Dear D.K.

Without having to skip back and forth between this and the first glossary, could you please tell us what you have since added or deleted?

Right off the bat, my eyes stop at the definition of Spirit, defined: Same as Soul.

That's not exactly how some of us have defined them in the past. Actually, I rather see a competition of sorts between the two, as one's Soul is more personal and Spirit is impersonal.

I would like to see us tackle only a few of the 'biggie' words at a time.

I would like to see how Harb would explain the entangling process throughout all the levels or states of consciousness.

I would like to see Avtar show us where the soul's energy lies in the scheme of material things and how the chakras store it in seven distinct psychic places.

Just for starters...

Thanks again for all your loving efforts, my friend!

Peace, Keith~

Dear Dr Matai,

Wow! Very impressive dictionary. Thank you.

If you are ever interested in opening a discussion on 'Creeds', if would be happy to participate enthusiastically.

Yours truly,

Maurice Guy

Dear DK et al - I heard this phrase on tv, in the background of my being on the PC. I do not know who's phrased coin it might be; but, I found it insightful, to add to this dialogue; as I took the critical words, and broke it down; into a meaningful example of "All." The Dictionary used is: Websters New World Dictionary - 1979

QUOTE:

"There is nothing real, outside our perception of reality."

Realism: 1) a tendancy to face facts, and be practical. 2) Art or Literature the portrayal of people or things as they really are

Outside: 1) the outer side or part; exterior 2) outward appearance 3) any area not inside 4) beyond the limits of 5) outside/other than

Perception: 1) the mental grasp of objects, etc. through the senses 2) insight or intuition 3) the knowledge, etc. got by perceiving

Nothing: 1) no thing; not anything 2) nothingness 3) a thing that does not exist 4) a person or thing considered of little or no importance 5) a zero-adv, not at all; in no way--for nothing 1. free 2. in vain 3. without reason--think nothing of 1. to attach no importance to 2. to regard as easy

Nothingness: n. 1. nonexistance 2. insignificance 3. unconsciousness

With loving kindness, to each and all; I DO enjoy the HQR Dialogue at IB thusfar, as well as the graphics you have been posting with each post!! Kudos to all, for their participation and willingness to expand internet connectiveness.

North

Hi DK,

I think there is no reference to Bhagwat Gita or Paramatma in HQR. Is it because it is a religious book?

My personal feeling is that Bhagwat Gita or Paramatma can be included in Holistic Quantum Relativity Project: Glossary.

May be Gayatri Mantra may also be added.

Other term which may be added, though they may not have been used in HQR:

Shakti
Samhitas
Aranyakas
Savasan

With Love
Rajesh Sharma

Soul and Spirit:

Soul and spirit are essentially the same. The only difference is in their being attached or unattached to any individuality. Unattached soul is spirit, attached spirit is soul.

Attached to individuals spirit is soul, attached to Universe it is Soul. There is no such difference between spirit and Spirit, though one makes so when using it keeping in focus an individual or Universe. Or using it in the context of an individual or Universe.

Consciousness:

Again, basic consciousness and soul are essentially the same. The soul which has begun functioning in an individual (begun entanglement)is consciousness, consciousness when not functioning in an individual - as in sleep is soul. In deep sleep both are the same as spirit.

Entanglement:

Entanglement for this life happened in previous life, entanglement for the next life will happen in this life. Similarly, entanglement for this cycle of evolution of universe happened in previous cycle, entanglement for the next cycle will happen in this cycle.

Basic consciousness is the same, it is entanglement which changes its level.

To be continued...

Dear D.K.

I threw out a line to help us define 'spiritual equivalence'
at the end of glossary no.1...am I way off the mark?

Harb: Thank you, sir!

Spirit...for discussion...is open.
Remember how we use the term in everyday language.

For me, its meaning depends on the context in which it is used.

"The singer sang her special song and it lifted her spirits."

'In high spirits', is like enthusiasm or passion.

'In low spirits', depressed or bummed out.

Alcoholic beverages in the past were called 'spirits'.

Is it more like that which animates the form or breathes life into it?

Forms are the results of Divine Principal or Law.

Lord = Law or Providence

Soul: Our conscious connection with the Lord

If Spirit or Soul are quantum bits of energetic substance
they should have a measurable effect in Level 1.

How are we to prove the existence of the two on the material plane?

Otherwise, it's still speculation, although I, too, am fond of it.

It sounds like 'Spirit" has no choice in the matter
when it comes to getting entangled. Does it express free-will?
Or does it desire to get caught up in that which seems to be not of itself?

Who's fooling who then?
Most of us still live in a dualistic reality.

A neurotic is the opposite of a realist.

Time's up. Kind regards, Keith!

Hi Keith, if you can spare some time, here are a few paragraphs from my book explaining the concept of entanglement at our usual levels. Of course soul comes entangled into due forces from the previous birth here it only manifests that entanglement relevant to the level.

Quote (Self-Designed Universe)
.....
...Simply put, when our consciousness is involved into something in whatever way, we are entangled into that something. And conversely, when we have freed our consciousness from that something for whatever reasons and through whatever means, we have got disentangled from that something.

There are now two ways in which we can free ourselves from something. By simply withdrawing our consciousness from that something if we could, or by transcending or outgrowing that something.

So far simple withdrawing of consciousness is concerned it is at the most a tactical move so to say. We have not really freed ourselves, but have only postponed the things to some extent. The real thing is transcending. Below we would give examples clarifying the meaning of both these terms further.

Suppose I am a babe, not yet able to stand up, in other words, not yet able to negotiate, to overcome the force of gravity. Most of my dhyana - consciousness, attention - would then be expended on the question of how to tackle gravity. (Apparently the question may seem to be: how to stand up, but actually it would be only our Homo sapiens super-imposition on the original wordless question of gravity. What would an animal or better still, plant ‘say’ in their silent language for that matter? Naturally - how to tackle gravity).

In other words, I or my consciousness then would be fully entangled into gravity.

Now, I may withdraw from the efforts to stand up for some reasons for some time, but that would not mean that I have freed myself so far as the question of tackling gravity is concerned. I would free myself only when, after a lot of time and efforts, I have begun not only to stand up, but to jump, run as well. And even beyond that, when all this has become almost an automatic process with me.

When all this thus has become almost an automatic process with me, when, in other words, I wouldn’t have to expend any more dhyana on the question of gravity, I may be said to have transcended gravity, to have outgrown gravity, to have disentangled from gravity, of course, relevant to the present level of my life.

My consciousness then would be free so far as the question of gravity is concerned. This would precisely be the time when my ‘I’ - which, put in simplified terms, by then would have coincided with my center of gravity as if I were a log of wood or a piece of stone for that matter, approximating with my navel, and would have handled predominantly the affairs only of gravity so to say from that point - would be ready to quantum jump to its next evolutionary destination along my spinal cord called chakras as already explained.

This next destination - which would actually be the center of electromagnetic forces acting on me, or which would represent the point where electromagnetic forces would come into the foreground in my reckoning, leaving the gravitational forces in the background - would approximately coincide with my heart.

From then on, from this vantage point onwards, my consciousness would begin its entanglement into the electromagnetic forces, in other words, into emotional affairs or into the affairs of the heart so to say. Saying it in another way, from then on, from that vantage point it would begin observe-creating-participating in its new world to be dominated by attractions and repulsions, loves and wars.

Now I am a young man of, say, sixteen. Gravity and games have begun to take back seat in my mind, in my reckoning, in my consciousness, in my dhyana. I no longer expend my energies, my consciousness on the question of tackling, subduing, overcoming gravity. I have got disentangled from it. I have outgrown it. I have outgrown that state. Instead I have begun to take interest in the opposite sex. And have begun to take those of my own sex as my rivals.

My dhyana is now expended on how to get this or that girl or how to get rid of this or that boy. In other words, I am now fully entangled in electromagnetic forces, the forces of attractions and repulsions.

Again my withdrawal from the scenario would not serve any purpose. Cutting the long story short, I would have to ‘pass through the inferno of my passions’ to borrow the words of C.G.Jung, to overcome them, to overcome the electromagnetic attractions and repulsions, loves and wars.

Ultimately I will lose my interest in the opposite sex as well, and proportionately in those of my own. Neither the former would remain those things of attraction for me, nor the later, those things of repulsion which they once were. And ‘losing my interest’ is only an other way of saying that thenceforth I would no longer be expending my energies, my consciousness, my dhyana on them. And that would mean to say, I would stand disentangled from them....
.....

Unquot.

Dear Harb and Keith,

My attempt at Spirit and Soul:

Attached Spirit: Soul put in ritual in thought

Unattached Soul: Spirit on unified level

Another attempt on Spiritual Equivalence:

Jung defined the law of equivalence as follows:

"A definite quantity of energy that flowed through both the conscious and unconscious".

The important point is that this energy is never destroyed, but flows throughout the psyche, activating now this part and now another.

Spiritual equivalence: the integration of that quantity of energy.

Keith, yes spirit's meaning is very much dependent upon the context in which this word is used.

Mieke, yes, your definition of soul and spirit is also correct.

Keith, [If Spirit or Soul are quantum bits of energetic substance they should have a measurable effect in Level 1.]

Spirit or Soul is the same energy in an atom which makes its electron jump from one orbit to the next. And same in a man which makes its kundlini shakti go up through various chakras and in quantum jumps.

Harb

Dear DK and Harb,

Shouldn't Kundalini energy be explained a bit more in detail?

For instance:

It is a fundamental energy of the soul that activates all the levels of the soul, from lowest to highest, fitting it for enlightenment. An energy that is the very principle of life by which the whole human being lives. So every expression of human life, the lower and the highter planes, is a divine expression.

It starts with the embryo: the animal soul of the embryo is rooted in the spiritual soul and receives its existence from it and the other lower levels of being also.

Mieke, here is a few paragraphs from my book which explain kundalini shakti in its broadest sense.

Quote:

So that is that, dear reader! Let us take it straight from the horse’s mouth as they say that Mosc is entangled in the world in the manner we (our basic consciousness) is entangled in our dreams. That is to say, just as we lie there coiled in the heart of every dreamy being, in the heart of the whole of the dreamy world, similarly, Mosc lies here coiled in the heart of every being, in the heart of the whole of the Universe...

Sure reader, you are very clever! You wouldn’t allow even as innocuous a word as ‘coiled’ slip into my descriptions stealthily. I can see you are viewing it suspiciously. Why did I say ‘Mosc lies here coiled’ and not simply ‘lies here’ in the above sentence?

Ok. I will answer it, though I must say that you are being overly tough with me. One of our greats in the not-so-distant past got away by placing even ‘nothingness’ duly ‘coiled’ in the heart of our beings. Not only did he get away but was instead offered the Nobel Prize...! Remember? Our very Sartre! The heart-throb of our younger days, when we loved the words anguish, angst, anxiety!! Didn’t he write in his monumental book Being and Nothingness that ‘nothingness lies coiled in the heart of our beings - like a worm?’

Not only him, I find a fair sprinkling of this word around, in fact.

That was a philosopher. Now let us see what the Eastern mysticism, our current heart-throb, says on the matter.

There is a branch, a very important one at that, of Hindu Yogic philosophy called Raja Yoga in general and Kundalini Yoga in particular. According to that, the undefinable Kundalini Shakti (literally - the coiled up power of pure-consciousness) lies coiled near the lower end of our spinal cords at our births, and moves upwards as we grow or evolve, which for this philosophic system are synonymous words.

Now, this Kundalini Shakti of the Raja Yoga philosophers with minor variations is nothing but our Mosc lying coiled at the heart of our beings, just like the dream metaphor of our god-friend Nataraja. And in fact, in the ‘heart’ of all the entities in the world, giving to the living systems what we call double helix - which is only an other name for coiled – genes or chromosomes at their base and to all the rest their spiral ‘seeds’ or even structures.

Actually, those original spiral ‘seeds’ of the inanimate Universe slowly metamorphose into double helix chromosomes as the things come down evolving to animate levels.

In the Yogic philosophy, this coiled up Kundalini Shakti lies at the base of our spinal cords at the time of our birth and moves up as we grow, crossing on the way various chakras - nerve or psychic centers - which as I understand them are nothing but the well-defined energy thresholds representing various interactions already described. Which as per our theory would mean, Mosc moving from one energy threshold or interactions level to the next and so on. Mosc getting disentangled from one force after the other.

What the scientists say ground state in the quantum theory must in some way be indistinguishable from all Mosc, from ultimately the unalloyed realm of this Kundalini Shakti, which Yogis most probably identify with God. In fact, our famous Yoga is all about making this coiled up Kundalini Shakti rise more expeditiously in our systems so as to re-unite with God, with Mosc - our final evolutionary destiny - as soon as possible.

Anyway, now finally, let us come to our scientists. What have they to say about the use of our word ‘coiled.’ In fact, their very spirals, eddies and whirlpools, double-helix chromosomes, genes or DNAs represent that coiled up Kundalini Shakti or Mosc lying at the base of whatever there is capable of evolving. And there is hardly anything which is not. Though for those which are yet beyond the pale of DNA, which are yet beyond the pale of ‘molecular biology,’ the scientists would perhaps some day come up with their atomic-biology, down to nuclear-biology or even to some sort of Moscology. In a way our book in hand may also be said to a be part of this later, that is, Moscology.

At the Universal level, its spiral structure exhibits this coiling. At the mineral’s level it is perhaps the aperiodic crystalline formation at their base. At the level of the living systems it is the ‘double-helix’ structure of their chromosomes, genes or DNAs.

Unquote

Miek, hope you will now understand kundalini shakti better.

Sorry for long posts, but then some of the readers may be really interested, while no body can force the others. Thanks.

Thanks dear Harb :)

Yes, now i understand kundalini shakti much better. The explanation in the glossary doesn't tell me much. Therefore my suggestion.

Thanks again.

Love, Mieke

Harb and Mieke,

First off, I like this 'train of thought' style.
Sorta like...we start here, clear this up, get
some understanding, but still beg definitions
leading to the next concept or thing to be
described. I realize though, that it's a
bit like the alphabet, where the letters
don't make sense until you see how they
work with each other in relationships.

Jung based his therapy on the libido
and the law of conservation, but
it included a lot of heartfelt
conversation(very important.)

Harb, The 'spiral' paradigm
has been in play now for
a long time and I see
how incorporated it
is in your scheme.
Watson without a
Crick to paddle
I am. It does
so happen to
remind me of
several fairy
tales, the way
the 'happy' end
comes into play by
going around (spiral)
the mountain changing
colors and costumes with
each and every full turn of
the story as it unfolds before
our eyes, bringing us untold joy.

Can the entanglement have a reaction
that is a negative or positive response?
Does one's awareness have to involve getting
stuck, irregardless if one tried to stay neutral?

Those who are called "The Annointed Ones" must come
to the point whereby nothing sticks to them at all, ever!
I'm stuck taking some girls shopping, so I have to
be off. Cuttin' loose,

Thrifty Keith~

Keith, yes, it is like happy ending. At the end you reach your true self which is Self. Which is What Is. Which is One, God and so on.

As to one's awareness's entanglement, it is as inevitable as a child's trying to get up, or a youth's falling in love, or an adult's efforts at thinking things out etc. Awareness entangles, 'body' - one's own, physical, in case of gravity, an opposite sex's emotional body in the case of electromagnetic force, one's own causal body or thoughts or mind in the case of strong forces etc, - reacts and in the process awareness finally outgrows it relevant to the level.

Really it is as simple as a spirit's entanglement into a material body which then it goes on shattering or pulverizing so that at the end what is left is the spirit itself. Though in reality somewhere on the line the material body again begins to consolidate or form so that by the end one part of it is pulverized completely an other has again reaches the beginning position imprisoning the spirit again within. Then again big bang and so on...It is like, comprssed beyond a certain point it explodes and exploded beyond a certain point it compresses.

Harb

Whosoever has come into this world with a form his/its soul is entangled and goes on entangling at subtler and subtler levels. Some may be entangled at spiritual level but entangled they are.

Dear DK, #12, 21, how is the following?

Evolutionary leap = evolutionary surge = A phenomenon caused by soul or spirit when it acts as evolutionary force and makes any system jump to its next energy orbit or interaction center. Thus it makes an electron of an atom to jump to its next energy orbit ( in which case it is also called free energy of an atom or energy entrapped in an atom); makes kundalini shakti in humans to jump to the center of next basic interaction.

Thanks DK
#18

Love
Rajesh

Dear DK, #22, an effort.

Kundalini Shakti or Kundalini Energy = Human-level equivalent of original spiraling energy of the universe, which gives humans the evolutionary surge along their spinal chords and thus makes them jump from chakra to chakra - center to center of four basic interactions. This same force makes DNAs, Genes, chromosomes double-helix.

Dear DK,

As regards #20 and #22. Thanks, am still thinking on how to make the paragraphs on Soul and Spirit shorter while explaining the same :)

Regarding Kundalini energy: in my view perfect explanation!

Another try at Spiritual Equivalence:

Spiritual Equivalence = quantum = soul = the smallest natural unit that appears in our cosmos, in other words: a definite quantity that cannot be destroyed.

Love, Mieke

Entanglement: In the context of universal evolution, unified force's coupling to various gross to subtle forms of matter and through them to various basic interactions. Thus, when it couples to molecule level and above, it gets entangled into gravitational interactions; when to atom level, it gets entangled into electromagnetic interactions; when to nuclear level or to nucleons, it gets entangled to strong interactions; and finally, when it couples to sub-nuclear level, it gets entangled to weak interactions. At human levels it may be taken as awareness or consciousness's coupling to/absorption into physical body, emotional body, causal (mind/thoughts) body and finally subtler emotional body or spiritual body. Evolution is the result of this coupling/entanglement, which causes mutations in bodies through evolutionary surges (Design Part), and respective body's reaction/response to adapt to them (Darwinism Part).

Dear DK

The glossary sometimes relies on a contrained usage of a general term to define other concepts, without having also provided a definition, background or context for the contrained usage of the term.

For example, the use of the word element as part of the definitions of air, etc. The word element has a more widely-known, science-based definition. If a description or definition of the contrained usage of the word element can be provided here, it will help people who have more familiarity with the more common definition of the word element. It would also be helpful to understand the importance of the five elements in the thought systems that rely on the five elements.

love, Heath

Dear DK,

It is quite some work to go through the whole bunch of articles to find all the words that need explanation. I propose another way which i found suitable for myself while reading through the thread on Einstein's spooky action:

This thread speaks about a quantum computer and when looked at exact meaning i found myself on wikipedia pages with numerous links to others. So before i knew it i was entangled in a number of links but at the end i now have a clear impression of what quantum computing really is.

So i suggest to give a link to the wikipedia page about the quantum computer for everybody that is interested and from there on they can travel from one word to another.

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

I can paste the link at the top of the appropriate article on the ANHwiki page of our project.

Same as regards Hegel and his phenomenology of Spirit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_of_Spirit.

Could look at the other articles and do something like that in the same way?

Love, Mieke

Sorry, I meant "constrained" throughout #30.

Dear DK,

In my perception the paragraphs on Soul and Spirit are a little unmethodical, so i slightly changed it into the following:

Soul and Spirit: Soul and Spirit are essentially the same. The only difference is in their being attached or unattached to any individuality. Unattached soul is spirit, attached spirit is soul. Attached to individuals spirit is soul, attached to Universe and Beyond it is Spirit. There is no such difference between spirit and Spirit, though one makes so when using it keeping in focus an individual or Universe. Or using it in the context of an individual or Universe.

Soul: Soul is the spirit put in ritual by thought. The Soul is the principle of individual life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. Te spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul. The disembodied spirit of a deceased person. The emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments. A human being's Self; person. The animating principle; the essential element or part of something. The inspirer or moving spirit of some action, movement, etc. Part of God; the divine source of all identity and individuality. See Spirit.

Spirit: Soul at the unified level is Spirit. The spirit is an immortal and spiritual body of light, eternal, uncreated and identical with the Supra-Universal Consciousness. The soul animates life and reincarnates again and again until all necessary karmas are created and resolved and its essential unity with the Supra-Universal Consciousness is realized. The soul is the atman of the Vedas. It is the sum of the matrix of a continuum of experience and it's resulting essence. Within each of us is a soul, a great spiritual potential created in God's image and likeness. This soul -- not the body and mind with which we now identify -- is our real self. The subtlest form of Energy. The component in the individual of the Supra-Universal Consciousness is the spirit and of the Universal Consciousness is the mind. The Soul gives the sense of being and being conscious. It is different from the physical body and mind yet binds them both into one unit.See Soul.

In the above way you avoid some double sentences.

Love, Mieke

Hi Mieke, DK here is Spirit with some corrections.

Spirit: Subtlest form of Matter, eternal, self-created ground of All There Is, of the whole Game of Being and Becoming, of Universe along with its evolution. Essentially the same as soul. The only difference is in their being attached or unattached to any individuality. Unattached soul is spirit, attached spirit is soul. Attached to individuals spirit is soul, attached to Universe and Beyond it is Soul (with capital S). There is no such difference between spirit and Spirit (with capita S), though one makes so when using it keeping in focus an individual or the Universe as a whole. Soul at the unified level is Spirit. The spirit is an immortal and spiritual body of light, eternal, uncreated and identical with the Supra-Universal Consciousness. See Soul.

Dear Mieke, a suggestion. Under spirit, after a line or two you begin describing rather soul. True they both are same in a way but yet under Spirit we are describing Spirit not soul.

Dear Harb,

The whole description again:

Soul and Spirit: Soul and Spirit are essentially the same. The only difference is in their being attached or unattached to any individuality. Unattached soul is spirit, attached spirit is soul. Attached to individuals spirit is soul, attached to Universe and Beyond it is Spirit. There is no such difference between spirit and Spirit, though one makes so when using it keeping in focus an individual or Universe. Or using it in the context of an individual or Universe.

Soul: Soul is the spirit put in ritual by thought,attached. The (attached) Soul is the principle of individual life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. The spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul. The disembodied spirit of a deceased person. The emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments. A human being's Self; person. The animating principle; the essential element or part of something. The inspirer or moving spirit of some action, movement, etc. Part of God; the divine source of all identity and individuality. See Spirit.

Spirit: Soul at the unified level is Spirit, unattached. The spirit is an immortal and spiritual body of light, eternal, uncreated and identical with the Supra-Universal Consciousness. The (unattached) Soul or Spirit animates life and reincarnates again and again until all necessary karmas are created and resolved and its essential unity with the Supra-Universal Consciousness is realized. The (unattached) Soul or Spirit is the atman of the Vedas. It is the sum of the matrix of a continuum of experience and its resulting essence. Within each of us is a soul, a great spiritual potential created in God's image and likeness. This Spirit -- not the body and mind with which we now identify -- is our real self. The subtlest form of Energy. The component in the individual of the Supra-Universal Consciousness is the spirit and of the Universal Consciousness is the mind. The (unattached) Soul or Spirit gives the sense of being and being conscious. It is different from the physical body and mind yet binds them both into one unit.See Soul.

Better this way?

Love, Mieke

Mieke and Harb,

Very good descriptions of Spirit and Soul from where I sit.

Entanglement: Well done, Harb! Sorry it's taking me awhile
to swallow and digest this, but my Christian background
continues to be 'the stumbling block' or cornerstone
that keeps tripping me up and knocking me down.

I see (Design Part) in #29. Therefore I would like to see
these words included in the glossary for they are
familiar to the commoner in every language.

Intelligence: (currently included under Intellect)
Emotional and Rational/Logical, left/right brain functions

Intelligent Design(er): other than God, Brahman, Siva

Creation (Creator): (currently under Reality)
Must be termed with the two words above.

Expanding Consciousness: (as a key to enlightenment or liberation or realization)

D.K., ask and ye shall receive!
Of course, we don't always like what we get,
nor do we always get what we want.

"...but if you try sometimes,
you just might find...
you get what you need!"

Rolling Stones

Somehow those words disappeared...?

Mieke, my version will be the following.

Soul and Spirit: Soul and Spirit are essentially the same. The only difference is in their being attached or unattached to any individuality. Unattached soul is spirit, attached spirit is soul. Attached to individuals, spirit is soul, attached to Universe as a whole it is Soul (with capital S). There is no such difference between spirit and Spirit, though one may make so when using in the context of an individual or Universe.

Soul: Soul is the spirit put in ritual by sense, emotion, thought in an individuality. It is the principle of individual life. It is the atman of the Vedas. It is the sum of the matrix of a continuum of experience and its resulting essence. Within each of us is a soul, a great spiritual potential created in God's image and likeness. Though attached it is also regarded as separate from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. The spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul. The disembodied spirit of a deceased person. A human being's real self, person. The animating principle; the essential element or part of something. The inspirer or moving spirit of some action, movement, etc. Part of God; the divine source of all identity and individuality. See Spirit.

Spirit: Unattached Soul or the Soul at the unified level is Spirit. The spirit is an immortal and spiritual body of light, eternal, uncreated and identical with the Supra-Universal Consciousness. It animates life and reincarnates again and again as individualized soul until all necessary karmas are created and resolved and its essential unity with the Supra-Universal Consciousness is realized. This Spirit acting as soul -- not the body and mind with which we now identify -- is our real self. The subtlest form of Energy. The component in the individual of the Supra-Universal Consciousness is the spirit or soul and of the Universal Consciousness is the mind. The attached spirit, also called soul, gives the sense of being and being conscious. It is different from the physical body and mind yet binds them both into one unit. See Soul.

Note: Now you may make a few more corrections and then finalize. Your version will be final.

Hi Harb, am fully in agreement with your latest version.

Love, Mieke

Dear DK,

Could you adjust the definition on Soul and Spirit according to post #39?

Thanks, Mieke

Hi Keith,

Good questions about intelligence, right and left brain. Am not right away capable of giving the correct definitions, but when reading the definitions on soul and spirit am going to give it a try anyway.

Since you talk about left and right brain hemisphere i remember there is another one, the brainstem that is the lower part of the brain, adjoining and structurally continuous with the spinal cord. Since the spinal cord has a strong connection with the kundalini shakti i assume that the brainstem is involved too. It is more my intuition that tells me this.

Look for more details on the brainstem at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem

In a dutch article i have read the brainstem has to do with dreams and consciousness.

So Intelligence: the principle of individual life. It comprises intellect and soul and so the right brain, the left brain, the brainstem (if it is the consciousness, it is also the soul,the spirit attached to the individuality).

So intelligent design and creation are in close correlation to it i guess.

Dear DK

Element: an essential or basic component of a more complex entity.

Five Elements: An ancient eastern system of classifying aspects of the universe. The five elements theory postulates that everything is based on five basic attributes. Depending on the culture, the five elements, and their relationships and aspects, differ.

In Chinese Taoism, the five elements are wood, fire, earth, metal, water. The relationship between the five elements has two opposing flavors of circular relation. One is flavor is creation and the other is destruction. The creation dynamic is: wood feeds fire, fire burns down to earth (ashes), earth contains metal, metal holds water, and water nourishes wood. The destruction dynamic is: wood breaks earth, earth absorbs water, water puts out fire, fire melts metal, amd metal cuts wood.

In Indian Hinduism, the five elements are earth (privthi), water (apaha), fire (tejas), air (vayu), and heaven, void or unity (akaasa).

Japanese culture uses both the Chinese and Indian systems of five elements. Japan's first use of five elements theory came from China. With Japan's exposure to Buddhism, the Indian five elements became integrated into Japanese thought systems, and is now considered the prevalent theory.

The HQR project uses the Indian Hindu system of five elements in its discussions.

I'm not comfortable with the five elements definition, as it covers both the Chinese and Indian five elements systems, and is taken from a position external to the cultures in which these arose. Also, I'm more familiar with the Chinese five elements. The definition would have a more organic validity if someone from India would be kind enough to correct it for the Indian POV. This is important, because this project is strongly informed by Hindu cosmology, and draws much of its singular lexicon from Hinduism. Easier than correcting it would be to have someone else contribute a proper Hinduism-oriented definition.

love, Heath

Dear DK,

Browsing through the text of the whole HQR project and especially focussing on the scientific words that need to be defined i came up with the following words, without definition yet:

Sub-nuclear physics
Phenomenon of spontaneity
Singularity
Quantum mechanics
Observer's Paradox or quantum measurement
Heisenberg's uncertainty
Non-locality
Parallel universe
Superluminous inflation
Dark energy
Dark matter
Paradox of time and evolution
phenomenology
logic
nature
Spacetime
Relativity
Newtonian physics
Relative permanence
Metaphorical
Quantum computing
Nanotechnology
Turing machine
Electron
Schrödinger equation

Will try to find proper explanations. Anyone who likes to help, very welcome :)

Dude or Rajesh, any of the two if you like to answer this question....Don't you think humans in the earlier centuries didn't really have an Atomic table therefore whatever they saw with naked eyes just classified what they saw in nature? Look also the difference between the chinese and indian five elements. Why the chinese coudn't see the sky or the Indians couldn't see the wood?

Also Rajesh, I'm innocent from my childhood and people have exploited my innocence and I became a victim, henceforth my name. Dude, don't be rude. I've read your posts and I think God has given you good brains, use it well.

Dear DK,

Have already found definitions for all scientific words from post #47:

Sub-nuclear physics : Elementary Particle Theory

Phenomenon of spontaneity: The individual act of will, happening or arising without apparent external cause

Singularity: a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
Quantum theory: a physical theory that certain properties occur only in discrete amounts (quanta)

Quantum mechanics: the branch of quantum physics that accounts for matter at the atomic level; an extension of statistical mechanics based on quantum theory.

Observer's Paradox or quantum measurement: refers to phenomena where the observation of an event or experiment is influenced by the presence of the observer/investigator.

Heisenberg's uncertainty: is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system.

Non-locality: a theory in which it is not possible to treat widely separated systems as independent.
Parallel universe: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics.

Super luminous inflation:

Dark energy: a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure.

Dark matter: not directly observed and of unknown composition, that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.

Paradox of time and evolution: The time evolution of quantum states for unstable particles.

phenomenology: a philosophy or method of inquiry, based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.

logic: the non-arithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.

nature: the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world.

Space-time: the 4-dimensional coordinate system (3 dimensions of space and 1 of time) in which physical events are located.

Relativity (Einstein’s theory): (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts
Relativity: a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another.

Newtonian physics: three physical laws which provide relationships between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body, first formulated by Sir Isaac Newton.

Relative permanence: dependent or interconnected permanence (of visible and invisible worlds).

Metaphorical: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison.

Quantum computing: makes direct use of distinctively quantum mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform operations on data
Superposition: The superposition principle is the addition of the amplitudes of waves from interference.

Nanotechnology: the science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules.

Turing machine: a hypothetical computing device capable of storing information and responding to computational questions, used in mathematical studies of computability.

Electron: A stable subatomic particle in the lepton family having a rest mass of 9.1066 × 10-28 grams and a unit negative electric charge of approximately 1.602 × 10-19 coulombs.

Schrödinger equation: describes the space- and time-dependence of quantum mechanical systems.

All of course are subject to improvement by the more scientifically orientated collegues :)

With love, Mieke

Correction: found definitions for all but one:
Super luminous inflation.

The formula of the electron should read: 10 to the degree of 28 grams (rest mass) and 10 to the degree of 19 coulombs (negative electric charge). This intentblog page does not have proper formatting.

Dear Mieke, et al, I was surfing for something, when on the search page, was this link, to pentagrams(5 letter words), and using the orion math;

perhaps you can search using sextagram, quadragram, etc.. I don't know them; but, do they go up to 12?

The reason I feel this could be beneficial to word-searchs, is it includes obsolete, slang, global/national words...and may shorten word-search for terminology of them?

with loving kindness,
North

Ooops here is the link, delinked: all words are in alphabetical order(how blissfully convenient!)

orion.math.iastate.edu/burkardt/wordplay/pentagram(dot)html

anyway, hope this helps in some way; to open a gate-way, to find terms, for hard to find definitions of old, ancient and obsolete and even has slang, words?

orion math homepage link, delinked

http://www.math.iastate(dot)edu/

Wonderfully interesting diagram and definition of pentagram here: link is delinked

http://www.prs.org/gallery-alch2(dot)htm

Dear DK

I found conflicting articles about the Hindu five elements on the web. The order of the elements and their significances differed from article to article. Even the Sanskrit equivalents differed sometimes, except for earth and air, which were consistent. I had to keep trying to tie things back to the Japanese understanding of the Hindu five elements.

I don't have the background to resolve the differences. I hope that amongst the readers of this thread is someone who has the knowledge and will to provide a good definition.

love, Heath

Dear DK and all,
On Reality and Unification in the context of HQR:
Let us compare reality as described in Relativity theory, reality as described in QM, and reality as explained in Adwaita, which is based on the experience of spiritual Masters.
In Adwaita, reality is what is observed and depends upon both the observer and the observer's state. The reality observed by one need not be the same as the reality observed by another. Also, for one and the same observer, reality observed in one state, say in a dream, need not be real in a different state, say when awake, and vice versa. Actually reality does not exist if it is not observed. The entire external world simply does not exist for the one who is asleep.

As regards Relativity, I am repeating from one of the previous HQR bogs (because it seems to be acceptable to all): In Relativity, a measuring instrument is the real observer; the human scientist simply records numbers displayed by the instrument that receives data from light signals. So, Relativity is good and pure in the sense that it does not mess with mind. Its conclusions (for example, that space and time are not absolute and that the space-time world-view depends upon who is observing it) are consistent with and part of the Truth experienced by spiritual Masters.

In QM, note that an observer is again, a measuring instrument. The Copenhagen interpretation is understood by physicists as conveying that (1)reality is identical with the totality of observed phenomena and that reality does not exist in the absence of observation, and (2) "there is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description" (as stated by Bohr). To me, these conclusions are consistent with what Adwaita says about reality.
On the other hand, the so called causal interpretations including Bohm's holomovement theory are realities as seen by the human mind and do not change the reality observed by the measuring instruments. So, I do not see QM as being inconsistent with Adwaita because of having different interpretations. Similarly, quantum entaglement is a reality observed by the instruments. Einstein has every right to call it spooky but that is reality in Einstein's mind showing that reality inferred by mind's logic need not be the same as the physical reality. So, I think according to Adwaita, an inconsistency in the logics of Relativity and QM should not make either of them a better or worse candidate in HQR.

Dear DK

I don't dispute the Indo-Greek five elements, or their usage for HQR.

In my comments #46 and #58, I tried to say that others could better define the five elements for the purpose of this project than I could.

My inability to come up with a sure definition was due to my confusion as a result of reading conflicting material on the web. But my being confused by that material doesn't cause me to reject the use of the five elements here. It only causes me to be unable to resolve the conflicts I read with any kind of confidence. Not because of disbelief, but because of ignorance.

love, Heath

Dear D.K., Heather and friends:

Somewhere along the line I missed the value of the order.

I think Lao Tze put water first because "..it goes
to the lowliest places and has no competition."

I didn't know Socrates was considered "The Great"
amongst Spiritual Masters. In a line of succession or what?

To consolidate without an over-simplification of the facts...
that is the question. Why only a one-page summary? ADD?

I know my place and will stay out of the 'definition' quest.

Mieke: Your hard work does not go completely unappreciated.
I thank you!

Oh, where has Rumi's initial intent gone off to?
He fits into this picture..how?
I shall have to post another translation or two.

Mean while, it's back to the kitchen...

Oh Keith, you're such a breath of fresh air! I'm almost truly ROFL! Cuttin' like an obsidian knife, sir, sharp, true, and almost painlessly!

Btw, one Sanskrit equivalent for fire is Agni. Where's Craig these days?

love, Heath

Heather, dear Heath, Sis...

Empyrius is writing a book and I wish him the best,

as I know you and others in our family do, also!

Who else do I wish we could get to hop on board(bored)?

Skeptisch, Ron, Dave Hall and Patzi, Geeta, Deepak (oh, my),

Desh, Donatella, Donna Young, Lars, Derek, Todd...

excuse my obvious omissions and errors, sayla vee.

Kate's out of town and knows we miss her, especially!

Like Marek, I may vote for 'Fire" to be Value No. 1!

Luvs, back-at-cha, Keith~

Dear Keith

Aye aye, cap'n! Yes I do wish him the best. Band o'siblings of spirit and fun, all in the same boat. Biggest hugs and love to Kate, I offended her a week ago or so. :( Bad mood. I should've consulted with Puck before I wrote.

love, Heath

Where was "I"...oh, yeah...wisely procrastinating...
what a concept!

Great Timing provided by our Lord from above, below,
in front and yes, behind...
center of attention and fabulous, amazing awareness
in and of itself, I now present to you what you already
know intuitively, but have thoughtlessly forgotten,
the devotional for March 4, 2007.

Rumi's "This World Which Is Made of Our Love for Emptiness"
(translated by Coleman Barks)

.

Praise to the emptiness that blanks out existence.
Existence: this place made from our love
for that emptiness!

Yet somehow comes emptiness,
this existence goes.
Praise to that happening over and over.

For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness.
Then one swoop, one swing of the arm,
that work is over.
Freed of who I was, free of presence, free
of dangerous fear, hope, free
of mountainous wanting.

The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece
of a piece of straw
blown into emptiness.

These words I am saying so much begin to lose meaning.
Existence, emptiness, mountain, straw.
Words and what they try to say,
swept out the window, down the slant of the roof.

Dear DK,
Is it possible to include the word ENERGY by itself?

Today our family were having a discussion around our dining table and the word ENERGY came up...lots of different explanations came out, nothing solid (perhaps metaphorical) or decisive.

What are some simple and understandable definations for ENERGY ?

and

If there is anyone who can offer an explanation (or location to find such information) for how Einstein arrived at E=mc2 ,
it would be very much appreciated.

Cinda

A new word in the glossary,
Wanted to be written down
Finding its meaning in an around
If it takes birth will be heard with its sound
Until then it lay spell bound
A single word that delouses all
the illusion of language and its sound
A word beyond the word
Which disowns the language to which
It is bound.
Take a journey profound
As it cannot be found in jungle of many sound
A word of spirit and soul
A word from Rumi or Sokal
A word that disapproves all the
paradox of this world and my world
to be a glossary by itself
it is just beneath the sheath
waiting for all, to get uncovered

Dear DK,
Re # 60. Here is an attempt to do what you suggested.
reality: What is observed by an observer (human or mechanical); reality does not exist if it is not observed. Reality depends upon both the observer and the observer's state. Hence the reality observed by one need not be the same as the reality observed by another.
Examples:- A lion in a forest is a reality to a person who went to the forest and observed it. It is not a reality to anyone else who did not go to the forest. If it looks like a dog to one who is just entering the forest and quite far from the lion then that person's reality is dog. Another example of dependency of reality on the state of the observer frequently quoted in Adwaita is: what is observed in a dream is very real while dreaming it but not real once the person wakes up. The entire external world simply does not exist for the one who is asleep.
Incidentally, the theory of Relativity is consistent with this definition of reality because in Relativity, the space-time measurements of the same world-event differ when measured by sticks and clocks in relative motion.
In spite of all the paradoxes within QM and its conflicts with Relativity, the philosophical foundations of QM are consistent with this definition of reality from Adwaita. This is seen from the Copenhagen interpretaion "reality is
identical with the totality of observed phenomena and that reality does not exist in the absence of observation", and the well known statement of Bohr "there is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description".

Reality: What exists. Same as absolute Truth. It is independent of who is observing it from where and when.

Unification (of science and spirituality): To identify what is common in the purposes of science and spiritualism and to enhance their present approaches by reconciling any apparent differences and inconsistencies and adopting the "better" aspects of the other approach so that both the scientist and spiritualist communities can benefit in achieving their own purpose.

Dear DK,
A punctuation correction to #69

Reality: What exists. Same as absolute Truth. It is independent of who is observing it, from where, and when.

Dear DK and all,

In a few days am going on a holiday for a couple of weeks, walking in the woods, being in nature, etc.

I will have no access to the internet there. Up till now it has been a pleasure working together with you all on this project.

I will not be able to update the glossary or other posts that will follow on the Wikipages. So i hope someone else will be able to do it.

Wish you all much success and all the best with the project. Am sure i will have to catch up with a lot to read when i am back.

With love, Mieke

Heloo Dk Matai, very good mate, scare us all with your space race weapons story on China and their Ballistic missiles and lasers and then treat us all to some chocolate ice-cream quantum physics mumbo jumbo, I hope all your followers get my point???? ??

Dear D.K.

Glad to know that you know I was not there
to vote on who our Heroes would be.

Einstein, Rumi, Bohm, Master Kirpal, Newton, Plato...

Superman, John Wayne, Buffalo Bill and Annie Oakley,
Mad Max, Hugh Hefner, George Burns, Jerry Lewis...

I understand the need for order, it helps us to grow.

"Cleanliness is not next to Godliness...it's above it!"

D.H. Lawrence and my Mother

So, now the important numerical order goes like this:

1. #1
2. #4
3. #5
4. #2
5. #7
6. #3
7. #12
8. #23(J.C.)

Fear need not be a motivating factor
if we have a seed, dirt, water, sunshine and good air.
Fire is born of the wood, not the other way around.

Mieke: Have a great vacation and may you find that place
where stillness reigns and peace abounds.
God bless you!

Have a great Monday, all you wonderful, loving sky people!

Mieke, have a wonderful time!!

Meike, Have a great time!

Keith, reading your poem on wood; this one niggled at me constantly, until I came back online to post it(geez)as oft, our will, is of a more divine manifest, not ours to understand; but our choice to act upon or not? So here it is:

"Life is neither the candle,
nor the wick;
it is, the burning."

A quote, I embroidered on cloth, about 25+ years ago; mounted on wood; now yellowed with time and age; looking roughly, upon first glance--however, the message, still beautiful; remains the same!!

Is this our spirit or our soul which remains the same--as the message remains the same; regardless of time, and changes upon it?

Which, evolves exactly, and which remains the same--the candle, the wick, or the flame?

Dear DK, will you please add one more word "TRSHANKU" to the glossary and also provide a detailed explanation for the benefit of out Intent blog readers.
with METTA.
indrakaran.

Dear DK,
Below is a definition of non-locality I found on the web by Alex Petrson, a quantum physicist.
Non-Locality: A phenomenon where occurrences on one side of the Universe can instantly effect 'matter' on the other side of the Universe. Non-locality has profound implications for the prevailing world view of reality in that it clearly demonstrates the inter-connectedness between all matter in the Physical Universe and the illusory nature of Space and Time, something that those who have had some sort of deep spiritual experience are already well aware of.

Re #80. Sorry, Alex Paterson may not be a quantum physicist but the definition sounds good to me.

Dear DK & Friends:

The following article may be informative to all working on this project; provides an inside perspective from an expert on QM and Strings theory:

http://www.reason.com
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118524.html

No Small Matter
Is theoretical physics stuck? And should you worry?

Kenneth Silber | March 2007 Print Edition

The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, by Lee Smolin, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 392 pages, $26

Lee Smolin became a physicist in the 1970s amid heady expectations that the field was on the verge of breakthrough insights into how the universe works. Theoreticians had proposed, and experimenters were verifying, the standard model of particle physics, a detailed but incomplete picture of matter and its interactions. The next step, it seemed, would be a "theory of everything," a full accounting of nature's most fundamental laws.

Three decades later, he has written a fascinating and sobering lack-of-progress report. Smolin works at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, a think tank in Ontario; his book The Trouble With Physics combines a pungent critique of the regnant views in theoretical physics with a broader meditation on how science works, or fails to work. Its prime target is string theory, the dominant avenue of research for theoretical physicists since the mid-1980s. He argues that string theory has turned out to be a "theory of anything," an ill-defined framework that lacks explanatory and predictive power, relies on excessive conjecture, and crowds out more promising lines of inquiry.

Much more is at stake here than which faction in physics departments will have the highest success rate in achieving tenure. Physics, as Smolin points out, made steady and definitive progress in understanding nature from the 1780s until the 1980s. The field thereby demonstrated science's efficacy and helped set high intellectual standards and a confident tone for science overall. Moreover, the quest for fundamental laws of nature overlaps with longstanding philosophical and religious concerns. String theory, for instance, has become entangled in the politically charged controversy over whether the natural world bears signs of intelligent design. If theoretical physics is slowing down, or on the wrong track, scientific and intellectual life more broadly may be damaged.

And then there are the technological implications. The early 20th century's theoretical breakthroughs-relativity and quantum mechanics-paved the way for lasers, transistors, nuclear weapons, and magnetic resonance imaging machines, among other things. More recently, cutting-edge physics theories have had far fewer technological consequences. This could mean, as some scientists suggest, that physics has probed to realms so removed from the human scale as to have no practical application. But it also could mean the theories are wrong, or that the relevant technologies have not been imagined yet. Nobody in the 19th century realized that James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetism equations eventually would produce television.

Smolin identifies five key problems at the frontier of physics. One is the problem of quantum gravity-of how you combine quantum mechanics (which focuses on small-scale phenomena and nongravitational forces) and general relativity (which deals with large-scale objects and gravitational forces) into a coherent picture of nature. Another is figuring out how to make sense of quantum mechanics, with its counterintuitive phenomena such as particles that behave like waves. A third problem is determining whether nature's various particles and forces are all manifestations of a single entity (much as Maxwell showed electricity and magnetism to be types of the same force).

A fourth puzzle is why various numbers in the standard model of particle physics-constants such as the masses of particles and the strengths of forces-are what they are. The standard model has many such parameters that are derived from experiment but not logically required by the theory itself. Finally, there is the problem of dark matter and dark energy. This arises from surprising observations made by astronomers: Stars move in ways that suggest there is far more matter in galaxies than we can see, while measurements of supernovas and cosmic radiation show that the universe's expansion is accelerating as if driven by some mysterious energy.

String theory proposes some answers to these questions. The theory holds that nature's particles and forces are indeed manifestations of one underlying thing: "strings," which are infinitesimal strands of vibrating energy. A string vibrating one way is one type of particle; a string vibrating another way is a different particle. The theory offers what may turn out to be a solution to the problem of quantum gravity: The gravitational force, in this scenario, is one more manifestation of vibrating strings. String theorists celebrate as one of their theory's virtues that gravity arises readily from its mathematics, rather than being put in "by hand." That said, what they have is not a full answer to the quantum gravity question but more of an intriguing sketch of what the answer could be.

As for the other problems on Smolin's list, string theory's power is similarly limited. It generally has not addressed how to interpret wave-particle duality and other perplexities of quantum mechanics. The theory leaves room for various particles and forces that could account for dark matter and dark energy, but it gives little guidance on how to narrow down the many possibilities. Nor has it provided a principle that would explain why our universe's constants are what they are. In other words, it seems to apply to numerous possible universes, not just our own.

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

Love

Avtar

Hello North,

I, too, thought about what spilled out this morning.
It looks like I set myself up to play the jerk.
But hey! No free-will...not my fault. We are
then puppets, are we not? The Book of A Thousand Pages
has already been written and we are on the same page.
I can't say I know which one or how the story ends,
although some wise men do, and they're not telling.

We have to buy into the whole ball of wax, my dear.
Life, the short wick, the spark and the flame,
all contained inside. There is nothing outside
the ball or the box, see it how you will.

If this ball of wax were a pill, it still would not be
any easier to swallow. And if I did manage to get
it down my throat, I would still have to stomach it.
I can't say it's a bitter pill, though.

If I am good for anything here...
If my plan before possessing another body
was to come down to Earth to do this project
(amongst 'other' things, of course)...see?

If I have no will of my own right now,
why should I think I had a choice about which
life I would live next or what it would be like?

What Dharma? What Karma? If I'm gonna get what's coming to me, all I have to do is remember there
is no particular 'me'.

Act in accordance with Divine Law?
How can I not? I have no choice, no freedom.
I am not the doer doing something.
I am nothing doing nothing at all.

Is the sky doing something or is it just being there?

Dear DK,
Thank you for the response to my question on Energy.

I do have another important request.
It would make absolute true sense when referring to God in any of the definitions as God, omitting any gender,
ie.

"Puja: Agamic rite of worship performed to the murthi (home or temple image) to invoke the Deity and establish a psychic connection with Him/Her in the inner worlds. During puja, the officiant (pujari) recites various chants praising the God and beseeching blessings, while making numerous offerings in accordance with established traditions. These include water, sandalpaste, holy ash, flowers, unbroken rice, incense, light (the flame of oil, ghee or camphor lamps) and special food preparations. On special days additional offerings are made, and as part of the puja, abhishekam or ritual bathing of the Deity is often performed as well. The items blessed during the ceremony, known as prasadam or sacraments, are distributed to the attendant devotees after the rite. Puja is also performed to one's guru."

I was not able, timewise, to go through all of the terms and meanings, however, this example I hope will be sufficient in making the point needed.

Namaste,
Cinda

Dear DK, on which address to send the article to ATCA?

My article is on Intelligent Design and Evolution titled: "An idea of Intelligent Design and how it is linked to Darwinian evolution to explain all change."

Thanks, Harb

Cinda:

I'm not sure that ritual, worship or ceremonies from one
particular religion is the way we wish to proceed.

If it was my decision, I'd knock out all the references
pertaining to Hindu deities or gods, unless the names
of other religious organizations are also used.

Holistic includes everybody and everything exactly
as they stand today. We can't wish it were any different.

We are searching for the Truth. Is it in Advaita?
It sounds like it is all there. Thousands of years
in the making, well thought out through and through, it seems to cover all the bases.

This information has been coming to the West for
well over 200 years and now we have the math and science
to prove it to be correct...we do have it, don't we?

For the most part, Christian values dominate in the U.S.
and they are widely known throughout the world.
This is where the necessary evil of politics comes in to play.
The background of this group and where we're coming from
cannot be hidden under the rug, now that it is public knowledge.

As soon as we are associated with Deepak, like we are now,
we will be written off as 'New Age' wannabe scientist.
While their is a large following towards this type of reasoning,
currently, the percentages are not in our favor.

We may never see the fruits of this endeavor in our lifetimes.
I, for one, am fully aware of that...but I'm going on 50.
The younger generations have to pick up the ball
we drop and run with it for all it's worth.
We can only hope it's a ball that they can be excited about playing with.

We'll have to catch their interest and attention,
and convey the fact that this IS in their best interest,
and they would do well to attend to it.

What 'My Generation" did not accomplish in the 60's and 70's,
was to see the work through to the finish.
As soon as the war was over we let up
and went from hippies to yuppies.

What can we learn from that episode?
What makes us think this can be accomplished?
A hunch, intuition, far-sighted vision, prophecy?

I still have a lot of non-technical questions.
That's all part of the fun, Cinda.

Nice to finally meet and talk with you! Keith~

Dear D.K.

'Sacred' is another word carrying a lot of weight.

Should it be included? Objects are created, sacred

is already inside, or do we cause them to become so?

Dear DK
Re #85. The terms in my computer article are all already in the glossary. I did not use any new terms. However, I used the word Consciousness to mean supra-consciousness in the glossary, which I think many of us also have been doing and often.

Dear D.K.

We need not underestimate the intelligence of our audience.
Being an 'English only' student, I was coming from a
'plain English' perspective. It seems to be the language of practical choice.
I will put in my two cents now just to give you an idea
of what I mean by that. Please, no offense need be taken.

.

Anava: Ego pretty much covers it
Aranayaka: delete
Atma/Soul: or visa versa
Asana: Yoga postures for physical well-being are widely accepted.
We need not get into those any further at this point.
Ashram/Temple/Church:
Ashram Dharma: maybe Stages of Maturity instead?
Ashrama: delete
Astral Plane: add 'dream world' and 'imagination' ?
Aum: ?
Bhagavad Gita: delete or add other religious writings
All terms beginning with B-r-a-h-m: delete
Buddhism: not necessary
Dana, Daya, Deva, Devaloka, Dhriti: delete
Divine Mother/Mother Nature:
Ganesha: your kidding me, right?

Done in love while smiling,
glad to serve All
for no real reason, Keith~

Dear DK,
You probably guessed that I am with Keith. Here are the candidates for removal that I collected:
Daya:
Deity
Deva.
Devaloka
Devotee
Dharma
Dhriti.
Divine Mother
Dana
Grihastha
Gunas
Hatha yoga
Hinduism
Holy Kural
Ida
Isvarapranidhana
Isvarapujana
Isvarapujana
Japa
Kadavul
Kal Niranjan
Kali Yuga
Kshama
Loka
Mati
Mahadeva
Manikkavasagar
Mantra
Marga
Monastic
Muladhara chakra
Muruga
Nadi
Nakshatra
Namasivaya
Pancha nitya karmas
Panchakshara Mantram
Paramatman
Parasivam
Patanjali
Pingala
Prana
Pranayama
Puja
Raj yoga
Rajasic
Rig Veda
Rishi
Pranic
Priest
Sadhana
Sadhana marga
Sakti
Samhita
Sampradaya
Samskara:
Sankara
Sanskrit
Santosha
Sat Guru
Sat
sattvic
Satya
Saucha
Siddhantasravana
Shishiya
Sivaloka
Sthree dharma
Svadhyaya
Swami
Tamasic
Tapaha
Tapas
Temple
Three pillars of Saivism
Tirthayatrai
Tirukural
Tirumantiram
Tirumular
Tirumurai
Tiruvacagam and Tirukovaiyar
Upasana
Utsava

Dear DK and Keith

I'm comfortable with the glossary as-is, though it might be helpful to readers if terms were categorized as originating from science, eastern religion, western religion, philosophy, etc.

I'm all for expanding the glossary and making it very comprehensive. DK, your requests to have people define words from their papers is serving to make this glossary very worthwhile.

The names of aspects of Hinduism, Christianity, and so on are as valid as words from physics. Hindu, Christian and other apparently religious entities are a mystery to many, yet they represent very real forces, some of which may be directly involved in the unity of the universe.

(Ganesha in particular needs to stay. :) Ask me why, Keith, and I'll tell you some stories over on OT.)

imho, with love, Heath

Dear Heath,
Please suggest some words from Christianity that you would like to add to the glossary.
I would aso like the glossary to have words in the Sankrit, English or any other language, which express a spiritual concept rather than a religious one.

Dear DK and Keith

The project started with Rumi. It became HQR. A single thread runs throughout. A sacred thread of a kind.

The ancient masters had sets of symbolic terms (a), (b), (c), and so on, to refer to the universe and its aspects. Physics has a set of symbolic terms (w), some of which can be verified empirically, and others not. Philosophy has a set of symbolic terms (r), some of which can be logically validated and some not. Many of sets of symbolic terms (a), (b), (c), and so on, can be validated intuitively or phenomologically. That does not automatically devalue sets of symbolic terms (a), (b), (c), and so on. The persistence of the ancient terms over time is a survival of the fittest notions that express the cosmological psyche of a culture. Within one or another ancient set of terms may be found the key to unity. I'm just making this stuff up as I go. Hope it's not too confusing. I'm trying to say: because it's old doesn't invalidate it. For example, Mediterrean peoples have been drinking red wine for thousands of years, and living healthy lives as a result, and science has now empirically confirmed this 3K-years old (or more) intuitive finding.

imho, again.

Dear syamala

Will do, much later tonight, my time.

love, Heath

Dear DK

Re #98, yes, will do, much later tonight, my time.

love, Heath

Dear Heath,
All the words I listed in #95 are from Hinduism. Just pointing that so you can put them in that category in your classification.

Dear syamala

Ji haan. :)

Dear DK

Nice!

love, Heath

So we're going 'whole hog', as we say in the country.

Or, as Heath prefers, the 'whole elephant'
all dressed up to show our sense of humor.

Yes, even and all the seemingly disgusting parts
from trunk to tail. Waste not, want not. I see.

If it's here it has function, purpose, and a meaning behind
it.

The young people of today have been termed as
"The 'Whatever' Generation". As in, "Why should I care?"

"Short, sweet and to the point" is as effective sometimes as
"Long, drawn-out and wide-ranging" is.

If a one page summary is at all possible,
only those terms contained within need to be addressed for starters.

I'm still back at 'gathering in the sheep', so to speak.
Except, we got no dog to corral them with this time.

Just tell me where you want the tent set up
when the time comes to bring the revival to town.

This time the revolution is about Love,
and it might take some mouth-to-mouth recess-atation
to revive the sheeps...whatever
it takes, we gotta give it!

Really! Whatever...Love, Brother Keith~

Dear DK,
This is what we have currently in the glossary:
Maya: Same as Four Forces of Energy (Shakti) including Matter. Considered an Illusion when understood in the context of the Unified Force.

To me, this definition is very confusing. I think the four forces are from Physics. I know some metaphors are mixed here; even then, "forces of Energy" and "forces of Energy including Matter" make no sense in Physics and therefore convey nothing similar in the field of spirituality. Maya means illusion. The world is illusion because it is really made up of one and only one substance, the Consciousness, but appears as so many. Maya includes matter and mind and probably, the ego and the soul (if soul and ego are different) because they are the bases of individuality, in other words duality.

How about the following definition:
Maya: Illusion. The universe is an illusion because it is really made up of the one and only Consciousness, but appears as so many. Mind, matter, the four forces are all part of Maya.

About other definitions:
1) We now have this (which is good)
Satchidananda: "Truth, consciousness, bliss." Lord Siva's Divine Mind and simultaneously the superconscious mind of each individual soul. It is perfect love and omniscient, omnipotent consciousness, the fountainhead of all existence, yet containing and permeating all existence.

Please change 'c' to 'C' in consciousness in the first sentence of the above definition because the meaning of consciousness here is not what we have in the current definition.
2) Please also change the definition of Consciousness (has big C because beginning of sentence) that is there now to definition of conciousness with little 'c' in the front.

3)I see we have not defined supra-consciousness yet although we used it in other definitions. Hence please consider the following.

supra-consciousness: same as Consciousness: same as Satchidananda:

Dear DK and Heath,
I still think that too big a glossary comprehensive though it may be, is too distracting when a major portion of its vocabulary is not even used in our HQR materials. It makes it difficult to look for a word when it is necessary to find its meaning while reading. How about partitioning the glossary into sections, a Main glossary containing HQR vocabulary, and then glossary of Hinduism, glossary of Christianity, glossary of Sikkism, glossary of Islam, etc. so that we do not lose the valuable collection that we have now and can add more to each section as we get more.

Dear syamala

That is a brillant suggestion imho.

love, Heath

Dear DK,
We have the following currently in the glossary. I do not think this description will be acceptable to any physicist.
"Evolutionary Leap: A phenomenon caused by soul or spirit when it acts as evolutionary force and makes any system make a quatum jump to its next energy orbit or interaction centre. Thus it makes an electron of an atom to jump to its next energy orbit (in which case it is also called free energy of an atom or energy entrapped in an atom); and it makes Kundalini Shakti or Energy in humans to jump to the centre of next basic energy interaction or Chakra. See Entanglement."

First of all, I think soul and spirit are supposed to be different according to the latest definitions. In the above definition, are they synonymous? Or, do both spirit and soul cause an evoloutionary leap?
Does a soul or a spirit have to be involved whenever an electron of an atom jumps to its next energy orbit? Whose soul or whose spirit is it that causes the electron to make the quantum jump?
Do we care whether any physicist accepts such a statement?

My humble request to include cute looking very well known God of this universe The Lord Ganesha.
atleast as a symbolic representation to knowledge and brains we can include Lord Ganesha ,as without him nothing can be acheived
In japan ganesha is known as ----KOFO
COMBODIA-----PRIKNEEZ
MONGOLIA-----VOAN SWASON
VIATNAM-----KOCHANESHWAR

My humble request to include cute looking very well known God of this universe The Lord Ganesha.
atleast as a symbolic representation to knowledge and brains we can include Lord Ganesha ,as without him nothing can be acheived
In japan ganesha is known as ----KOFO
COMBODIA-----PRIKNEEZ
MONGOLIA-----VOAN SWASON
VIATNAM-----KOCHANESHWAR

Syamala #105. I fully agree.

An other explanation of maya as well as reality or of illusion as well as reality could be: The universal phenomenon comprises forms and the substance of which those forms are made. Seen it as forms it is maya or illusion, seen as substance it is real, is reality. For example gold seen as gold is real seen as ring or bracelet is unreal because it is temporary and will change with time. Of course neither gold nor substance ever is without form. Hence there is never an illusory world alone and never a real world alone. They are always both and it is we who are now grossed in one, now in an other. The Highest state or wisdom is when one sees both at the same time and thus rises above this dichotomy - of allusion and reality. As Adi Shankra is supposed to have said, "The world is both illusory and real. Seen as forms it is illusory, seen as God it is real." This is also depicted as the third stage in a famous Zen saying : ""Before studying Zen mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; when you study Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; when you have completed the study of Zen, mountains are once again mountains and rivers once again rivers." God, substance are also called Consciousness by some. The world of mind, matter and four basic interactions belongs to maya or forms. The world known through direct experience belongs to reality.

Note: if something is found worthwhile in the above definition/explantion I hope somebody will include it in th glossary, otherwise take as only an explanation not meant for glossary.

Syamala, #108. Soul and spirit are essentially synonymous. Actually so are Consciousness, Substance, Kundlini Shakti, Superforce, One, God etc. Spirit is just a generic term, which when attaches to an individuality becomes soul. Spirit and soul are also local part of the Superforce of the big bang and so also act as forces. They cause evolutionary leap or surge when they thus act as a force. It is clearly written in the definition of evolutionary leap: "Evolutionary Leap: A phenomenon caused by soul or spirit when it acts as evolutionary force."

Soul of the atom = soul attached to the atom = soul or energy entrapped in an atom are all the same. Soul or spirit bound to an atom in this way will surely look awkward to a scientific thinker but he should look a bit deeper to know what we mean from soul and then try to understand it. They may even understand it as local-symmetry breaking force. After all our goal - of uniting science and spirituality - is to show that at present level of understanding of matter/things science and spirituality are saying the same things only in different words, for, only then we will be able to unite them. Of course, physicists will not readily accept any of the above anyway.

Harb

Shyamala - I think it will be better if we classify ontologically ie according to the nature. It will then help us to see how similar or different the interpretation of various concepts among different tranditions.