Site icon Soolaba's Blog

Science and Belief


How did this Universe come into existence? How did Life come into existence? How old is Mankind? What is Consciousness?

Life and Consciousness – The Vedāntic View

Summary by Bhakti Niskama Shanta, 26th October 2015

This paper serves as a critique to the ontological view of the organism as a complex machine. In the seventeenth century, the French philosopher René Descartes claimed that only the human body has a soul, and all other organisms are mere automatons made of meat and bones. Influenced by such a line of thought, most of the scientists were also thinking that only humans are conscious and all other creatures are not. Based on empirical evidence, our published paper presents a case for ubiquity of consciousness in all living organisms. Not only the unicellular organisms (say, bacteria) display cognitive behavior, but that even individual cells in the multicellular organisms exhibit individual cognitive behavior. The scientific confirmation of the existence of consciousness in unicellular organisms and plants certainly establishes that the brain is not the source of consciousness. In modern science, it is generally assumed that matter existed before the universe came to be. However, the dominant materialistic or reductionistic view in modern science cannot explain how matter acquired cognitive features like thinking, feeling and willing. A reductionistic analysis is just a pretension to study life, but in actuality it only deals with the study of dead matter, which is devoid of consciousness. In our paper we termed such types of studies in science as abiology, because a study devoid of cognitive analysis of reality is not a biology proper. On the other hand, the Vedāntic view states that the origin of everything material and non material is sentient and absolute (unconditioned). Thus, sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself – omne vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. This is the scientifically verified law of experience. Life is essentially cognitive and conscious. And, consciousness, which is fundamental, manifests itself in the gradational forms of all sentient and insentient nature.
Even though in both artifacts (machines) and living organisms, the ends are determined by purpose (a cognitive act), the difference is that in the case of artifacts, the purpose (designer) is outside the system (external teleology), and in the case of a living organism, the purpose is within (internal teleology). Following a linear logic in the case of artifacts, parts are produced and combined into a whole by the designer. On the other hand, following a circular logic, the body of the living organism appears from another living organism by a developmental process (cell division) and not by the linear accumulation of parts – design. Therefore, proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft). In other words, a machine will never do things for its own internal purpose and it cannot build itself. Although the attempt towards mechanization of nature served as an important driving force behind the scientific revolution, it also unfortunately created an image of a clockwork universe set in motion by an intelligent first cause. Such machine analogy is also applied to living organisms. However, the view that a supernatural being, God, is external to living organisms and that He imposes form on matter from the outside (intelligent design) is also reductionistic, and shows a logical fallacy. The logic of extrinsically purposive systems (machines) cannot be applied to intrinsically purposive systems (living organisms). The Vedāntic view offers a scientific alternative (The invocation of Śrī Īśopaniṣad provides the concept of ‘Organic Wholism’: oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate): “‘Organic Wholes’ produces ‘organic wholes’ and an ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be mechanically assembled. The process of externally assembling parts can only produce inorganic, mechanical machines or chemical processes, not living organisms.” Empirical evidence shows that every living cell comes from a living cell and there is no single evidence that shows a case where a living cell appears from the external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules. According to Vedānta: “janmādy asya yataḥ” – the origin of everything is “abhijñaḥ svarāṭ” – the unitary Supreme Cognizant Being. Twenty first century biology teaches us that we should not inflict our ideas on nature; let nature reveal herself to us.
The rapid progress in molecular and cellular biology is becoming more and more incompatible to Darwinian line of thinking and thus offering challenges from various angles to refute the core of Darwinism. In Darwinism, organisms are often assumed as optimally designed machines blindly engineered by natural selection. However, the cognitive view of life in 21st Century offers a significant challenge to this blind presumption. Living organisms exhibit many overtly noticeable goal-oriented or teleological activities (self-determination, self-formation, self-preservation, self-reproduction, self-restitution and so on), which make them distinct from insentient mechanical and chemical systems. Darwin’s Origin of Species invokes natural selection to explain the goal-driven activities of the living organisms, but the Darwinist insists that random mutations are exclusively responsible for the gradual but steady appearance of more complicated organisms. This irrational inability to scientifically explain how novel body types arise in study of life and its evolution is the major deficiency of Darwinism. In contrast to the idea of objective evolution of bodies, as envisioned by Darwin and followers, Vedānta advocates the idea of subjective evolution of consciousness as the developing principle of the world. In Vedānta, the reincarnation theory is based on the subjective evolution of consciousness and the Darwinian objective evolution theory of bodies is a perverted representation of this ancient wisdom. In Darwinism, evolution means transformation of bodies, and in Vedāntic view evolution means transformation of consciousness. In this paper, an attempt has been made to highlight a few relevant developments supporting a sentient view of life in scientific research, which has caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of life and its origin.
READ FULL ARTICLE: Life and Consciousness

The Big Bang?

February 11, 2015 by

When it comes to the science regarding the true nature of our reality, you won’t find a shortage of theories, or a shortage of criticisms of each theory. We are like a race with amnesia, trying to discover and search for an answer that most probably exists, but has yet to be discovered. How did the universe begin?

According to new research, there might not have been a big bang. Instead, the universe might have existed forever. The theory was derived from the mathematics of general relativity, and compliment Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there.”  – Ahmed Farag Ali, Benha University, Co-Author of the study. (source)

The big bang theory postulates that everything in existence resulted from a single event that launched the creation of the entire universe and that everything in existence today was once part of a single infinitely dense point, also known as the “singularity.”

Here is a good picture representing what the big bang theory is referring to.

So the big bang, again, postulates that the universe started out as an infinitely small point in space called a singularity, then exploded and created space where there was no space before, and that it is continually expanding. One big question regarding that expansion is; how did it happen? As you can see in the picture, “who is that guy?!”

According to Nassim Haramein, the Director of Research for the Resonance Project

“For every action there is an equal opposite reaction.” is one of the most foundational and proven concepts in all of physics. Therefore, if the universe is expanding then “the guy” (or whatever “he” is), who is blowing up that balloon, has to have some huge lungs that are contracting to be able to blow it up. This a concept that Nassim Haramein began exploring when creating an alternative unified field theory to explain the universe.” (source)

This is one out of many criticisms regarding the big bang theory. There are many considerations to be pondered. Can something come from nothing? What about quantum mechanics and the possibility that there is no moment of time at which the universe did not exist?

Again, so many considerations to be pondered.

According to

“The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.” (source)

The theory also suggests (obviously) that there are no singularities or dark matter, and that the universe is filled with a “quantum fluid.” These scientists are suggesting that this quantum fluid is filled with gravitons.

As you can see, when quantum mechanics is thrown into the equation things appear to be far different. Again, this new theory is suggesting that the universe could have always existed, that it never was what we perceive to be as “the  beginning.” Perhaps it was just an event that did occur that we perceive as the beginning, perhaps the event occurred not from nothing, but something. Again, who is that guy blowing on the balloon in the picture? There is something there that has yet to be discovered.

“As far as we can see, since different points in the universe never actually converged in the past, it did not have a beginning. It lasted forever. It will also not have an end, in other words, there is no singularity. The universe could have lasted forever. It could have gone through cycles of being small and big. or it could have been created much earlier.” –  Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, Co-Author of the study. (source)

What We Know Is Often Just Theory

To conclude, it’s clear that we do not yet have a solid explanation regarding what happened during the Big Bang, or if it even happened at all. This new theory is combining general relativity with quantum mechanics, and at the end of the day these are all just theories.

Not to mention the fact that theories regarding multiple dimensions, multiple universes and more have to be considered. When looking for the starting point of creation, our own universe might not even be the place to start. It might be hard given the fact that we cannot yet perceive other factors that have played a part in the make up of what we call reality. What is even harder is the fact that quantum physics is showing that the true nature and make up of the universe is not a physical material thing!

We just don’t know yet, and there are still new findings in modern day physics that delve into non-materialistic science that many mainstream materialistic scientists have yet to grasp and acknowledge.

I’ll leave you with a quote that might give you something to think about:

“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

“Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger. (T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)


Irreducible Complexity & the Origin of Life

Watch this interesting documentary exploring recent scientific research into the theory of evolution and origin of life … (Youtube upload 2012)

How we got from the Atheistic Materialism of Democritis, to today’s Modern Concept of Macro-Evolution.

By Bhaktiananda Goswami (November 2014)

How We Got From Atheistic Materialism in the Greek Apasampradaya Atomism of Democritus, to the Atheistic Modern Concept of Macro-Evolution … An Introduction.
When I was a child the taxonomic charts showed a first category of single cell organisms called protozoa, including things like amoeba, followed by a second category of multi celled organisms of 5 cells or more called metazoa. These charts never had a category of mature organisms containing 3 or 4 cells. Any organism in the metazoa or multicelled life form category began at 5 cells. I wanted to know what the intermediate or transitional life forms were between the protozoa and the 5 cell organisms, but I could not find a single chart that showed any category for mature organisms of 3 or 4 cells. I could not find any description of these missing links between the protozoa and the 5 celled metazoa organisms. So I began to ask myself, if the evolutionists cannot find any mature organisms with 3 or 4 cells, how did life make the ‘evolutionary’ leap from the protozoa to 5 cell organisms? That was where I began my life-long study of the problems in what used to be called species evolution, but which has since been called various things, including macro-evolution.
Because my Father is a biophysicist, a research scientist who studies mathematical biology or biophysics, as a research assistant to him, my early exposure to the interdisciplinary field of bio-physics guided my own research into the physical mechanisms of evolution. Modern developments in the Field of Molecular Biology have had a profound effect on the work of the classical (‘old guard’) Evolutionists, causing them to have to re-imagine their entire previous systems of taxonomic classification.
Since the scientific revolution in molecular biology, with the study of DNA, RNA, mitochondria, and the complexity of the environmental triggers of gene expression etc., the entire field of evolutionary biology and the taxonomic classification of living organisms has been thrown into chaos. A brief review of the various taxonomic systems now in use Globally can give the honest objective researchist a general understanding of how much controversy, and actually hostility there is now in the entire realm of the evolutionary life sciences.
Scientists in the related ‘hard sciences’ fields like molecular biology are at-odds with the old-school evolutionary biologists who are invested-in their previous and erroneous taxonomic classification system(s). The more that is learned about the infinite complexity of living organisms from the hard sciences, the more that the old categories of the Modern Era evolutionary theorists, the originally atheistic evolutionary biologists are found inadequate and inaccurate. This is continuing to necessitate the adjustment of, or even the abandonment of their previous taxonomic classification models and charts.
Externally to non-specialists outside of their academic Discipline (or Field), the traditional (‘old guard’) atheistic Materialism (Atomistic) Evolutionary Biologists are trying to maintain a unified defense system and a solid front of certitude. Their’s is a belief system, like a religion, with its founder, mythology, law-giver and inviolable dogtrines/creed, saints, martyrs and heroic history. Such Atheistic Evolutionists have invested their entire lives and their families’ futures in their atheistic materialistic evolutionary World view, and in every inviolable part of their view, and so it is unthinkable for them to allow the FACTS from another academic discipline, like one of the hard sciences, to disillusion them.
Internally their academic Discipline or academic Field is in near complete disarray. Defending themselves and their own specialties against extinction, the old school Atheistic Evolutionists are attacking and eating each other’s young. Thus outwardly they are presenting a more unified front than ever, to counter the increasing criticism not only from religionists around the World, but from scientists in other disciplines. But, internally their own Field is in a chaotic state of self-destruction.
This is not to say that the hard sciences are not actually increasing our basic fund of knowledge about the REAL process of evolution, which can actually be observed going on right now! What is happening is that as we gain real knowledge about how the evolutionary process actually works at the cellular level, the old, erroneous concepts of the Modern (master-racist and eugenics related) theoretical (‘humanities’-like discipline) Atheistic Evolutionists will be replaced with the tested and proven facts provided by those researchists in the real ‘hard’ sciences.
Think of a chrysalis. After a caterpillar encloses itself in its coccoon, its body is entirely dissolved and reduced to a soup of genetic material that is then completely re-assembled into a new body, that of a winged 6 legged insect! All of the enduring genetic material is still present in the new insect. The caterpillar information is there too, and it will be passed-on to the winged insect’s progeny. But, the old order that was the caterpillar, the caterpillar body is gone. In this way the old pre-hard-sciences order of Modern Evolutionary Biology as a pseudo-scientific belief system is dis-organizing and it will reach a crisis in which it must dissolve as an academic discipline, so that a new and truly testable and verifiable science of life can emerge. The actual factual learning of the real scientific evolutionists will not be lost, but it will be incorporated into a new ‘taxonomic’ classification of life, based purely on the verifiable evidence from the ‘hard sciences’ and not on the old un-provable ‘macro-evolutionary’ BELIEF system of the early Modern Darwinian Atheistic Evolutionists.
“In this system the multicellular animals (Metazoa) are descended from the same ancestor as the unicellular choanoflagellates and the fungi which form the Opisthokonta.[8] Plants are thought to be more distantly related to animals and fungi.
However, in the same year as the International Society of Protistologists’ classification was published (2005), doubts were being expressed as to whether some of these supergroups were monophyletic, particularly the Chromalveolata,[9] and a review in 2006 noted the lack of evidence for several of the supposed six supergroups.[10]
As of 2010[update], there is widespread agreement that the Rhizaria belong with the Stramenopiles and the Alveolata, in a clade dubbed the SAR supergroup,[11] so that Rhizaria is not one of the main eukaryote groups.[12][13][14][15][16] Beyond this, there does not appear to be a consensus. Rogozin et al. in 2009 noted that “The deep phylogeny of eukaryotes is an extremely difficult and controversial problem.”[17] As of December 2010[update], there appears to be a consensus that the 2005 six supergroup model does not reflect the true phylogeny of the eukaryotes and hence how they should be classified, although there is no agreement as to the model which should replace it.[13][14][18]/y68H57./”

Kingdom (biology)

I am very happy to share this recent blog by Graham Pick about the Antiquity of Humanity and “Out of place artefacts”

Everything We Have Been Taught About Our Origins Is A Lie!

A half billion year old hammer embedded in rock that formed 400 million years ago

In June 1936 Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk beside a waterfall near to London, Texas, when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. What they found within shocked the archaeological and scientific community. Embedded in the rock was what appeared to be some type of ancient man made hammer.

A team of archaeologists analysed and dated it. The rock encasing the hammer was dated to more than 400 million years old. The hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the wooden handle had begun the metamorphosis into coal.  The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without assistance from relatively modern smelting methods.

In 1889 near Nampa, Idaho, whilst workers were boring an artesian well, a small figurine made of baked clay was extracted from a depth of 320 feet. To reach this depth the workers had to cut through fifteen feet of basalt lava and many other strata below that. That in itself does not seem remarkable, until one considers that the very top layer of lava has been dated to at least 15 million years old!

It is currently accepted by science and geology that coal is a by-product of decaying vegetation. The vegetation becomes buried over time and is covered with sediment. That sediment eventually fossilises and becomes rock. This natural process of coal formation takes up to 400 million years to accomplish.

Anything that is found in lumps of coal or in coal seams during mining, had to have been placed or dropped into the vegetation before it was buried in sediment.

In 1944, as a ten year old boy, Newton Anderson, dropped a lump of coal in his basement and it broke in half as it hit the floor. What he discovered inside defies explanation based upon current scientific orthodoxy.

Inside the coal was a hand crafted brass alloy bell with an iron clapper and sculptured handle.

When an analysis was carried out it was discovered that the bell was made from anunusual mix of metals, different from any known modern alloy production (including copper, zinc, tin, arsenic, iodine, and selenium).

The seam from whence this lump of coal was mined is estimated to be 300,000,000 years old!

A hand crafted bell found in a 300 million year old lump of coal!

These extraordinary discoveries although bizarre, are not unique or even uncommon. There are literally thousands of them collecting dust, locked away from public scrutiny in the vaults of museums throughout the world.

There are many other unusual reported finds including the following:

The Morrisonville, Illinois Times, on June 11, 1891, reported how Mrs. S. W. Culp found a circular shaped eight-carat gold chain, about 10 inches long, embedded in a lump of coal after she broke it apart to put in her scuttle. The chain was described as “antique” and of “quaint workmanship.”

Displayed in a museum at Glen Rose, Texas, is a cast iron pot reportedly found in a large lump of coal in 1912 by a worker feeding coal into the furnace of a power plant. When he split open the coal the worker said the pot fell out, leaving its impression in the coal.

Yet another report found in the Epoch Times told of a Colorado rancher who in the 1800’s broke open a lump of coal, dug from a vein some 300 feet below the surface, and discovered a “strange-looking iron thimble.”

A cast iron pot found in a lump of coal

The Salzburg Cube is yet another ancient puzzle found by a worker named Reidl, in an Austrian foundry in 1885. Like the others, this man broke open a block of coal and found a metal cube embedded inside. Recent analysis established the object was of forged iron and obviously hand crafted. The coal it was found in was millions of years old.

The list of such items goes on and on and on.

Welcome to the world of Ooparts, or Out of Place Artefacts.

Out of place artefacts (Ooparts) are so named because conventional scientific wisdom (an oxymoron if ever there was one) states that these artefacts shouldn’t exist based upon currently accepted beliefs regarding our origins and history. These discoveries are “out of place” in the orthodox timeline of human history.

The usual methods of the conformist scientific community, when faced with such anomalies is to attempt to debunk their reported age, or perhaps endeavour to discredit the source of the report or even the reporter. If this approach fails then usually the artefacts themselves are banished to the shadowy vaults of museums and warehouses, never to be seen again.

If these unusual artefacts were “one offs” then perhaps one could be forgiven for accepting the view espoused by the mainstream scientific and archaeological community that they are hoaxes or misreported stories. However, when one realises that thousands upon thousands of these anomalous artefacts have been discovered and reported over the years, then one may need to re-evaluate ones acceptance of the integrity of mainstream archaeology and science.

Occasionally an honest archaeologist will attempt to reveal to the public the true age and origin of such anomalous objects. They will question the accepted beliefs of their mainstream peers. They usually find that their career ends quite abruptly.

Unfortunately, the majority just accept what they are taught in school and university without question. That is how our educational system is designed. It does not encourage individuality and originality. It purely indoctrinates one with established beliefs and dogma.

If one requires evidence of this “mainstream” mentality, one need look no further than the realms of psychiatry. Modern psychiatry seeks to demonize and declare mentally ill anyone who deviates from what is regarded as the norm.

These so called “mental health professionals” have even invented a new mental disorder named Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or ODD (love the irony of the abbreviation).

This newly invented condition is listed in the latest instalment of the industry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which dubs people who do not conform to what those in charge declare to be normal, as mentally insane.

So there you have your proof – I’m obviously an unmitigated nutter and completely insane. At least that is what those in authority would like everyone to believe!

Anyway, I digress.

On one side of the field we have the Darwinists and their theory of evolution, trying to establish the extremely flawed view that we have somehow evolved into highly intelligent sentient beings from a primordial blob of gunge, miraculously brought to life by an electrical storm billions of years ago. (Perhaps one of this cults followers could explain to me when “consciousness” evolved, and provide proof – I await with baited breath!)

On the other side we have the creationists with the belief that some omnipotent invisible being who lives in the clouds, waved his magic wand about 7,000 years ago and created the earth and everything on it. Again the adherents of this equally flawed theory rely on nothing more than a book called the Bible for their “proof” of this concept. The fact that this book has been bastardised during translation numerous times during its existence, has been re-written to certain individuals personal preference on a number of occasions, and has had many complete chapters omitted, is irrelevant to its followers. All they require is “faith”. Proof and evidence is not a prerequisite!

One couldn’t get more opposing beliefs if one tried, and both camps adhere to their beliefs voraciously, and with unshakable fervour. Yet neither are based on any kind of factual or hard evidence.

The reality is that the origin of the human race is a total enigma. No one, anywhere, actually knows how old humanity is or how and where it originated. It is a complete mystery. Yet from birth one is indoctrinated into one or the other of the above factions, with no questions asked or alternative opinions allowed.

The problem the mainstream has with these anomalous Ooparts is that they throw into question every single established belief there is regarding our past.

It seems that everywhere we look, we find things that contradict much of the scientific orthodoxy of today.  The scientific establishment will never acknowledge or admit that these artefacts are authentic.  To do so would be to admit that they are completely wrong about our origins, and consequently, invalidate all of the text books used to indoctrinate us and our children.

The discovery of Ooparts completely annihilates the [comparatively recent] theory of evolution. If, as this hypothesis would have us believe, modern humans only evolved 200,000 years ago (or thereabouts), one has to ask how man made artefacts, found in substrata originating millions of years ago, could be explained?

Alternatively, the advocates of creationism have a very quaint way of “acknowledging” the existence of Ooparts, and bizarrely, actually believe that Ooparts substantiate their world view.

Creationists just completely disregard the established dating methods, and declare every single recognized archaeological and geological process null and void. They would have us all believe that coal seams, rock strata, fossils, minerals, precious stones and every other antediluvian element, took only a few thousand years to form.

Yet the psychiatric establishment would have me labelled as the loony for questioning this baloney. Go figure!

There will no doubt be readers who, similar to predictable conservative archaeologists, and probably due to their indoctrinated belief system, will also dismiss the aforementioned Ooparts as hoaxes or forgeries. Perhaps they would like to consider and offer an explanation for the following.

It is an accepted belief that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist. According to conventional academia, dinosaurs roamed the earth between 65 and 225 million years ago, whereas the earliest upright biped humanoid, homo erectus, only appeared about 1.8 million years ago.

However, in 1968 a palaeontologist named Stan Taylor began excavations of fossilised dinosaur footprints, discovered in the bed of the Paluxy river near Glen Rose, Texas. What he unearthed shocked and dumbfounded the scientific community. Alongside the dinosaur tracks, in exactly the same cretaceous fossilised strata, were well preserved human footprints.

Human footprints crossing 3 toed dinosaur footprints fossilised in the Paluxy river bed

The immediate reaction of evolutionists, archaeologists, and science in general, was to debunk the find as a hoax. “They were carved into the rock by hoaxers” or “They are not human footprints, but more dinosaur footprints that have been eroded to look human” were the arguments most commonly proposed.

However, their line of reasoning falls somewhat flat when one asks why only the human prints were eroded and not also the 3 toed dinosaur prints? Additionally one has to consider, if the human prints were carved as a hoax, how did the hoaxers manage to carve further human footprints that continued under bedrock that was later removed from the side of the river bed?

Since the initial discovery, hundreds more human footprints have been discovered and unearthed, both in Paluxy and in many other places around the globe. Either those hoaxers have unlimited time and budget – or someone is telling porkies!

Next one needs to consider another find discovered in 100 million year old cretaceous limestone. A fossilised human finger, which was found along with a childs tooth and human hair. This finger has been subjected to numerous scientific tests and analysis. Sectioning revealed the typical porous bone structure expected in a human finger. Additionally a Cat-scan and MRI scan identified joints and traced tendons throughout the length of the fossil. This is one find that science cannot explain away as a hoax.

Cat-scan of a human fossilised finger shows dark areas showing the interior of bones and bone marrow, along with tendons

There is however another find of recent years that blows all of the others into a cocked hat regarding age.

Over the past few decades, miners near the little town of Ottosdal in Western Transvaal, South Africa, have been digging up hundreds of mysterious metal spheres. These spheres measure between 25 and 100 mm in diameter, and some are etched with three parallel grooves running completely around the equator. Two types of spheres have been found. One is composed of a solid bluish metal with flecks of white, the other is hollowed out and filled with a spongy white substance.

These spheres are reportedly so delicately balanced that even with modern technology, they would need to be made in a zero gravity environment to attain these characteristics. These objects have become known as the Klerksdorp spheres.

A Klerksdorp sphere

Geologists have attempted to debunk these artefacts as natural formations or “limonite concretions”. They fail to explain sufficiently how these formations occurred naturally with perfectly straight and perfectly spaced grooves around the centres.

Perhaps the real reason for such fervent attempted debunking by the scientific community, is that the rock in which these spheres where found is Precambrian – and dated to 2.8 billion years old!

Whether one wishes to accept these out of place artefacts as genuine or not is I suppose, down to personal beliefs.

Evolutionists refuse to accept them as to do so would mean re-evaluating their whole indoctrinated belief system. They will even stoop to producing outright fantasy in their attempts to discredit these discoveries. If that fails then they will just pretend that they do not exist, and then hide them away – forever.

Creationists on the other hand willingly accept them as some bizarre kind of proof that the universe is only about 7,000 years old, and totally ignore any evidence, from any source, to the contrary. They continue to cling to a medieval belief system based purely on blind faith. How quaint.

Personally, I don’t belong to either camp. I keep an open mind regarding our origins. I don’t have any particular “philosophy” on the subject but rather prefer to adapt my understanding as new evidence becomes available. My only current belief based upon all of the available facts to date is that the human race has inhabited this planet for millions of years longer than is presently accepted.

I realise that I will never discover the answer to the question of our origin. The human race has been searching for this answer since the dawn of time, and it still evades us.

Everything we have been taught in our schools and universities about our origin and history, is based upon nothing more than speculation and hypothesis. There is not a single provable fact out there that conclusively answers the question “where do we come from”

What I will continue to do however is question everything, and not just blindly accept any mainstream viewpoint because it happens to be fashionable at the time.

If that means one day I get a knock at my door from men in white coats holding a straightjacket, then so be it……

Graham Pick 

Visit the author’s page on Facebook …

The false Doctrine of Scientism

by BV Nemi   June 2010

Obviously, mechanists raise serious objections and challenges to the Vedic wisdom. I now want to point out that their doctrine of scientism is actually false, in the sense that it contradicts obvious facts.

The doctrine of scientism says that only matter exists and only physical laws are active. However, when we look at the world around us, we see that this belief is completely false. For example, a video recording (which is where this booklet started) requires equipment such as video cameras, computers, microphones and lights. Somebody has to make these artificial objects, because they do not appear as a result of unaided physical. Someone has to bring together all the raw materials, including copper, silicon, tungsten and aluminium. Artificial processes are required to create these raw materials, because unaided physical interactions do not produce substances such as pure copper, aluminium and silicon. They not only do not produce such substances; they can not produce them, because the high energies and artificial arrangements required make it statistically impossible.

Unaided physical interactions cannot produce a computer, or a perfectly tuned grand piano or sitar. They cannot produce a ship-in-a-bottle, which is deliberately made to look as though it could not possibly get into the bottle by any physical process. Physical interactions alone cannot produce a house of cards, which is made in defiance of the natural laws. Nor can they create something like the Golden Gate Bridge, a radio telescope or a space shuttle.

We are surrounded by objects that physical interactions could not possibly produce by themselves. There is obviously another influence at work here, and that influence is consciousness. Consciousness can and does do what matter does not and cannot do.

First of all, energetic considerations prevent artificial objects from coming together by themselves. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, physical interactions must bring systems to positions of lower energy. Generally speaking, systems have greater potential energy when they are physically higher, which is why things naturally fall to lower positions of lower potential energy. In contrast, living beings consistently oppose this tendency, bringing physical systems to positions of higher energy. For example, ants make anthills, and human beings make skyscrapers, and throw space probes beyond the gravitational field of the earth.

From the point of view of order and distribution, physical interactions tend to spread things out and to create disorder from order. In contrast, human beings act in the opposite way. We create order from disorder, and we bring objects together according to our own desires and needs. For example, the inert gas argon is made by fractional distillation of liquid air. It is mathematically impossible for 10 kilograms of pure argon to become concentrated into one place from the atmosphere – and yet human agency makes this happen. Living beings, particularly human beings – and especially material scientists – routinely act in way that is miraculous from a purely physical point of view.

We can also consider the form of artificial objects such as machines, and also pictures and other works of art. Unaided physical interactions do not produce the forms of artificial objects such as engines and computers; rather they degrade them. It is also impossible from the point of view of mathematics and statistics that pigments could arrange themselves to depict the form of an object (in perspective) seen from a particular position in space.

Let us also consider the specific complexity of artificial objects. Simple laws clearly produce simple systems, such as inorganic crystals (which have relatively simple forms), rocks, clouds and whirlpools. These may superficially look complex, but their basic patterns are actually very simple. In contrast, a telephone directories and computer circuitry are extremely complex, because they contains a high concentration of very detailed and specific information. Engines and information systems are also very complex. Complex systems are produced only by complex laws, and simple systems are produced by simple laws. It is clear, then, that there are laws of matter, and laws of life.


We live in the Information Age. Living creatures produce information, whereas physical interactions (including those instigated by upset cups of coffee and small children) destroy it. It is estimated that in the year 2007, human beings produced 1.5 exabytes (1.5 million, million, million bytes) of information. Mathematically, the probability that physical interactions alone could produce this amount of information is roughly 101,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 against. That is 1 with a million, million, million zeros to one against. How would you like to bet your life savings on those odds? The total number of particles in the whole universe is calculated to be a “mere” 1080, so 101,000,000,000,000,000,000 is not even a “real number”, because it does not correspond to anything in the material world.

In practical terms, these inconceivable odds symbolize the fact that physical interactions simply cannot produce so much information. Why can such an event not happen? The reason that physical interactions do not produce information is very simple: information is not physical. A book containing information is physical, and the ink that is used to depict the information is physical, but the information itself is not physical. Information does not have temperature, length, mass, velocity or any of the physical properties that physical entities have. We talk about tall orders, hot news, long odds, and heavy incidents, but these are all figures of speech.

Although information is a non-physical entity (because it does not have any physical properties), it still produces a real effect in the physical world when it is made available to conscious beings, such as birds, bees and human beings. Norbert Wiener, the MIT mathematician who founded cybernetics, wrote, “Information is information, neither energy nor matter. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.” This means that no one can ever explain how physical systems can produce a real non-physical entity like information. To explain how this could happen, one would first have to describe information in physical terms, which one cannot do.

In conclusion, it is clearly false to say that everything in the world can be explained in terms of physical interactions. Artificial objects and information, for example, cannot be described or explained in physical terms. This means that when living beings interact with the physical world, there is a real, non-physical influence at work. The renowned atheist Professor Richard Dawkins has inadvertently pointed this out: “Science boosts its claim to truth by its spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on command.”1 Of course, this statement is meant to be extremely impressive. It also emphasizes the fact that science itself is neither matter nor energy, because science commands both matter and energy. Indirectly, Dawkins is emphasizing the same point that I am making. (However, it remains to be seen whether he will want to jump through that hoop.)

Consciousness does what matter does not do and cannot do. Consciousness is real, and non-physical. This is obviously and self-evidently true, because all living entities constantly and consistently oppose the physical laws of nature. Birds and butterflies fly. Grasshoppers, frogs and kangaroos jump. Human beings oppose the physical laws in every way they can, even for fun. Mountain-climbing, skiing, scuba-diving and hang-gliding all depend on opposing the physical laws, as do athletic competitions such as throwing the javelin, or hurling the human body over long distances or high hurdles.

Amongst human beings, scientists specifically oppose the laws of nature when they investigate them. As Michael Polanyi pointed out, when Galileo investigated the law of gravity, he had to lift the pendulum bob against the law that he was investigating. Similarly, physicists use particle accelerators to break atoms into extremely minute fragments, against the strong and weak atomic forces that they want to investigate.

Scientists not only oppose the physical laws; they also help the rest of us to get free from the influence of the laws of nature. When the weather is too warm, we switch on the fan, and we use electric stoves to cook food. From a purely physical point of view, who could imagine that a Boeing containing the equivalent of a small village could take off and fly huge distances at 500 or 600 miles per hour? This still amazes me every time I fly.

Consciousness exerts an influence that goes beyond the physical laws of nature, and produces effects that cannot be explained in purely physical terms. I will use the word “paraphysical” (of, pertaining to, or designating physical phenomena for which no adequate scientific explanation exists) to refer to the physically unexpected and inexplicable influence of consciousness, and its physically unexpected and inexplicable results.

The Vedic wisdom recognizes the need to use technology to control matter, but it adds the caution that this is not really the way to get free from the physical laws. People still become old and die, with or without refrigerators, stoves and Boeings. The way to become free from the physical laws is to develop our consciousness so that we understand that we are not actually physical beings. We do not really belong here in this physical world; we belong in the world of pure consciousness. The Vedic wisdom explains how we can live here peacefully, as long as we are attached to the material world and our body. It also explains how we can elevate our consciousness to the point of self-realization, where we can see who we really are, and where we really belong.

Science and the conscious coordinating self:  The Vedic viewpoint

We have seen that the conscious faculties are manifested by an inconceivable energy that is real, but non-physical. Now, deeper than the conscious faculties is the conscious self that coordinates these conscious faculties. According to the Vedic viewpoint, this conscious self is also not produced by physical interactions. The conscious self is the atma, a real, eternal, non-physical conscious entity. The atma is both conscious and consciousness, and it has an inherent, threefold nature.

The first aspect of the atma is the potential for non-temporal, personal self-existence. Everything around us changes, including the body, yet the “I-ness” does not change. We continue to exist as personal beings, and this personal existence – the fact that we exist – is not affected by time. I was five; I was ten; I was fifteen; I was twenty. My body has changed, my mind has changed, and my personality has changed. Nonetheless, “I” was five, and “I” was ten. In the midst of the change around us (including the changing body and mind), something does not change. Everything material is subject to change, but that something, that “I-ness” is not subject to change. It is non-temporal, which means that it is not material – but we tend to forget that.

The second aspect of the atma is our limitless potential for knowledge, and the third aspect is our potential for satisfaction and happiness, fulfilment and bliss. These are the three fundamental characteristic qualities of this jiva, or atma.

According to the Vedic viewpoint, our pure consciousness becomes covered over by material consciousness. We then identify with the material world around us, and think that we are products of matter. However, our “I-ness” cannot really be a product of matter, because our “I-ness” does not change, whereas matter is constantly changing. We also have potential for knowledge and happiness, whereas matter is inert.

When I was in Sweden, my friend Ingvar told me a Swedish folk story. Ten country people were carrying a big tub of butter to the market. At one point, they had to cross a river by boat, and when they landed on the other side, they said, “Let us count up and make sure that everyone got over safely”. One of them counted and said, “There were ten of us, but now there are only nine.” Then the next one counted and said, “You are right, there are only nine”. All of them counted the members of the party and could only see nine people, but they could not see who was missing. In the end, one of them said, “Look, I have got an idea – we’ll all stick our noses in the butter”. When they stuck their noses in the butter and counted the nose-prints, sure enough there were ten marks. Then they knew, “OK, we are all here.” My friend Ingvar said, “You know, I think it would be best if scientists had a pot of butter in the laboratory, and every morning they stuck their noses in it, just to make sure that they know that they really exist.”

Evidence for the conscious coordinating self

Why is it reasonable to think that the conscious self is a real entity, and not just an illusion? First of all, I have been talking about the coordination of conscious faculties, which is an essential part of the scientific process. If materialists try to deny the existence of the conscious self, it comes back and bites them on the backside. That is because, in communicating their scepticism, they still have to use the same coordinating self to orient their brain, mind, perception and so on.

Our common understanding is that we really exist. We have the same name and social security number throughout our lives. We remember when we were very small, and our mothers will tell us how we were when we were tiny babies, and even before we were born. We cannot remember, but they see that we are the same person. That is also the general assumption in society. If we do something good, we are rewarded, even ten or twenty years later. Similarly, if we commit a crime, we may be punished ten or twenty years later. That means that we recognize that we continue to be the same person. That is common understanding, and scientists also agree. Many scientists have pointed this out. Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger wrote:

In brief, we do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it – we are outside, we are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it – that we belong to the picture – is that our bodies are in the picture; our bodies belong to it.1

Here, Schrödinger clearly distinguished between on the one hand the body, and on the other the self, who sees the body and the world around us. Roger Penrose writes in his book The Emperor’s New Mind, “In short, what makes human beings human is not a material quality. It is a spiritual one, and it is clear that its source is an entity apart from matter.”2

There are many well-documented examples of near-death experiences (NDE’s) that provide evidence that the self is a real entity. For example, researchers made a long study in Dutch hospitals of people who were revived after they had died of a heart-attack. (This means that their heart and brains had completely stopped functioning.) When they were revived, 12% had had a very vivid experience. They could relate events that that they would not be expected to know, that had happened in the operating theater while they were supposedly unconscious. (One of the patients was physically blind, but had been able to see when she was clinically dead!) They were seeing, not from the body, but from above the body.

One person who had a near-death experience left the operating theater, and went outside the building in a disembodied state up to the sixth or seventh floor. Looking in through the window, he saw something on top of a tall cupboard in the room, and when he was revived, he told a surgeon. The surgeon found that the object on top of the cupboard could not have been seen from inside the room; it could only be seen from outside this sixth-storey room.

There is also much evidence that supports reincarnation. Of course, there are quite spectacular experiments on regression. For example, one Australian lady remembered under hypnosis living in Somerset in England two or three hundred years ago. She described place names which could only be found on old maps, and the investigators found her name and the names of family members in the parish register. When they took her to the place that she had described in England, she recognized it. Looking at the house where she had lived, and which she had previously described under hypnosis, she said, “But there should be a window there.” When they went inside, they could see that there had previously been a window, but it was now bricked up and covered with ivy, so that it was invisible from the outside. She had previously described particular markings on a stone on the floor, which was now covered by a foot of chicken droppings. When they cleaned the stone, the markings were clearly visible, just as she had described.

Ian Stevenson has also collected hundreds of cases which are suggestive of reincarnation. This is more evidence for a conscious self, which is a real entity, and which is eternal and non-temporal.

The conscious coordinating self in science

Another point about the self is that its existence and function are assumed in the criteria for the objective scientific process. Material scientists say that there are two very important criteria in science. The first is objectivity, and the second is inter-subjective verifiability. Let us consider objectivity first.

When we consider the principle of being objective rather than subjective, the question arises, “Can an object be objective?” The answer is, “No. Objectivity is a subjective mood. Only a subject can be objective. We consciously decide to be objective rather than subjective.” The first criterion for objective science, then, necessarily entails the existence and function of the non-objective conscious subject.

The second criterion is inter-subjective verifiability. This means that any number of conscious subjects can view the same event, make the same measurements, analyze it in the same way, and come to the same conclusions. The phrase “inter-subjective” means “between many subjects”, so “inter-subjective verifiability” explicitly entails the existence of the conscious subject; the existence of the conscious subject is right out in the open here. Mechanistic scientists actually assume the existence of the conscious subject, who is separate and distinct from the objects that the subject observes. As Erwin Schrödinger pointed out, when they deny this, their denial gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes.

The characteristic qualities of the self, as seen in human beings, are non-temporal, individual self-existence; knowledge; and satisfaction. We see these aspects of the self, not only in human beings, but also in animals, and even fish and birds. They also have subjective processes; they learn; they obviously have emotions; they have the instinct for self-preservation; and so on. Even plants respond to music and personal action. Good gardeners go and speak to their plants and caress them, and this makes the plants grow better.

This is some of the evidence that the individual self is neither an illusion, nor just a product of physical interaction. Rather, as the Vedic wisdom tradition says, the conscious self is a real, paraphysical, fundamental particle.

BV Nemi

A very interseting post by Collective-Evolution

Consciousness Creates Reality


“Consciousness creates reality,” a statement that has gained a lot of attention across various alternative media outlets around the world. Make no mistake, consciousness has (and has been for quite some time) studied by numerous scientists, especially in its relation to quantum physics and how it might be correlated with the nature of our reality.

What is consciousness? Consciousness includes a number of things. It’s how we perceive our world, our thoughts, being aware, our intentions and more.

“Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking in the radio for the announcer.” – Nasseim Haramein

The statement that “consciousness creates reality” comes with a number of different questions. Does this mean we as individuals (and on a collective level as one human race) can shape and create whatever reality we’d like for ourselves? Does it mean we can manifest a certain lifestyle, and attract certain experiences? Does it happen instantly? Does it take time? How do we do it?

Although we might not be able to answer these questions with absolute scientific certainty, we do know that yes, a correlation between consciousness and our physical material world does indeed exist in some way, shape or form. The extent of that correlation (again from a modern day scientific point of view) is still not well understood, but we know of the correlation, and we know it must have some sort of significance.

“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”  – R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University ,  “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005) (source)

The Science Behind The Statement “Consciousness Creates Reality”

The quantum double slit experiment is a very popular experiment used to examine how consciousness and our physical material world are intertwined. It is a great example that documents how factors associated with consciousness and our physical material world are connected in some way.

One potential revelation of this experience is that “the observer creates the reality.” A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays by Dean Radin, PhD, explains how this experiment has been used multiple times to explore the role of consciousness in shaping the nature of physical reality. (source)

In this experiment, a double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wave-function. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double slit spectral power to its single slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. The study found that factors associated with consciousness “significantly” correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double slit interference pattern. (source)

“Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, they produce it. We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.” (source)

Although this is one of the most popular experiments used to posit the connection between consciousness and physical reality, there are several other  studies that clearly show that consciousness, or factors that are associated with consciousness are directly correlated with our reality in some way. A number of experiments in the field of parapsychology have also demonstrated this.

Sure, we might not understand the extent of this connection, and in most cases scientists can’t even explain it. However they are, and have been observed time and time again.

Dr Quantum – The Double Slit Experiment:

Other examples that we’ve written about are government sponsored psychokinesis experiments, the global consciousness experiment, intelligence agency remote viewing experiments, thoughts and intentions altering the structure of water, the placebo effect, teleportation studies and more. You can find more details about those specific experiments HERE.

Some other related CE articles that relate to this subject are listed below:

Buddhist Monks Bless Tea With Good Intention

Fascinating Study Shows Human Intention Can Help Heal Cancer Patients

How We Can Incorporate This Information Into Our Lives & Use Consciousness To Transform The World

Change requires action, but the place within which that action comes from is most important.

Modern day science, especially quantum physics, has been catching up to ancient mysticism and concepts that are/were so deeply ingrained in various cultures throughout the ancient world. One great example of this is the fact that everything is energy , and nothing is solid. You can read more about that here.

“We are what we think, all that we are arises with our thoughts, with our thoughts we make the world.” – Gautama Buddha

“Broadly speaking, although there are some differences, I think Buddhist philosophy and Quantum Mechanics can shake hands on their view of the world. We can see in these great examples the fruits of human thinking. Regardless of the admiration we feel for these great thinkers, we should not lose sight of the fact that they were human beings just as we are.” – Dalai Lama (source)

A great example of quantum physics meeting ancient wisdom is seen in the fact that Nikola Tesla was influenced by Vedic philosophy when pondering his ideas of zero point energy. You can read more about that here.

So why is this relevant? It’s relevant because new physics, as mentioned above, is pointing to the fact that the observer shapes the reality. The way we think and perceive could be  responsible and play a vital role in the physical construct we see in front of us.

“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” – Unknown

If we look at the world and examine it on a collective level, what do we see? How do we perceive it? Right now, the masses perceive it as being born, going to school, paying bills, raising a family and finding a “job” within the current paradigm to support yourself. No judgement here, but many people on the planet are not resonating with this experience. They want change. We’ve been repeating and perceiving our reality this way for a very long time, with very little information about what is really happening on and to our planet. It’s almost like we are robotic drones that are trained and brainwashed to accept things the way they are. To not question what is happening in our world and to continue on with the status quo, only caring for ourselves and our own lives. As Noam Chomsky would say, our consent has been manufactured. If we continue down this path and continue to perceive and view reality as “this is just the way it is,” we will, in essence, prolong that type of existence and experience for the human race without ever changing it.

In order to create and manifest a new reality for ourselves, our thought patters and the way we perceive reality must change. What changes the way we perceive reality? Information does. When new information emerges it changes the way we look at things and as a result, our reality changes, and we begin to manifest a new experience and open our minds to a broader view of reality. Not to say that we can’t manifest a new physical form in the blink of an eye, and that we are not capable of doing that, but it appears to be something that takes time, something gradual, something we don’t quite understand yet.

What’s also important about teachings from new physics is that, if factors of consciousness are associated with the creation of our reality, that means change starts within. It starts with the way in which we are observing the outer world from our inner world. This touches on the earlier point of how we perceive our reality. Our perception of the external world might very well be a reflection of our inner world, our inner state of being. So ask yourself, are you happy? Are you observing, perceiving and acting from a place of love? From a place of hate or anger? From a place of peace? All of these factors are associated with our consciousness, with our observation, the one (or the many) who are doing the “observing” might play a large role in what type of physical world the human race manifests for itself, what do you think?

We are indeed the observers,  can we create change and break patterns to open up new possibilities, change our direction, all through the way in which we observe ourselves, others and the world around us.

I believe that the human race is in the process of waking up to a number of different things, simultaneously. As a result, the way we perceive and “observe” the world around us (on a mass scale) is starting to drastically change. So if you want to help change the world, change the way you look at things, and the things you look at will change.

“Be the change you want to see in the world.” – Mahatma Ghandi

There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This statement (worldview statement) was by Lord Kelvin in 1900, which was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity. The new theories proposed by Einstein challenged the current (at that time) framework of understanding. This forced the scientific community to open up to an alternate view of the true nature of our reality. A great example of how things that once were regarded as truth have changed.

“Lord Kelvins statements bares with it the voice of paradigms past…We knew that the Earth was flat, we knew that we were the center of the universe, and we knew that a manmade heavier than air piece of machinery could not take flight. Through all stages of human history, intellectual authorities have pronounced their supremacy by ridiculing or suppressing elements of reality that simply didn’t fit within the framework of accepted knowledge. Are we really any different today? Have we really changed our acceptance towards things that won’t fit the frame? Maybe there are concepts of our reality we have yet to understand, and if we open our eyes maybe we will see that something significant has been overlooked.” – Terje Toftenes (source)

God and the Universe

Since the dawn of civilization, humans have wondered who or what created the universe. Religion offers a spiritual answer, but do the latest discoveries in physics show evidence of a transcendent intelligence, or simply that the laws of physics by themselves could have led to the universe in which we live? This episode embarks on a mind-bending scientific search for God, asking physicists and theologians if the seemingly miraculous way the universe has been calibrated to support life is evidence of a creator…whether string theory will eventually be able to rule out the existence of God…why Stephen Hawking says the universe could have been created spontaneously… and how an advanced civilization in another universe could have conceivably created our own. The Universe, Season 6 Episode 7: “God and the Universe” produced in 2011, explores the ongoing debate: Is a Creator Necessary?


Trancendental Moon & Gods in Goloka

Submitted by Harmonist staff on May 23, 2014 – 12:30 am 78 Comments

By Swami Tripurari, originally published on August 11, 2009.

The idea that the cosmos corresponds with our psyche is of course an old one that is common to East and West. However, this notion faded with the Copernican revolution and Descarte’s scientific method. While there is considerable evidence that the heavens do influence or mirror our psyche, such evidence does not fit into a scientific world view where physical, verifiable evidence is the bottom line. Thus at one point astrology was abandoned by most thinkers of the West, and the evidence of the subtle planetary influence that astrology points to was ignored, even as Jung and others continued to heed astrology—although not fully understanding it.

The Bhagavata’s cosmology is an old one, one that did not even conform with leading secular thinkers’ understanding in India at the time that our sampradaya’s principle commentaries were written, what to speak of today’s thinkers. Today we know that the sun is fixed, not orbiting as it is described in theBhagavata. And we have the math by which we have accomplished many things we have come to take for granted to prove it. So shall we throw out the Bhagavata’s cosmology?

In one sense it is non-essential. However, we do need a cosmology that corresponds with our world view, and that of modern science does not. It does not in the sense that modern science does not recognize that the universe has a purpose or intelligence, evidenced in the least by the subtle influence the stars and planets have on our lives—the extent to which the microcosm of our psyche corresponds with the macrocosm of the heavens. The fact that the Bhagavata’s cosmology differs in details from modern science is not of much concern; it is its notion that the universe is without purpose and intelligence that is disconcerting.

It is rational to conceive that the heavens have sway on earth and it is irrational to deny this. It is also less anthropocentric to think of the heavens in terms of deities and heavenly worlds within the mental realm than it is to think that reality is entirely subjective, or that it revolves around and is determined by each human individual, as postmodernism posits, leaving us with no objective, absolute reality. Indeed, is it not the height of human hubris to conclude that the source of all meaning and purpose in the universe is centered in the human mind, which is therefore unique and in this sense superior to the entire cosmos? In this sense the postmodern mind is more anthropocentric than the premodern mind that the modern mind sought to distance itself from! We are revolving, not evolving.

I believe that if one’s poetic notion of gods and goddesses is also derivative of a world view that ontologically distinguishes consciousness from matter, giving preference to the former, then one’s position is strengthened. However, it is then weakened considerably if from this position one also maintains that the dated cosmology of the Bhagavata disproves the insight of Copernicus and other similar facts

The heretical Copernican revolution, which eventually took humanity from an erroneous earth-centered cosmology to a sun-centered cosmology and all that follows in its wake, can, however, be superseded by a consciousness revolution: the idea that matter (sun and all) revolves around consciousness. In this consciousness revolution Sriman Mahaprabhu takes us to the consciousness of consciousness, wherein we find prema at the center. Incidentally, he appeared within the same decade that Copernicus first realized the truth of a fixed-sun-centered universe. As the sun appears to move from east to west, may the eastern dawn of the influence of Mahaprabhu reach high noon in the west with deep thinkers concluding that prema is the prayojana.

Now if we are to take part in this revolution we will not only have to think deeply, but more importantly, teach by example. Thus it is our individual spiritual practice that is most important. Leaving aside the physical reality, we enter the realm of ritual and then the realm of bhajana. These worlds have their own cosmology, and it behooves one who desires to enter them to acquaint oneself with it. Therein we find gods and goddesses that might otherwise be thought of as archetypical influences, natural laws, etc. We enter the world of mind (psyche/cosmos) and then transcend it altogether, landing at the feet of the source of cosmic intelligence. Deep within his world there is also a sun and moon, etc. along with their gods and goddesses, although there is, in one sense, no need for them—no need in terms of tattva, but they are needed in terms of bhava. Indeed, how could there be rasa-lila in Goloka without the full moon?

The link below takes you to a fascinating thread of 78 questions and answers by Bhagavata cosmologists.

©2010 by Steve M. Doyle (Soolaba)

Exit mobile version