Dear D.K. and friends,

Have we found even one concept as defined here
that we completely agree with? Which one? What makes you think that?

If we all belong to the 'board' and each of us gets a vote...
there will come a time when we have to sign our real names
on the dotted line saying, in effect, that we agree with all
the terms provided for the concepts put forth.

Speaking for myself, imho, we are far, far from there.
So kick me out of my chair if I'm the only one who feels that way.

I do not wish to distract anyone from the goals set forth.
I do not wish to fly off on a tangent or lead anybody astray.

Multi-tasking has its drawbacks.

The Masters of the Spiritual Life teach the skills
of attention, concentration and one-pointedness.

I think if we would have stayed 'on task' that
we might have had agreement on at least two words by now.
And we have now over 450?

One person devoted to this project full-time may be what is needed here.
I don't think that luxury is currently available.

Having said that...does the ghost of Rumi get a vote?

"The Lame Goat"

Rumi, translated by Coleman Barks

.

You have seen a herd of goats
going down to the water.

The lame and dreamy goat
brings up the rear.

There are worried faces about that one,
but now they're laughing,

because look, as they return,
that one is leading.

There are many different ways of knowing.
The lame goat's kind is a branch
that traces back to the roots of presence.

Learn from the lame goat,
and lead the herd home.

Well...I see the floor is open and the fountain flowing.

Now that your attention is focused on the rear,

I say we start with the easiest word, one everybody knows.

.

"The YOU Pronoun"

Rumi, (ditto)

.

Someone asked once, What is love?

Be lost in me, I said. You will know love when that happens.

Love has no calculating in it. That is why it is said to be a
quality of God and not of human beings. "God loves you" is
the only possible sentence. The subject becomes the object so
totally that it can't be turned around. Who will the 'you'
pronoun stand for if you say, "You love God" ?

"Sufi Masters"

Rumi

.

Sufi Masters are those
whose spirits existed before the world.
Before the body, they lived many lifetimes.
Before seeds went into the ground, they harvested wheat.
Before there was an ocean, they strung pearls.
While the great meeting was going on about bringing
human beings into existence, they stood up to their chins
in wisdom water. When some of the angels opposed creation,
the Sufi sheikhs laughed and clapped among themselves.

Before materiality, they knew what it was like
to be trapped inside matter. Before there was a night sky,
they saw Saturn. Before wheat grains, they tasted bread.
With no mind, they thought. Immediate intuition to them
is the simplest act of consciousness, what to others
would be epiphany. Much of our thought is of the past,
or the future. They are free of those.

Before a mine is dug, they judge coins.
Before vineyards, they know the excitements to come.
In July, they feel December. In broken sunlight,
they find shade. In fana, the state where all objects
dissolve, they recognize objects.

continued:

The open sky drinks from their circling cup.
The sun wears the gold of their generosity.
When two of them meet, they are no longer two.
They are one, and six hundred thousand.
The ocean waves are their closest likeness
when wind makes from unity the numerous.

This happened to the sun, and it broke into rays.
The disc of the sun does exist, but if you see
only the ray-bodies, you may have doubts.
The human-divine combination is a oneness.
Plurality, the apparent separation into rays.

Friends, we are traveling together.
Throw off your tiredness. Let me show you
one tiny spot of the beauty that cannot be spoken.
I am like an ant that has gotten into the granary,
ludicrously happy, and trying to lug out
a grain that is way too big.

Dear Keith

Thank you for sharing.

love, Heath

My God, I'm too tired of scrolling this thread!!! God please save us.

Thanga, other than thanga do you also do some dhanga?:-) yes your rt, Rajesh was one the typical audience of ib. But, like most others, I loved him to the core. He was the funniest of all. I'm praying god for his recovery and god will send him again. He maybe on a holiday.

A kep point about spirituality and science, as said earlier too, the former is more of occult. Science works on hardcore evidence, anything short, it will throw it into trashbins. Fair enough. I myself come from that background. In most of the occult subjects, we simply cannot present hardcore evidence like that in science to prove it beyond any doubt. Sometimes, it is just empirical and lot of it goes by intuition. But I agree with you critics that if anyone wants to merge science with spirituality, then the onus is on them to prove as they do in science or just best to accept how different is the domain of spirituality, where mostly it is an inside affair and cannot be handed over to others like chocolates or biscuits or proved concretly like in science.

God bless.

Innocentvictim,

I hope Rajesh comes back too. I agree with your views on science and spirituality. If there is a possibility for new discoveries it is in Science, not in the presentation of same old spirituality and philosophy.

Who's denying the Beauty of Science here thanga?? We love science. Science is in its infancy, if we see the potential, and what it can offer. Basically endless! There are some key points thanga. It is really like the rungs of the ladder. You will see how the view changes based on which rungs one is on. The world sucks in religion mostly, we at ib almost unanimously agree on that. I doubt if there are any here who disagree with that. Most of the wars are fought in the name of allah/jesus, my true god ur fake god and all that stuff. Deepak strongly condemns all that, so would all here am sure of that.

Human minds have not evolved enough in this world to understand reason and rationality. Most of them lag behind, hence they adopt what is easy for them-the faith. I think people like you should be sent like the christian missionaries to all fundy regions, especially the muslim countries. Wow! I can imagine thanga, alex and his colleagues battling it out with those muslims! LOL! That would be so much fun. But, I think they will win! LOL! you will have to come empty hands, as they would surely take out their swords at you, if you say anything about allah. Sorry for my humor. It is sad though, I confess. Whether it is the reason&rationality or just the heart/compassion, humans collectively suck! They have a long way to go.

Maybe people like Rajesh and thanga&co can move the wagon a little bit both in heart and mind respectively. Hope! Most live with hope.

Sorry, I meant the other thread, the earlier version. Once the thread gets about80-100 posts, it becomes tedious to scroll down. The glossary itself is like 50 posts.

Thanga: How about an addition of new glossary,
thanga ranga nanga dhanga ganga panga. Yeah pangaraj also sounds good:-) no pangas with him. Drinking orange juice to tackle the ever brainy ever fresh lovely heather? :-) just for laughs ok, plz take it ez! thx. Lots of love!

Where is the hard-core, measurable evidence that 'hope' exists?

Not all people of faith have adopted their religions voluntarily or by choice.

Faith in the human brain and it's knowledge is faith, nonetheless.

Faith in the sword...same. Faith in peace...same.

My faith assures me that you will stay on the right side
of the road when you go flying past me. See ya!

Innocentvictim,

Man, you are hilarious. You are the king of dhenga. I can only learn from you to charm others as I seem to suck oranges at that.

Dear Keith, IV and thangaraj

Lambent play over here, thanks for the laughs and brilliance. All my best to you all.

love, Heath

Faith is not in the glossary for a good reason, I assume.

ok thanga, me dengaraj and u thangaraj. What a combo!but beware let us not become nangaraj. We will get onto a serious discussion. I shall look at the panchang and select an auspicious day and time for you thanga. Science is very powerful in its domain thanga, especially when you have hard evidence you can take a bat and bash anyone really, that's the power if offers, but on the other end it does suffer from mighty limitations in solving 101 mysteries of mankind. For me, at the ultimate level without an iota of doubt they are one. The last statement is that of faith deep inside, just like Deepak too says the same. We cannot provide concrete clear evidence in the plane in which we exist.

Lots of Humbleness,
Lots of Love,
Lots of Forgiveness,
I.V.:-)

For the same reason imagination is not.

Dear Dr. Avtar and DK

Vedanta suggests that the universe undergoes an infinite number of deaths and rebirths. As in modern physics, Hindu cosmology envisaged the universe as having a cyclical nature. The end of each kalpa brought about by Shiva's dance is also the beginning of the next. Rebirth follows destruction.

Hinduism, according to Carl Sagan, in his book, Cosmos wrote:

"... is the only religion in which the time scales correspond... to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of the Brahma, 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang"

Long before Aryabhata (6th century) came up with this awesome achievement, apparently there was a mythological angle to this as well -- it becomes clear when one looks at the following translation of Bhagavad Gita (part VIII, lines 16 and 17),

"All the planets of the universe, from the most evolved to the most base, are places of suffering, where birth and death takes place. But for the soul that reaches my Kingdom, O son of Kunti, there is no more reincarnation. One day of Brahma is worth a thousand of the ages [yuga] known to humankind; as is each night."

Thus each kalpa is worth one day in the life of Brahma, the God of creation. In other words, the four ages of the mahayuga must be repeated a thousand times to make a "day ot Brahma", a unit of time that is the equivalent of 4.32 billion human years, doubling which one gets 8.64 billion years for a Brahma day and night. This was later theorized (possibly independently) by Aryabhata in the 6th century. The cyclic nature of this analysis suggests a universe that is expanding to be followed by contraction... a cosmos without end. This, according to modern physicists is not an impossibility.

(source: Astronomy and Mathematics in Ancient India)http://www.hvk.org/articles/0802/214.html

Dr. Sagan in his book Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science, remarks:

"Immanuel Velikovsky (the author of Earth in Upheaval) in his book Worlds in Collision, notes that the idea of four ancient ages terminated by catastrophe is common to Indian as well as to Western sacred writing.

However, in the Bhagavad Gita and in the Vedas, widely divergent numbers of such ages, including an infinity of them, are given; but, more interesting, the duration of the ages between major catastrophes is specified as billions of years. .. "

The Hindu holy book, the Rig Veda (X:129), has a much more realistic view of the matter:

“Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it?
Whence was it born, whence came creation?
The gods are later than this world’s formation;
Who then can know the origins of the world?
None knows whence creation arose;
And whether he has or has not made it;
He who surveys it from the lofty skies,
Only he knows- or perhaps he knows not."

(source: Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science - By Carl Sagan p. 106 - 137).

Since Carl Sagan wrote about the possibility of a cyclical universe as suggested by Vedanta, modern physics has found new insights. This comes with the the better understanding of Dark energy (or the cosmological constant as Einstein called it or vacuum energy as Dr. Avtar calls it).

The modern calculations show that the value of cosmological constant doesn't allow the universe to fall back into a big crunch - the universe will forever expand into an icy death. This thought of the universe expanding forever is a very discomforting one for philosophers but that doesn't make it any less false. Scientists are beginning to comprehend this and there is a huge scientific consensus towards this possibility in the recent years.

I strongly suggest that people take into account the elusive vaccum energy as Dr. Avtar suggests before starting to formulate theories with out taking into account the cutting edge discoveries in modern physcis. The ignorance of the insights of modern science is impalpable and shows when people want to stick to the rigid idea of a cyclical universe.

anbu
love is shiva

(Repost from Glossary 3)

Dear DK,
The changes proposed below are from version #2 and have the vote of Harb while nobody else objected. I think you did not see them because you were out for a few days and got to version #3 right away.
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. Maya also stands for mystery. There are some fundamental questions such as why is this universe created, and why is there the ignorance that prevents one from seeing that the universe is the same as Consciousness, have no answers; it is all a mystery and attributed to 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

#17 anbu

"...people want to stick to the rigid idea of a cyclical universe."

It is those who are ignorant of modern physics who do that - who still believe that big bang has to follow with a big crunch.

I hope Intent Bloggers notice the absurdity in sticking to the concept of a cyclic universe which is beautiful to contemplate but that which is not supported by recent discoveries and new insights into Dark energy and Dark Matter.

Dear D.K.

Thank you for for adding 'faith' to the mix!

I have suggested other terms and have defined a couple of others.

It was all for null and no offense is taken so no need to apologize.

I realize I am part of the so-called audience,

most of whom see no need to speak or vote for anything.

Silence means approval? Guess so...

Apparently, the lame goat wishes to say to me,

Baaaaaad, baaad boy!" Point taken, from the horn...ouch!

If someone needs a ride to Passover the bridge to Paradise,

remember there's an ass next-to-last in the line,

and his back is willing to carry whatever load the Lord wishes.

.

Avtar,

Will you please offer your rebuttal in a similar manner?

Someone said that science needs unification in it's own field.

You are right to leave out the fluff and were you to choose

to go about your own business in your own way

I couldn't blame you. We may tie you up and slow you down.

Religions also need some work as far as coming together

for common values and goals in a joint effort.

These two are currently at odds within themselves

and with each other. We may only be able to close the gap.

I want to see bridges built by both but am hardly

qualified to do more than carry the wood and the word.

Peace to all, Keith!

Syamala: Sat has two acceptable meanings. Truth and Existence.

Dude: This is what I meant by people still suck. They can't update themselves to the current science. If you've really well backed up science, it is the best sword to cut thru' the cobwebs of confused oldfashioned minds. Good luck!

Anbu: Thx for the good post. Carl sagan was a stalwart in his field. Good to know, he found connections with the Vedas.

God bless!

Seems that these definitions have become disjointed [Reality] has been shortened but I think part of the definition slipped down below UDGIT and the additional stuff on reality ends with an incomplete thought. As for the example given in “reality” {external world simply does not exist for the one who is asleep} this is sometimes true but not always. My own personal experience is sometimes I am Lucid and aware of my waking reality at the same time I am experiencing my dream reality. I can also be aware of my dream realities while in my waking reality.
--Before--
reality: Changing, shared experience, that is agreed upon by observers, often considered to be Maya / Illusion when contrasted with Reality. Can be thought of as the “The Paint”. Can also mean that which is fabricated by man with labels.
Reality: Unchanging, eternal foundation for all of creation. Can be thought of as the “The Canvas”. Can also mean that which is born of nature undivided and experienced without thought or mind. Some might describe to be the void/nothing and it’s contrast, total awareness/being.
--Now--
Reality: What exists. Same as absolute Truth. It is independent of who is observing it, from where, and when.
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. Changing, shared experience, that is agreed upon by observers, often considered to be Maya / Illusion when contrasted with Reality. Can be thought of as the “The Paint”. Can also mean that which is fabricated by man with labels. eg, 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. 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 Quantum Mechanics 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 interpretation "reality is
UDGIT or UDOGEE - The other-worldly Music coming from the realms beyond the mind and the senses.
Unchanging, eternal foundation for all of creation. Can be thought of as the “The Canvas”. Can also mean that which is born of nature undivided and experienced without thought or mind. Some might describe to be the void/nothing and it’s contrast, total awareness/being.

Dear Innocentvictim/Thangaraj/Keith/ Skeptisch/Heath/Syamala:

Continuing my thoughts on using a holistic science to understand spirituality in its true color and what the spiritual masters are actually saying, below is an article I prepared earlier...FYI:

An Approach to Bridging Science & Spirituality

Avtar Singh, Sc. D.
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

The ongoing debate between science and religion or spirituality over the past few centuries has been led by the basic differences in the methods of science and religion to perceive reality. Science has searched for the ultimate reality by fragmenting the observed reality into pieces or tiny particles of matter. Religion, on the other hand, has ignored scientific observations and relied on faith to propagate the concept of a creator – the God. Science has ignored the inherent spontaneity/consciousness in nature, while religion has ignored the actual observations of the universe.

What is often ignored, however, is the fact that the differences or conflicts between science and religion are nothing but the brainchildren of the inherent deficiencies and inconsistencies within their individual domains. Science fragments reality into pieces, and is unable to put it back together because it looses the glue that seamlessly unites the pieces. Religion covers the reality under the rug of faith, wherein the doubts remain hidden and unresolved. Experiment is the religion of science and faith is the science of religion. Neither the experiment nor the faith is complete in providing the wholesome realization of the universal truth. Each experiment is a blind man’s touch of the elephant of reality and each faith is a tainted image of the truth in its own colored mirror. Unless both the experiment and faith transcend into the direct experience or realization (spirituality) of the truth, the incompleteness, inconsistency, and the ensuing conflict between science and religion will remain.

Modern science, especially cosmology, is paralyzed with unresolved paradoxes (quantum gravity, dark matter, dark energy, and evolution of the universe etc.) and singularities (Big Bang, black holes etc.). The flagship theories of science namely Newtonian theory, relativity theory, and quantum mechanics suffer from unresolved inconsistencies among them that prohibit a generic representation of the observed universe behavior. These theories may explain results of individual experiments, but fail to predict observations at universe scale. Such failures raise doubts if these theories represent the universal laws accurately and completely. Similarly, religion is paralyzed by multiplicity of traditions and beliefs of different sects and ideologies. Even within a given religion, there may exist several sects each with their own sets of interpretations of God, truth, reality, and morals. The tragedy is that such differences have not been subtle and have led to widespread violence, suffering and death. If science and religion are fragmented and conflicting within their own domains, how can one expect them not to conflict with each other? How can they achieve reconciliation? It is important to realize that unless the internal conflicts and inconsistencies within science and religion are eliminated, a bridge between the two cannot be built.

The good news is that there is a common cause paralyzing both science and religion, and it is within our reach to eliminate this cause. This root cause is the ignorance of the inherent consciousness or spontaneity in the universe by both science and religion. The approach that is proposed herein is an enhanced scientific model that integrates consciousness into the current theories of science to address issues dividing science and religion, especially the question of what constitutes the ultimate or universal reality. Devoid of consciousness, the conventional science of today can reveal only relative reality constrained by the limits of the scientific method and not the ultimate universal reality because of the following reasons:

1. Limitations of experiments

Scientific method is designed or biased to reveal only the material reality that can be measured by experiments. Since all scientific experimental setup and instrumentation is situated in the classical fixed space and time, it can measure what is manifested in fixed space and time only, which excludes consciousness.

“Experiment is the religion of science, just as the faith is the science of religion.”

2. Ignorance of reality in any other form than matter

What cannot be observed or measured by experiments is not considered to be a physical reality. For example, pure energy is considered to be a philosophical entity unless it can be associated with a particle of matter. If a particle decays to become pure energy that cannot be represented by some other particles, such a hypothesis is not allowed as a valid physical assumption.

“What is god to a theist, particle is to a physicist. If it cannot be represented as a particle, it cannot be accepted as a scientific reality.”

3. Ignorance of consciousness or spontaneity in nature

Science consciously ignores spontaneity or consciousness in nature as observed in well-known physical phenomena such as the spontaneity of the universal laws, wave-particle duality, spontaneous decay of particles, spontaneous motion in the universe – its birth, evolution, and acceleration etc. Although motion is the key phenomenon investigated by scientific theories, science has yet to explain the origin of the spontaneous motion. The inanimate matter addressed by the scientific theories is incapable of originating a spontaneous motion or change on its own. The physics of spontaneity is missing from the well-established theories.

“There is no ghost but a host (the energy of the empty space) in the atom, which is not just a bunch of probability functions collapsed by a conscious scientific observer.”

“Spontaneity or consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not an epiphenomenon born of matter or brain.”

4. Fragmentation destroys the wholesomeness

Science fragments the reality into pieces in order to describe the building blocks of material reality. During this fragmentation process, it looses the glue that holds the individual pieces together as a wholesome physical entity. For example, a human being can only be described by science as a collection of its body parts made of material particles, such as atoms, molecules, genes, neurons, hands, legs, heart, and brain etc. Science is unable to describe what constitutes mind, emotions, thoughts, and the purpose of being.

“All physical entities are not reducible or divisible to fundamental particles.”

“Gravity may be (??) reducible to gravitons, but consciousness is not reducible to neurons.”

5. Scientific reality is evolutionary and diverging

The conventional science deals with material reality without any consciousness or free will. Since time and evolution are inherent properties of matter, material reality also evolves in time. So long as the theories of science are predominantly concerned with matter alone, they will keep evolving, changing and hence diverging. Newtonian theory that revolutionized science in its early renaissance was superceded by relativity theory and quantum mechanics and so on. Then, is the theory of everything just a pipe dream? Unless the theories of science integrate consciousness, which is a well-observed physical phenomenon in nature and the universe, a time-invariant theory of everything is not possible to be achieved.

Is the “Road to Reality” traveled by the conventional science a road to nowhere? The failure of modern science to reveal the ultimate reality is evidenced by the fact that so far the collective knowledge of science has uncovered only 4% of the universe in the form of visible matter. Rest is unexplained and mysterious dark matter and/or dark energy. Also well known are the irresolvable paradoxes and inconsistencies that persist among the well-accepted theories of science such as general relativity, quantum mechanics, and Newtonian theory.

Approach to Resolve Paradoxes and Unify Science and Spirituality

The questions and paradoxes of science described above are shown [1,2,3] to be caused by the missing physics of spontaneity or consciousness observed in natural phenomena, such as the spontaneous motion or acceleration of the universe, wave-particle duality, consciousness of the human mind, and conscious observations of scientific experiments. An integrated model is proposed in references [1], [2], and [3], which combines observed spontaneity with a simplified model of general relativity, which is shown to provide resolution to many of the questions and paradoxes. The model demonstrates that a common set of universal laws govern the behavior of the matter, mind and consciousness. Consciousness or the spontaneity in nature is shown to be a physical phenomenon and not an epiphenomenon. Its existence is a physical reality and not a metaphysical myth that can be excluded from a rigorous scientific theory. It also demonstrates that the existing paradoxes of the modern science and cosmology leading to an apparent absence of purpose in the universe are artifacts, rather than universal realities, of the missing physics of spontaneity in the modern scientific theories.

The integrated approach, referred to as Scienciousness, also closes the gap between science and religion or spirituality. The integration of consciousness into the physical laws of matter shatters the barriers dividing science and religion, and leads to a natural transcendence between their apparently opposing aspects such as evolution (time) and eternity, survival and revival, chaos and order, and meaninglessness and purpose in the universe. The integrated model demonstrates the inherent purpose and meaning via the prevailing eternity, omnipresence, wholeness, certainty and order in the universe. It confirms that the universe is not born out of nothing and it is not merely going to disappear into oblivion, and that the universe is a cosmos with order and not chaos. The model also unfolds the following universal realities and their apparent purposes:

• The purpose of the material or manifested universe is to provide an objective evidence to human beings to search for and find the un-manifested, eternal, and omnipresent universal truth, referred to as God, love, or consciousness.
• The purpose of human being is that thru it the eternity and truth want to be realized or manifested.
• Relativity, and not uncertainty, rules the universe, which represents relatedness, connectivity, and non-locality with no censorship or playing of the dice from God.
• Simplicity and beauty, and not complexity and confusion, love and not jealousy, are the dominant characteristics of the universe for human beings to enjoy and cherish.
• Time and evolution are relative realities of matter only. Since matter is a small fraction of the total mass-energy of the universe, the universe as a whole has no time, beginning, or ending. The clock ticks in the domain of matter only.
• There is only one single whole universe, which encompasses multiple sub-universes representing various relativistic (matter-energy-space-time) states of the one whole, eternal, and omnipresent Zero-point energy, commonly referred to as God, love, truth, or consciousness.
• What exists now always existed in the past and will exist in future. Nothing can come out of nothing without violating the laws of conservation. Nothing never existed, nor will ever exist.

In summary, science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, and without consciousness they are both paralyzed.

References:

[1] A. Singh, The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality, AuthorHouse, 2003.
[2] A. Singh, A New Theory of Spontaneous Decay Resolves Paradoxes of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Cosmology, The XXII Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, Stanford University, CA, December 13-17, 2004.
[3] A. Singh, In Search of the Universal Reality and Purpose – A Scientific Investigation, presented at ‘Science and Religion: Global Perspectives’, June 4-8, 2005, in Philadelphia, PA, USA, a program of the Metanexus Institute (www.metanexus.net).

Love
Avtar

For those who may have missed reading it, below is a duplicate posting I made answering questions from the previous version of this main entry posting by DK:

Dear Innocentvictim/Thangaraj/Keith/ Skeptisch/Heath/Syamala:

Dear Heath/Thangaraj:

#75: My intuitive explanation was that mind is more than an individual biological entity, that it participates directly and sensibly in the unity that underlies the universe.
How does a view of mind as limited and imprisoned explain such phenomena?

The powering energy or the spontaneity of the mind comes from the universal consciousness, which is freed when the fixations or afflictions of the mind are removed. Because of this consciousness within the confinements of the mind, the mind as it opens up can comprehend the universe.

A PERSPECTIVE ON SCIENCE vs. PHILOSOPHY vs. SPIRITUALITY:

They look and feel apart so long as they are lost in the fragmented realities of the material world as perceived in fixed space and time. But at the deepest level wherein they represent the ONE WHOLESOME ETERNAL TRUTH, when they are not constrained by the very choice of the chooser to limit them to the measurable inanimate realities ignoring what occurs or may be happening below Planck's scale or beyond the observable universe. Your debate on both sides' arguments is premature, incomplete, and will be conflicting until a unity at the deepest level is seen and realized beyond the measurable or manifested universe. My book - The Hidden Factor is a serious attempt to achieve just that. Realities are many, always evolving and hence, diverging, but TRUTH is One (Einstein's fully dilated space/time, consciousness, zero-point energy, free will etc.) . It is in TRUTH that they all merge and loose their individual identity

Let us not forget that when scientist completes his/her doctorate degree he/she is awarded a Ph.D. or Doctorate in Philosophy. There are more Ph.D.'s in science today than even philosophy itself. When I completed my doctorate in engineering at MIT, I had a choice to choose my awarded degree as Ph.D. or Sc.D. (Doctor of Science). Their equivalence is well established in the scientific and academic world.

#122: I absolutely agree with Dennett's view of consciousness, but I also believe there are aspects of consciousness that are beyond the individual, that are non-local.
The biological consciousness generated by the firing of the neurons in the brain is local, the free will o the other hand is the universal consciousness representing the zero-point energy, fully dilated space/time, is non-local.

Love
Avtar

Dear Syamala:

#80: " What is the difference between spontaneity that you talk about in your papers and randomness?

Did Guru Nanak talk about reincarnation?

Spontaneity is just commonly accepted scientific term for what I call the inherent universal consciousness or free will. I use it alternatively in my scientific papers or book to communicate with the scientific audiences.

Guru Nanak talks about reincarnation or cycles of birth/death only applying to those Manmukhs (Slaves of the mind or ego) who are under the influence of the Ego. The awakened ones who have dissolved the ego are liberated from reincarnation; hence, reincarnation is a curse of the ego and not a blessing. The purpose of life is to get liberation from the cycles of birt/death.

#86: What does it mean to unify science and spirituality? Does one have to prove by logic or experiments that Consciousness, Love, God, or Whatever exists and creates and actively participates in evolving the universe? Is not the universe around us an infinite reality? Can any one or a few of us create such infinite reality?Do we want to prove by scientific reasoning that this infinite reality is not Truth but only an illusion? Are science and spirituality at odds if we cannot do so? Is it not enough if science explains parts of this infinite reality one piece at a time? Can we explain in our own words of even English, what spiritual Masters have experienced without experiencing the same? Then why try to explain their experience using the language of science which is much more limited?

The language of science or mathematics is the only language thru which one can communicate with others in universal terms. All other languages or communication methods are subjective. Each religion, sect, priest, Sant etc have their own version of what is spirituality. How does one decide who is right? That is where science comes in.

However, the language of the mainstream science is limited to inanimate matter, and hence, incomplete and fragmented. Once, we remove this deficiency via integrating consciousness and dissolve differences in theories and observations, it unites many conflicting realities into One Truth; that is what I have tried to achieve via Holistic Relativity of GNM in my book and papers.

#99: On the other hand, Consciousness is NOT subject to any laws including the law of Karma and it has NO death. Free will is to be free from all laws and Consciousness is Free Will.

Agree. In fact, the universal laws, Nanak's Hukum, are the Free Will itself as they exist at their own free will eternally and omni presently in the universe.

Love
Avtar

Dear Keith:

#81:
"Do you agree with the idea of implicate order whereby
there are no random events, mishaps, mistakes or accidents?"

Yes. Nanak's Hukum is the Implicate Order.

"Do you agree that the Universe is perfect, whole and complete
and that all the existing creatures, flora and fauna
consist of matter and energy variously arranged?"

Yes.

"Apocalypse...metaphor for a psychic event or a physical forecast?
Do you believe in different states or planes of consciousness?
Do you think that unexplained phenomena only occur in the astral planes?
How do you interpret lucid dreams that have meaning
and relevancy in one's daily life of mundane activity?
How do you feel about the legitimacy of prophesy
and where lies the event horizon in relation to
the zero-point energy field?
Does the Earth and it's inhabitants need saving
from any forthcoming global disaster? I mean...
if we are immortal souls what does it matter where we exist?"

Just awaken to the ultimate reality of the Oneness or consciousness via dissolving the mind that raises these questions. The answer lies in the dissolution of the mind, since these questions and any possible answers will evolve and change with time. It is like chasing wild geese. The essence of the wisdom of the spiritual masters is to awaken to the needle and not get lost in the haystack of the ever diverging questions and answers of the mind or ego.

Only a good politician seems to think that he/she has answers to these questions.

Love
Avtar

Dear Heath:

#83: "Perhaps free will is also relative."

All relativity ends in the free will or consciousness. The mistakenly characterization of the so-called desires of the ego as Free Will leads to the confusion you are facing.

Love
Avtar

Dear Thangaraj:

#87:"Unifying Science and Spirituality is not to accept pseudo-science and not to abuse science. If this unification implies that science is a subset of spirituality, fine. Science is the practical end and our outward reach. Spirituality is our inner bliss. In unification, philosophy is the bridge for our existential quest."

Please see my responses above. Thanks

Love
Avtar

Dear DK,
Re 24 and 25, it is sometimes difficult to find the right English word to tranlate a given word of Sanskrit. Yes there are different stages of sleep. The sleep refered to in "external world simply does not exist for the one who is asleep" is what is called sushupti, it is deep sleep without dreams. Please see whether "external world simply does not exist for the one who is in deep sleep unaware of the world around".

Dear DK,
#28 ended abruptly. Please see whether "external world simply does not exist for the one who is in deep sleep unaware of the world around" works.

Dear Innocentvictim,
I did not define Satchidananda. The definition is already in the glossary. Some people do translate it as Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss. But Truth is what exists. So, I assumed that truth and existence are considered synonymous here and did not ask for any change. You can suggest a change if you want.

Lies and Ignorance also exist. no Syamala?:-)
But that connection is right where in that eternal existence of consciousness, when you experience the truth in nature/existence, it is sheer joy and bliss.

Dear One and All Mini's,

Supra-Universal Consciousness deals with the unknown, does it not?

Or is it Unknowable that knows and is aware Itself but not us?

C.G. Jung calls this the Unconscious, so I see a discrepancy
between Supra-Consciousness and Supra-Universal Consciousness.

In other words, part of the problem lies in saying that
the Lord, or the Law(as it is described herein) is
aware of all the travesties and injustices of the world.

It's like saying the speed limit(of light) is aware of itself.

So, there is a reason Meister Eckhart
repeated this phrase continuously,

"We can do nothing without God, and He can do nothing without us."

Doesn't this mean there will be no intelligent,
outside force intervening in the affairs of Man
or Nature other than through Man, Nature's creature?

.

I don't think Truth stands in first place alone.

Truth is that of which we are Aware. We...conscious beings.

The Truth about something answers all the questions pertaining to that something whether or not it is intangible or tangible.

So I tend to believe Light came first,
followed by perceivable Truth, and the Way
is the path that leads to the source of the Light.

Our free-will allows us to wallow in the Darkness
or follow the Light.
I shall now see what Master Kirpal has to say about it.

Are we done here already? See ya, Keith~

Hi DK, Hi All!

It was just through my intuitive understanding that I was saying that relativity theory describes the universe from One to many and quantum theory from many to One and so, as both have ONE in common, it is from this ONE that both can be united and the universal game understood in all its entirety incorporating both.

Today I just happened to browse through Bohm's book Wholeness and the Implicate Order and was intrigued to find that he too - a real scientist -was trying to say the same thing in his own words. In fact, he was expecting a new theory from the point of view of this ONE, of which both relativity theory and quantum theory would be abstractions, approximations and limiting cases. Perhaps he was expecting my own theory of 'evolution' through four basic forces...?? With quantum theory describing universe's entanglement into forces and the relativity theory describing disentanglement??? Just read below:

Quote

It is instructive at this point to contrast the key features of relativistic and quantum theories. As we have seen, relativity theory requires continuity, strict causality (or determinism) and locality. On the other hand, quantum theory requires dis-continuity, non-causality, non-locality. So the basic concepts of relativity and quantum theory directly contradict each other. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that these two theories have never been unified in a consistent way. Rather, it seems most likely that such a unification is not actually possible. What is very probably needed instead is a qualitatively new theory from which both relativity and quantum theory are to be derived as abstractions, approximations and limiting cases.

The basic notions of this new theory evidently cannot be found by beginning with those features in which relativity and quantum theory stand in direct contradiction. The best place to begin is with what they have basically in common. This is undivided wholeness (ONENESS - Harb). Though each comes to such wholeness in a different way, it is clear that it is to this that both are fundamentally pointing."

Unquote

Moreover, it is clear that even if Avtar Singh has taken the relativity theory to its completion in One, to understand the whole picture we need to incorporate in this understanding the completed quantum theory as well.

It seems I was not overly off the mark in writing in Definitions of Holistic Quantum Reltivity and Its Background that "it may be good for us to help science further explore the Quantum Theory rather than prematurely discard it in favour of Holistic Relativity."

Dear Avtar

Thank you for your #28 replies. I agree with your reply to #75, and think this is a brilliant thought: "...mind is more than an individual biological entity, that it participates directly and sensibly in the unity that underlies the universe."

Regarding your reply to #83 about free will, my conception of free will that all probabilities are theoretically possible, that it is a powerful force that creates diversity in the universe. I think it was Richard T who wrote #83.

I will read your #26 later today.

love, Heath

Hello Dr. DK:

I am finally reading the glossary, as I saw your comment that it could be assumed people were in agreement. I did not know if I was in agreement.

I would like to see something, though, as this project continues. Near the top of your blogs, a mission statement for the Holistic Quantum Relativity Project. Keeps intent clear. Even better would be the addition of 5-10 goals we have.

Here are some ideas upon reading a lot of the glossary:

1. concentration meditation needs punctuation.

2. ego -- you have ego but I find a lot of people get confused and thus, egotistical and egotism should be defined.

egotism, egotistical: characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance adjective: characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance

3. Grace is very important to me and I am not in agreement with the definition as it stands. The following embodies my idea of grace, as I have seen people granted favor that changed them and others, whether they deserved it or not. It is a delight compared to some karma definitions and pentinence.

grace (Christian theology) the free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God

4. It would be nice to see miracle.

miracle: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.

5. So that brings up divine.

divine: having godlike nature: being God or a god or goddess.

6. hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

7. blind hypocrite: a person who does not realize his or her actions are contradictory to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

8. I am still seeking a definition for sentient being. I can offer sentient:

sentient: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

9. GAGGAN ... stored np. What is np?

10. Love or Unifying Love: That which loves and connects with everything unconditionally.

It is a bad idea to define a word with the word. I looked up love.

love: affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests, devotion, unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another, God, or humankind.

11. instantaneous: occurring with no delay.

12. death: the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism, the absence of life or state of being dead.

Most of these definitions came from Merriam-Webster.

Dear Harb:

I would like to be as polite and humble as the spirituality demands, but this very Socratic dialogue demands a rather strong rebuttal to your comments of unparalleled heights of absurdity, inconsistency, incoherency, and plain ridicule that defies ordinary common sense. It is not my style, and I would like to apologize in advance to DK and all other fellow IB’ers for being forced to make a strongly worded response here.

Frankly, I feel that your inability to grasp the deep-rooted scientific concepts and mathematical intricacies of theory of relativity, however an unstoppable urge to make unqualified judgments about relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology is coming out in your self-designed sermons of final judgments as if you were the God of all scientists and have the final word.

Please stop making characterizations and judgments about GNM and Holistic Relativity, if you do not understand it. It will save you a lot of face and embarrassment. I respect you for your “Maybe” genuine mystic experiences, but please let me hold that respect by you keeping yourself limited to speak and judge only about as much as you know and understand.

I find your remarks below plain ridiculous, unqualified, and way above your scientific and mathematical qualifications and skills:
************************
1. “So long as there is something random God will be playing dice and Relativity theory cannot be said to be complete. The absence of randomness in the above way though does not take away the phenomenon of spiritual realm - Avtar's so-called Consciousness - underpinning everything. Only it may not be that spontaneous. Big Crunch may just be like a slow wimper.
Harb
144. Posted by Harb on March 11, 2007 05:36 AM”

2. “It was just through my intuitive understanding that I was saying that relativity theory describes the universe from One to many and quantum theory from many to One and so, as both have ONE in common, it is from this ONE that both can be united and the universal game understood in all its entirety incorporating both.
……………Moreover, it is clear that even if Avtar Singh has taken the relativity theory to its completion in One, to understand the whole picture we need to incorporate in this understanding the completed quantum theory as well.
It seems I was not overly off the mark in writing in Definitions of Holistic Quantum Reltivity and Its Background that "it may be good for us to help science further explore the Quantum Theory rather than prematurely discard it in favour of Holistic Relativity."
32. Posted by Harb on March 12, 2007 07:28 AM”
**********************
I consider it a simple waste of time on behalf of me and other IB’ers to respond to the above remarks that are simply rehash of your persistent closed-mindedness to your Self-Designed-Universe that you assume to move solely according to the self-designed laws of the God called Harb, who has an unquestioned free-will to declare absence of free will fragrantly violating the teachings of Sant Kirpal, Guru Nanak, and all other spiritual masters and further an unequivocal declaration from the holy Mount that human beings are imprisoned by cycles of rebirth/death, evolution, which will also lead them to salvation as they age towards the grave.

Further, you are defying all scientific evidence of a runaway accelerated expansion of the universe, as many other IB’ers have also pointed out, by holding on to your Self-Designed-universe that is cyclic with unsupported Big Bangs and Big Crunches, and evolution. Wake up please to the reality, science has gone far while you were sleeping. You are also defying the teachings of all the spiritual masters; here is what Master Kirpal said:

“God is all Consciousness, and our soul, being of the same essence as that of God, is also a conscious entity. If this conscious Self comes in contact with higher consciousness, it will become more conscious. It won't return to lower planes (NO REBIRTH OR EVOLUTION OR DEATH, i.e. eternity). But if this conscious Self is identified with the material (body/mind) which is less conscious, naturally it will not go higher but to the same consciousness or to lower planes (REBIRTH, EVOLUTION & DEATH) of consciousness.”

Here is what Guru Nanak said:

“Safal safal bhai safal yatra, aavan jaan rahao mil saadhaa
The journey of my life has been successful by eliminating the cycle of birth and death via the company and wisdom of the enlightened ones.
Jorhi jurhe naa torhi toote, jab lag hoe binasee
Until one breaks away from delusion of worldly attachments and connect to the truth, the cycle of temporality of time (birth/death) is not broken.”

God bless you!! Harb.
****************************************

Dear DK:

A humble request to bring sanity into the Socratic Dialogue at IB:
I admire your patience and humility. But I wonder as to how long you are going to allow IB being held hostage to the comments of a non-scientist and run-away self-designed meta-physicist judging the scientific formulations with his runaway fancy and whims misinterpreting and distorting the existing scientific knowledge and spiritual wisdom in his own way just to prove that he is right without any supporting data or mathematical basis. I can feel that it is not only me but many other IB’ers also who is running out of patience. Let the Socratic dialogue not turn into a self-designed sermon of a self-declared scientist and a self-designed un-free willed God of the self-designed universe.

Love
Avtar

Dear DK:

Taking a second and close look at the poem "I Died as a Mineral" by Maulana Rumi, it is clear to me that Harb is misinterpreting and distorting the key message of Rumi just to force fit his Self-Designed Universe theory. Here is the poem again:
I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar
With angels blest; but even from angelhood
I must pass on: all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind ever conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence
Proclaims in organ tones, 'To Him we shall return.'

What Rumi is emphasizing and concluding in his last five lines of the poem is his key message below:

“When I sacrifice my ego (angel-soul) at my own free will, I will become the ultimate truth that no mind or ego can achieve. So, let me (my ego) not exist, because in this non-existence (dissolution of the ego), we will merge into the God of eternity, because all except God do perish.”

This message of Rumi is fully consistent with the teachings of Guru Nanak below:

“jeevath marahu marahu fun jeevahu punarap janam n hoee ||
Die while yet alive, and by so dying, be alive; thus you shall not be reborn again.”

ja(n)man maran n chukee houmai vich dhukh paae ||
They cannot escape birth and death, and with egotism within them, they suffer in misery.

Jorhi jurhe naa torhi toote, jab lag hoe binasee
Until one breaks away from delusion of worldly attachments and connect to the truth, the cycle of temporality of time (birth/death) is not broken.”

And Master Kirpal:

“God is all Consciousness, and our soul, being of the same essence as that of God, is also a conscious entity. If this conscious Self comes in contact with higher consciousness, it will become more conscious. It won't return to lower planes (NO REBIRTH OR EVOLUTION OR DEATH, i.e. eternity). But if this conscious Self is identified with the material (body/mind) which is less conscious, naturally it will not go higher but to the same consciousness or to lower planes (REBIRTH, EVOLUTION & DEATH) of consciousness.”

It is clear from the above that Harb is not only first cherry-picking the first three lines of Rumi’s poem, and distorting their meaning to justify his self-designed universe of five forces and the assumed curse of evolution on humanity, and further making the false claim that the evolution, and not the free willed dissolution of the ego would lead to salvation.

Thus, Harb has basically turned upside-down and distorted the unified messages of free-willed dissolution of the ego by Rumi, the spiritual masters, and Vedanta to prove his Self-Designed universe theory of five forces, cycles of birth/death (cyclic universe with Big Bang and Big crunch) and evolution.

Inclusion of Harb’s theory of five metaphoric forces and metaphoric evolution into HQR is not only pseudo-science, internally inconsistent, but also counter to the fundamental teachings of spirituality by the great masters. It’s inclusion in IB HQR is not only a dilution but a fatal distortion of the essence of the wisdom of the spiritual masters including Rumi himself.

Love

Avtar

I have no disagreement with what Rahul has said above.

Some threads back, giving the example of a tree expanding from a seed and at the same time contracting into a new seed, I had said what Rahul is saying in 2} at the end:

********
Dear DK, Avtar,

For starters, I may tell that both Relativity and Quantum theories if completely understood can describe the world fully.

Imagine the journey of a tree from germination of a seed to again to germination of the next seed. In this, apparently two events have simultaneously happened.

1.A tree has completed its full course of evolution, of disentangling from a seed (from forces).

2.A tree has completed its full course of 'devolution', of entangling into a (next) seed (into forces).

Yet both the events are one!

Similarly, I think though Relativity theory is said to describe disentanglement from forces in an evolving universe, it at the same time must somehow be describing entanglement into forces as well. Or Quantum theory, which is said to describe entanglement into forces, must somehow be describing disentanglement as well.

So I think both the relativity theory and quantum theory when fully understood will describe complete picture of the world. In other words, relativity theory then will contain quantum theory in it and vice versa.

But when this will be done I think a follower of relativity theory, like our friend Avtar Singh should be able to explain all what he calls artifacts of quantum theory as well rather than ignore them. Otherwise even though correct up to a certain limit, Avtar Singh to me is premature in saying that he has solved all the riddles of the world by his Relativistic theory. He must be able to tell what is antimatter, where it has gone, what is virtual matter, how and where it fits into the scheme of things etc etc. At least he should be able to predict some events in the universe which people can check.
*********

But since the above was a long shot and no body understood it nor understands in scientific community, I took what is presently understood, that relativity theory - since it describes an expanding universe and so must have begun from a singularity or One - describes universe from One (singularity) to many (expanding), and likewise quantum theory describes universe from many to One to support Bohm's point and thus through it guide our discussion to our final goal of HQR, in which both the theories (or a new combined theory according to Bohm)will describe the world holistically, fully and the proof of it will be that no one will discard the findings of the other as artifacts or metaphysical fluff. Though I have my reservation that Avtar has completed the relativity theory fully still I was ready to accept it but with the only rider that we should now complete quantum theory as well and incorporate its findings too in "complete" understanding of relativity theory.

*******

Rahul #37: If one can experience both "everything" and "void" at the same time, then a person has a mystical experience. Mystical because it isn't rational and it is impossible to comprehend how a human mind can do both at the same time.

Rahul, though I don't have any certificate in mysticism nor want any, doesn't my sating that I have had the experience of One first and am now seeing the world from One to many...that is, from "void" to "everything" qualify as a mystical experience according to your definition?

Dear DK, please make whatever amendments Avtar wants in the definition of HQR, or change it all I will have no objection.

Dear Avtar, please be confident of your knowledge first. Then you will not have to constantly change your opinion of my experience from genuine to not genuine to genuine to not genuine...

Nor then you will have to invoke the names of spiritual masters so often...

And about your:

[I would like to be as polite and humble as the spirituality demands, but this very Socratic dialogue demands a rather strong rebuttal to your comments of unparalleled heights of absurdity, inconsistency, incoherency, and plain ridicule that defies ordinary common sense. It is not my style, and I would like to apologize in advance to DK and all other fellow IB’ers for being forced to make a strongly worded response here.]

I can only laugh! So your free will wants to be polite and humble but you are BEING FORCED....Just use you free will which can take you beyond ego in an instant, to take you beyond being forced as well! Who knows I may be here to test your free will lol.

Dear Avtar,
Thanks for responding to my questions. I particularly appreciate learning what Guru Nanak said about reincarnation. From your #73 of the previous blog "Mind (thoughts, emotions, judgments, morals) is just a biological entity based on the neuron firings in the brain and hence an extension of the body limited in space and time. Mind is just an imprisoned consciousness in matter (body) bounded in space/time." it was not clear to me whether you regarded mind to be identical with the body like biologists do, or not. That is why I asked this question. So, the ego/mind/soul of one who has not conquered it will survive the death of the physical body, although its growth might have depended on it while it was alive.

Re #40. Please read the end of the last sentence as follows" although ego's growth might have depended on the physical body while it was alive.

Re #24. "I can also be aware of my dream realities while in my waking reality". Being aware of the dream while dreaming is the dream reality. To be aware of it while awake is to remember it. The dream is just a memory after waking up, we may recall it but do not think that it is real once awake. In the awake state, memory of the dream plus that it is only a dream but not real, is the reality.

Avtar#27&35 had very good insights. I wonder when they say Universe is ever expanding into icy death, what is it like? The big crunch theory, is scrapped now?

Dear DK, Avtar!

I wrote the Definition to HQR to honour DK's words "Also, we need to think about how do we condense HQR to one sheet of paper and it still carries the entirety of the HQR Socratic Dialogue's key tenets.]" which I felt were going unheeded. Otherwise I had/have no intention of imposing my particular interpretation on HQR Socratic Dealogue. I will feel happy if Avtar Singh himself writes the new Definition to the satisfaction of DK and other I bloggers. Mine is only the first draft.

Avtar wrote in #35:

"Frankly, I feel that your inability to grasp the deep-rooted scientific concepts and mathematical intricacies of theory of relativity, however an unstoppable urge to make unqualified judgments about relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology is coming out in your self-designed sermons of final judgments as if you were the God of all scientists and have the final word.

Please stop making characterizations and judgments about GNM and Holistic Relativity, if you do not understand it. It will save you a lot of face and embarrassment. I respect you for your “Maybe” genuine mystic experiences, but please let me hold that respect by you keeping yourself limited to speak and judge only about as much as you know and understand."

Avtar, I couldn't agree more. I've marvelled at some of the clear understanding of yours. You understand the psyche very well, in one of your earlier posts you had mentioned why it is so difficult to break the old paradigm because of the establishment, careers, the thought of yrs of work going down the drain. Absolutely. I cannot see how it can be broken easily in a short time.

I'm not here for any ego trips. Subject is more important always, bigger than individuals. But, Ego and self preservation is much more important than knowledge, in the world we live in, in the scientific community too, as you yourself once brought it out in one of your posts.

I believe it is vital to stay in a frame, where our minds are open always, humble enough to quickly adapt to the current science lest one sounding like an Obstinate dud.

I've enjoyed reading your posts.
Thanks.

Just enjoyed this poem by Charles Darwin's Grandfather Erasmus Darwin. Of course, here he talks of Big Crunch:

Roll on, ye Stars! exult in youthful prime,
Mark with bright curves the printless steps of Time;
Near and more near your beamy cars approach,
And lessening orbs on lessening orbs encroach; —
Flowers of the sky! ye too to age must yield,
Frail as your silken sisters of the field!
Star after star from Heaven's high arch shall rush,
Suns sink on suns, and systems systems crush,
Headlong, extinct, to one dark center fall,
And Death and Night and Chaos mingle all!
— Till o'er the wreck, emerging from the storm,
Immortal Nature lifts her changeful form,
Mounts from her funeral pyre on wings of flame,
And soars and shines, another and the same.

Dear DK,
RE #25. We have all been often using Consciousness with big C in the front to mean your supra universal-consciousness. For example, please check your recent post. HH Master Kirpal: Consciousness & Free Will. So please add that in the glossary and make a distinction between consciousness and Consciousness.

Dear DK and Avtar,
Re #35, I wish to add my two cents to the last paragraph in this message. I cannot see spiritual wisdom in somebody who challenges the validity of Gita and who assigns grades and levels to the spiritual wisdom of Guru Nanak and Vyasa.

Dear scientists and supporters of science on this blog,
You have all commented that science is being screwed up and abused here. (I know you mean that it is being misinterpreted). Material that is presented here in its current form will not be accepted by any scientific forum. We are screwing up ourselves here. Science has nothing to worry about, neither does spirituality. Teachings of spiritual Masters no matter when they were born will remain the guiding light for mankind for ever.

Well said Ricky, Avtar and Syamala! Indeed Obstinate remain like morons for life. They can't tune up themselves and update to current science. Aristotle thought the Earth was flat. How wrong he was. The Great scientist Newton thought space was made up of ether. Goes to show, even those great scientists made errors because they were humans. Greatness lies in accepting and updating, not in beating on the same beat of old paradigm.

Quite right Syamala, if you take this into scientific community, they will throw it onto the face, deservingly. Please for Christ's sake, don't even get the names of those prophets with some of the Obstinate morons. Such people are a disgrace to Guru Nanak community. Guru Nanak was a true mystic like Jesus and Buddha.

There are times when one
needs a teacher
and there are times when one
needs to become a teacher oneself.
this is not to deny the validity
of one's teacher but to affirm it.

the man who said
if you see buddha on the road
kill him
did not deny the validity of buddha,
he only wanted you
to become buddha yourself
which you cannot untill you
free yourself of the image of
the external buddha you have in your mind
a mental product at the end
never the real thing
he wanted you to know the real thing now
by finding buddha within.

********
an earthly father will speak to you
differently in
childhood, youth, middle age and old age
this does not mean that the wisdom
of the earthly father
has been graded into levels
it is you who are graded into levels.
similarly, messengers of the heavenly father
will speak to you differently in
different cultural ages or phases
this does not mean that the wisdom
of the heavenly father or
of His messengers
has been graded into levels
it is you.

*********
science is not so weak
as to be screwed by one man
nor any man can force his writings
down others throats
socratic dialogue is all about freedom
at least till the final result
no theory has been touched here
which has been declared final by science
of course nor any need be discarded
which science has yet not.
indeed, science has nothing to worry about, spirituality never is
only we are.

********
nobody says we dont have
choices or will, only no free will
we make choices, we suffer, we awaken
we get proportionately free
we have moved a step ahead
on our evolutionary journey.

whosoever suffers
has yet to go further
then a stage is reached
when,as thy say, you flow with the flow
you neither think of free will not of destiny
then you go through life
liking taking breath
neither saying that you take breath
by your free will
nor yet that it comes on its own.
though yet here as well, the argument is
in favour of the later.

and by then you have gone beyond
identifying with your individual body
you don't think that your karma have ended
with the end of your individual karma
you think yourself to be part of the whole
your karma began with the whole and so
will end with the whole
*****

no problem leaving intent anytime...

LOL, innocentvictim, I am ready to be compared to Aristotle and Newton!

Megalomania!! In Psychiatry it is called Delusion of Grandeur. In simple english, they say f@#$#@ up mind. People who are clear in thier minds can see this and will agree with it and that is what matters the most. Thank God!

I ask Avtar, you are right, please go to some scientists and get deserving recognition, yet I go no where.

I ask DK to please find a few scientists for Avtar's sake and help him get his new theory accepted, yet I go no where.

I myslf say whatever comes to my mind saying at the same time that I am no scientist, please for real review find any real scientist, yet I am not left in peace. Why bother what a non-scientist says?
********

As for spirituality, I am asked to just shut up when we quote a master or a book. Then what is the need of socratic dialogue at all! There are thousands of books written or spoken by spiritual masters, why not sit silently and read them rather than waste time here?

Does it mean all one should say here is to approve whatever others have said, and just fall silent - end of the argument - when a spiritual master or a spiritual book is quoted? Perhaps it was under similar circumstances - when people wanted to forceably prove themselves right by quoting this master here or that master there - that one of the greatest thinkers of last century, Emerson, is supposed to have said: "Don't give me quotes, tell me what you yourself know!

Well said, innocentvictim!

Ref#53:

"I myslf say whatever comes to my mind saying at the same time that I am no scientist, please for real review find any real scientist, yet I am not left in peace. Why bother what a non-scientist says?"

Dear Syamala: Do you find it funny? "Whatever comes to my mind". What a scientific forum DK. What intelligence, clarity of mind. Non scientist, but ready to be compared to Newton. Ego is Blown up to endless proportions.

Innocentvictim, oh, nobody told me it is a scientific forum! I thought it was a socratic dialogue involving all disciplines of science, philosophy and spirituality, in which whatever question or answer comes to one's mind needs to be thrown into the ring so that it is discussed threadbare! I wonder why mine is being kicked out even before it falls in the ring LOL! At the most overly intelligent or scientific people can ignore it! I am not in for any competition.

"As for spirituality, I am asked to just shut up when we quote a master or a book. Then what is the need of socratic dialogue at all! There are thousands of books written or spoken by spiritual masters, why not sit silently and read them rather than waste time here?

Does it mean all one should say here is to approve whatever others have said, and just fall silent - end of the argument - when a spiritual master or a spiritual book is quoted? Perhaps it was under similar circumstances - when people wanted to forceably prove themselves right by quoting this master here or that master there - that one of the greatest thinkers of last century, Emerson, is supposed to have said: "Don't give me quotes, tell me what you yourself know!"

It is not in quoting a master. It is in interpreting the essence of their teachings. To quote is to handle a double edged sword. One has a tendency to interpret it, or misinterpret it for all the opportunism inbuilt. To quote or to rather paraphrase Dr. Avtar, "the central message should not be so altered as to fit your theories"

Didn't I see a quote of Emerson?(THE GREATEST THINKER OF LAST CENTURY)...to prove a point?

And oh! yeah what did Darwins grand father has to say about free-will? And what does Einstein the greatest scientists and Spinoza great philosopher tell us about Free-will? and what did Rumi wwrite in the first few lines of his poem about evolution of spirit? Didn't I see them all being quoted?

Oh! well I will leave it at that.

When we don't see our own follies while we point the same in others in a consistent pattern we have to have a good look at ourself.

Dear Fresportra: Well said! Indeed they don't see their own follies. By saying scientific forum, meant people are well backed up in science here. Socratic dialogue doesn't mean whatever comes to your mind you can speak. no?

Socratic dialogue is for discussion, whatever is misconceived to be corrected. You keep harping upon Big crunch big crunch. Damn the big crunch. The current science will throw away if you say such things. yeah, I too wondered if grandfather of Darwin believed in big crunch, it is so justified and logical to think it is true. LOL! It's called "Mandh buddhi" Fresportra. Not alert and sharp to pick it up and analyse. Thick skin like that of pig as was mentioned. Avtar said correctly, to face more embarrasment you can still pursue the same. It will be difficult for him to save his ass. but you can be sure, knowing his Blunt Ego he will do it shamelessly and endlessly. Such Unscientific charlatans, who twist to "Whatever comes to my mind" deserve nothing less than this. Thangaraj and Alex would be the best bet for such Obstinates! They were so good in such socratic dialogue. I really miss them.

Sometimes, for a some their ideas seem to have come from some divine inspiration, some mystical experience, some spiritual intuition, but that doesn't mean that these ideas and theories are sacred relics. They too, need polishing, just as a rare coin does when brought up from a ship wreck.

Intentblog Socratic Dialogue is a place to contribute and learn from others. It is not in being stubborn in our own ideas however inspired those thoughts may be. Not all inspiration is made equal. It is in learning from others what you do not see. If we are so emotional and faithful to our own ideas and fancy interpreting the messages of our pick and choose passages of pick and choose masters, philosophers and scientists we are doing a great disservice to the source of that inspiration from which our initial ideas were born.

It is not in getting threatened or threatening to disconnect with a place which might help you improve your ideas. If what we find useful is a mere 2% of all the criticism or ideas suggested to us, I say it is 2% of something we did not have to begin with.

Dear fresportra

Here's my well said.

love, Heath

Well Said Heather! Indeed Fresportra is right. Learn some humbleness from DK, Barbie. What a beautiful energy he carries! Must be weak interactions like that of saints. Honestly, I feel it. Indeed a wonderful Moderator!!

Dear DK:

Your thoughts are inspiring and keep us all in loving peace and respect for others.

Here are some answers that I may have missed from your past questions:

Definition of GNM:
Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) described in the book – “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality” by Dr. Avtar Singh. The model integrates consciousness into a simplified mathematical model of general relativity theory to resolve outstanding paradoxes of quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmology theories. GNM forms the basis of the Holistic Relativity theory as part of the overall HQR.

Bohm’s Model:

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with it. QM is a black box as far as how it works mechanistically or physically. Bohm tried to address the fundamental differences locality of relativity and non-locality of QM by introducing the concept of the pilot wave that produces non-locality or the implicate order over and above the explicate order of the classical QM and Newtonian mechanics. Bohm’s model did not get a wide acceptance and popularity because it left unaddressed the other key paradoxes of QM such as quantum gravity, the Observer’s Paradox, quantum cosmology etc. These paradoxes are resolved by GNM or the Holistic Relativity model.

Love
Avtar

Dear DK, referring to your stated need to think about and condense HQR to one sheet of paper (The write up below exceeds this limit, however), here is a revised version to earlier Harb's version:
*******************
Science and religion or spirituality have been at odds over the last few centuries. This conflict arises because of the fundamental differences in the two mainstream approaches. While science relies on the inanimate measurements, religion or spirituality relies on the mystic experiences that are beyond objective measurements. The inanimate measurements make scientific reality confined to matter alone, while the subjective experiences have led to invalidated philosophical or metaphysical convictions, rituals and dogmas of religion. Because of this fundamental difference, no reconciliation has been possible leading to the current ongoing conflicts in the modern world built upon this apparent conflict between science and religion or spirituality.

Intentblog has undertaken an initiative to develop an approach to bridge science and spirituality with a hope to enhance science resolving its own internal paradoxes as well as to facilitate an accurate communication of the original message of the spiritual masters to enhance lives of common people. As a result of this dialogue two distinct approaches are proposed.

The first approach, proposed by Harbhajan Singh, author of “Self-Designed Universe”, is an historic and qualitative approach based on philosophical and metaphorical interpretations of the four fundamental forces of quantum mechanics including the suggestion of a fifth hypothetical force of love as the unifying force. This approach does not entail any mathematical formulations but uses qualitative adaptations of the existing popular interpretations, not necessarily up to date, of quantum mechanics and cosmology without making any attempt to resolve their existing paradoxes and inconsistencies. This approach may be of some interest to non-scientists pursuing spirituality.

The second approach proposed by Dr. Avtar Singh, author of "The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality" describes his newly developed mathematical model of Holistic Relativity, the Gravity Nullification Model (GNM), which integrates consciousness or the observable spontaneity in nature into a simplified model of general relativity theory and thus solves key modern paradoxes of science, especially of quantum theory, such as dark energy, dark matter, and the observer's paradox etc. This treatise of consciousness coincides well with the essence of the wisdom of the spiritual masters. The predictions are validated against the scientific observations of the universe. This approach may be of interest to modern science to enhance the existing formulations and predictions of modern scientific theories of quantum mechanics, general relativity, and cosmology.

The Holistic Quantum Relativity (HQR) Socratic Dialogue is an effort to present humanity with the possibility of an indestructible and immutable spiritual dimension underpinning all changing phenomenon, long professed by spiritual masters of various traditions in various Ages. When this truth is really understood it is hoped that it will provide humanity with much sought for certainty, genuine happiness, eternal reality and Truth.

The dialogue began with 13th century mystic poet Maulana Rumi’s poem “I Died as a Mineral.” In this poem, Rumi in effect says that he is the same one soul, which beginning from All Soul or God (spiritual dimension) takes various forms such as minerals, plants, animals, man, angels and will eventually again merge into It/Him. This poem of Rumi was interpreted by Harbhajan Singh, author of Self-Designed Universe, in his own philosophical, metaphysical, and metaphorical representations of the quantum forces and evolution. He built this interpretation upon a similar paragraph to Rumi’ poem in his book (“Yesterday we were animals, a day before, plants, a couple of days before minerals….”), which actually assumes all such forms evolving from a single Unified Force when it separates into four basic forces of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak. Several IB participants disagreed with the presumed absence of free will in countering the forces of evolution by Harbhajan Singh, and further pointed to the inconsistency of these concepts with the essence of the spiritual wisdom of Rumi, other masters, Geeta, and Vedanta.
Four basic forces or interactions brought physics, unified force and finally the Unified Force of Love (again spiritual dimension only in another way of saying it) into the picture. The thought that living systems are driven by four basic phases in their lives drew participants’ attention to four basic elements of earth, water, fire and air of the Greeks, as also to the supposed fifth element of Akasha or sky of the Orientals. Efforts were made to integrate them also into the above picture of unification of forces.

Socratic dialogue’s articulate open mindedness towards an objective unification of the four fundamental forces, and critical reviews of the evolution model proposed by Harbhajan Singh brought some people to say that it was pseudo-science, non-science, bad-science or even non-sense. This turned Socratic dialogue to strike at the root of all boxed thinking and eventually towards the synthesis of science and spirituality or towards holism.

Holism brought into focus its past in 19th century Hegelian philosophy. This in fact too was an effort to unify science, art and spirituality of the times into one whole. Soon it was discovered that efforts at such holism were made in every cultural and religious tradition of the world and not only in western philosophy. This introduced many symbols in the form of figures, pictures, and diagrams such as triangles, pyramids and charkas, depicting such holism in various ways into the dialogue. Here Richard Thomas, Mieke Vander Poll, Syamala Hari, Todd made their seminal contributions in thought and deed.

Unification of science and spirituality brought into focus the complete unification of science first, and in this regard Dr Avtar Singh, author of The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality presented his newly developed concept of Holistic Relativity, which integrates Consciousness into a simplified form of general relativity theory through the observable spontaneity in nature and thus solves many of the modern paradoxes of science, especially of quantum theory, such as dark energy, dark matter etc. The key result of this integrated approach demonstrated that the essence of the wisdom of the spiritual masters provides not only the missing scientific and mathematical bridge within the existing incomplete theories of science, but also between modern science and spirituality.

Realizing the overall capability of the Holistic Relativity to address in general all the key issues related to quantum mechanics, and to take the mainstream science along, DK Matai, the initiator and overall coordinator of the Socratic Dialogue named this dialogue, or now rather the project based on it, as Holistic Quantum Relativity.

Because of the open nature of the dialogue it was found that different people were using certain terms differently. This led to the need of developing a common glossary, which is continuing alongside the development of dialogue.
After science, attention naturally turned towards masters of spirituality as also of other fields. In came dialogue of Einstein and Tagore on Music, quotes of Einstein having bearings on science and mysticism and of Master Kirpal on Unity of Man etc.

Dialogue once again turned towards science when it was found that certain key findings of hitherto neglected Quantum Theory such as Dr David Bohm’s work about the universe being made up of an “interconnected unbroken wholeness”, The Non-locality phenomenon related to Bells’s Theorem, and The Observer’s Effect implying that consciousness underlies all reality, led one to believe that we were advancing towards a holotropic state, strikingly resembling timeless spiritual concept of all reality being the manifestation of one infinite singularity, various named as Creative Principle, Self-Designing Source, Supra-Universal Consciousness, Divine Principle or God.

*********************************

Love
Avtar

So, it was harb who was scientifically ignorant. Avtar seems to be very good. He knows his subject. I'm sorry Avtar for my doubts I had about you. It turned out clear now, who is a scientist and who is not. I can't believe how he projected all that nonsense and ignorance of his onto you. Nonscience, bad science. I think nonsense is correct.

Dear DK,

We have to accomodate myriad perspectives doesn't mean if they are Erroneous and full of nonsense we still do. If you do that without discrimination, without taking the chaff out, I can see where your project is heading to.

I have little doubt now from what I've read about both and their insights. It is so clear one is a qualified scientist and the other a charlatan, who likes to speak whatever comes to his mind. Filled with Inconsistencies, Incoherence, bloated ego, as was pointed out. Initially I thought because Avtar was not answering questions, he may be crook, but I was wrong. He is very good from what I read in his posts. He is focussed in his subject and clear too.

thx.

you want more number, in posts in your thread dk? you could have done all the "done done" in one single post like you used to do before. I know many contributors who do such things to increase the number of posts, like they do for trp ratings.

Dear DK,
It was been several weeks since I have been able to read all the posts - and to comment.

To be able to share ideas and dialogue in this format at IB is a considerable accomplishment!

I agree with you in post # 60 - all dialogue should be welcome. My grandmother, bless her - said to me when I was a teenager - it's o.k. to disagree, but not to be cruel or rude.

Hi Harb and Avtar,
Thanks to you both for so many insights.

Thanks to everyone writing and contributing to this project!

With love,
~ Kate

Hi Amanda,
the wheat will be separated from the chaff, no doubt of that :)

Dear Syamala:
#40: “Mind is just an imprisoned consciousness in matter (body) bounded in space/time." it was not clear to me whether you regarded mind to be identical with the body like biologists do, or not. That is why I asked this question. So, the ego/mind/soul of one who has not conquered it will survive the death of the physical body, although its growth might have depended on it while it was alive.”

Body, mind, and consciousness are a continuum and not discrete entities. In fact, body and mind represent lower or confined states of consciousness. Only consciousness is eternal or beyond time and birth/death. Ego/mind/soul is not a standalone entity that remains behind as a ghost when someone dies, howsoever, soul is defined as such in metaphysical terms. At death, only shared memories, thoughts, emotions, or writings remain behind and not the individual ego/mind/soul that are only fictitious entities.

The most important essence of the teachings of spiritual masters is not to get hung up if there is a soul or not, but to transcend the mind/ego/soul to achieve the true self-realization while yet alive. It is like jumping to the shore before the ship sinks. Getting hung up in relative and temporal realities (Maya, Mithya) that keep changing with time eventually sinks the sailor with the ship; this is the most common mistake humans make.

Re #42. "I can also be aware of my dream realities while in my waking reality". Being aware of the dream while dreaming is the dream reality. To be aware of it while awake is to remember it. The dream is just a memory after waking up, we may recall it but do not think that it is real once awake. In the awake state, memory of the dream plus that it is only a dream but not real, is the reality.
Dream reality is only a relative and temporal reality and not the truth. We must remember and stay in tune with the truth, rest is all details that keep evolving with time.

Dear Syamala:

Another after thought to one of your earlier questions – What is the dimension or unit of consciousness?

Earlier, I replied that the unit of consciousness was energy. I guess a more correct answer is not energy, but no unit since all the units of mass/energy/space/time dissolve into one wholesome unity in consciousness. Unity is everything or pure existence without a distinct unit. All units dissolve into the Unity.

Love
Avtar

Dear Innocentvictim:

#43: “I wonder when they say Universe is ever expanding into icy death, what is it like? The big crunch theory, is scrapped now?”

Thanks for your comments.
As the universe expands, its energy is diluted due to the expanding volume. This causes it to cool down to the point that all stars and galaxies extinguish with no light. The universe goes completely dark and so cold that no living thing can survive. This is what is called icy cold death due the runaway expansion of the universe.

Love
Avtar

Dear Amanda:

Thanks for your comments - #64 & #67.

Let us give Harb all the credit he deserves. I have always admired Harb’s knowledge in spite of him not being a scientist; also I have encouraged him to ask questions, since the subject matter of the relativity theory is very deep – not so easy to grasp. I consider him a good friend and he has some great insights to offer to all of us.
It is the nature of the Socratic Dialogue that arguments are made, and then refuted or supported by others. I was only responding to his arguments and not judging him as a person.

Jesus said - “Judge not.”

Guru Nanak said:
Ek Noor te Sab Jag Upjaya, Kaun Bhale Kaun Mande
We are born from the same one source of light, who is superior and who is inferior?

So, let us not judge anybody, the value of IB is to learn and share with others.

Love
Avtar

Dear DK:

#71: “Please note that going into the subject of Evolution is critical to HQR and Harb's concepts and thinking are unique. The more that I have read Harb's perspective on entanglement and the four forces, the more I have felt personally that there is some merit in that thinking within the context of The Great Spiritual Master's discourses.
Let us by all means agree to disagree with Harb where we have a difference of opinion but let us not throw the baby out with the bath water!”

I am open to hear more about the Uniqueness, the Merit, and commonality of context with the spiritual masters that you see in Harb’s concepts. The uniqueness must not be oddness, the merit must not be mist, and the message must coincide with science as well as spiritual masters.

May be I am missing something. May be it is too mystical for me and other IB’ers to understand. Harb has not responded in specificity to my questions and comments with concise, coherent, and validated evidence. Nobody likes to throw the baby with the bathwater, but one must be able to see the baby somewhere in the bathwater.

Love
Avtar

D.K.

You snuck it in on me. A bit of a sly fox, eh?

Please, tell me there was a time in your life
chock full of rebellion. Surely to goodness?

#27 right here, D.K. Look up!
Granted, Avtar may have just slipped over it in the mix.

Btw, we like it when you speak your own mind.
It's good to know you have it in you...
what it takes, that is, to be a true blogger.

Soooo, Blog Meister... bring on Turing!
Could you give us some advance notice for the exam?

We may wish to cram...whatever! Cheers, Keith~

Dear Avtar: thanks for that answer. One of the things I found in your posts and I liked very much was, you've a professional approach.

I've gone through most of it. The biggest problem lies when the Ego gets bloated to endless proportions, with little knowledge of the world of science. It was the main problem with him. You and Ricky were two people who understood it.

This project you must remember is a project of Mind mostly, not of heart and forgiveness. Please arrange some meeting in a temple if you like to be nicey nicey to each other and embrace all the chaff in the project. You were Absolutely the best when it came to this. I Admire you for this, and I think with this approach you stand a chance and can make it through the scientific community. When you're dealing with Good science, there is very little place for emotions like sympathy forgiveness. Why? the purity can be lost in the subject when it comes to matters of the mind, when you get soft emotions. The focus has to be 100% on the subject, no place for softy emotions. If you want that, you can go and watch a movie.

You could be doing the biggest mistake in letting go and forgiving when it comes to such topics of the mind. Ego in its defence and preservation loves to revert back to what it was before. Egomaniacs are the typical cases. They simply do not know any other way to react to this. You may not believe this word of mine today, or now. You will know it precisely when this happens in future, what I meant by this.

I'm Repeating the same point which was so good in your posts: you were the best when it came to chaffing. That is the way to go in science, if you ever want to achieve a quality product close to perfection. It is an arduos task merging science and spirituality, but when you try you got to be damn good and damn specific.

My opinion on who should ideally lead hqr. Without a doubt Avtar. We don't need nonscientists who are ready to be compared with Newton and accept before that they are nonscientists. Inconsistency and Incoherence is something hard to stand as was pointed out.

In #63 I do not think this is a correct statement: "religion or spirituality relies on the mystic experiences"

Mysticism from the Greek μυστικός (mustikos) "an initiate" (of the Eleusinian Mysteries, μυστήρια (musteria) meaning "initiation"[1])

Religion "relies" mostly on texts that people have written. Much of Religion is a fiction, while it does contain some insight, wisdom and knowledge.

Spirituality relies on subjective direct experience. (not mysticism)

However the issue is not really directly related to spirituality.

Both sides sometimes attempt to create fictions that fit their story.

As I have said before the issue is whether the intangible gives rise to the tangible, or the opposite. What can have an effect on the intangible state that gives rise to the tangible state.

For example: Conventional Science says the physical body (tangible) gives rise to consciousness (intangible).

Dear Avtar,
Remember, once you agreed with me that Consciousness is not the same as light and ego may not be made up of mass but that dissolution of ego and losing one's individuality in Consciousness is SIMILAR to the spontaneous decay of mass into energy. I have a similar comment when you say (and you said this often) "Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) integrates consciousness or the observable spontaneity in nature into a simplified model of general relativity theory"
How do you know that spontaneity in nature is conscious? Is this not an assumption on your part?
As I said before, I have no doubt that you did find solutions to many problems by integrating the observable spontaneity into a model of general relativity. Mathematical proofs of those solutions probably depended upon the zero-point-energy you defined (as the energy of the universe where all mass has decayed spontaneously into energy, etc.). Those proofs (may be they are in your book Hidden Factor) inevitably used the fact that zero-point-energy is energy as defined in physics, not for example as in "I am tired today, don't have energy to do anything". The point is those proofs could not have used the consciousness property of zero-point-energy or spontaneity in nature. So, how can you say that they are the same as Consciousness? How do you know that it is Free Will with Consciousness and not randomness meaning we do not know what causes it.

Dear Avtar,
Re # 78. So, zero-point-energy is dimensionless.

# 56,58
Dear fresportra! Yes I quote people but I don't ask people to shut up on the face of those quotes. Nor I ask people not to challenge my ideas...

Dear Avtar

The version of a summary of HQR in #63 is not concise enough, and it contains too many details about the evolution of the project.

Also, because you mention yourself and your paper in virtually exactly the same phrases in two places, and no one else in the project is mentioned twice, I wonder if you are biased in favor of your contribution, without being aware of how strong your bias is.

Over the past couple of months, I've several times commented on Deepak's threads that imo his emotions are causing him to be less convincing in his positions and arguments, than he might otherwise be if he forced himself to be more dispassionate.

Maybe the same can be said for all of of us commenting or participating in the HQR project.

In the case of pure dialogue -- threads of comments -- emotional passion is valuable, adding a kind of organically-focused energy to a dynamic that needs continued momentum to survive. The emotion softens the edges of opposing positions, and motivates those in opposition to face themselves and others, and attempt a better understanding.

In the case of project statements, emotional passion can add decorative words and thoughts that hide the core of the message. Project statements are supposed to be a pure distillate of the base liquor of a project. They will be read by an audience that has a weaker involvement with the project, people with no context in which to fit the emotion of the project participants.

A primary purpose of such a statement is to ignite interest in the audience for the project. In order to write effectively for the audience, the writer needs to face the audience, not the project participants, when a project statement or summary is composed. Facing the audience causes the author to write differently, to come closer to the goals of communicating the essence of the project and igniting interest in the audience.

All imho.

love, Heath

Dear DK and Avtar,
RE #63, the theme of my submission to HQR is quite independent of the themes of both Harb and Avtar. It complements them and does not in anyway contradict them but it is NOT an illustration of any idea in either of their approaches. It is an approach to understanding spirituality using the fundamental concepts of computer science. Actually, there is a lot more about mind that can be understood via this approach that I had not included in my submission.
So, at the end of the following paragraph "Holism brought into focus its past in 19th century Hegelian philosophy. This in fact too was an effort to unify science, art and spirituality of the times into one whole. Soon it was discovered that efforts at such holism were made in every cultural and religious tradition of the world and not only in western philosophy. This introduced many symbols in the form of figures, pictures, and diagrams such as triangles, pyramids and charkas, depicting such holism in various ways into the dialogue. Here Richard Thomas, Mieke Vander Poll, Syamala Hari, Todd made their seminal contributions in thought and deed", please add just one sentence: Syamala's theme is an attempt to integrate the fundamental aspects of Computer Science with Spirituality.

Dear Heather: I'm pretty sure you didn't study science in your college yrs. You must have studied movies or arts in your college. LOL! Baby, when you get into the mode of pure science you leave aside all emotions which can lead to bias. Even a trace of bias can screw up your results in science.

There's a huge difference between the passion of arts/movies and passion in science.

Hope you're doing well.

Love,
I.V

Avtar,
Re #78. "Another after thought to one of your earlier questions – What is the dimension or unit of consciousness?
Earlier, I replied that the unit of consciousness was energy. I guess a more correct answer is not energy, but no unit since all the units of mass/energy/space/time dissolve into one wholesome unity in consciousness. Unity is everything or pure existence without a distinct unit. All units dissolve into the Unity."
No. I do not think that all units dissolve into a dimensionless quantity according to maths. In physics, you can talk about an infinite quantity of mass, infinite energy, infinite time interval, and infinie distance; they all have their own units or dimensionality. When you do so, only the magnitude of each of these is infinity which has a precise definition in maths. So, for example, if you keep on adding endlessly more and more mass at a particular point of space, the mass at that point of space will have infinite magnitude but why should it lose its dimensionality. Even if you say that in the limit it becomes a pure number without units, is infinity in maths conscious?. It is a concept in our minds just like time.
Also, When space and time dilate to zero, they dilate to a single instant of time and to a single point of space respectively (the usual maths). They have not disappeared. But you can interpret this to say that anything that exists in this single point world is all-pervading and eternal but a space-time world still exists. Consciousness is supposed to be independent of space-time no matter whether it is a single point or an infinite space-time.

Re #93 Sorry about "When space and time dilate to zero, they dilate to a single instant of time and to a single point of space respectively". It is exactly the opposite. space dilates to a single point and time dilates to a single instant.

Re #93. As space and time dilate to zero, if you say that the mass in the world is also shrinking and hence the energy into which mass converts itself is decreasing and finally becoming zero (not infinity) in the limit, still there is no reason why a decreasing mass or energy should become conscious in the limit; they have not been conscious at any stage of the converging process.

Dear IV

I studied fine art in college, but my science and maths courses in high school were advanced. If one of my parents hadn't interefered, I'd have been a physician. My understanding of science is not totally trivial.

Emotion is just as pervasive in the sciences as it is in the arts, it's just very well-hidden. It does not form part of the methodology of applied science. Mythologically, it does form part of the methodology for applied arts, but in reality, its force in the arts is not as powerful as non-artists think it is.

love, Heath

Dear Heath/DK:
#89/#90:
Completely agree. Well articulated.
My write up is only a living draft for comment and update by others. It was an update on what Harb has drafted earlier. Sorry, my name appeared twice inadvertently, since I was trying to make the paper of professional standard wherein a concise abstract is provided at the beginning that is elaborated further in the following summary – inadvertently leading to the duplication. You will find such duplication exists in most technical papers. The earlier version was just a history.
I have no problem or objection in erasing my name completely from the paper – it is not important to me, so long the message is not diluted or distorted from the truth of science and spiritual masters.
With your unbiased & articulated vision, and professional writing abilities, it seems you are best qualified to revise the document to a perfectly unbiased version; why don’t you take up that task and produce a perfectly objective unbiased version? Thanks.

Love
Avtar

Dear Syamala:

#86 & #87: “How do you know that spontaneity in nature is conscious? Is this not an assumption on your part?
How do you know that it is Free Will with Consciousness and not randomness meaning we do not know what causes it.”

My definition of consciousness and spontaneity is same, i.e. the phenomena in nature that exists at its own without a cause – a pure dynamic entity self-motivated or free-willed.

You can question this definition by assuming or arguing that consciousness is something else, a divine or ghostly phenomenon, and that would just be another definition instead of mine.

The fact, however, stands that when I use the above definition, it provides a well defined governing equation in conjunction with the relativity theory that explains and matches the observed behavior of the universe and essence of the teachings of the spiritual masters.

Randomness, however, is an artifact of the method of observation and the consciousness (or lack of it) of the observer. For example, Heisenberg’s uncertainty is an artifact of the observation process that forces the relativistic reality (particles moving close to the speed of light) into a frame of reference of fixed space and time (a Newtonian frame of reference). Since, the relativistic reality is not Newtonian, an uncertainty results due this force-fitting process of observation by the unconscious observer. A conscious observer, while observing a relativistic reality, would move with it at the same speed to make a more accurate observation in a dilated space/time rather than the erroneous fixed space/time. This is what Einstein did as he used to perform the thought experiment (meditate) to perceive what he would see if he was moving with the photon at the speed of light; this is what led to his theory of relativity.

Bottom line, the randomness is not a reality that exists in nature, but rather an error introduced in the measurement process by the very unconsciousness of the observer to force fit the observed natural phenomenon in the fixed space/time – an old habit of the ego or unconscious mind. Ironically and unfortunately, this randomness is the very foundation of quantum mechanics and a cardinal rule for practicing mainstream QM practitioners who are forcing poor God to play dice with the universe. It is like the thief blaming the policeman. The God of certainty is mislabeled or compelled to be the God of uncertainty and randomness by the very unconsciousness of the QM observer and practitioners. The funny thing is that they do not even know that are creating their own God of uncertainty or randomness. That is why someone said that God did not create man, rather man created God.

All one can say - “Pardon them. They know not what they are doing.”

Yet again, one can only bring the horse to the water.

Re # 78, #93,94, 95: So, zero-point-energy is dimensionless?

I did not say that. The question of units or dimension for the wholesome unity is irrelevant, since the whole entails all units or dimensions within it. Just as at the critical point, the state of a substance is neither solid, liquid, nor vapor but all.

#95: Re #93. As space and time dilate to zero, if you say that the mass in the world is also shrinking and hence the energy into which mass converts itself is decreasing and finally becoming zero (not infinity) in the limit, still there is no reason why a decreasing mass or energy should become conscious in the limit; they have not been conscious at any stage of the converging process.

When mass converts to energy, mass is decreasing and energy is increasing in the equivalent amount. In the limit, a pure dynamic energy that is eternal and omnipresent has all the properties of my earlier defined consciousness.

Love
Avtar

Just as we cannot know the basic consciousness of the dreamer while still in the dream, similarly, we cannot know the Consciousness-as-such - from which the universe began and into which it will vanish - with our mathematical or other formulations here. It can only be 'known' by 'waking up', by awakening to it with direct experience.

Otherwise, it is a priori phenomenon, which I try to illustrate with a parable below. If it does not make sense, forget it:

Quote

A certain prince lived in a state called Oneness with his king-father (One, Oneness or God).

One day the king-father put before him an interesting proposition. He told him that he will make him the king of the state of Oneness if he would successfully travel through four specially built towns named Gravitown, Electrotown, Strongtown and Weaktown and come back to stake his claim. He warned him that each of the first three towns will be more labyrinthine than the previous one, and it will be only the last, the fourth one which may be of some help to him.

The prince agreed, thanked the king-father and embarked on the proposed journey.

He did not face much difficulty in passing through the first two towns – the Gravitown and Electrotown. But he found himself overwhelmed by the intricacies involved in the construction of the third one, the Strong town. This town seemed more inside than outside, more full of virtual mazes than actual, more full of illusive mazes than real. He at once knew that he will have to study it thoroughly to get out. Brilliant as he was, he put himself on the job of learning all the facts about the town with complete confidence.

Soon he was lost even to himself so to say in the study of the town, more so because the town’s intricacies so fascinated him.

Anyway, after a certain time he had studied it so thoroughly that he knew it inside-out so to say. He became conscious of every actual and virtual aspect of it, even every actual and virtual brick used in its construction. He became sort of a specialist of this town. He thought there was left really nothing more in it for him to know.

But alas! While he had thus reached the peak of knowledge of this town, peak of awareness, consciousness of this Strong town, wow be to his thorough absorption into its study - to the point of almost losing himself as we said above - he forgot his original state of Oneness, and needless to say, his promise to return to it to stake his claim.

He may well have remained lost in it for ever were his king-father, knowing his plight, not to sent his messenger by the name of Time to gently pick him up during his sleep or perhaps during one of his losing fits so to say, to catapult him into the next town, the Weaktown. From where because he could see the boundaries of the state of Oneness once again, he could come to remember it again. And of course, his promise to return to it to stake his claim.

Needless to add, from there onwards it was again a smooth journey for him. All he had to do was to shed his so-called knowledge/consciousness of the previous town and only keep his attention now fixed on the state of Oneness soon to be reached.

So that is that dear reader! Our usual knowledge, usual consciousness is like the knowledge of only the towns. In this we can be no different from computers. It is only the consciousness of the original state of Oneness, from which we began and to which we are bound to return, which can and will give it its meaning.

This is consciousness-as-such, this is consciousness of Mosc, or rather Mosc itself!

In this book we will remain mainly concerned with this consciousness.
Unquote

I may add that each time we make a quantum jump to the next town or interaction we experience that Oneness or Consciousness-as-such in howsoever small of big a way, depending upon of howsoever small or big cycle we are and on which phase of that cycle we are.

Well Said Avtar! Indeed you can take the horse to the river but can't make it drink. Marek used a better word I thought Mule. You and I almost dragged the mule upto the river, but I'm 100% certain in the next step which the eternal wisdom says it all in that aphorism.

Avtar: Heather is damn good with the language, not so much in science. Somehow, I see you both can be a great combo. She can be your editor for free, she likes doing such things. She indeed is good in languages and has a pretty good understanding of the subject we are talking about. I believe she can be of great help to you.

God bless.

Dear Avtar

Your and IV's teasing notwithstanding: I'm not a professional writer, I truly hate editing, and I have a massive workload as it is, so I cannot get involved with revising a summary of HQR.

Some of my workload involves finishing the Chalmers papers I'm reading, then finishing yours, tasks I set myself simply out of love for this project, and a desire for an understanding as to how best to communicate with the fields of science and philosophy about this project.

Dear IV

You're entitled to judge my capabilities any way you want to, but you are not entitled to volunteer me for work, or a work relationship with someone else, even in fun.

My workload is so heavy, and my commute so long, that I normally can only afford to sleep for four or five hours a night. When my schedule is disrupted (as it was last night by a communication problem with a friend), and as a result I get home at 12:30 AM, go to sleep at 2 AM and rise again at 5 AM to put in the two hours of work that was lost, finding that someone I thought was a true friend has volunteered me for more work is not a funny thing to read, no matter how teasing the author's intent was.

love, Heath

Dear Harb,
"Just as we cannot know the basic consciousness of the dreamer while still in the dream, similarly, we cannot know the Consciousness-as-such - from which the universe began and into which it will vanish - with our mathematical or other formulations here. It can only be 'known' by 'waking up', by awakening to it with direct experience" - Well said.
What I have been saying all along is not only we cannot know Consciousness via mathematical formulations and even pure logic, we cannot describe its active participation (which it certainly has) in the creation and evolution of worldly events by means of maths formulas because that would imply we are able to infer its existence by logic. At least, that is my understanding of Vedanta.

Syamala, exactly. Not through mathematics or even pure logic.

Yet neither spiritual masters can stop saying that God or Consciousness is immanent in all things so sure they are of this, nor people like me can stop saying/describing that Consciousness actively creates and participates in worldly events. More so in my case as not only I was graced with the experience of oneness (Consciousness)first but was further supported by the insight/vision of everything getting created and evolving from and because of it. Which was to later become the basis of my book.(Actully this second experience is named variously as "Going to the Belley of the Whale," "Night Journey," "Death and Birth Leitmotif" in religious or literary texts and this almost shows the whole cycle of creation, destruction and recreation. I had my insight of evolution at the end of its second leg of destruction. Long story, some other day).

Even otherwise, ever since the observer of the quantum theory entered the picture, we, our basic consciousness and ultimately the Consciousness itself have been obvious to the cutting edge scientists to be playing the role of observer-participators, or even observer-creator- participators as Nobel physicist Prigogine puts it in his book Order out of Chaos.

One more idea on this. There is a Hindu saying: "To know God is to be God." A bit changed but equally true saying can be "To begin from God is to be created and evolved by God."

Anyway, excellent point!!

4th attempt to post "again" even though I am signed IN, it keeps saying I am not. this is annoying!

Dear Heather... I still tend to disagree; as even the most minute fraction of interferance.. is in "fact" a dialogue of sorts, an imperitave contribution, to clarity.

Truth is not always smooth... interferance, merely helps pave a bumpy road; and every stone, regardless of how painful it is to step on.. IS in even if only partial recognition, still a part of the "road."

Meaning, those whom prefer to interfere with wishy washy input; are still part and parcel of the entire "package" however extremely annoying it may become, to others??

Isn't clarity the institution of truth? How can we achieve truth, without first, feeling a few lumps and bumps towards its conception?

Sorry if I sound wishy washy, but all input is valuable.. however much, it aggravates.

A pearl becomes a pearl, from a grain of sand--through aggitation inside an oyster.. same with truth.. the naysayers are merely, the current, which causes the aggitation to create the pearl....through clarity, patience and open-mindedness to their "need" to input.. let us remember, patience is a virtue..

Avtar.. your #35 is shocking, to say the least--and "proves" theory, that science is bias.

Dear North

You're discussing the need for free expression, the complexity of verbal and written interaction, the value of a wide range if inputs, and so on. I don't disagree with anything you say. What you're saying is highly valuable.

However, my comment had nothing to do with those issues. I questioned the motives of a couple of people. I did not question anyone's contributions. I know what the motives are, and they have nothing to do with this project per se. I hope my bluntness has made my #39 message easier to understand.

love, Heath

Hey hey hey..you're taking it too seriously Heather. I thought you could be a great combo. You're taking it as though you've been ordered by the court of law. LOL! Relax. It was truly out of affection and the wonderful abilities I saw in both, you and Avtar. Without a doubt it is your life. Heard that song "It's my life".

Bye!

Namaste, IV

Mentioning me in a sentence that talks about a great combo with someone has the potential to cause strife in my personal life. You have been my friend in the past. Please be sensitive to my happiness.

love, Heath

No Namaste for you Heather..you're worthless people go away! thx.

This a duplicate post under the two main posts from DK: HQR: Sir Karl Popper: Paradox of Science & Truth, and HQR Project: Glossary v0.4

Dear DK and Friends:

I would like to continue participating in this project if there is a clear path forward. I have posted earlier my recommendations for the path forward for this project to make an impact on science and to benefit common people.

Until then, I apologize and respectfully beg to say that this is my last post on this project. I need to keep moving on my original mission that I began six years ago and that is to dissolve all boundaries and conflicts between science and spirituality. And, continued demands from my professional commitments allow me only a limited time to spare.

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts, asking brilliant questions from which I learned a lot, and hope that some of you may have found a new perspective from my shared insights. I appreciate fully that many of the insights I am presenting are out-of-the-box and challenge the existing paradigm of the mainstream science, which remains almost entirely detached from spirituality or consciousness.

You have my contact information, in case you consider it worthwhile for me to contribute in future path forward. I intend to continue to contribute occasionally at IB via main-entry posts and would welcome all those interested to share their ideas and insights. Also, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

I began my participation in IB at the invitation of Dr. Deepak Chopra, with a hope to form a coalition of leadership at IB and worldwide to lead the noble mission to bridge science and spirituality. I continue to hope that would happen some day.

I continue to share Dr. Chopra’s concern about the prevailing pseudoscience and metaphorism at IB. When, I joined IB about three months ago, I noticed an exotic exuberance built upon pseudo-scientific and metaphoric approaches defying not only science but the very spiritual teachings of the masters. I apologize if I have derailed the prevailing optimism and exuberance built upon pseudoscientific as well as pseudo-spiritual foundations. In any case, they can easily be restored back by ignoring whatever disruption my inputs may have caused. Hopefully, the natural forces of evolution would lead to the ultimate destination desired for this project.

Love
Avtar
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

Avtar #63: Intentblog has undertaken an initiative to develop an approach to bridge science and spirituality with a hope to enhance science resolving its own internal paradoxes as well as to facilitate an accurate communication of the original message of the spiritual masters to enhance lives of common people..."

How sometimes we put ourselves into funny situations! According to Avtar, ACCURATE COMMUNICATION of the message of spiritual masters can only be conveyed through mathematical equations! And it will be for the benefit of COMMON PEOPLE!!

So henceforth spiritual masters will be expected to give their messages in mathematical equations and the common people of all will be expected to understand those mathematical equations!!!

I wonder if anybody comes among the common people here at IB.

For the Quantum words of power:
"Embodied Ascention" That state of individual attainment wherein the participant becomes a "God-On-Earth" without dying. Everyone reading this has that potential at this time and until about 2025. Attaining such a state depends on the individual, it can occur in an instant with some, and many years for others. It does not depend on cleansing, meditation, or anything physical. But does rely on the Heart-Earth+Heart-Brain acivities of empathy, compassion, un-conditional love, abitilty to utilize the law of attraction and creative forces without an agenda; understanding the self, loving the self (Heart+Brain+Higher Consciousness). Energy creators are among these ascended entities. The Earth magnetic field is decreasing, the earth pulse rate is increasing, Embodied Ascention will be easiest the end of 2012.

To: DK Matai,
My E-Mail profsbpalmer@gmail.com works, my email at prof.sb.palmer@u-q-d.org works perfectly
My URL's: www.elexplore.com www.u-q-d.org are operational and working perfectly.

It may be that from some countries such as the USA it may be classified as restricted sites because the US Government does not want you to know the truth about energy. They are addicted to oil.

Otherwise, it may be that your ISP was having packet density transfer problems, or your connection was not stable. If I had my own server up and running, I would be using TSL, then a stable connection and packet transfers would never collide, and the various governments would not be able to lock-out the truth.

Prof. Palmer