in space?

We know it distorts and warps the shape of space,
and becomes a detour distracting photons on their straightaway journey to infinity.

The funniest thing that I retained from all of this,
is that the apple that seemed to drop from the tree
didn't necessarily fall at all.
Instead, the ground and Newton's head came up to
meet the apple where it was momentarily suspended.

The other thing is, we are not racing away from other
universes because of the force of some "BANG!"
It is the space between us that is expanding
and we are not really going anywhere at all.

Unfortunately, we must wait on science for the
proof that times moves forward because the forces don't "need" it to.
And ultimately, it is science that has the best chance
at proving the actual form of space and whether it is
curved, round, flat, or does a loop-dee-loop.

I patiently await the results from CERN.
A blip on a graph is all they need to see.
Those smashed little particles sure do have a short life-span.
It's either that, or they refuse to sit still long enough to be watched.

Have a good day, Keith~

Dear Dk, you are right but your vision is encompassing only the human species while mine is encompassing the whole universal evolution. The universal evolution begins from (star) dust and eventually ends in it. I was explaining how consciousness and free will are like at the VERY beginning of IT.

The very fact that Rumi began from Minerals - also a sort of form of dust - tells us that we began from dust. If we began from dust surely we will eventually end in dust otherwise how we would have begun from it in the first instance?.

Here is a quote from the chapter "Matter of Spiritual Category" of my book cautioning us to the fact that we may not be exactly knowing what matter and hence dust really is:

Quote
...the whole sweep of cosmic evolution can be regarded as revealing, as the aeons unfold, that of which matter is capable....the arrival of Homo sapiens as a product of nature must give us pause in thinking that we know all about what matter is “in itself”...The qualification of “materialistic”...may in the end be so drastic that some other less misleading term becomes necessary... --- Arthur Peacocke (unquote)

You know nothing personal here, Harb

Dear DK,

#92:

Yes.

But I have something to say about the fifth force. Though you know the final word is with you and real scientists here.

I think there is only One Force. Four basic forces are only different manifestations of this One Force. So when we will unite them we will not unite them WITH fifth force, but will unite them into One Force also called Unified Force.

Love, Harb

More questions, Harb.

Now I'm confused about what you mean by mosc.
Is reality and life an event which occurs between
moments of time, or between spatial manifestations
and transformations?
As in...
from Mind to mosc to dust to life to dust to mosc to Mind?

I was beginning to equate mosc with "prana".
Am I way off the mark here?

Dear DK,

I have categorized our article on Holistic Relativity under "Holism", under which other relevant items such as Holistic Science are mentioned.

Now there is a link at the bottom of the page to the Holism category and Holistic Relativity is mentioned on that category page.

You can test it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic_Relativity

Hope this is suitable?

With love, Mieke

Dear Harb,

The way i intuitively understood your book from the beginning resulted in a formula which i wrote in the review to your book at Amazon:

Mosc = Matter of Spiritual Category = Silence
Movc = Matter of Virtual Category = Thoughts
Mopc = Matter of Physical Category = Reality

Those three categories of energy constantly cycle through the four forces: Gravity, electromagnetic,strong and weak forces.

It gave me the formula: E = M3 x F : 4

Now as I stated in my post #31:

"In other words: we are gently pushed forward by this fifth force (Love), that might perhaps also be called Evolution.

Then: What is Evolution or Love?

Evolution=Energy=Ether vibrations=Love

So L=(E)3 ?"

If there is only once Force (the supersymmetry or Love)this formula could become:

L = E3 x F : 4

Just playing with the forces :)

Dear Mieke,

I checked out the site. You did a terrific job!
It's all over there in public view, a nice spread.
It's all laid out on the dinner table, buffet style.
It's enough to whet one's appetite.

I surely was surprised to see my name and I freaked a bit.
I've never been associated with such distinguished
guests and don't feel fit to sit amongst them.
I'm comfortable hiding out in the kitchen,
cookin' up somethin' to tickle their taste buds.

I do see they have yet to decide if they wish
to eat a fifth course that tops all the rest.
I could mix the other four dishes into one
new-fangled, cosmic casserole and call it good.
Mosc apple pie, anyone? Mmmm...

Keith! None of us here, especially those who are participating in this dialogue, is way off the mark.

Mosc is all-inclusive All There Is. Call it matter penetrated by spirit, call it spirit superimposed by matter, call it One, call it God, call it Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, call it dust and so on. All names apply to it yet it is beyond all names.

Everything originates from it, evolves in it and finally ends in it.

As to:
from Mind to mosc to dust to life to dust to mosc to Mind?

Basically it is soul, mind, body, soul but since soul is also one with All Soul or Mosc from both ends we may as well say the above as Mosc,soul,mind, body, mind, soul, Mosc.

Of course it is my opinion, you have far better than mine in many respects.

Harb

Keith, reality or life are events or transformations both in time and space as one timespace, as since Einstein's theory of relativity both stand united.

Harb

Dear Keith,

Aren't we in it all together?

LOVE time after time lets you create. What you create is your greatest view of reality at this time in space!

Love, Mieke

Mieke, you are becoming a mathematician. But you know I do not know much about equations but Avtar Singh does. So why not address the question to him?

Harb

Well thanks Harb, i'll give it a try :)

Dear Avtar Singh,

I must admit that i did not read your book, only the short summary of which you gave a link in your previous weekly Intent.

When i read it i immediately linked it to the contents of Harb's book as being in essence the same truth.

As i have described above in post #109 my intuition came up with the described first formula after reading and translating Harb's book.

From what i have read in all the posts up till now about the Holistic relativity i formulated my latest formula which describes to me my greatest view on reality at this moment:

L = E3 x F : 4

where L stands for love equals to 3 types of energy: evolution, energy, ether vibrations going through four forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces, in the opposite direction to unite again into L.

I am not a physicist or mathematician.

Does it make any sense in your view?

With love, Mieke

DK: You're known for your humbleness. You've Imbibed a lot from your Guru. I've always seen you extra positive in your dharma and thinking, which is good..but that is where it ends, not in the results necessarily. This is where it is so important to be clear with the two, or else there is friction and pain. Dharma&Results!

Andheri nagri Kaana Raja! Is a very popular saying, which many Sadhu santh have agreed. It glares at you in the world we live in. But doing your dharma with compassion...most certainly Yes.

Dear DK and All

I hope some will read some of David Chalmers' work. A starting point is the Australian National University's Centre for Consciousness (http://consciousness.anu.edu.au/). Or google "dancing qualia". His explorations impinge on aspects of the holistic approach to spirituality that is being developed here. Web references to his work include links to the work of others in the fields of the philosophy and science of conciousness.

The intent of the holistic approach to spirituality dialogue is to develop a "sound theory that integrates the science of consciousness of the spiritual masters and mystics", in DK's words. It is intended that the final theory be accepted by scientists.

It seems to me that current work on the science of consciousness must be reviewed, as part of preparation for submission of the theory to the scientific community. The community of scientists and philisophers who work in that field will have a strong interest in examining the theory developed by this project.

To start with (based on what I've read in some of Chalmers' work), I see problems in the theory, as developed so far, in that it's not clear in its position on dualism versus monism. Roughly-speaking, dualism supports body and mind as separate entities, and monism says they are the same. Sometimes the theory, as developed so far, allows the reader to infer dualism is supported, and sometimes monism; sometimes there's a mix of dualistic and monistic elements within a single argument. Most often, issues of dualism versus monism are completely ignored, stepped over as if they don't exist. But this seems to me to be a core issue for a theory like this. Maybe this is a misinterpretion on my part. It may be that considerations of dualism versus monism, that underlie the science and philosophy of consciousness elsewhere, are not applicable to the theory of spiritual consciouness being developed here. I hope contributors to this project will clarify.

love, Heath

Dear DK,

Regarding #119, yes, holistic quantum relativity embraces much more.

#120. I tried Anurag Sagar once already but because of some reason could not open it. Will try again some day.

Thanks and Love, Harb

Dear DK,

I visited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic_Relativity

again and saw that text was added but also some warnings of which i do not quite understand what they mean such as: "This is not an encyclopeida entry" and "categories proposed deletion as of 11 feb. All articles proposed for deletion. Wikipedia articles needing factual verification etc."

Just thought would bring this under your attention.

Love, Mieke

Dear Dk, refer #122. Here is the revised version with original which is revised in [bracket]. Please feel free to ignore it if not found suitable.

Holistic Quantum Relativity: Science & Spirituality

DK Matai - February 09, 2007

The ongoing Socratic Dialogue on and off IntentBlog has led to the following revised definitions of Holistic Quantum Relativity, Four Basic Forces and the Unified Force [and the Five Forces]within Science, Spirituality and Evolution. Do you agree with them? If not, we seek modifications with explanation and please point out errors and omissions.

human_consciousness.jpg

This is a complex Socratic Dialogue underway, which brings together a number of scientists, spiritualists, engineers and philosophers to grasp the concepts of Holistic Quantum Relativity [Relativity] based on Albert Einstein, Hans-Peter Duerr, Richard Feynman's earlier theories on modern physics; The Great Spiritual Masters like Socrates, Jesus, Rumi, Kabir and Kirpal's discourses; Harbhajan Singh, Sayamala Hari and Avtar Singh's submissions; 2-D and 3-D Diagrams and Models by Richard Thomas, Mieke van der Poll, Heather Quinn; and Spiritual experiences and thoughts by Todd Ingram, Keith Watson et al. (Have we missed out anybody?)

Understanding the Context and Relevance of The Four Forces and the Unified Force [Five Forces]:

1. Force of Gravity in Science, Spirituality and Evolution

= Gravity is a force through which all objects attract each other. Gravity is comprehensively described utilising Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, of which Newton's laws are a subset.

= Has a spiritual equivalence to Physicality & Senses, dominant in our childhood interactions
= Characteristics of the Greek element of earth and early cycle/age evolution

2. Electromagnetic Force in Science, Spirituality and Evolution

= It is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on charged particles. It holds electrons and nuclei together in atoms, and holds atoms together to make molecules. The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons. The exchange of messenger particles between bodies acts to create the perceptual force whereby instead of just pushing or pulling particles apart, the exchange changes the character of the particles that swap them. Originally, if at all possible electricity and magnetism were thought of as two separate forces. This view changed, however, with the publication of James Clerk Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in which the interactions of positive and negative charges were shown to be regulated by one force.

= Has a spiritual equivalence to Emotions & Feelings, dominant in our youth interactions
= Characteristics of the Greek element of water and adoloscent cycle/age evolution

3. Strong Force in Science, Spirituality and Evolution

= The strong force is presently understood to represent the interactions between quarks and gluons as detailed by the theory of Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD). The strong force is the fundamental force mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and the gluons themselves. Although the strong force only acts upon elementary particles directly, the force is observed between hadrons as the nuclear force. As has been shown by many failed free quark searches, the elementary particles affected are unobservable directly. This phenomenon is called confinement, a theory which allows only hadrons to be seen. Before the 1970s, when protons and neutrons were thought to be fundamental particles, the phrase "strong force" was what is today known as the nuclear force or the residual strong force. What were being observed were the "residual" effects of the strong force, which act on hadrons, both baryons and mesons. This force was postulated to overcome the electric repulsion between protons in the nucleus, and for its strength (at short distances) it was dubbed the "strong force". After the discovery of quarks, scientists realized that the force was actually acting upon the quarks and gluons making up the protons, not the protons themselves. For some time after this realization, the older notion was referred to as the residual strong force, and the "new" strong interaction was called colour force.

= Has a spiritual equivalence to Reason, Logic, Intellect and Judgement, dominant in our middle-age interactions
= Characteristics of the Greek element of fire, youth and mid-cycle/age evolution

4. Weak Force in Science, Spirituality and Evolution

= The weak force or interaction is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature. In the Standard Model of particle physics, it is due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons. Its most familiar effect is beta decay (of neutrons in atomic nuclei) and the associated radioactivity. The word "weak" derives from the fact that the field strength is some 1,013 times less than that of the strong force.

= Has a spiritual equivalence to Spiritual Awakening, ie, Intuition and Intelligence, dominant in our wise age or Wisdom interactions
= Characteristics of the Greek element of air, older and end cycle/age evolution

5. Unified [Unifying] Force of Love or Liberation [Liberating Force] in Science, Spirituality and Evolution

= Spirit triumphing over the entrapment of the Physical, Emotional, Reason/Logic and Intelligence Envelopes
= Characteristics of the Greek element of sky, and beyond cycles/ages freedom
= Emanating from Supra- or True-Universal Consciousness
= Underlying Advaita (Non-Duality)
= Underlying series of Haps or Events stringing together the entire energy in "The Illusory Universe", "Beyond Universe" and "Supra- or True-Universe" with no concept of Separation, Duality or Plurality
= True Universal Consciousness and True Universal Connectivity
= Infinite Love

Unified [Unifying] Force Realisation or Liberation

= Our Ultimate Goal
= Total Freedom
= Attaining the Omega Point
= Infinite love
= Self Realisation

The Five Point Definition of Holistic Quantum Relativity:

1. Holistic Quantum Relativity seeks to integrate Spirituality and Science and also the four forces -- gravity, electro-magnetism, strong and weak forces -- into the unified single[with the unifying fifth] force.

2. Holistic Quantum Relativity consists of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in its original unaltered form but enhanced by the mathematical formulation of the well-established phenomenon of spontaneity or consciousness in nature as evidenced in the observed spontaneous expansion of the universe, spontaneous conversion of mass-energy in the wave-particle duality, and spontaneity or consciousness of the human mind.

3. Since the original formulation of general relativity remains unaltered, the Holistic Quantum Relativity retains all the validity and predictability of a vast array of scientific experiments and universe observations. However, the enhancement or augmentation of general relativity by addition of an additional equation representing spontaneity or consciousness in nature not only resolves its known deficiencies and singularities, but also resolves all inconsistencies with quantum mechanics.

4. Holistic Quantum Relativity provides a mathematical framework that explains the inner workings of quantum mechanics and resolves its own unexplained paradoxes such as the Quantum Measurement or the Observer’s Paradox, parallel universe, Heisenberg’s uncertainty, non-locality (infinite speed of light) etc. Further, Holistic Relativity resolves the well known paradoxes of cosmology such as the Big Bang singularity, superluminous inflation, dark energy, dark matter, the paradox of time and evolution, and future of the universe etc.

5. Holistic Quantum Relativity builds a seamless bridge between science, spirituality, and religion resolving their log-standing conflicts related to creator, creation, purpose, meaning, and genuine happiness.

Albert Einstein and The Theory of Relativity

Albert Einstein said, "Herr Gott wuerfelt nicht!" which means, "God does not throw dice!" This Holistic Quantum Relativity post seeks to further the Socratic Dialogue in regard to unifying spirituality and science.

Einstein's theory of relativity deals with Newtonian physics when energies or velocities are near the speed of light. Relativity is usually thought of as modern physics since it was developed at the start of the 20th century and could only be tested in the realm available to scientists by high technology. However, relativity primarily completes the revolution that Newton started and is also highly deterministic as is much of classical physics.

In the holistic viewpoint of relativity theory, concepts such as length, mass and time take on a much more nebulous aspect than they do in the apparently rigid reality of our everyday world. However, what relativity takes away with one hand, it gives back in the form of new and truly fundamental constants and concepts.

The theory of relativity is traditionally broken into two parts, special and general relativity. Special relativity provides a framework for translating physical events and laws into forms appropriate for any inertial frame of reference. General relativity addresses the problem of accelerated motion and gravity.

Our previous posts have elaborated on the quest to unify the four forces -- gravity, electromagnetism (including light), strong and weak forces -- into one Unified Force [with the fifth] utilising the concept of Holistic Relativity, which hinges on multiple spiritual planes and consciousness levels. The Great Spiritual Masters refer to multiple planes often: Physical, Astral, Causal (= The Universe); Par Brahmand (= Beyond Universe); and Sach Khand (= True Abode). Sant Mat (The Way of the Saints) has pointed to the Relative Permanence of visible and invisible worlds, and this is also worth noting.

In the ancient Spiritual texts of India and within the Abrahamic faiths, several concepts, metaphors and symbols are presented relating the individual to The Holy Trinity of spirit (Supra-Universal Consciousness, Universal Consciousness and Observer or Individual Consciousness) and to the four forces of matter, with seven the sum of both or the merging of spirit and matter. Other IntentBloggers have attempted to integrate the fundamental aspects of Computer Science with Spirituality.

human_consciousness.jpg

The Accelerating Shift in Human Consciousness towards
The Universal Consciousness and Supra-Universal Consciousness Levels and Planes

For those who wish to understand the genesis of this Socratic Dialogue on IntentBlog, which has led to the preliminary efforts towards 21st Century Holistics, please visit the following strings in sequence:

1. Maulana Rumi: 2007 is his 800th Anniversary!

2. Unified Force, Sub-nuclear Physics & Love of Rumi

3. Holistics: Embracing Science, Art and Spirituality!

4. Complex Holistics: Hegel's Logic, Spirit and Mind

5. Simple Holistics: Hegel Triangles & Unified Pyramid

6. Holistic Pyramid, Sahasrara, Sri Yantra, Creation

7. Holistic Relativity: Spiritual Planes & Consciousness

Dear Heather,
Re #118

First there is the spiritual realm or Soul (non-dual, advaitic reality).

Then the spiritual realm creates from itself the virtual realm or Mind. And in the process gets progressively entangled into four basic forces. It is best described by quantum theory.

Then the spiritual realm actualizes its virtual entanglement into four forces to get disentangled from them and in the process co-creates the actual realm of body. It is best described by the relativity theory.

Needless to add, in the process the spiritual realm forces the virtual realm/mind to engage in creative and corresponding dialogue with the actual realm or body. So that when complete correspondence between them is reached the spiritual realm is once gain left to itself. Or achieves freedom from forces.

It is the way interaction between mind and body(world) takes place. If you want to read it in more flow, below is a quote of a couple of inspired paragraphs from my book:

[quote]

This inspired account is invariably the account of my timeless formula for the origin and evolution of the Universe, and, given due allowance for local adjustments to be explained later on, in fact of every system within it as follows:

That at some deepest, at some ground level of All There Is , there is an all-inclusive, self-sufficient and ultimately indescribable in all its subtleties, state or situation of Oneness in the form of what we would call Matter of spiritual category or simply Mosc . (The religious people may even call that a state or situation of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.)

That this state or situation of Oneness is broken when Mosc explodes off from itself to what we would call Matter of virtual category or simply Movc , and gets in the process progressively entangled or wound up into a topsy-turvy – obviously also virtual - network of four basic forces, that is to say in the order of entanglement, into a virtual network of weak, strong, electromagnetic and finally gravitational forces .

That the whole edifice of evolution, the whole flow of evolution as it were, then comprises the efforts on the part of Mosc to regain that original state of Oneness. But which is now possible only if this primeval, irrepressible, immensely potent force of Mosc disentangles itself - or gets itself unwound - from those four forces completely.

That, this in turn is now possible in the ‘outwards’ or ‘actualwards’ direction only so as to say (Fig.1): that this in turn is now possible only if Mosc actualizes its virtual entanglement into those four forces by converting the virtual entanglement into the actual and experiencing it: that this in turn is now possible only if, like we create or rather throw our dream world ‘out into the open’ to experience our virtual (latent) desires so as finally to get rid of them, Mosc creates or rather throws our ordinary world ‘out into the open,’ step-by-step or force-by-force or species-by-species to experience its virtual entanglement into those four forces so as finally to get rid of them.

That, this would naturally require that a continuous, creative and corresponding dialogue goes on between that topsy-turvy, virtual world and our ordinary ‘straight’ world during the process (Fig.1a) , such that when finally complete correspondence between them is reached, both the worlds annihilate themselves – supersymmetrize themselves to death, to borrow the words from Paul Davies - and Mosc is once again set free; Mosc in ‘seeing’ through everything, through both the worlds, see only itself and thus regains its original state of Oneness, of infinite, supersymmetric attributes.

unquote.

Harb

Dear DK & Friends:
Wow!! It is great to see the intense activity and participation in this worthwhile endeavor - Holistic Relativity. I am still keeping the original name as it makes more sense scientifically because the Holistic Relativity represents the Truth and entails the wholesome ensemble of realities including Newtonian, quantum, biological, psychological, neuro-scientific, mathematical, physical, chemical, etc. etc……..and all what as yet remains undefined as I will explain below addressing Harb's comments.

Dear Harb (Respected Harbhajan Singh Ji)

Sat Sri Akal (True-Benevolent-Eternal)

It is great to see you join the ongoing dialogue. We have been missing you and wondering your absence for a few days. The fun is only beginning, as we have a long ways to go to erase our long-geld convictions of reality presented to us by the mainstream materialistic science of the inanimate matter imprisoning our consciousness to the sole realm of matter, forces, and particles (quantum), time, and evolution. Holistic Relativity opens our shackles allowing us to be free again to realize the depth and wisdom of the spiritual masters. Let us not hold on to the shackles just because the mainstream science is or because we have developed an attachment or affinity to the attractive forces of nature. Just remember:

"Evolution is of the Ego (mind, mass, particles, and forces), Enlightenment is the dissolution of both (Ego and evolution)."

Now let me address your key and important comments. It is clear to me that your dislike of mathematics and physicality has kept you devoid of the bottom up experience of reality emanating from the physical world or matter. You have not only misunderstood the Holistic Relativity theory I am forwarding, but also are mischaracterizing it as follows:

" I fully agree with Syamala and Todd that some very important part of the Whole is missing in Avtar Singh's Holistic Relativity thesis. To me, it restricts itself only to the physical (body) part, prematurely combines it with the spiritual part, and completely ignores the virtual (mind) part."

Furthermore, you have totally misunderstood Guru Nanak and misrepresenting his teachings with your own lack of understanding and singular experiences of the oblivion as follows:

" Even Guru Nanak's spirituality is based only on white or day or physical part in which he first sees duality in the form of "I" and "thou" or "I" and God or I as bride and God as Bridegroom and then seeks union with It/Him. Yet there is spirituality beyond, of the likes of Ramana, Buddha, Krishnamurti, Lao Tze who saw nothing beyond themselves and only sought to know themelves by asking the question "Who am I?" and then found the answer in "I am All." It is not really even unification."

Sorry, I totally disagree. Your statement is not only wrong, but plain absurd, incoherent, with no scientific, logical, or spiritual basis. I see a complete unity in the essence of the messages of Nanak, Ramana, Buddha, Krishna, Krishnamurti, and Lao Tze. This unified message of the "Dissolution of the Ego or Mind at Your Own Free Will as the Only Path to Truth" is the sole basis of the Holistic relativity that forms a seamless integration or bridge between the material and non-material reality or spirituality. Your inability to see this unity is creating doubts in my mind about the wholesomeness of your self-assumed absolute experience. You are confusing or mistaking materialism (material only) with physicality (mass, energy, space, and time). There exists no spiritual experience outside of the physicality or mathematics, as shown below:

Eternity: Dilation of Time
Omnipresence: Dilation of Space
Oneness: Dilation of mass, space, and time
Shunya (Void or Nothingness): A mathematical number and concept
Infinity: A mathematical concept
Advaita or non-duality: Oneness, mathematical number and dilation of space and time

In fact, a Samadhi requires the presence of a human being with body, mind, and consciousness. A unified or holistic experience or theory is impossible without the all inclusive matter, mind, and consciousness. Any experience devoid of any one of these is not a holistic experience but possibly a delusion or imagery. A holistic theory or experience is all-inclusive and not all-exclusive.

Six years ago I saw incompleteness in the materialistic science of the inanimate matter alone. I went on searching for the missing in the teachings of all those spiritual masters you mentioned above. What filled me with the same awe and wonder as the Vismad of Nanak, was the revelation of the underlying simplicity and unity that Einstein kept searching for and could not find as the "Hidden Factor". I found that the Einstein's theory of relativity and the above essence of the teachings of the spiritual masters were complimentary bridging the material, physical, and spiritual realities. Integrating the two into the Holistic Relativity was a miraculous revelation that solved all the known big puzzles of science, cosmology, mind, and consciousness.

I would suggest that you follow the Socratic approach that Syamala has gracefully adopted, that is to ask questions and try to understand in-depth the Holistic Relativity, rather than prematurely mischaracterizing it and demean Guru Nanak's teachings as well in the process. I answered Syamala's questions similar to yours with additional information that seems to have satisfied him with the consistency of the proposed approach as described in his post # 69 below:

" I read Avtar's "Scientific understanding of Guru Nanak" in which he presented Guru Nanak's (GN)message very well. (Thanks Avtar, for sending it to me.) Avtar compares GN's spiritual message to Einstein's message of Relativity. He points out similarities in their approaches and outcomes. The former sought and realized the Truth about life,body, mind, and unifying Love, while the latter also sought the same Truth but in matter and therefore found the truth about matter, space and time. If we want to call this "unification of spirituality and science" I have no problem because in this presentation, Avtar did not define consciousness as light or ego as mass. It is simply a metaphor between the messages and approaches of GN and Einstein in which metaphor, consciousness is similar to light and ego is similar to mass. Both approaches needed clear thinking and critical analysis of subjective experience."

Please send me your e-mail (all those interested are invited) and I will mail you my presentation - The Scientific Understanding of Guru Nanak, that I have earlier sent to Syamala and DK, hoping that this would erase your lack of understanding of Nanak and the Holistic Relativity.
Now, let me try to explain why I chose to use photons and not other particles such as Neutrinos etc to make my arguments. Photons have known (correctly or incorrectly) to have zero mass as opposed to other particles like neutrinos that are yet to be found and whose mass is yet to be determined. Photons behavior is much more relevant to the essence of the teachings (Ego or mass dissolution) of the spiritual masters than the mysterious Neutrino that nobody as yet knows any details about. Again, you are prematurely misjudging the validity of the Holistic Relativity without realizing the hidden unity of the nature of photons and spirituality.

Now, let me say that the Holistic Relativity completely entails the features of quantum mechanics and behavior of all known, unknown, and yet to be imagined in future particles in term of their mass and energy. Hence, it makes quantum mechanics and its empirical formulations irrelevant and redundant to the unification of science and spirituality. That is not to say, that quantum mechanics is not extremely useful for materialistic purposes - transistors, cell phones, TVs etc. But Holistic Relativity addresses all its known paradoxes and internal mechanistic physics that governs quantum behavior in relativistic terms. Here is some more perspective on Quantum Mechanics:

Quantum Mechanics vs Consciousness

Avtar Singh
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

Since the consciousness is the central issue here in the science vs. God debate, and quantum mechanics is often referred to as a scientific basis for consciousness, I thought a new perspective on this topic would be of interest. There are following fundamental inconsistencies and flaws in using quantum mechanics arguments to support consciousness as presented in my book - “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality.”

1. The Heisenberg Uncertainty, which forms the basis of quantum mechanics, is commonly but mistakenly understood as the basis for consciousness or free will. This uncertainty is not inherent in nature but an artifact of the chosen measurement method by science that is applicable or accurate only for measurements in the classical or fixed space and time. The errors inherent in this method for measuring the behavior of common heavier particles such as atoms and molecules are small and hence have contributed to the known successes of quantum mechanics in everyday technological applications in the material world. However, the errors get amplified to almost infinite amounts when applied to the very small new and allusive fundamental particles proposed for high energy physics investigations, wherein the relativistic effects become extremely important. Because of these errors and inconsistencies, the physics of the very small remains allusive leading to the still unresolved paradoxes of quantum mechanics at the most fundamental level such as the Measurement or Observer Paradox and the quantum gravity. Since the phenomenon of consciousness operates at very small scales (below Planck’s scale), quantum mechanics arguments are inappropriate for its description.

2. Counter to the common knowledge and assumptions, uncertainty can never be the basis for the free will. A free will can exist only in conjunction with certainty and eternity of the natural laws of the universe. For example, one cannot walk up straight at own free will if there is no certain and unchanging law of gravity. A randomly varying and uncertain law of gravity would deny the free will to be able to walk up straight.
3. Quantum mechanics relies upon the observations of a conscious observer without which there would be no quantum reality or quantum mechanics. However, there is no scientific description of the observer that brings quantum mechanics into reality or existence. The vicious circular logic that is often used by experts in science and other fields is that on one hand quantum mechanics is often used as a basis to explain consciousness, while quantum mechanics itself relies on the consciousness of the observer.

4. The domain of the virtual world of anti-particles is also an artifact, rather than a universal reality, of the flawed assumption of quantum mechanics that net energy of the universe is zero. In order to balance the net positive energy contained in the observed material universe, quantum mechanics is forced to invent an imaginary or virtual world of a myriad of anti-particles entailing a net negative energy equal and opposite to the net positive energy. However, while the universe is shown to be full of real particles with positive energy, there is no sign of existence of any stable anti-particles. So, the concept of the virtual world of anti-particles is just a pipedream or imagination to forcefully and superficially conform to the flawed and unverified assumption of the net zero energy of the universe. Hence, even the concepts of the so-called nothingness and false vacuum are equally flawed and mere artifacts of the same flawed assumption of the net zero energy.

A more consistent scientific basis of consciousness and free will is shown to be the spontaneous decay of the particles or masses via converting to the zero-point energy wherein the space-time dilates to zero representing the eternity and omnipresence. This new innovative approach to consciousness is also shown to resolve the current paradoxes of quantum mechanics, general relativity, and cosmology.

That is why, I prefer to stay with the original title of Holistic Relativity, since adding quantum to the title dilutes its completeness and confuses the unification issue with the fragmented reality of mindless particles afflicted with mysterious forces and floating around in the universe making it a chaotic, uncertain, and complex unverified, inexperienced, multi-dimensions (Multi-universes) reality that is afflicted with the curse of evolution towards increasing entropy and certain heat death of the universe. The whole shebang of irrelevant and mystical quantum logic, as far as unification with spirituality is concerned, demeans the simplicity, certainty, eternity, oneness, omnipresence, and unity of the teachings of spiritual masters and all what exists as one whole Truth, consciousness, or the Zero-point energy representing one continuum of mass-energy-space-time.

In summary, the Holistic Relativity integrates spirituality and science in simple and seamless manner representing the unified message of spiritual masters.

Love & Regards,
Avtar

Dear Mieke and DK

The citation on the Holistic Spirituality article now reads "This is not an encyclopeida entry. The article is not written in encyclopedic style. It is not notable, verifiable, and neutral. It represents a Wikipedia echo of the author's blog..."

They're concerned that the article is more opinion than verifible information, as well as that it's not standard Wiki style.

From simple things (like my name being mentioned as having contributed to diagrams, when in fact I didn't contribute) to complex issues such linking physics theories with spirtuality (the core of this project) being currently unsupported and unverified, to stylistic issues such as the use of = signs a bullets, and no citations or linked references, the article is not standard Wiki material.

There's a learning curve for preparing a Wiki article so it meets Wiki standards. They've given the article 5 days to be cleaned up. Stylistic editing can be accomplished in that time, but since the work that's underway right now is that of developing the theory so it's provable, the criticism that it's opinion cannot be removed in 5 days time.

I suggest the article be removed from Wiki, and a project leader set up a Blogspot.com blog and invite those who are part of this dialogue to contribute on the blog.

Dear DK

I will read more Chalmers material and try to summarize it for this project. It would be very helpful if others would read his work as well (and that of other consciousness scientists and philosophers, too), as the holistic theory isn't my work, and some of this material might contribute to a rethinking of parts of the theory as it stands. Familiarity with the terminology and concepts of consciousness science and philosophy can contribute to enrichment and clarification of the holistic theory.

love, Heath

Dear Harb

While what you write is attractive to read ontologically, it contains soft edges and contradictions that make it difficult to accept otherwise.

For example, you say:

"First there is the spiritual realm or Soul (non-dual, advaitic reality)"

Non-dual means what -- relative to what? It's monistic, in opposition to other concepts that are dual, and so what are those other concepts?

By saying something is "this", you are also saying that it's not "that". For science to understand and accept a theory, they need to know what the "that" is, too. Otherwise, the "this" is just a label and an opinion, even if it's one that's persisted for thousands of years in some segment of human culture or thought.

I don't have a problem with the core of what you say, but I do have a problem with the approach used to present and prove it.

This is true for this entire project: It contains enough indistinctness (so far) that it will put off most scientists or philosophers who might review it. It's not enough to come up with a theory and say, hey, this is it. One needs to fit it within the context of others' thinking, and try to show them why it works better than their thinking does.

love, Heath

As it relates to the Wiki entry. I figured that someone might challenge us on this. You see the skeptics and scientists are in control of reality not permitting changes to it. All for good reason.

So here we have they same dilemma giving subjective thought validity in a place that favors objectivity.

The fact that subjective thought exists is objective, but what it relates to may still be subjective. So one would focus on the fact of it's existence, not on it's actual claim to get around some of the requirements.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought per Wikipedia founder.

Although one can argue that all thought was once original, at what point does it become not original? Wikipedia has requirements.

This should not be viewed as a bad thing in overcoming this hurdle it forces us to create something of substance.

Remember there is a divine reason for everything.

Everyone should read

No original research
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Reliable resources
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS

Citing sources
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources (or click my name)

There is no quick way around this as far as establishing Holistic Relativity as a principle.

It is possible to present "holistic relativity" as a term coined in the Socratic dialogs. This would be a verifiable fact. One could also state what it relates to. This would be a fact. But it would make the actual entry very short establishing this fact.

However the principle itself cannot at the moment be presented as a fact without some effort.

This is the reality at this time. Now we could pull in things like some credentials and references to books. But we don't really have a forum where peer review has occurred other than perhaps here.

If we got some university faculty members to publish on university web sites this may also help.

IF WE HAD

The public / anonymous / with credentials peer review site I have always wanted to put together that could help. This type of site would actually support online Socratic Dialog and debate. It is also in line with putting say parliamentary procedure online.

I have always wanted to give people a place to speak without fear of persecution or being ostracized by there peers or subjected to be ridicule or fear of punishment. Such that later when an idea is proved valid they can reveal themselves as the author. The service would validate and display credentials but the actual identity of the person would be anonymous.

So we might know the person has a PhD in physics or that they are a janitor, or write for a major news publication, or serve as a Capt in the marines.

For example if global warming scientists could speak candidly without fear of being fired or having their funding cut off we might advance much quicker to the truth.

Dear DK

This project is a very rich and serious one. If I make a rich and serious contribution, I'd be pleased, of course, to have my name mentioned. But as it stands, I haven't done that yet.

Others mentioned have been more actively involved than I have, and deserve to have their names in the article.

love, Heath

Mieke,

What one might do is eliminate all the non-factual text.

That the term was coined is a fact and not original thought, and is varifiable.

The premise that is put forth can be determined as fact and validated. The premise itself cannot at this time, that comes later.

So that the term was coined and it's premise could be held as fact, may pass, and keep it from being deleted. At least one would have a valid argument as to why it should stay.

Dear DK

Perhaps now is a good time for me to state that I'm very interested in this project and want to see it succeed.

It does the project no good if we all pat each other on the shoulders and say what good men and women we are for thinking of, or for supporting, such amazing insights, if the purpose is, as you've stated, to present this to the scientific community and get their support and agreement, at least in part.

I'm not being skeptical towards the concepts. I'm challenging the presentation style, because others will do the same and use any stylistic flaws they find to try to prove flaws in the theory.

love, Heath

Dear DK

Thanks for your sensitivity.

Regarding my use of "this" and "that" in #133, it was deliberate. I was starting with a specific point of Harb's, then intentionally using neutral words to detach the discussion from Harb's specific concept, to try to shift focus onto the general method of presentation and argument.

I considered using "x" and "y", but ended up thinking that would be too math-like.

love, Heath

Avtar,

Photons can have mass, and have been used to suspend molecules in the air. Then again it depends on perspective / definition. What context were you speaking in?

Light has also been converted into matter. An extraordinary amount of energy was used to produce, I forget which one, but a very small particle.

Does the photon have mass, after all it has energy and energy is equivalent to mass?
This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons are really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions of mass.

The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a "relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength. This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not strictly wrong, is not used much today.

The old definition of mass, called "relativistic mass," assigns a mass to a particle proportional to its total energy E, and involved the speed of light, c, in the proportionality constant:

m = E / c2. (1)

This definition gives every object a velocity-dependent mass.

The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant quantity that does not depend on velocity. This is given by

m = E0 / c2, (2)

where E0 is the total energy of that object at rest.

The first definition is often used in popularizations, and in some elementary textbooks. It was once used by practicing physicists, but for the last few decades, the vast majority of physicists have instead used the second definition. Sometimes people will use the phrase "rest mass," or "invariant mass," but this is just for emphasis: mass is mass. The "relativistic mass" is never used at all. (If you see "relativistic mass" in your first-year physics textbook, complain! There is no reason for books to teach obsolete terminology.)

Note, by the way, that using the standard definition of mass, the one given by eqn (2), the equation "E = m c2" is not correct. Using the standard definition, the relation between the mass and energy of an object can be written as

E = m c2 / sqrt(1 - v2/c2), (3)

or as
E2 = m2 c4 + p2 c2, (4)

where v is the object's velocity, and p is its momentum.

In one sense, any definition is just a matter of convention. In practice, though, physicists now use this definition because it is much more convenient. The "relativistic mass" of an object is really just the same as its energy, and there isn't any reason to have another word for energy: "energy" is a perfectly good word. The mass of an object, though, is a fundamental and invariant property, and one for which we do need a word.

The "relativistic mass" is also sometimes confusing because it mistakenly leads people to think that they can just use it in the Newtonian relations

F = m a (5)

and
F = G m1 m2 / r2. (6)

In fact, though, there is no definition of mass for which these equations are true relativistically: they must be generalized. The generalizations are more straightforward using the standard definition of mass than using "relativistic mass."

Oh, and back to photons: people sometimes wonder whether it makes sense to talk about the "rest mass" of a particle that can never be at rest. The answer, again, is that "rest mass" is really a misnomer, and it is not necessary for a particle to be at rest for the concept of mass to make sense. Technically, it is the invariant length of the particle's four-momentum. (You can see this from eqn (4).) For all photons this is zero. On the other hand, the "relativistic mass" of photons is frequency dependent. UV photons are more energetic than visible photons, and so are more "massive" in this sense, a statement which obscures more than it elucidates.

Reference: Lev Okun wrote a nice article on this subject in the June 1989 issue of Physics Today, which includes a historical discussion of the concept of mass in relativistic physics.

Note I did not write that explanation in #145 the source is here or click my name.

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

Dear Avtar,

Below I am giving two paras from your above post. In the first you seem to be saying that we need to go beyond (unshackle) our consciousness from matter, particles, forces, time, evolution. In the second you just seem to say the opposite. Will you please clarify?

1. "The fun is only beginning, as we have a long ways to go to erase our long-geld convictions of (reality presented to us by the mainstream materialistic science of the inanimate matter imprisoning our consciousness to the sole realm of matter, forces, and particles (quantum), time, and evolution..."

2 "There exists no spiritual experience outside of the physicality (mass, energy, space, and time)or mathematics, as shown below:"

B. Then, you say: "Dissolution of the Ego or Mind at Your Own Free Will as the Only Path to Truth"

So you say that I can dissolve my ego at my own sweet free will at any point of time in my life? Do you deny evolution according to which at certain point of time of our life we come in the phases of id, ego etc and at certain points of time we go beyond them? Aren't we "Hukame andar?"

C. I do not deny that the underlying message of all spiritual masters is of unity. But yet their understanding of that unity is different in different ages which is why we have different religions. Similarly, I do not deny that you have very many valid points in your holistic relativistic model yet to me it is far from complete.

More later, Harb

D.K. and all,

Before today I had never visited the Wikipedia site.
At first glance, it seems to be a great reference
and research site but now I hear they're only interested
in verifiable information previously reviewed by
the proper, elitist institutions of higher learning.

Personally, I see nothing immoral in the process
of education and it's fun to see it in action.
And if it's a thesis they require, it can surely be done
provided we have all the time in the world,
which we apparently already possess.

We are allowed the freedom to speak out here at IB
and one may spend as much of their free-time as
their free-will and conscience allows. I think that's great
and I think this is a great and very important topic.

To go into an experiment with an open mind, putting
all prejudice and bias aside is difficult.

We cannot, IMHO, set out to prove that the Master's
know everything or that they perform miracles
that defy the natural laws. They very seldom
permit scientist to prod and poke them and they
may have good reason for refusing thus.

As Walters has pointed out, to the furthest extent possible,
we must give up our preferences and take what
the results of the experiment show us.

In this regard, I was reminded of a quote from
T.H. Huxley.

"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be
prepared to give up every preconceived notion,
follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature
leads, or you shall learn nothing".

I'm also here to serve and if it's a guinea pig
you need, a rat in a cage I'll be, if it be the Lord's will.

Peace, Keith~

a rat or a g-pig? whoa!

"I'm also here to serve and if it's a guinea pig
you need, a rat in a cage I'll be..." says TREE...now...the old bark is dreamin' about becomin' a g-pig or a rat in a cage! whoa...is there a botanist in the house?...i knew this old tree is a little wonky!... whoahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

When I tried the link just now; I got nothing at all??

Dear DK and friends,
On wikipedia, please spell my name as Syamala (even though it does not acurately spell the actual word in Sanskrit but what can we do!) not Sayamala.
The other thing is I am a woman not a man, probably most of you recognize that from my name but Avtar does not seem to do so.

Dear Avtar,
I totally agree with you that the messages of Nanak, Ramana, Buddha, Krishna, Krishnamurti, and Lao Tze are all ONE and the SAME in essence. Actually that is what I felt when I read your presentation. I thank you again for sending me "Scientific understanding of Guru Nanak".

I hate to say this but I was not satisfied with your answers to my questions. I did not continue arguing because I thought prolonged arguments would bore people.
However, I would repeat that I would consider the Guru Nanak presentation as contribution to Unification of Spirituality and science or Holistic Relativity because in this presentation, you did not define consciousness as light or ego as mass. It is simply a metaphor between the messages and approaches of GN and Einstein in which metaphor, consciousness is similar to light and ego is similar to mass.
I do object to saying that light is consciousness because light is perceivable by our eyes and I am pretty sure that Guru Nanak said that consciousness and love are not perceivable by senses. I do object to saying that ego is mass because if you say so, you have to prove it and you did not. An analogy is an analogy it is different from being identical and does not require you to prove anything but at the same time conveys the essence to be conveyed.

A brief word about duality and non-duality: Both are realities. Non-duality exists on its own, duality ows its existence to non-duality. Free will is oneness and exists on its own. Causality is duality. The universe is causality and duality and ows its existence to free will.

I feel like I'm interrupting an important conversation...but I just wanted to express my gratitude to all of you for allowing me to witness your project. It is a beautiful journey, and I look forward to reading more!

With Peace. Melissa.

Just as we see the same ONE earthly father differently in our childhood, youth, middle age and old age, similarly, our spiritual masters saw no doubt essentially the same ONE 'Heavenly Father' or Truth differently in different cultural ages. None is beyond the pale of evolution through four basic forces.

Christ saw 'Him' as Father. Nanak saw 'Him' as Husband, Master. Ramana identified the same One Truth with his own Self. Buddha, Lao Tze just kept quite (knowing that it is both in here and out there or beyond the description by such pair of opposite words.)

What it means relevant to our present discussion is that as we evolve, in the first two phases we see the world as WORLD OUT THERE, as extended out there, AS OUR PHYSICAL WORLD, as DAY PART OF YIN-YANG FIGURE. And then in the third phase it becomes the world IN HERE, in our minds or becomes the VIRTUAL WORLD; and in the last phase it again gets extended but since now we have gone beyond our egos it does not seem to begin from us as "I" and "It" but extends all around to infinity and we become an undifferentiated part of it.

Just imagine our life of a day/night of 24 hours. Up to its day part (two phases)it is the world out there, it is like "I" and "The World", then as night begins, in its first phase the whole world comes into sort of our minds as we lie on our beds prior to sleep, and lastly in the fourth phase when we are asleep, we are one with it, we are a part of it but it does not start with us.

It is in the same way at all cycle levels.

The world of the first two phases is the world of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, best described by relativity thory. The world of third phase is the world of strong interctions, which limit it to our minds, best described by the quantum theory. Ramana did not saw the world as extended out there but in his mind from which he later got rid and which is why his often repeated words were "where is the world except in your mind?"

So i think any complete model should take all four phases into account and not just two phases even though theoretically the two-phased world too goes throughout the four phases just as a streak of day may be said to go throughout the 24 hour as well. But yet to know the complete picture we will need to take both day and night parts or even 24 hours of day part in which the universe gets unwound from four basic forces and likewise 24 hours of night part in which it gets wound up into four basic forces. (jut as day part goes latent in the night part in the last two phases, the night part goes latent in the day part in the last two parts.

No wonder all cutting edge physicist-writers are saying that we need to arrive at a quantum theory of gravity.

Below is the answer to Avtar's "Now, let me try to explain why I chose to use photons and not other particles such as Neutrinos etc to make my arguments. Photons have known (correctly or incorrectly) to have zero mass as opposed to other particles like neutrinos that are yet to be found and whose mass is yet to be determined..."

from The Penguin Dictionary of Science, 1986 edition:

Neutrino: A stable elementary particle with no electric charge or rest mass but with spin 1/2...The existence of the particle has since been established experimentally, and it is known to exist in three forms: one associted with the beta decay process, one with the tau particle and the other with the muon. All form have antiparticles. It is classified as a lepton."

In the same way I can quote from many books to show that virtual realm/particles are now an essential part of the universal evolution (strong and weak forces in fact interact through them.)

Here is one from Hawking' Brief History of Time:

"Virtual particle: In quantum mechanics, a particle that can never be directly detected, but whose existence does have MEASUREABLE EFFECTS."

To me, to deny virtual particles and neutrinos, to not bring them into consideration would be to deny spiritual masters' influence on people because we cannot see what carries it to them though its effect is quite apparent to us.

I wonder how far I would have to go to make Avtar up to date with the latest developments of his own science, and how far I need to go, since my own real interest is not in unification, this I have already achieved within through personal experience but in seeing the evolution from THERE in terms of four basic forces.

Perhaps I need to stop....

Harb

Syamala, To tell the truth, with unfamiliar names
before me I have also mistaken ladies for men.
That should point out to me as far as brains go,
time has a way of being the Great Equalizer.
I'm with you on the mono-duo-trio unfoldment.

Harb, Since some time and space have passed on
I have come to a much better understanding of your view.
I suppose evolution proceeds in cycles and your formula
could also be extended to parallel the 4 seasons
(but only for those living where four 3-month seasons occur.)

Environment also influences our interpretations so
it's only natural that different cultures would see
"God" questions and answers in a variety of ways.

If I may ask, where do memories play a part in the
life story as you present it?

Reincarnation is another topic I'd like to see
fit into the picture.

Have a great day, all. Keith~

Keith,
Reincarnation fits very well into the computer analogy. You know that we copy software onto discs. To run the same software at home or at work, we insert the disc in our PC at home or PC at work accordingly. The point is software is separate from hardware and therefore can be preserved separately. Similarly, the collection of memories in our mind (a big database) together with the ego survives after the death of the physical body (so they say in eastern religions but not scientifically proved yet) and enters another a physical body to starts another life when suitable opportunity arises. I personally believe that the survival of the mind after the death of the physical body can be scientifically proved though it has not been done yet.

Hi all,
It is not a crime not to be able to recognize one's gender from one's name. I am sorry if I sounded that way. Hey, I just wanted you to know who I am.

Dear Syamala,
I knew you were a woman and a beautiful one at that! I didn't know by your name because I don't know Sanskrit. I knew by the vision I have of you provided to me. Your writing emanates a feminine tone (at times) but that doesn't mean much in this day and age. I hope I haven't been too forward!
# I think if we all infuse this project with more love and respect for each other the answers and solutions will come more easily from the unified spirit! The unifying presence of love will bring out the best in us all!
# I am certainly not an embodiment of love in this lifetime but it is very clear the project needs an infusion of spirit!
Love,
Todd

Dear Heath,
Criticism is welcome. I can see that it is sincere and absolutely in the interest of the project.
The One or spiritual realm is all-embracing and provides background to any this and that. In other words, it is because of this background of spiritual realm that any relation between high and low, right and left, dual and non-dual, this and that is possible.
I can further explain it with an analogy. Suppose you are breathing normally. Most probably you are not even aware of it. Now suppose you develop some breathing problem. You begin to feel sad. Then you take some medicine and again begin to take normal breath. You feel happy. Now you will be quite aware of this happiness because it is against the previous sadness. Yet, before you developed the problem you were taking normal breath and must also be happy even though you were not even aware of it. This natural state of happiness stands on its own and is beyond both states of relative happiness and sadness usually noted and talked about by us. Similarly, spiritual realm stands on its own non-dual state and yet is beyond both dual and non-dual states. It may also be called monistic state but again on its own.
Please let me know any other concepts of mine, which are not clear. I am not very proficient in writing, though the same may not be the case while speaking.

Love, Harb

Dear Syamala,

I fully agree with you as to reincarnation. Here are a few related paragraphs if you are interested:

Quote
All these lessons I learn daily, modify, and carry-over to the next day, further modify and carry-over throughout my life. Similarly, all these lessons I learn each life, modify, and carry-over to the next life, modify and carry over to the next life and so on: that is, till I have learnt all of my lessons.

Now, so far I can understand it, the final arrangement or polarization of the virtual particles around one’s ‘I’, one’s Mosc for each life, the arrangement at the time one dies - the final resultant of the lessons so to say (would the scientists call that the Bose-Einstein condensate of virtual bosons?) - does not disintegrate and is carried over intact beyond death. Having shed its actual body (body mainly belonging to or taking part in gravitational and electromagnetic interactions), it is now in the purely virtual realm, with a virtual body with the ‘account’ of the lessons. And that, in other words is to say, is to be in Hell.

Now, so long as this arrangement of virtual particles around one’s ‘I,’ one’s Mosc is there, one may be supposed to have an individual soul. These individual souls thus moving in the virtual world may, in other words, be described as the souls which have yet not learnt all their lessons.

After a suitable time all such individual souls - souls burdened by certain arrangement of virtual particles - would re-emerge into their new space-times automatically chosen by them in such a way that they would begin learning their lessons from where they left them in their previous births/lives. Of course, when they would reach the identical ages through cyclical development in their next lives.

The drunkard in his next birth would automatically shun drink. A Socrates in his next birth would see virtue in silence. A governor in his next birth would find situations automatically favoring his elevation to the presidentship of a state. A president who would like to be a fakir would automatically find his environment now pushing him towards that direction, and so on.
Unquote

I had read somehere that Bose-Einstein condensate does not disintegrate even if we place it in the center of the sun. Perhaps it is as this that we carry ourselves beyond death.

Love, Harb

Sorry, related paragraphs from my book Self-Designed Universe...

Keith, basic memory is of our free soul. Other memories are then superimpositions on this basic memory. We get rid of them life by life by throwing them out and experiencing them or by actualizing them. So that finally we are again left with our basic, free soul which then is indistinguishable from All Soul. We have reached Heaven, in religious language.

Harb

Dear contributors

If you would be kind enough to give your definitions of "spirituality", "spiritual master", "mind", "conciousness", and "subconsciousness", it will be helpful as I try to orient summaries of David Chalmers' papers in a useful way. I may ask for other definitions later.

love, Heath

Dear Keith,
I know (exactly) how you feel. Even within this project there is bias. Individuals with established, (published) writings are given priority now matter how much their philosophies are inaccurate. Can you imagine Jesus or Buddha wanting to participate in enlightening a group such as this and being dismissed due to lack of published material. A sign of the times my friend! Hang in there.
Todd

I am in no way demeaning the great contributions of individuals such as Harb Singh and Richard Thomas. I have gazed upon Richard's website and I was impressed with what I saw. Harb's spirit and presence here are a blessing. I was just making an observation from my personal experience.
Todd

Dear Heath,

Hereunder my definitions straight from my heart, cause the more i start thinking about it, the less i am able to describe them :):

Spirituality: being alife knowing that you have something indestructible inside.

Spiritual master(s): all the persons you encounter in your life that teach you a lesson.

Mind: thoughts, both negative and positive.

Consciousness: deliberateness

Subconsciousness: the guardian angel

Awareness: mindfulness, compassion

Super-consciousness: being in flow (when performing an action for instance with complete dedication). To me this is also the awareness of a child.

Well, these are only my perceptions. Am in for learning and hope to read the thoughts of others here :)

Love, Mieke

Heath,
I would add the word "unification" to your list so that we understand clearly what we mean by it in the context of unification of science and spirituality. I did define what I meant by unification in my little write up. To me, it is how various sciences try to understand different aspects of life without contradicting one another.

To me mind is thoughts plus memories plus desires. Many of these can be simulated in a lifeless computer.
Ego is the 'I' thought.
To me consciousness is the ability to see and understand things as they are (not remember them which is mind's business) free from causality (not because of this or that) and the ability to identify with everything and therefore love

To me consciousness is the ability to see and understand things as they are (not remember them which is mind's business) free from causality (not because of this or that) and the ability to identify with everything and therefore love
everything unconditionally.

I do not know what happenned, in my previous post, it got posted without the last part of the last sentence.

In #167, in the first para by "various sciences" I mean all branches of inquiry into the truth, psychology, philosophy, etc. not merely physical sciences such as physics and chemistry.

Dear Mieke and syamala

Thanks for your responses, and syamala, thank you, for adding "unification" to the list.

Dear All

I'd love to read further definitions.

Dear Richard

I know you're working an official glossary. I'm trying move to a point of common understanding with the leaders of this project on the meaning of these, and other, terms, so I can summarize Chalmers' work in a meaningful way. If there's any chance of my beng able to read a rough draft of your glossary, I'd greatly appreciate it.

love, Heath

Hello, Heather!

This program of mine is not made just for business
and I can't be formal in a non-stop manner. So HI!
For some reason, I feel like a kid who's proud of his big sister.
At least you know how unfamiliar I am with projects or thesis, etc.
The math does nothing for me, a word player/mixer-upper.

About the definitions...I feel like cheating and
lifting some smarter person's words from the past.
Then I see Mieke stick her neck out and give her
own personal reflections on a few of the concepts.
A third way to define would be to do like the East
and say, "Neti, neti", not this, or "that's like
mixing apples and oranges."

I want to see this process as discriminating or
discerning and not as judgmental or causing separations. To not hurry the process I'd like us
to take our sweet time and maybe take on one word
a day, if we could figure out where to start.

I imagine we would have to shrink the definition,
if ever we were to come to an agreement. I see an
awful lot of work ahead and a year's time would
not be too much. Thesis? Another year, in my opinion.

I'm really glad you're in this...conversation?
A blog experiment it is for sure and I hope to grow from it.
Let us all encourage and support each other.

I'll be back later to mumble some more on the
words, memory and transmigration. Bye now! (:TREE:)---

Dear Keith!

"I want to see this process as discriminating or
discerning and not as judgmental or causing separations. To not hurry the process I'd like us
to take our sweet time and maybe take on one word
a day, if we could figure out where to start."

I think you're right.

love, Heath

Everything is everything. Can that not be the answer to all the questions of definitions?

Dear Syamala:

First let me apologize for not paying any attention to your gender or good looks as I have been totally overwhelmed by your open-mindedness, ingenious, and in-depth of your beautifully crafted questions. I have always enjoyed your questions immensely as they are not just philosophical or metaphysical fluff but sharply pointed and logically comprehensible.

Thank you for understanding and liking my presentation – A Scientific Understanding of Guru Nanak.

Further I totally agree with your understanding that ego is not mass and consciousness is not light. What I mean or would like to clarify further that they are analogous concepts of spirituality and science respectively that follow the same common laws of Holistic Relativity. The unification of ego and mass is achieved thru the Holistic Relativity laws. Similarly, consciousness is not light, but thru the laws of Holistic Relativity the two concepts, one from spirituality and the second from science respectively can be uniquely or universally represented having similar behavior. This analogy also can be extended to other spiritual concepts – eternity, omnipresence, enlightenment etc in terms of scientific concepts of fully dilated space/time, dissolution of mass to energy etc. This analogy provides a unique and exceptionally powerful and objective tool to study and understand both science and spirituality from a simple and common universal format of Holistic Relativity. This objective tool can replace the metaphysical fluff marred with multiple, incomprehensible, and indefensible multiple interpretations of spirituality concepts and the essence of the teachings of the spiritual masters. Ana that is a giant step forward for humanity to benefit from the wisdom and teachings with clear and wholesome universal interpretation thru Holistic Relativity.

Further, your statement below is fully consistent with the Holistic Relativity that seamlessly bridges the duality of materialistic domain (V<C) to the non-duality of the supra-consciousness (V=C). The two are relative to each other.

“A brief word about duality and non-duality: Both are realities. Non-duality exists on its own, duality ows its existence to non-duality. Free will is oneness and exists on its own. Causality is duality. The universe is causality and duality and ows its existence to free will.”

Please let me know if your comments are addressed to your satisfaction and that you agree with above explanations. If not, we need to clarify it still further. I would encourage you to keep asking questions until the questions are either answered or dissolved. I have gone thru the same process to come up to the formulation of Holistic Relativity.

Please let me know if the explanation above addresses your comments and clears your apparent dissatisfactions with the terminology.

Love & Regards,
Avtar

Dear Mieke:

I am sorry but your formula: L = E3 x F : 4, makes no sense to me at all. As far as I understand, Harb’s representing a metaphysical philosophy not a scientific theory that is indescribable by a comprehensible or credible mathematical formulation. But I appreciate your good effort.

Dear Richard:

It is a written cardinal rule in physics text books that photons have zero mass. As far as I know, the standard model or Big Bang theory assumes zero photon mass and falls apart for a non-zero mass photon. So, there is a big resistance among the physics community to accept a finite non-zero photon mass (seems like the tail is driving the dog). To address this prevailing controversy, sometimes the logic of FAPP (for all practical purposes) is invoked by physicists.

The reality as also shown by the GNM, the Holistic Relativity model seems to be different. The existing relativity or quantum theories do not have the proper physics (Holistic Relativity) to address this issue and that is why I used this as an example in my arguments.

Love & Regards,
Avtar

Dear Contributors and All

I'm looking for additional explanations (definitions) of the following terms:

spirituality
consciouness
unconsciousness
mind
unification
spiritual equivalence

Please share formal definitions, or your interpretation, of these terms.

The value of definitions is three-fold, as I see it: They provide common ground for communication here; they will help in the process of discovering areas in the science and philosophy of consciousness that support aspects of this project; and they allow the primary contributors to this theory the ability to anticipate and prepare for the language-based response the scientific community will give this theory, when it's presented to them.

love, Heath

Dear Harb:

Thanks for your comments and questions. I respect your genuine experience and insights to ask the relevant questions.

It may not be clear but both my statements below are self-consistent. The state the same fact that the spiritual experience includes but not limited solely and only to the inanimate matter domain (that entails fixed space, time, and evolution, inanimate particles, forces, etc) as assumed by the mainstream science.
1. "The fun is only beginning, as we have a long ways to go to erase our long-geld convictions of (reality presented to us by the mainstream materialistic science of the inanimate matter imprisoning our consciousness to the sole realm of matter, forces, and particles (quantum), time, and evolution..."
2 "There exists no spiritual experience outside of the physicality (mass, energy, space, and time) or mathematics, as shown below:"

B. “So you say that I can dissolve my ego at my own sweet free will at any point of time in my life? Do you deny evolution according to which at certain point of time of our life we come in the phases of id, ego etc and at certain points of time we go beyond them? Aren't we "Hukame andar?"

Yes and Yes.
Dissolution of the ego is not an evolutionary phenomenon, in fact, just the opposite of it. Evolution entails fight for survival and dominance over competing species for the sole purpose to prolong the bodily or material survival. Evolution protects, secures, and enhances bodily or mindly (Ego) survival via struggle against others or environment. In this sense, the whole purpose of evolution is enhancement of the ego, not its dissolution. This is exactly counter to and opposite of to the essence of the teachings of the spiritual masters – Buddha, Nanak, Kabir, Jesus, Krishna etc. as below:

Evolution is Fight for bodily or ego survival, Spirituality is love for revival.
Evolution enhances the ego, spirituality dissolves it.
Evolution exists and limited only in the body/mind, spirituality is all inclusive zero-point energy.
Evolution is driven by involuntary forces of the environment, spirituality is free will.
Evolution represents increasing complexity, uncertainty, chaos, and entropy leading to sure heat death; spirituality is simplicity, order, certainty, and realization of inner eternity.
Evolution is diverging towards complexity in multiplicity; spirituality is convergence into the simplicity of One Truth – Ek Onkar.

Because of the above reasons, your model based on four forces and evolution is a gross violation and misrepresentation of the fundamental, simplistic, and elegant wisdom of the teachings of the spiritual masters. That is where the religion has gone wrong. The theory of evolution is as valid for primates (body/mind of species of lower consciousness) as the Newtonian theory for the inanimate matter. It does not apply and is invalidated for application to spirituality or higher consciousness just as the Newtonian theory is invalid and inapplicable to the relativistic phenomena. Sorry to be blunt, but there appears a fundamental deficiency and demeaning of spirituality and free will of humans in your philosophical/metaphysical formulations represented in terms of forces, evolution that are more relevant to primates and then again only for their bodily survival not spiritual.

Also, bodily aging has nothing to do with enlightenment or spiritual maturity. Jesus died at the age in his early thirties, so did Swami Vivekanand. Nanak got enlightened as a child. Kabir clearly states:

Kal Kare So Aaj Kar, AAj Kare So Ab
What you are postponing to tomorrow, do it today; and what you are differing to today, do it now.

None of the spiritual masters advised humans to rely on evolution to get enlightened or spiritual.

Also, you are wrongly implying that Nanak’s - “Hukme Andar” (Within the Universal laws) predetermines the fate. Let me explain what it means. It means that everything is governed by the universal laws but not predetermined as an outcome. Laws only govern the process but the outcome or result solely depends upon the input chosen by the person. The free will determines the input, and then the laws determine the output or resulting outcome. There is dignity for both nature and humanity in universal laws via free will. Gravity does not predetermine the fall of a person; the person falls if he does not walk straight up which is his/her choice to select. Nature is not a puppeteer and human beings are not puppets.

C. “….your holistic relativistic model yet to me it is far from complete.”

May be the Holistic model is far from complete, that is why I have requested an internal review. But I have a distinct feeling that your judgment reflects your own lack of understanding, especially the mathematical formulations and validations against scientific data. Hence, it also a possibility that the incompleteness lies in the eyes of the beholder – you.

I humbly encourage you to keep the dialogue going, ask more questions and keep an open mind. I am hopeful that one day when you understand it fully along with its mathematical precision, you would realize the beauty and elegance of the Holistic Relativity and would never come back to rely on the fragmented forces, particles, evolution, etc. and all those Newtonian and Quantum concepts that are already entailed within the simplistic and mathematically sound holistic formulation of the Holistic Relativity. That would also restore the respect and honor that our great spiritual masters deserve. Your experience may be genuine, but let us not demean the masters and their clear, concise, mathematically precise, and graceful teachings of unification with confusing, imprecise, divergent and fragmentary metaphysical/philosophical fluff.

Love & Regards,
Avtar

Dear DK:

Did you receive my chart on Holistic Relativity and Bliss? Did you receive the equations chart?

Do you plan to post it?

And, I am surprized to see absence of all of our leaders from this important dialogue and probably one of the most significan contributions of Intentblog to the community. Is such absence routine? I am new to Intentblog, so just curious to know.

Love & Regards,

Avtar

My good people,

Maybe EGO is the first definition we should tackle.

It's like there are new kids on the block, each with
something to prove to the neighbors. The parents
are no exception in trying to get a foot in or take
advantage of their status quo.

I thought the whole zero-point idea here was to
dissolve the ego (the little personal self, the
one who has pride, greed and envy...the one who is an illusive character that kisses ass for personal gain...Gollum) just for starters.

If "I" is big Self's identity,
then "me" & "mine" belong to poor,
little human-body-being and woe is me.

"Get over your self!"

Put on the OverSelf or World Soul as a cloak
and practice being invisible and silent.

Isn't that what The Master's say?

My little self is still in the practice stage.
This is just my way of describing a concept.
All my fingers are pointed at Me2.

Dear DK

The glossary is wonderfully helpful.

I'm still looking for definitions for three terms used in this discussion: spirituality, unification, and spiritual equivalence.

love, Heath

Dear Avtar,

You are coming from science TOWARDS spirituality/oneness (realized by the spiritual experience of the masters). You may well have arrived at it, but since it is in the form of science and mathematics, only scientists and mathematicians will be able to verify its authenticity. I have my reservations though but since I have neither seen the equation nor can understand it I would better not be judgemental as you say. It is without prejudice to you or your achievement in any way. I still cannot figure out that if your achievement is in MATHEMATICAL EQUATION FORM why DK cannot find a scientist to verify and comment on it. Nay why you cannot even win a Nobel Prize. If my four forces theory were that tangible I would certainly try it. I may also add that I find many of your assertions agreeable, especially when they refer to self-realization of spiritual masters.

However, I my clarify that my word 'evolution' did not mean the same as Darwinians'. It is more like progressive change through design which I myself explain as happening in terms of four basic forces. And yes, before it we are like puppets. Everything will happen on its own time. It gives us egos at due time and pushes us beyond at due time. With OUR efforts we rather try to keep the status quo, and when we are given the ego we try to keep it, but it will anyway push us beyond it at due time. It to me is meant from Nanak's Hukam. It to me is meant when Nanak says everything happens with Lord's grace. Even Einstein's phrase "God does not play dice" means the same to me. Religion at certain time tried to keep the status quo but since the time of science had come it gave way to science, just as now science is going to give way to first philosophy and then outright spirituality.

Anyway, I, on the other hand to you, like Rumi, saw from the side of spirituality/oneness and found that the same oneness/one force/soul is permeating all evolution (not same as Darwin but as progressive change)from inanimate matter to plants to animals to man and so on. Morover I saw it happening in terms of four basic forces. So my interest is only limited to this and I feel that by going beyond it I am unnecesarily falling into the trap of ego/intellect which I want to avoid.

Perhaps like Rumi's poem, all I wish to say is summed up in only one paragraph of my book as given below, with the only addition that it all happens thanks to four basic interactions (Mosc here my be read as spiritual background to all existence, the same which masters realize through their self-experiences):

"Yesterday we were animals; a day before, plants; a couple of days before, minerals; prior to that, Mosc. Tomorrow we shall be supermen; a day after, almost unrecognizable but as superior to man as man is now superior to animals; and then, after a long time, first constantly decreasing corporally but increasing cerebrally, then even decreasing cerebrally and changing perhaps to lumps of pure light or intelligence, we shall merge indistinguishably again into Mosc ."

Dear DK, thank you for the poem "If", but poem or no poem, nothing could shake me from my above 'truth' the rest I should never have indulged into in the first place. However, I would be available for answering questions on 'evolution' in terms of four basic forces as above at any time and may give comments when I find that something related is being said.

Love, Harb

Dear DK

Thank you for the alert.

I've been reading David Chalmers, and find myself drawn into wanting to spend two years reading everything he's written, and not saying anything to anyone until I'm done. That's not useful for this project, though. The paper I was reading, when I had that thought last night, was the paper entitled "Phenomenal Concepts and the Explanatory Gap" on this page: http://consc.net/papers.html -- some IB readers may appreciate Chalmers' thought and writing simply for the complex yet lucid and sometimes playful structures, irrespective of the subject.

I began to read about conciousness philosophy because I was concerned that the integration of spiritual and physics components in the theory is purely metaphorical, yet it's going to be submitted to scientists for validation. I wanted to have some understanding of scientists' previous contexts and biases, so I could better understand their responses when they're presented with the opportunity to validate the theory.

love, Heath

Thanks D.K. for presetting a bunch of terms.
I'd like to learn more Sanskrit, others may not.
Will Mallika allow us to keep the glossary permanently, so to speak?

We all have time restrictions.
Personally, through the inter-library loan system
I just received a book by Paul Brunton, 1935.
"A Search In Secret India". I just finished
"A Hermit In The Himalayas". Very well written
for Western folks in particular. This guy is good!

He was referred to in Dave Hall's favorite collection,
"The Life And Teachings Of The Masters Of The Far East", by Spalding.

Do I wish to stop my own personal progress in this direction?
For something bigger than my little self?
That is my question to me. Right now, I don't know for sure.

We got some snow, I gotta go.
Have a nice day, everybody. Keith~

The "proof" of everything is that it is, we are, I am. So simple that when you try to explain or prove it, even in the simplest way you lose focus on it. That's why we have to meditate, and chant and do all these beautiful rituals, trying to connect to what just is.

In my experience, when I stop trying, is when it becomes the most clear, everything becomes more clear. There is also a physical sensation that acompanies it, expansive is the only way I describe it.

Connected to everything.

I don't need a theory to prove that I am, or that god is.
Once I let go of answering the "questions" the answer was quite clear.

I am that I am, to quote Popeye. I will be what I will be, I will grow in understanding and compassion.

We are what we are, we will grow in understanding and compassion.

peace comes from peace

derek

Avtar,
Thank you for appreciating my questions and not getting annoyed by them. I have no further questions on your thesis but I would appreciate if you can take the time to comment upon the following broader questions:
What is the conflict between science and spirituality? Are we worried that some scientists are reductionists? How what we did so far contribute to reducing the gap between science and spirituality.

Dear DK and All

I'm building a work blog for notes about the philosophy of consciouness as it relates to this project. It's at http://spirituality-and-conciousness.blogspot.com (or click my name). If you're interested in adding to or changing this work blog, send me a note at the email on my Typekey profile and I'll set you up.

love, Heath

Dear DK,
Re #196 Thanks for the response.

Dear D.K.

We are almost being asked to take sides in this conversation.

When Avtar asks, "Where are our leaders?", besides you,
to whom is he referring?

Have you read Avtar's book? Have you read Harb's book?

Has Richard, Heather or Syamala read either one?
I know Mieke has read Harb's book.

Has the Socratic Dialogue turned into an internal book review?

If I have offended anyone, you have my apology.
I have read neither book. I mostly read old books, ones
that have stood the test of time, tried and true.
I have read a couple of Deepak's and I believe
we are treading the same territory. Is this somehow different?

There is an attempt being made to define concepts
and ideas, invisible and sometimes intangible...bravo!

The Masters say thoughts are "things" that can have
a powerful effect. Do they mean energy or what?

People have experiences, special and general.
A few perhaps, may be called spiritual.
We compare experiences with others and find similar
visions, dreams, aspirations, gods and demons.
Let us remember that only the word changes and
what we mean by "this" today will mean "that" tomorrow.
I got kids. This I know, they know all that.

Thoughts from the congregation, Keith~

Dear Syamala:

Another Great Question from you: “What is the conflict between science and spirituality? Are we worried that some scientists are reductionists? How what we did so far contribute to reducing the gap between science and spirituality?

The greatest conflict between science and spirituality is that most scientists are materialists and spiritualists are subjective experiencers. You have seen only a fraction of the gap of such duality between the two camps during this post blogs. I have written, presented, and submitted several papers to physics journals as well as theology journals. What I have found a severe lack of people in the middle or people who would even be open to recognize that the other point of view exists. Trying to find scientists who are deeply spiritual and vouch for objective as well as subjective reality is like finding needle in haystack.

Just to give you an example, it took me almost one year and about 6 review iterations to publish my first paper entitled: “Quantum Non-locality Explained by Theory of Relativity” in Physics essays Journal. The peer reviewers selected by the journals are regular teaching professors at universities who are hard core materialists or reductionists who are not open to any subjective topics such as consciousness. All my papers and even in my book- “The Hidden Factor” were primarily designed as a scientific thesis in which I stayed away using the word consciousness. I used the word Spontaneity instead of consciousness hoping that would be more acceptable to the physicists. But to me that surprise, even this whole idea of a concept that is not strictly inanimate particle was foreign to all physicist reviewers I came across. During all those reviews, I spent a lot of time teaching the new concept of spontaneity and its impact on quantum mechanics and relativity to the reviewer. After a painful 6 reviews and intense discussions, the reviewer finally accepted the paper to be published in Physics Essays Journal.

I also teamed up with one retired Indian Spiritual professor Dr. Gopala Rao from Johns Hopkins University to write a few papers and approached Indian physics journals like Pramana, hoping that they would at least entertain the concept of consciousness. But no luck.

The hard fact is that the professional physicists have invested their career in materialistic science that is entirely experiment/theory oriented. No experiment means no theory, and that means no acceptance. I also personally met director of a well known particle accelerator and presented a copy of my book-thesis. He was impressed with the work and offered to cooperate if I could help them bring research funding suggesting new experiments in particle physics. Science has its own establishment just like a religion. What I found that a priest is more open to hear a scientist than a scientist to a priest.

Professional physics has invested several years in the currently accepted theories and experiments. They are not open to throw them away easily as their whole career, text books, and bread and butter is at stake in changing to a new theory or idea no matter how promising. I was explicitly and bluntly told by some eminent professors that unless you fit and present the new idea within the framework of the well-accepted quantum field theories, nobody would even look at the new idea or proposal. There are only a handful relativity theorists are left who are almost isolated from the mainstream string theorists or experimentalists and carry no big voice in the physics community.

Bottom line, I am not holding my breath for the mainstream physics to take seriously my thesis. We almost need a set of reviewers who have the level of intuition and depth as Einstein to appreciate the implications of Holistic Relativity on science. I know, Harb keeps talking about the Nobel prize, we should know that Einstein was never awarded his Nobel for the theory of relativity as only a few non-materialists could even understand and grasp it. His Nobel was for inventing the photoelectric effect. Einstein was outvoted by strong materialists pushing for quantum mechanics that Einstein invented and described it as an incomplete theory. Let us not forget, science is an establishment that has its own politics and empire.

Bottom line, there are tremendous challenges ahead to even open a serious dialogue with the hard core physics, dominated by particle physicists, to consider unifying science and spirituality – a word you can not utter in the company of professional physicists who may label this a “Crackpot”.

My criticism of the Four Forces approach may not sit well with many intenblogger experiencers of spirituality, but it is only a small taste of the unwelcome response that may be experienced when presented at CERN in the audience of the hard core materialist physicists. They may possibly see a threat to their careers and butter/bread in Holistic Relativity.

May be I am wrong, may be we run into a few spiritualists in the audience of professional physicists. But that would be like hitting a lottery or plain miracle from God.

Love & Regards,
Avtar

Dear Avtar,

You have a difficult road ahead, no doubt.
We actually have a few atheist and intelligent sceptics at IB,
and I have wondered why they are not joining us now.

If you go in looking "New Age" whatsoever, I believe
you are doomed from the start. However, if there is a sense of beauty in your equations and it all adds up,
the math should speak for itself.

Don't the physicists have their own blog?
I'm not completely sure how I got here, either.

Good luck to you on your quest! Peace, Keith~

Avtar,
Thanks.

Avtar,
Thanks. One of the Upanishads says that the Self reveals itself to one whom it chooses. Revelation of Self does not entirely depend upon the efforts of the individual. Finally it depends upon the Grace of the Free Will. So, it looks like Free Will has to open these closed minds! Best wishes.

Dear Avtar

Regarding your #199, in reading Chalmers' work, it's clear that a science of consciousness is just now being created. Please see http://consc.net/papers.html -- the link for a 2003 paper titled "How Can We Construct a Science of Consciousness?" It discusses a potential framework for the science, proposing (radically AFAIK) the integration of data and explorations from two disciplines, neuroscience and philosophy of consciousness, into a single scientific approach.

Given that the science of consciousness is in its infancy, it's no wonder that your work has met with resistance.

love, Heath

Dear Avtar, DK, syamala and All

Having read several Chalmers papers, my understanding of his work, so far, is he...
...sees the broad gap between materialism and concepts of conciousness that are often based on phenomenological experience.
...believes there's a logical and scientifically-acceptable way to bridge the gap.
...is attempting create a communication structure that will allow the gap to be bridged.

Chalmers' style of presenting ideas about consciousness, and the depth of his thought, seem to me to be accessible, painstaking and logically valid. Such characteristics are valuable in the effort to convince materialists to consider consciousness studies as a true science. In writing work of this nature and quality, he's doing a great service to the future of the scientific study of consciousness in all its modes, including spirituality.

As an example of the accessiblity of his writing, here's a lucid sentence from his 2005 paper "Phenomenal Concepts and the Explanatory Gap", that I nonetheless laughed at when I encountered its tiny dose of wit: "...Let P be the complete microphysical truth about the universe: a long conjuctive sentence detailing the fundamental microphysical properties of every fundamental microphysical entity across time and space..."

love, Heath

Dear Heath:

Thanks for bringing up to everyone attention the recent ongoing work on developing a theory of consciousness. I am somewhat familiar with the work and the current state of the art is reflected in this main entry post Figure 1 of the Holistic Relativity model wherein I depict the small vertical slice at about zero consciousness level reflecting the neurobiological mind that represents the tiny extent of the modern theories of neurobiological consciousness.

Almost all the papers presented at the last consciousness conference (2004) at Univ of Arizona only addressed neurobiological, quantum mechanics, and some philosophical aspects. None even mentioned or addressed the fundamental universal consciousness or spontaneity in nature as a possible alternative. And, unfortunately that is the state of the art that is not even remotely aware of the top down approach. They are still lost in the neurons of the brain or the molecules of the cells just as the physicists are lost in the particles, forces, and strings.

I have submitted the following paper; see reference 4 of this main entry posting describing Holistic Relativity:

A. Singh, Bridging Contemplative & Physical Sciences: A New Approach to the Problems of Consciousness & Mind, submitted to the conference - Toward a Science of Consciousness 2007, Budapest, Hungary, July 23-26, 2007.

I will try my best and see how it is received by the mainstream neuroscientists, biologists, philosophers, physicists etc. Again, I am not holding my breath.
Sorry, Heath, I just realized that I forgot to answer the question (#46.) you asked earlier: “Why is subconsciousness placed as the outermost layer in the GNM model of mind?”

In mind and consciousness there is no inner and outer. In my figure, I arbitrarily chose outer as the least manifested and inner as the most manifested. You could choose to reverse the directions as it has no significance to the concept of consciousness devoid of space and time.

Love & Regards,
Avtar

Dear Harb:

I have noticed that you have used the concept of “Symmetry” quite often in your writings to point out that it governs the forces of spirituality etc. Let me provide some insights on this from the GNM – Holistic Relativity perspective.

One of the fundamental assumptions made by quantum mechanics and quantum cosmology is that the net mass-energy of the universe is zero. The standard Big Bang model is based on this completely arbitrary assumption. The artifact of this very assumption (mistakenly) leads to the presumed existence of anti-matter, that is nowhere to be found, to cancel out the net positive energy of matter in the universe. And, similarly the anti-particles, again not observed as yet as a stable entity in the same amount as the real matter, have to be presumed to cancel out the actual particles. Ultimately, one mistake leads to another, and a whole virtual world has to be (mistakenly) created that represents the so-called virtual world.

What is the impact of this mistaken or unfounded assumption? This very wrong assumption is the root cause that disables quantum mechanics to predict 96% of the universe limiting its successes to local particles of matter wherein the error is small compared to the very very large error at universal scale causing failures of the theory. This is also evidenced by the fact that quantum mechanics predictions of the vacuum energy (the cosmological constant) of the empty space are in error by horrendous 120 orders of magnitude.

The mainstream science has gracefully failed to advertise these embarrassing failures of quantum mechanics and have been able to hide them under the beautiful rug of its successes in the domain of matter and particles on local scales, and in electronic gadgetry and toys mesmerizing the common folks. Unfortunately, that also fails badly to represent consciousness and concepts needed for describing spirituality.

Bottom line, symmetry arguments are only artifacts of mistaken assumption of the zero wholesome energy of the universe (since the mainstream science believes that the universe is nothingness because some religious folks and scriptures said so) and not the underlying reality of nature. Truth or spirituality can be founded only on the basis of reality and not myths or mistaken assumptions.

Love & Regards,
Avtar

Dear Avtar

I thought the conferences were biannual -- did they lapse after 2004, when Chalmers left U of AZ for ANU?

I will be reading your paper in the coming days.

Thank you for addressing my question about the diagram.

love, Heath

Dear Avtar

You're probably aware of http://www.sbg.ac.at/brain2007/

love, Heath

Dear Avtar

What a dummy I am -- that's where you've submitted -- abject apologies for the penny having dropped after the post button was clicked!

love, Heath

Dear Avtar,

You are a scientist and I am not, yet I am amazed at your scientific ignorance. You deny anti-particles and virtual particles which are now well-accepted fact of science. I have with me a number of books of cutting-edge scientists like, "Theories of Everything" by John D Barrow, "Superforce" By Paul Davies (both Templeton Prize winners now even greater in amount than Nobel Prize), “Conversations About the Invisible” by two outstanding French scientists and one outstanding film maker besides “Dictionary of Science” and many others. I wonder if I should quote from all of them to show you, a scientist yourself, that the existence of anti particles and virtual particles is now a forgone conclusion and thus waste my time and energy on it.

Yet, here are a few quotes for the benefit of Intentblog readers in this regard:

"The creation of matter in the laboratory is now routine, but every newly created particle is now accompanied by a sort of "negative image" partner, know as the anti-particle....For example, an electron is always created alongwith an antielectron...Similarly, every created proton is accompanied by an antiproton. Collectively, antiparticles are known as antimatter. (Superforce By Paul Davies)

"..particle accelerators produce matter and antimatter in equal abundance..." John D. Barrow in Theories of Everything.

" You are right. Antiparticles, antimatter truly exist and are not simply reflections. Everytime a sufficient quantity of energy is transformed into matter antimatter appears in equal quantity." Michel Casse, Frech distinguished Astrophysicist in "Conversations About the Invisible."

In fact I can go on explaining the presence of anti matter and virtual matter even through E = +/- mc2 as well but I don't think I should waste so much energy on it here.

As to antimatter nowhere to be found NOW has an other explanation which I have given in my book.

You can fool unscientific people here but no wonder real scientists will not even look at your paper showing such fundamental ignorance.

You talk of ignoring 96% percent of the universe by others and yet the fact most cutting-edge scientists know is that this is precisely the universe which is composed of anti and virtual particles and yet you deny them and proport to know the whole universe.

Above all, to me anti-particles and virtual particles are the very particles of which our brains and mind (thoughts) are comprised of though science is yet to go that far. And you deny them and yet proport to explain consciousness directly. Of course consciousness is the repository of (or houses)thoughts as well as the body. But denying thoughts/mind and trying to reach it directly via body though theoretically possible cannot take one too far. It will be like completely ignoring the fact of brain/mind/thoughts.

The other day you said neutrino does not exist and I gave you a quote from a dictionary to show that its existence is now an established fact and you choose not to comment on that. I wonder if there is any use of talking to you in this way. I again reproduce the quote:

Neutrino: A stable elementary particle with no electric charge or rest mass but with spin 1/2...The existence of the particle has since been established experimentally, and it is known to exist in three forms: one associted with the beta decay process, one with the tau particle and the other with the muon. All form have antiparticles. It is classified as a lepton."

All I can say in your favour is that your intuition to go towards the science of consciousness is correct and I myself have predicted in my book based on my four forces evolutionary theory that it may well become the science of the next age. But for that you will need to embrace the whole spectrum of the present advancements in science and not limit yourself to only its PHYSICAL part which you otherwise so abhor.

Best wishes, Harb

Avtar, also you begin your story from zero-point energy. Zero point energy is the energy at absolute zero of temperature. But we know that temperatures go to minus levels as well. How you account for that part of the energy/world?

Also, where you dump minus value of E in E = +/- mc2?

Also, where you dump minus value of c in E = +/- m(=/-c)2

Remember, before Dirac, science used to ignore the minus value of E. Then thanks to Dirac it found the whole new phenomenon of anti particle, anti matter and anti world.

Now, science is yet to come to grip with the minus value of c. But this does not mean that someday someone will not come to account for it and thus give a whole new world representing it. I have envisioned it through my own intuition though and I call it the virtual world, of which anti-world is a subset just as our brain is a subset of our minds.

I may also add that anti-world is to the universe as roots are to a tree and brain is to humans. So we cannot claim to know everything about the tree or humans or the universe by ignoring their root, brain, antiworld. Virtual world goes even beyond, explaining which is not necessary here.

I would also request you, as Navin did before to answer my following questions in precise, simple nd direct manner.

1. If you do not agree with Big Bang model, how you claim universe began.
2. What makes it evolve?
3. What makes it evolve the way it evolves.

Excellent Post(#207), Dr Avtar. For one think you are consistent in your views and I find them quite solid and cant agree more when you say:

"Bottom line, symmetry arguments are only artifacts of mistaken assumption of the zero wholesome energy of the universe (since the mainstream science believes that the universe is nothingness because some religious folks and scriptures said so) and not the underlying reality of nature. Truth or spirituality can be founded only on the basis of reality and not myths or mistaken assumptions."

Hello All

Talking about the existence of anti-matter and neutrinos and their detection I think most folks here at IntentBlog don't get Dr. Avtar's point -- His definition of 'reality' (as used in his comment) -- which is different from the 'physical reality' as limited by the Scientific method and the approach of science in general(on which Harb relies in his comment and quotes liberally). I hope Dr. Avtar continues to enlighten us all with his views on the nature of reality.

Many regards, Dr. Avtar

From "what makes the universe evolve" I mean what force makes it evolve and from where that force comes from?

Avtar,

Science may conclude nothingness from zero wholesome energy but I don't. Rather, to me, you concluded like science that Unified Force of Love is not a Force. While to me, it is not nothingness but everythingness, not 'no force' but superforce.

I have read somewhere that perhaps you call it pure enrgy, but then where does it come from?

Harb

Below I give a couple of quotes to say that we give various names to the same One, from which the universe begins and into which it returns. I have given it the name Mosc - Matter of spiritual/supersymmetrical/substantial cateogry to represent science, philosophy and spirituality resepectively as it must give representation to all three equally. Certainly it takes into account both the physical and anti/virtual worlds whose unification it in fact represents:

Quote
Obviously this Mosc theory of evolution I am going to present here, in no way differentiates between the living and the non-living so far as evolution is concerned, and so, it should go without saying that it does not take man to be at the center-stage of things. He is merely a ‘point’ - space-time moment - in the long evolution at the end of which, perhaps billions and billions of years hence, he wouldn’t exist, nor for that matter would the Universe as we know it today. What would exist, instead, would be which everybody is free to name, i.e., God, Self, One, Oneness, Nothingness, Vacuum, Void, Great Emptiness, Absolute, Unknowable, Will, Thing-In-Itself, Consciousness-As-Such, Suchness, Sunyata, Supersymmetry, Superspace, seething cauldron of energy, home of so-called black holes and so on, and to which I have given the name of Mosc. Then the process would re-start ab-initio. From Mosc it all began and to Mosc it will surely return, though to begin again and again...

Harb

Dear Thangaraj,

Science has since long gone beyond the mere physical reality. Which is why it is taking into account inner realities in the form of antimatter and virtual matter as well and even the spiritual 'matter' if I may say so though it uses the name supersymmetry for it. It is our ignorance of up-to-date science which comes in the way of seeing the full scope of science.

God or whatever holds the whole universe could not be partial to three desciplines of science, philosophy and mysticism through which it could be known. I know all have reached Him/it though differ in names and explanations of Him/it..

And most important, we can unify science and spirituality ONLY IF we understand both are the same from the cutting edge towards each other and can be FITTED TOGETHER. We cannot unify a horse with an ass, even the coming of the idea would have been absurd. So we in some way already know that they are the same.

Harb

Just wanted to add, one needs to go beyond all the boxes - even beyond the box of spirituality - to really know how all stand unified.

A few more thoughts on unification of science and spirituality:

What science says is matter (body) spirituality also says is matter (body).

What science says is virtual matter spirituality says is mind/thought.

Proof: science says given enough energy virtual matter can be converted into actual matter. Spirituality too says that given enough energy thoughts can be converted into things.

What science says is supersymmetry, spirituality says is Oversoul, God etc.

Proof: science says supersymmetry is immanent in every entity as local symmetry. Spirituality says Oversoul is immanent in every entity as (individual) soul.

As an other view science says there is nothing in the world except empty space. Spirituality also says that there is noTHING in the world except empty akasha, or that all the four elements comprising the visible world are only different forms of only one element of akasha.

Both science and spirituality describe the ultimate reality as indescribable. At one point of time when science says ultimate reality is nothingness, spirituality also produces sages who say that ultimate reality is nothingness. Here is Ramana Maharshi for the record:

"There is neither creation nor destruction,
Neither destiny nor free-will;
Neither path nor achievement;
This is the final truth."

Moving ahead on unification...Harb

PS: If one likes the above comparisons I can give more.

Harb,

Determination is an important virtue.
They say, the best way to learn
a subject is to teach it.
Carry on. You have
my support.
Arbor

.

Rumi's Feb. 14th devotional for the day,
translated by Coleman Barks: "Love's Confusing Joy"

.

If you want what visible reality
can give, you are an employee.

If you want the unseen world,
you are not living with your truth.

Both wishes are foolish,
but you'll be forgiven for forgetting
that what you really want is
love's confusing joy.

I knew avtar was presumptuous, but scientifically ignorant too?

Dear amanda

Certainly Avtar is not ignorant of physics. That he takes a new position is not a negative reflection or his knowledge or astuteness.

(It seems to me that male hubris is acting up here. What does that contribute to the discussion?)

love, Heath

Dear Dr. Avtar,

Probably IB is not a place for you?

I see here people trying to bridge the gap between science and spirituality, which is good. But, saying that you are ignorant of science for presenting your views, and that coming from a person who claims to have spiritual experiences?, that isn't good to see.

My personal opinion is that, if ever some one can bridge the gap, and reveal more secrets, or explain the paradoxes in the fundamental aspects of our understanding of the universe, that can't be acheieved by a scientist or a spritual master, it has to be done by a philosopher with an idea, a thinker who has an understanding of science and who is also spiritually oriented -- you are a case in point. Please keep up the good work and don't allow the hypocricy of people who cannot see the light through their colored lenses waver your effortless zeal.

Regards

Dear Avtar,

I am really trying to understand where is the problem between us.

Suppose we are to study a man.

One way is the way of science. It is to begin from the body/outside and go deeper and deeper inwards. In this way first we will study man's body and senses. Then we will go deeper and study his feelings/emotions. Then we will go still deeper and study his thoughts. And lastly we will reach what my be called his spiritual core/consciousness.

An other way is the way of the mystics. They realize the innermost core within themselves first and then look outwards and see the same pattern in reverse, i.e., of thoughts, emotions and body now.

Now suppose we are to study th universe.

Science similarly, will first tackle the outer coarse 'physical' matter. Then it will go deeper and will encounter and study matter waves and fields. Then it will go still deeper and will encounter anti-matter and virtual matter. Lastly it will encounter and try to study what unifies all in One grandunified state, which may be called its spiritual realm.

Mystics again will begin from inside, from the spiritual realm. And will encounter all the above in reverse, i.e., first virtual realm/anti-realm, then fields, then body.

Now you being a scientist I cannot understand how you try to reach spiritual realm directly ignoring antimatter and virtual matter. No doubt in the spiritual realm all these realms as well as the body realm will have to be gone beyond but that does not mean that you will ignore them or bypass them if your approach is correct, it only means that you will also take/fit them into your explanations.

Th problem will be even more apparent if you are mystic. Then you will see virtual realm/antimatter realms rather immediately close and so will find even more difficult to ignore.

In fact it is from the latter perspective that I am seeing your limitations.

I may also add that those who have gone thus far in the right way will never say that we have free will. No doubt they may exhort us to go beyond ego, but that will be more like showing our next evolutionary destination and perhaps preparing us for the same.

I can quote almost all spiritual masters (though many of them will not say so directly as they know most people will misunderstand it) saying that we have no free will, that what all happens is in the hands of the highr power or God, that we all are only pawns in His hands, that there is time for everything etc etc..

Here is Rajneesh in his book Krishna:The Man and His Philosophy

"The very understanding of life and its ways will tell you nothing is in your hands. Neither do you decide to be born nor do you decide to die. Neither you breathe of your own volition, nor do you have a hand in the circulation of your blood through the body.

You are utterly mistaken if you think you are the doer; you are merely an instrument in the hands of the divine. Let it do what it wants to be done through you, and let go of yourself."

That is not to mean though that we should not make efforts, but that is quite an other story. That will not make you go beyond the ego just at your sweet will or resolution as your theory professes to claim.

I know people will misunderstand me, but then people misunderstood quite a number of people as well in their life times.

All said, yet I must also say that you may have a valid point I may be missing. I will continue to understand you.

Harb

PS: I am sorry if you find something wrong in my commnts. Sometimes the printed word catches you by the nose and makes you write words which you will normally not write, as Somerset Maugham once said to the effect.

Hi All! Here are my thoughts on what really is supersymmetry, spirit, soul, Avtar Singh's consciousness...etc
*******

Science says there is a physical world [E=+m(+c2)]and there is an anti-world [E=-m(+c2)]and when they meet they annihilate each other producing electromagnetic energy.

I say that in this, science has gone only up to electromagnetic interactions' depth. That the world goes beyond it to cover strong and weak interactions phases on both sides as well.

To the whole of the thus produced four-phased world I call the ACTUAL world [E=+m(+/-c)2]; and to the whole of the thus produced antiworld (E=-m(+/-c)2 I call the VIRTUAL world. (The minus value of c in these worlds denotes virtual particles of which our thoughts are made up of and which move beyond the speed of light). And that, when the ACTUAL and VIRTUAL worlds meet they too annihilate each other and produce what may be called Pure Energy or Unified Force of Love, or Superforce of the Big Bang, alongwith simultaneous production and breaking of supersymmetry, soul, spirit, (unity)cosciousness. Science says it is some sort of vacuum explosion; spiritualists say in here comes the hand of God in the creation of the universe.

Take your pick. But please don't rack your brains if you don't understand. I don't have any certificate in any discipline of knowledge i.e., science, philosophy and mysticism and so may as well be producing nonsense.

Harb

Dear & Respected Harb:

Please send me your e-mail or e-mail me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu to discuss technical details outside of this public forum.

I consider you a close and dear friend and respect your genuine spiritual experiences and efforts to present a theory based on the four forces, symmetry etc. Considering the fact that you are not a scientist, you are doing a marvelous job and only the depth of your genuine experiences can provide such great intuition. I bow to your insights and sincerity to a noble cause to unify science and spirituality.

Both of ours understandings of the modern science are ditto and same. I see no difference in our interpretations of the current quantum mechanics and particle physics.

If there is any difference it is in our selection of technical approaches to describe spirituality or consciousness. You have chosen the mainstream prevailing quantum mechanics particle physics theories as if they are valid and complete, and appropriate for applying to spirituality and consciousness. I, on the other hand, have seen them incomplete (just as Einstein did) and marred with serious unexplained and unresolved paradoxes below:

- quantum gravity,
- dark energy
- dark matter
- anti-matter, symmetry, virtual particles, strings (where is the predicted trillions and trillions of tons of anti-matter expected to exist in equal amounts of the actual observed matter in the universe, so far the claims of the observed anti-matter is extremely limited and not even a nanogram of anti-matter in a stable mode existence has been observed)
- The observer’s or measurement paradox on which the whole validity of quantum observations hang.
- Big Bang or black hole singularity
- Unseen or inexperienced multiple universe and multi-dimensions beyond 4 space-time dimensions
- Cosmological constant magnitude being off by 120 orders of magnitude
- Others (observed presence of large galaxies in the early universe, accelerating expansion of the universe, absence of mechanistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics etc etc…..)

Just because the current theories have been widely accepted by the mainstream for application to inanimate matter, there exist serious deficiencies in them to be applied to spirituality. As Heath pointed out earlier, the mainstream science is in its primitive stages to even define consciousness (or love that you call as the fifth force). So long as the above critical unresolved paradoxes hanging on the head of the mainstream approach, I consider it incomplete and questionable for its application to spirituality and consciousness, which is the absolute truth with no singularities, uncertainties, and ambiguities. I see it counter to and misrepresenting the essence of the core teachings of the spiritual masters

The proposed Holistic Relativity founded on the essence of teachings of the spiritual masters integrates the missing physics of consciousness into the current theory of relativity. It seems to not only resolve the paradoxes of current theories but it also predicts and explains the spiritual experiences both you and I have and thus bridging science and spirituality.

Looking forward to more and direct e-mail discussions between us. Thanks.

Love & Regards,
Avtar

Dear Harb:

You have asked the same questions as Navin asked on my other main entry post related to the Mysteries of The Universe Revealed. I have already posted the answers on the other main entry post but since you have raised them here, I am including them below:

Dear Navin:
You have raised the ultimate questions that humanity is searching answers to.
Here are some of the answers in short and simple words based on my scientific research presented in my book. Since many of them may be counterintuitive and different from the mainstream thinking, the answers may raise more questions or disbelief. Hence, the approach I was taking in my post was first to open up the most commonly prevailing mindset away from the mainstream thinking to allow a fresh approach and possibilities to understand the universe.

The short answers below based on the general relativity theory are further elaborated further in my book.

1.Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
The universe as a whole has no unique time or clock, which is only a relative entity within and only within the frame of reference of the matter in the universe, which is sown to be only 4% of the contents of the universe. Rest significant 96% is dark energy or dark matter.

So there is no absolute or unique time of beginning, ending, nor the evolution of the universe as a wholesome entity.

2.When and from where it all came into being?
Since the universe has no one clock or time as such, it just exists eternally without coming or going out of existence. The questions of when and from where arise only for an observer within the frame of reference of matter (4%). The observer in the frame of reference (96%) of dark energy or dark matter is not even aware of such a question.

3.How far it extends?
Just as time, space or distance is a relative entity and not absolute as far as the universe as a whole is concerned. The fixed space and time exist only relative to the observer in the frame of reference of the matter. Just as the universe exists eternally, it also exists omnipresently (or infinitely as some would call it).

4.What is its future?
Again, time and evolution are relative to the matter only in the universe, which is only 4%. The one wholesome universe has no beginning, past or future. As Einstein said- “Time is an illusion.”
5.What is its purpose?
The purpose of the 4% material or visible or measurable universe is to provide objective evidence for humans to use as a clue or stepping stone to facilitate their search for the ultimate or wholesome reality about the rest 96% of the universe. This would allow a complete understanding of the 100% of the universe and answers to your questions below.

6.Who are we and why are we here?
We are a small replica of the whole universe with all its features including matter, mind, and consciousness.
We are here so as to allow the wholesome truth about the universe and its existence to become manifested. The universe is manifested thru us – our bodies, minds, and consciousness. If we were not here, such manifestation may not be possible.

7.Is there a creator – God?
The universe exists at its own as a wholesome eternal existence representing an all inclusive creator, creation, and creativity, and what ever else one can perceive and beyond. Fragmenting the wholesome universe into a distinct creator separate from the rest is again an illusion in the frame of reference of the matter (separated from the whole) having fixed space and time. The concepts of separate creator and creation have no wholesome universal meaning or existence.

8.What can we learn about our own lives from the universe?
All the above. When we realize the above realities, it provides meaning and purpose of the existence of the universe and us within it. We come to the realization of the true self – who we are, that except for our bodies we are eternal and one wholesome existence. That realization liberates us from the threat of bodily death, mental suffering, and meaninglessness. In a nutshell, the realization fulfills our lives.

You can read further details in my paper – “In Search of Universal Reality & Purpose – A Scientific Investigation” at link below:

http://www.metanexus.net/conference2005/pdf/avtar_singh.pdf

Love & Regards,

Avtar

Dear Thangaraj (#213)
Dear Janet (#223)

Thanks for your kind comments and grasping the deep concepts I am trying to present here wherein the science, philosophy, and spirituality all meet and become one.

Love & Regards,

Avtar

Dear Keith (#200):

“However, if there is a sense of beauty in your equations and it all adds up, the math should speak for itself.”

The power and beauty in the Holistic Relativity equations signifying the elegant and simple insights of the spiritual masters is what fills me with the awe and wonder as to how elegant the universe is and how simple are the laws of the universe. It is also humbling to realize that how the mankind has missed this simplicity, beauty and elegance in a fragmented picture of the universe in particles, strings, forces, multi-verses, virtual worlds, and evolution of complexity, uncertainty, and certain death.

Love & Regards,

Avtar

Dear Syamala:

#202. “One of the Upanishads says that the Self reveals itself to one whom it chooses. Revelation of Self does not entirely depend upon the efforts of the individual. Finally it depends upon the Grace of the Free Will. So, it looks like Free Will has to open these closed minds!”

I totally agree. Something is driving me from inside to share the deep secrets and mysteries of the universe – may be it will awaken some who are seeking with their own free will. I cannot help it but radiate it outwards what is inside me. Thanks for your deep understanding.

Love
Avtar

Dear Avtar, here is my email: harb_singh@yahoo.com

I am in a hurry so I will write here later.

Harb

Avtar, I think what you are referring to is called Stady State theory in scientific circles, long discarded in favour of Superdence or Big Bang theory.

I think the real achievement will be to unite the two into one single theory/explanation of cosmology. It will be reaching the real Holism.

More later, Harb

Heather: What is male hubris? Something like male debris? bloated egos is quite a problem.

Dear Avtar,

I totally agree with your reply to me
and to long-lost Navin. (Hey bro!)

We feel like family here or friends at the very least.
Talent flows from several streams to the big river.
The same wetness, the same current is always changing contents,
yet the song remains the same.

Quoted from the "Book of Angelus Siesius", F. Frank
Alan Watts, "Tao: The Watercourse Way"
Re-published in "The Holographic Universe", Michael Talbot

.

Fa-Tsang, the seventh-century founder of the Hua-yen
school of Buddhist thought, employed a remarkably similar analogy when trying to communicate the ultimate interconnectedness and interpenetration of all things. Fa-Tsang, who held that the whole cosmos was implicit in each of its parts (and who also believed that every point in the cosmos was its center), likened the universe to a multidimensional network of jewels, each one reflecting all others ad infinitum.

When the Empress Wu, represented the relationship of the One to many. Then he took a polished crystal and placed it in the center of the room so that it reflected everything around it. This, he said, showed the relationship of the many to the One. However, like Bohm, who stresses that the universe is not simply a hologram but a holo-movement, Fa-Tsang stressed that his model was static and did not reflect the dynamism and constant movement of the cosmic interrelatedness among all the things in the universe.
In short, long before the invention of the hologram, numerous thinkers had already glimpsed the nonlocal organization of the universe and had arrived at their own unique ways to express this insight. It is worth noting that these attempts, crude as they may seem to those of us who are more technologically sophisticated, may have been far more important than we realize. For instance, it appears that the 17th century German mathematician and philosopher Leibniz was familiar with the Hua-yen school of Buddhist thought. Some have argued that this was why he proposed that the universe is constituted out of fundamental entities he called "monads," each of which contains a reflection of the whole universe. What is significant is that Leibniz also game the world integral calculus, and it was integral calculus that enabled Dennis Gabor to invent the hologram.

Keith, you may find it interesting to know that what Avtar Singh calls Consciousness, I call Mosc* - Matter of spiritual category - and I too have named its constituents as moscinos which are in fact the same as monads.

*I have given the following endnote explaining the name Mosc in my book:

"To be spoken of as Mosc in Moscow. The coinage of this word as Matter of spiritual category in no way shows that I have some kind of belief in or intend to show the supremacy of matter over spirit or materialism over spiritualism. The Universal game of life is essentially a self-game of the One, indescribable in all its subtleties, and this and the other names to follow like Movc or Matter of virtual category and Mopc or Matter of physical or actual category are mere devices to describe that game. It is just that the majority of the readers can more easily comprehend what is meant by the word matter than by the word spirit. Otherwise these names could well have been Spirit of material category and the like."

2.I have not given it the name Consciousness because it is really a word applicable to and at the level of us humans, while humans are only an infinitesimal part of the long march of universal evolution, which as I explained somewhere else began from dust (star dust). How this socalled Consciousness looks then, or looks as Avtar Singh's non-evolving universe, is really beyond description, or is certainly beyond description by this word. Which is in fact why even all spiritual masters tell us that the ultimate truth cannot be told to anybody and can only be realized through direct experience.

3. Bohm's point that universe is not a holograph but holomovement is worth pondering.

Harb

Dear Harb,

In church they used to tell us that evolution
was an illusion produced by Satan himself.

All the evidence science gathered from
the depths of hell, like dinosaur bones,
were but the results of the trickster's
black magic and his ability to conjure up
or manifest evil.

Boy, was I in for a treat once I made it to high-school.
I argued in biology class the case for Creationists
clear back in 1972. Needless to say, I was
educated and my heart then left the church...
although my parents made me go till I moved out.
If I didn't go there was no Sunday dinner for me.

Nowadays, I still feel we must include evolution
in the scheme of things. I think that soon we will
be able to prove that there is a progression
from lower to higher. Processes in Time need to
have Space to grow in Intelligence. It looks like
the Creator has done some learning along the way.

Can we allow this? It's a quagmire of conflict
when we say that God is omniscient and we allow
no room for growth or increased knowledge on
His/Her/Its part.

Can Love grow? Can God grow or does it just so happen
that only our conception of God's attributes change?

Dinosaurs seem to be a mistake or an accident
first caused by a child God.
Monkeys are fun creatures. Even funnier is the
idea of transforming apes into an image of Himself!

Hide and seek...fun and games...eternal recreation...
It takes Time for all this and we have time to spare.

.

I have a really tough time believing in prophecy.
We didn't always have free-will but thanks to
some thief we do now. It's either that or for
a good reason God needed creatures to love Him
back and He just couldn't make them do it.
It wasn't fair or just...and it still isn't.
Mind you, gender is not a factor or concern and God's name
in unutterable, so call it It/That/This or what you will.

Perhaps God knows what is going to happen
in the next few minutes whilst we sit here now.

If Reality is an emanation it still requires Time
to project from the center to the screen (our eyes).

If Reality is unfolding from the center of the
Sector Star causing four distinct forces to
play about as if in a globe that turns back in on itself,
then a certain amount of measurable Time is necessary for movement.

I do not wish to believe that someday God will tire of us
or get bored, stop the game/play/drama,
and absorb All back into Itself.
If there was never a Beginning there can be no End.

Musings and Tom-Foolery from the Huckster, Keith~

Dear avtar, thank you for the kind gestures. I reciprocate them.

I think our exchange in the public forum will be more beneficial especially for our ongoing project.

I agree with you that our end conclusions are the same as will be clear from below given paragraphs from my book:

Quote

"Perhaps by the very hierarchical nature of the different sciences only the physicists could come in direct contact with the mystical Mosc, and perhaps that is why a number of them have almost turned mystics, at least from their hearts if not publicly. And here the names of Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger, and even Einstein readily come to one’s mind.

For our present purposes, however, we intend to take up the latest on the line, and he is David Bohm of England – a theoretical physicist of repute, a never say die intellect of broadest possible sweep. Even though he is considered to be a follower of J. Krishnamurti, he doesn't invoke mysticism - Eastern or Western - to prove the interconnectedness of all phenomena on the Universal scale and to prove the whole as a living, throbbing, single life-process.

Rather, like a true scientist, he is trying to enter deeper and yet deeper into the heart of the matter - literally as well as metaphorically. He is not swayed off his feet by the antics of the capricious quanta but is trying to go beyond even that. No doubt consciousness in the guise of the observer has entered the picture with the advent of the quantum theory, but there are as yet layers of consciousness, the last being the undistinguishing consciousness of totality, of Mosc - which will not distinguish between the observer and the observed - that may be safely called the end, the time to rejoice.

In other words, Bohm is after the sub-quantum level phenomena, after the hidden variables as they are called in scientific circles, which ultimately control the reins of the whimsical electrons and photons.

I am sure Einstein himself had intuited what lay beyond the quantum level when he said his famous words ‘God does not play dice with the world,’ though he could not live long enough to give his intuition a concrete shape.

Though Mosc can be said to be the ultimate ‘observer’ to create reality it will be the determined creation, from where God for once will not be playing dice, from where Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle for once will give way to the only one way certainty, that of irreversible creation, as I have already said while discussing the relationship between the quantum vacuum and 'true vacuum' in a previous chapter."

Unquote

Yet, Avtar, you can also see that I appreciate Bohm for going deeper and deeper into things rather than prematurely invoking the names of spiritual masters.

If you are to talk science talk science. If you are to unify science with spirituality, take everything science has discovered into account, help in the completion of what is left, and in the process take it to the very doors of spirituality. So that at the end you are able to say that now I declare science and spirituality to be one with the only difference that they are using only different names for the same one overarching Truth.

So I repeat that rather than bypass the latest theories as incomplete, we should be able to help scientists either by being with them and complete those theories throughout and in THEIR language, as you being a scientist can do. Or help them by showing which way for them is right to advance as spirituality has always done and which I can do. And in fact this is what I have already done by pointing out that they should proceed towards the science of supersymmetry, as also by showing that unification of forces is indeed possible as finally we can describe the whole panorama of evolution through them as I have tentatively already done. Otherwise I don't see our efforts as unifying science and spirituality but as spirituality's efforts at swallowing/degrading science.

Harb

Interestingly DK, I in fact proposed a joint paper to Avtar though on some other but related topic in my above post but deleted it at the last moment thinking that it may not be premature or the gesture may not be misunderstood. Perhaps I should again go about it thinking SOT (Scheme of Things) hinted at it through you. Avtar asked where all anti-matter has gone. It is also one of the great headaches of many cutting edge scientists. I know exactly where it has gone, I asked Avtar that perhaps we should write a joint paper on it, I will convince him of where it has gone he will turn it into a real scientific paper, we can really create a storm in scientific circles.

Harb

PS: Thank you, I was able to open and browse through Anurag Sagar. Of course I can more easily understand it than most because of my four forces theory and because of the fact that besides this I divide all universe or Matter into Mosc, Movc and Mopc, physical, virtual and spiritual or as Body, Mind and Soul. From a certain 'top' all see things in almost the same way. The difference is only in names and details.

In fact, DK, my initial resistance may have something to do with the fact of my particular birth, because of which I was almost saturated with such stories willingly or unwillingly in my childhood. Then came rebellion though all to the good for that culminated in my having the all-important experience I have already told about here....

Dear Harb and DK:

I am sorry for a delayed response to your comments (#232, #235, #237, #238, and #239) in the previous main posting on HQR. As it disappeared from the IB Home Screen, I stopped paying attention to it. Any way here is my response to your comments and proposals:

Harb #232: “Avtar, I think what you are referring to is called Stady State theory in scientific circles, long discarded in favour of Superdence or Big Bang theory.
I think the real achievement will be to unite the two into one single theory/explanation of cosmology. It will be reaching the real Holism.”

Harb, from your comments it is clear to me that you have not understood or grasped the mathematical elegance of the Holistic Relativity of the GNM model I have proposed in my book and papers. (In order to assist you, I am sending you via separate e-mail a couple of my publications for easy reading). You are still misinterpreting the theory and its revelations with your own misunderstanding and non-appreciation of the mathematical depth and rigor of it that explains the mystery of the universe in a unified seamless integration of the consciousness of the spiritual masters and general theory of relativity.

The universe that results from the GNM is not a static but extremely dynamic - pure kinetic energy that exists eternally and omnipresently signifying the Einstein’s fully dilated space/time. Such a universe has never been predicted by previous theories or cosmology models including the now infamous Steady State or Static universe mentioned by you.

The Big Bang theory is fraught and paralyzed with so many singularities, unresolved paradoxes, inconsistencies that even the professional cosmologists have established an Alternative Cosmology Group (http://www.cosmology.info/) standing against it. It is naïve to be taken aback by the claims of the Big Bang model. The fact is that the particle physics and cosmology are lost in nowhere land and the Big Bang or the so-called Standard Model is a big face saving to continue the profession and research funding to remain in business. There is no other game in town; their last hope in String Theory has failed badly as well.

Thanks for your proposal to combine the steady state and the Big bang into one single theory. That is what the GNM has already achieved. The Big Bang is one unique possibility, in the frame of reference of an observer in the material frame of reference) within the infinite number of possible states of the One wholesome continuum of the mass/energy/space/time of the GNM. It also entails all possible particles, strings, virtual particles, anti-matter, multi-dimensions, or even multi-universes within this One Whole Continuum of consciousness. I know it is a very hard-to-grasp concept or revelation, but you must understand it to fully grasp the deepest implications of the GNM, of course inspired by the wisdom of the spiritual masters. Without fully grasping it, I am afraid that you may continue to keep holding on to as sacred what the incomplete and fragmented particle physics and mainstream is preaching to the world.

I am the biggest supporter of science – a complete science but not a fragmented science. It is only a scientific approach that has, if any, potential to describe spirituality. But, you will find me a biggest critic of those mainstream theories that have kept science from reaching its full potential by keeping it imprisoned in the shackles of matter and fragmented pieces of reality – the particles, anti-particles, and forces.

Harb # 237: “Yet, Avtar, you can also see that I appreciate Bohm for going deeper and deeper into things rather than prematurely invoking the names of spiritual masters.

If you are to talk science talk science. If you are to unify science with spirituality, take everything science has discovered into account, help in the completion of what is left, and in the process take it to the very doors of spirituality. So that at the end you are able to say that now I declare science and spirituality to be one with the only difference that they are using only different names for the same one overarching Truth.

So I repeat that rather than bypass the latest theories as incomplete, we should be able to help scientists either by being with them and complete those theories throughout and in THEIR language, as you being a scientist can do.”

Harb, you are again misquoting or mischaracterizing my work demonstrating your lack of understanding of it. I have written the book – The Hidden Factor and published many papers without ever provoking the word - spirituality or spiritual masters, which I used almost entirely for spiritual audiences like IB. At IB, we have the distinct mission to combine science and spirituality, so we cannot help not invoking these words.

Again, I have already been doing or have already done what you do not seem to realize in your proposal to talk science to scientists. My book and papers are written for scientific and not spiritual audiences. As I said earlier, I did not even use the word consciousness but used – Spontaneity instead in my book and scientific papers to talk the language of science. On the other hand, the five forces theory you are proposing is more of a metaphysics or philosophy than science.

And, I am not bypassing any theories – Newtonian, Quantum, Particle Physics, Big Bang, Field Theories, Bohm’s Wave Theory describing the explicit and implicit, Krishnamurti, Rajneesh, and you name it…. The Holistic Relativity encompasses the deepest essence of all of them and beyond to Buddha, Nanak, Kabir, Krishna, and Jesus etc.

Thanks for your proposal, but frankly speaking, your proposal to dilute the wholesome, simple, mathematically explicit, and elegant (yet unrealized by you since you have not grasped its holistic beauty and mathematical completeness) GNM with paradox-ridden particle physics seems to me as primitive and naïve as asking to describe the love that led to the building of Taj Mahal by analyzing its bricks.

----------------------

DK#238: “It will be great if both of you write the next HQR think-piece together to explain HQR from a joint perspective. That should create a marvellous bridge and insight.”

Dear DK: Thank you for the excellent suggestion. I know you are coming from the good heart – like a sincere loving mom asking her two children to do things together. I would love to follow your advice and hope that my answers above to Harb’s comments address your comment as well.

I would like to point out that once the Holistic Relativity or GNM theory is fully comprehended, one would realize that it already addresses, supersedes in the explicit mathematical form, and entails within it what Harb has described as the Four Forces plus Symmetry theory in the frame of reference of the matter alone (that is already a subset within the Holistic Relativity).

In short, DK, your advice has already been complied with.

Regarding Harb’s proposal on anti-matter, I have already explained earlier and in my book that it is merely an artifact of the flawed assumption of the net zero energy of the universe assumed by quantum cosmology. It is not a universal reality; it does not exist, so “Where it is gone?” is an irrelevant question that can only have irrelevant answers. In fact, many of the paradoxes of the mainstream quantum mechanics are just artifacts of the flawed materialistic-only assumptions or measurement methods. Chasing their answers is like chasing a rainbow or wild-geese. I wouldn’t waste my time chasing it – this I realized long time ago as I came to know more details of quantum mechanics. (Harb, you can continue to chase it if you would like.)

The fact is that quantum mechanics or particle physics is like a fragmented stream of the river of the science of consciousness, a stream that has dried up into the parched desert of materialism. Devoid of consciousness particle physics and all its artifact baggage (observer’s paradox, multi-universes, uncertainty, multi-dimensions, virtual world, anti-matter etc.) is a dead science of the inanimate matter. It is impossible to integrate the dead into the living. We must awaken the mainstream particle physicists from the nightmare of the living dead to the Holistic Relativity – the message of the spiritual masters. Better late than never!!

Love

Avtar

Avtar, with all respect I must say that I have begun my book from Mosc, Matter of spiritual category, from which everything originates, evolves and into which vanishes, which is only an other name for your very CONSCIOUSNESS. So you can't say that I ignore consciousness. To me, the real achievement will still be to explain everything from ITS perspective, or at lest to guide science from its perspective. Then obviously we will not have to bypass anything, ignore anything as dead etc. It is consciousness's, spirituality's job to bring dead to life again.

For example, the real achievement will be to see things from this high pedestal and help science find where antimatter has gone rather than deny the existence of antimatter altogether and degrade the discovery of a great physicist, Dirac.

Otherwise, we could have stopped the progress of science at many points of time in its history by saying that it all is consciousness. In fact we should have not even begun it considering that Nanak said it is all EkOmKar, all consciousness. It is funny to degrade especially quantum science as dead horse and yet use it from morning to evening in all situations of living.

Harb