Synopsis:

Next to the realms of physics and biology, did we fail to fix up the additional laws of evolution? It’s ages since we outsmarted the other species on earth and boarded the trajectory of mind to create histories of triumph. And yet one century beyond Darwin, we are stuck at the level of natural selection & selfish genes. Our success in explaining the biological forces of evolution is hardly reflected in our ability to explain the growth of mind. Are there hidden laws for the phenomenon of awareness, hidden due to their extreme proximity in us?

The article takes up the above questions and postulates 7 evolutionary laws of mind in part one. Their implications for soul and the future of mankind are revolutionary and yet tradition-bound.

The communication of Super-consciousness is understood through the Divine Principle of Uncertainty, arising out of the Divine Dilemma between communicating Truth and not communicating it, in order to make man the real discoverer and not to violate the legitimate space for evolution.

What are the implications for world religions under this new law? Can any religion boast of superiority in this perfect harmony of evolution and revelation? Which ideas crash and which are upheld? How does it interpret the phenomenon of miracles? What new paths emerge for the training of FAITH and the future of DIALOGUE?

These questions are treated from a strictly rational perspective in the concluding section of the article, which contribute to three more laws of mind. Altogether they make up the Ten Commandments Of Consciousness


1. Part A : The Unfinished Agenda of Consciousness[size=3]

[size=1]In our quest towards God and ultimate significance, it’s possible we haven’t hit the right starting point yet – a point that would yield to scientific parameters and yet scale up to the very final questions.

Scientists unswervingly attempt to look for the ultimate building blocks of the Universe. They would be elated if something would link up right from particle physics up until the end of TIME. But Evolution is by no means a mathematical super-structure, or a physical flare-up all the way from down to top. It would rather pass for a thriller story of twists and turning points, possibly bringing in new sets of laws for the new levels of reality it achieves. When matter evolved into a stage of sensing itself, sensing its own organic structure and the physical realities around, one such defining moment happened and it’s this stage we need to suspect for a radical, new ground.

In any case, atoms and molecules aren’t the foundation for a number of sciences we already have. A study of economics starts off with human needs and formulates its principles right from there. Biology itself is not a direct conclusion of physical and chemical laws. Emerging out of the inanimate phenomena, the world of cells and species worked out their own new basis in terms of genes, natural selection and survival mechanisms. Similarly, consciousness, a natural development of the animate world would hardly be an offshoot of neuro-biology as such; it probably hides its own inner principles, upon which an uncontrolled growth seems to have occurred. It is this subtle new foundation, I would postulate in this essay through a method of focusing on one’s own consciousness rather than the mapping of brains and nerves.


The phenomenon of mind can qualify for a strict science from one important perspective at least. Even as physical properties of matter are commonly accessible and verifiable by all, the plane of consciousness, through its internal accessibility though, is verifiable by all those who possess it. Any law here claimed to be true is in a way the easiest one for verification – it’s close and immediate to the verifying agent himself/herself. One doesn’t need to walk up to a laboratory for the certification of this science.

1.1 Law 1: Privacy: Sense / conscious impression is fundamentally an experience within, a kind of light that recognizes a message within itself. For this reason, no one else can directly own it, share it, peep into it, or feel it exactly the same way as the organism having the experience.

In normal circumstances we learn of what’s inside another consciousness only when the organism expresses itself through a bodily gesture or a sound wave. A positive or negative emotion felt within might be expressed through a widening of the cheek or a shrinking of it. Ripples of waves emanating from the vocal cord are indicative of the conscious experience within the organism. We could also study the neuro-biological changes and arrive at some conclusions regarding a possible internal experience. All these are preludes, effects or impacts on a physical/biological plane reaching our own senses in accordance with known physical/biological laws. But the reality of conscious experience, as such, doesn’t possess properties of weight, magnetism, electricity, chemical manifestations etc., nor does it reflect light rays or any other physical wave, detectible by our senses. We simply do not have direct access to a conscious experience of others.

This unique quality of consciousness differentiates it remarkably from all physical realities. Awareness by nature is out of reach for anyone or anything outside, unless and until it’s expressed on a physical plane.
A corollary follows that every conscious impression is known only to the extent it gets expressed on the physical world. And physical expressions, we know, could be utterly poor, controlled or restrained, hidden or even negated with the original experience.

The law implies something significant for all those who desire to ‘see’ God or prove His existence. Suppose we agree on a description of God, as THE SUPER CONSCIOUSNESS SUBSISTING IN ITSELF, it’s entirely possible that It exists right in our midst and yet remains inaccessible to our senses. If Tom has difficulty to behold Pete’s consciousness straightaway, much less could he expect to perceive God, or hit against It’s existence per se. No physical quantities or qualities would ever present a direct proof on the presence of the Ultimate. Perhaps, our ways of ascertaining and relating to an earthly consciousness would offer the best tips towards a proof of the Ultimate as well. We would revert to such an approach in the second part of this paper.

1.2 Law 2: Potential for Recall: Sense/conscious impression, best described as a kind of light that recognizes a content within itself, automatically implies the potential for recall. Multiple sense-impressions of identical sense data received from the external world helped actualize the potential.

It’s evident that the organic structure of living beings evolved towards higher capacity of sensing their body and their environment. But the unparalleled success story of consciousness is only half-explained by the physiological evolution itself. For example the possibility of identical sense impressions is attributed to the nature of reality outside and the well-developed structure of organism. But the ability to recall a sense impression, at the end of many similar impressions, is primarily a measure of self-achievement, for each impression was an energy that recognized something within itself. This energy grew so intense, till it could recall the impression on its own strength, without requiring further stimuli.

It’s this inner potential that later showed up in human beings as memory skills. In order to remember a hill-side view, for example, we either have to return to the place a couple of times or internally reinforce the images we already have. Internal efforts to register and memorize data would have been impossible, had it not been for the capacity of awareness itself.

Even the imprints upon the brain, serving as the basis of memory play only a facilitating role. The new power of evolution, one could assert, utilized all favorable physiological factors, until it relived impressions on its own strength. We can represent this law mathematically as:
M = M M’
where M is the primary sense-impression and M’ is an inherent capacity of M to recall itself. Suppose an organism receives identical M for k times:
kM = k( MM’)
The strength of kM’ keeps expanding till M occurs independent of external stimuli. The law is also true for any conscious impression, other than sense impressions. If T is an original impression of the mind, we can also write:
T = TT’
KT = k( TT’)

1.3 Law 3 : Potential for Chain-Growth: Every sense-experience is also an orientation to a deeper & enhanced experience. As reality puts forth endless data manifesting its endless richness, awareness reaches out to them step by step kick-starting its own chain-growth.

Sense-impressions not merely recall themselves. By their nature of experiencing something within, they can instantly improve upon their previous foundation. This can be illustrated through a simple game. We know that a newborn baby merely sees vague images and colors as it opens its eyes. It cannot identify objects and persons. But the repeated images it starts receiving enables it to club them or compare them until it grows in its skill of discrimination.

Display before a baby of one year or two, a few pencils and balls. If presented one by one, the baby would receive some vague idea about them. Suppose we present two attractive pencils of strikingly different length. Let the long one be A and the short one B. Perceiving A & B simultaneously, the baby gets induced to attend to certain specific aspects. It may focus on the similarity in the shape of A & B, the identical sharpness of their tip etc. It would also be attracted to see the contrast in their length. By repeating the experiment with other objects of varying length, we can easily train the child to look specifically for the length of the object even when it appears singly.

Utilizing two balls of strikingly contrasting colors, we can also quicken the alertness of the child, to colors. This is a simple illustration to show how the initial vagueness of observing a physical entity, gets elevated to look for specific aspects of reality. Vision of a lengthy A and a shorter B, induces the child to focus on their variation and pass on to the next level of sensing the length of any object, an alertness previously absent. No artificial intelligence can raise itself to a new level, never programmed earlier. Awareness by its own nature gets alerted to seek for deeper truth. It can correct, upgrade or re-focus itself through this self-initiated search. The growth is merely facilitated by the richness of data pouring in from outside.

All physical entities do transmit waves, rays and other essential properties, communicative of their richness. But it’s not any stick and stone that can capture data and decode them for what they are. Only those gifted with awareness are set on a path of incessant growth through a progressive intake of data.

Sense of sight, touch and smell is common to insects, birds, animals and human beings but the depth at which they encounter reality under these basic senses is vastly different. This again is due to the level of growth they have managed to attain.

A house-fly that is attracted to a food item, does not recognize in which room it’s moving about, how many people are seated on the table, or what decorative articles hang on the wall. A kitten sharply smells the dish, identifies the furniture and windows, perfectly lands on them, but it remains blind to the shades of a teak wood and a rose wood, an iron bucket and a brass one. A dog might sniff out the owner more cleverly than a kitten, but it doesn’t question if he/she purchases bag-full or half-full. Only a human being reckons the difference between a short event and a long one, besides being capable of most aspects of awareness mentioned above. This is a crude example to show how sense-awareness has steadily developed upon its previous foundation over millions of years of evolution.

We do not deny the need-based growth, the circumstantial conditioning and the evolutionary physiology responsible for the variation in the way a kitten and a human being looks at reality. But growth itself would have been impossible to any of these species but for the potential of awareness to steadily sharpen itself.

Mathematically we can represent this law as:
M → M’ → M’’ → M’’’ etc. where M, M’, M’’, M’’’ represent varying levels of attending to reality. The law is also true for any conscious impression other than sense-impression.

T → T’ → T’’ → T’’’ where T, T’, T’’ &T’’’ represent varying conscious impressions linked to each other. The chain of thinking process ultimately flowering in human beings offers sufficient proof as to how one impression leads to the other necessarily.

1.4 Law 4: Potential for Creative Impressions: Sense awareness of an organism was not merely a passive reception of data from outside. It quickly molded into manipulation of body and environment. This ability implies creative impressions - far beyond copying & sensing the physical world.

It is in the nature of awareness to grow to a level of response. Sensing the body implied controlling the body instantly. Sensing the world meant reacting to the world quickly. The chain-growth of awareness elevated it to a level of responding through gestures, emotions, formulation of ideas, desires and willpower.

The implications of this potential are indeed far reaching. Sparkles of self-recognizing content, pressured through their own strength the eventuality of CONNECTING or COMPARING one data with the other, until it turned into a full-blown analytical capacity. The ability to feel strongly, the ability to express oneself artistically and the ability to engage in an unending thought process are simply higher modes of creative impressions starting with primary sense experience.

In a previous illustration, we saw how the idea of length is formed in a child by perceiving closely the objects of contrasting length. Later, as words associated with each object and each concept are sounded before the child, it would also shout out its creative impressions such as: ‘LONG PENCIL MINE’, ‘BLUE BALL ALSO MINE’

This is not to imply that lower species incapable of speech are wanting in original impressions. Intelligent response to environment is as old as awareness itself. Insects, reptiles, birds and animals display a whole lot of connecting, comparing, analyzing of data resulting in a perfect manipulation of body and environment. A chick quickly learns to differentiate a grain from a stone. It doesn’t peck a hot rod as it pecks a rotten wood hoping for termites. A lizard that moves towards a moth, assessing for a while if it’s a suitable prey and charging later in a manner that betrays no trace of disturbance definitely includes countless creative impressions, other than the ordinary sights and sounds it receives. Human beings are only the full-blown wonders of creativity, already at work in every living creature.

The phenomenal growth of creative impressions laid the basis of human civilization, including virtues of love, forgiveness & justice. Mathematically we can represent this potential as:
(m1, m2 , m3, ….) → (m1, m2 , m3, ta , tb , tc, …..) where m1, m2 , m3 are varying sense impressions and ta , tb , tc are creative impressions starting with instinctive response, emotion, desire, thought & willpower.

1.5 Law 5 : Potential for Self: Every sense / conscious impression is a new born experience; the moment it’s born, a sense of ‘i’ is born as well.

Whenever a sense/conscious impression occurs, a newborn experience experiences itself, even as it experiences a specific content. In other words, it’s alive to itself, in the very act of being alive to a content. The feeling of ‘self’ was too feeble for recognition in the early stages of evolution; but it quickly gathered momentum, even as higher species relished an abounding phenomenon of awareness.

Mathematically one could represent this law as:
M = ic , ( where M stands for sense or any other conscious impression, c for the content part of M & ‘i’ for the sense of self, available through M).

Suppose M1, M2 , M3 occur K1, K2, K3 times:
K1M1, K2M2, K3 M3 = (K1+ K2+ K3)i , K1c1, K2c2, K3 c3

The strength of (K1+ K2+ K3)i keeps increasing, till it becomes a recognizable sense of self.

Even human beings concentrate primarily on the content part of impressions and accumulate a vague sense of ‘I’ available through their unending flow of consciousness. But searching diligently as to where we pick up the sense of ‘ I ‘, we would discover that it’s born precisely at the level of each and every impression decoded within us.

The flow of consciousness and the sense of self are inter-twined and inseparable, although they aren’t one and the same. The content part high-jacks our attention and the feeling of “I” vibrating at background weaves an impression of a permanent base.

A direct fall-out of this law goes against the possibility of a God-given ‘soul’ or an imperishable ‘Atman’, planted somewhere in our consciousness. Instead, the dynamics of every single impression betrays sufficient ground for what we call ‘I’. Each conscious impression is a self-decoding light and hence the sense of ‘I’ is innate to it.

This is not to argue that the sublime human consciousness is reducible to a mere sequence of impressions, at a level equivalent to animals or plants. The extra-ordinary power of synthesis human beings achieved with regard to every reality did offer them greater and greater understanding of all of it including their own individuality or self. As they continued to evolve day in and day out, they were capable of a clearer and more complex definition of themselves. Their sense of responsibility and excellence grew with their ever-increasing self-knowledge. But every concept of synthesis was again a series of conscious impressions and they too were born with dozes of ‘I’ this rule talks of. It’s impossible to escape from this all-pervasive law and any sublime height attributed to human nature in the history of philosophy or religion requires to be re-evaluated on the basis of this evolutionary code.

The share of divinity is in no way undermined through this law. In fact a sense of mystery, a sense of ‘given-ness’ is in-built with every sense or conscious impression, right in the inexplicable manner it occurs. The resultant decoding remains baffling, despite all neuro-biological processing, running prior to it.

The given-ness of physical matter and all its constant properties, tempting us to believe in a Super-natural would pale into insignificance at the dramatic given-ness of impressions happening right within us. The Ultimate is definitely pointed to again, if not proved by this gigantic step of evolution. One might even say that dissection of matter and dissection of psyche equally lead to bewilderment and humility.

Scientific discoveries of matter and evolution played a crucial role in correcting our view of creation, if not discarding it altogether. And the basic laws of awareness would instruct us on the exact manner in which the creator has possibly intended to shape our ‘soul’.

1.6 Law 6: Potential for a Coherent Consciousness: Awareness of varying data achieved through multiple sense-organs didn’t yield multiple fields of consciousness. Rather the idea of ‘self’ inherent in every impression, the power of memory, the inbuilt linkage & the endless creative impressions helped unite the overwhelming phenomena, into a unified plane of consciousness.

Much is already known about the physical unity of organism, described in terms of physical, chemical and physiological bonds. Starting with electron–proton attraction, every chemical and physiological linkage is necessary to understand the togetherness of an organism. These multiple levels of co-ordination definitely contributed to the creation of a unified plane of awareness. But they did not grant it simply on their own. The regions of brain receiving varying types of sense-impressions continue to be distinct. How then did we come up with a well-connected, coherent consciousness? What worked out the unity within the plane of awareness itself? Obviously no physical or chemical or physiological bond can enter this higher grade of reality.
Every impression, as explained earlier, potentially linked up with the next one or a related one. Along with the gifts of memory, sense of self & the creative impressions of comparing and contrasting, awareness progressively weaved its own unified plane.

Let’s define the brain stimulants received from the vision of a neem tree next to a building for a period of one second as n1, that from a mango tree against a hill as m1 and that from an ongoing music as z1. Suppose the vision of the neem lasts for 3 seconds, the vision of the second tree for 9 seconds and the hearing of music for 12 seconds, how are we to quantify the resultant experience? Do we call it 2 types of awareness, since 2 sense-organs are involved or is it 5 levels of experience, since 5 different entities (neem, building, mango, hill, music) are captured? Worse still, should we denote it as 24 units of awareness, for the 24 seconds it lasted?

Looking at the neem tree next to the building, I attend to lots of aspects of reality at once. I recognize the variation in the appearance of the tree and the building; I see the distance between them and I also sense the extent of time for which I have the vision. These multiple impressions enable me to see the connectivity or inter-relatedness between the tree and the building. Above all, the experience gets registered in my memory, along with the notion of time.

Turning to the mango tree next, I receive all components of vision described earlier and in addition I am able to compare my first and second vision, since the first is still in memory.

At the end of 12 seconds, even as I listen to the piece of music, I not only enjoy the melody of sound; I am forced to feel the difference between vision and sound and the variation in the time element, for which the hearing lasts. Ability to capture the multitude of data coming from outside, ability to understand the relatedness of varying realities and ability to remember my own sequence of experience give birth to a unified plane of consciousness.

Neem, mango and music may be scattered realities of the outer world. But they have given rise to a singular consciousness, in a singular organism.

Mathematically we can express this as:
C = ( m1, m2 , m3 , ta , tb , tc …….) where C represents consciousness, m1, m2, m3 represent varying sense impressions and ta, tb, tc stand for memory, co-relating impressions or any other creative ones. The sequence itself could occur in endless computations & permutations linking sense impressions and creative ones into a unified plane of awareness.

It’s of course the human beings who enjoy the greatest benefit of a well-knit flow of awareness. Their intelligence grew ever more complex in terms of language, attitudes, behavior and achievements, making it difficult to recognize the starting points of primary impressions. Unable to find a due explanation for the incessant flow of thoughts, emotions, desires, creativity and determination, neatly bound into a coherent plane of consciousness, we took recourse to the theory of soul, or a theory of Rebirth. Such ideas, as explained earlier, would be discordant with the evolutionary character of the world.

But the success of the law of mind rarely depends on its ability to explain the past and the present. Human beings are so complex, their dreams and aspirations so expansive, that we need to find answers even for their future vision. The quest for meaningfulness remains a moot question and it’s all the more exasperated by the event of death that makes a mockery of the grandeur of human progress. Till the day, a scientific theory addresses such issues, the dogmas of religions will be the last resorts available, however conflicting and contradictory they might sound.

Law 7: Potential For Self – Extension:

While the sense of ‘I’, born with each impression remained at the background, the content part of consciousness created an active concept of ‘SELF’, even as it created many other concepts in line with the multi-faceted reality. The distinctiveness of the body among other objects and organisms, its influence and control upon consciousness, led the latter to conclude that the body is the starting point of ‘SELF’. Intimately connected to the body and the ideas of ‘I’, deep-most emotions, desires and priorities got entangled over long years of evolution.

What really happened in this process was a subtle, inner projection. The sense of ‘I’ native to each impression was getting extended to one specific body and one specific concept. Right at the core of consciousness, an unconscious matching was spearheaded. Not a miss-matching, after-all.

But suppose awareness turns back on itself and focuses on this inner dynamics, a similar projection can be extended to many other realities as well. A sense of ‘self’ is right at my disposal, through little impressions steadily glimpsing within me. Why not focus on this inner gift and extend it not only to my body and individuality but to any reality I like to think of? The natural bonding of ‘other realities’ to consciousness may be a million times less than the bonding that exists with the immediate self. The nerve connections definitely become weaker and weaker. But they hardly explain why a projection of self can’t be applied to any of them. It’s after all a question of thinking and feeling something as myself. We do it artfully with our own body, thanks to its natural linkage with mind. A deliberate, conscious attempt can also create similar linkages with other objects and organisms, provided the superficial way of looking at reality gets challenged and clarified within ourselves.

Human mind felt and treated ‘the other’ as the other, even as it lacked the knowledge as to how intimately all physical and biological realities are bound starting with the BIG BANG.

Projecting self unto the physique, but not to the atmospheric air, to cite one simple example, was too naïve of the consciousness. Had the biological process of air reaching every cell of the body and CO2 returning back to the atmosphere presented itself either in colors or sounds or through constant touch nerves, we would have hardly stopped the definition of ‘I’ at the tip of our nose. Right from the days of our animal life, atmosphere would have been an essential ingredient of self.

Seeing through the apparent boundaries of objects and organisms and educating ourselves on the deeper level of unity, we can design a creative program to project ‘self’ beyond limits. Correspondingly new statements of ‘I’, new emotions, concerns and priorities would spring up, if only through a long tunnel of progress. We would inch towards the complexity of feeling one with others at certain moments and feeling different from them at other moments, depending on life context, even as we are trained to make such distinction of roles in our present ego.

The more a consciousness focuses on its ability to think of anything as its SELF and the more it practices the same with things and persons around, better-trained will it be in shaping its own universal identity, resulting in higher levels of contentment and freedom. The emergent personality will be far more synchronized with the complex facets and demands of reality.

One could also get into a discussion of what truly the ‘self ’ is: Could it be the momentary sense of ‘I’ born with each impression – or sounding still radical: ‘Should we attach any significance even to this fleeting impression that stops once the brain does?’. Such an analysis is certainly useful up to an extent, but that would also mean a denial of the wonders the little awareness has created through its momentum of building up. All that we are now is thanks to the artful combination of impressions.

By simply digging into the roots, we do not necessarily arrive at any further truth, any further reality or substantiality more than what is displayed at each ascending level. This law is also true of the physical properties of matter and it’s obvious that the evolutionary dynamics of universe requires us to fall in line with its own direction of growth, the direction of future, the direction of complexity rather than dissecting endlessly. Every process of analysis attains its meaning only to the extent, it helps build a proper synthesis.
The ultimate question therefore is the one we have taken up in this section. How the innate sense of ‘I’ prevalent in each impression became applicable to a concept and a physical reality and why it can’t be extended to other things and persons around?

Our mind is a staggering building up of minute impressions. We only have to supply it with the right type of assertions to achieve higher levels of self-projection. The more we understand the dynamics of the present ‘ego’, the quicker would we engage on the miracle of its extension.

Previous laws of consciousness dealt with potentials already realized; but the last one has opened up an unending potential, an eventual goal of man. Any reader familiar with Buddhism and Upanishads would have suspected a consonance between evolutionary laws of consciousness and these two exalted traditions. However the question of ‘Brahman’ or the ‘Ultimate’ hasn’t figured anywhere in this analysis and a whole lot of other religious systems remain totally distant as well.

these "laws" are not universally applicable to all forms of consciousness. For example, it has been amply demonstrated that recall (your Law #2) does not necessarily accompany conscious experience. Your Law #5 is incorrect insofar as it implies consciousness is associated with an ego or self-awareness. The rest of your laws are also problematic. I'm curious why you even bother coming up with these laws and if you are solely drawing from your limited experience.

Repeated conscious impressions of identical sense-data necessarily enable recall. This can be demonstrated with any simple animal.

I never said, consciousness is associated with self-awareness, for these two are inseparable for me. Consciousness simply means self-awareness.

For those who focus on their conscious experience, study and observe it as a unique phenomenon in itself, even if arising out of matter, all these laws would soon become evident as universal.

You have a lot to learn.

Animals and humans do not have the same sense of awareness of self nor the ability to make conscious choice.
Witnessing and reacting are not at the same level of conscious awareness. Recall from stability is not reactive and does not necessarily project stress or clouded perception from the past into this moment.
Choice is part of the nature of free will and is not taken away but often clouded and forgotten by a less than conscious awareness of reality.


Those who have an experience and then define God as a personal God and an angry God merely define God and universal law according to their present experience. They may try to force this assumption as universal but like any child who grows out of their childhood and into adulthood perception changes.

1 Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I would recommend deeper study of the neural basis of consciousness. There is a huge literature dealing with learning and memory, and if you study this, you will learn the reason why your Law #2 is wrong. I would also suggest backing up your claims with references or sources, in order to give them some credibility.

Much of what you claim is new sounds very much like Teilhard de Chardin. Are you familiar with his works?

This is part 1 of your personal 10 commandents, and I see a part 2 at http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17111&hl=
Are there additional parts?

You need to read the posting, before conveniently reacting to one liners.

But for those who do such blunders, let me try to explain again.

Every conscious impression is something known within itself; awareness simply means knowing something within itself, which means the element of self is already there. Pause for a while and try to catch your own conscious impressions in a kind of slow motion. You would recognize each impression brings you the self. The continuity of which you normally presume as the self.

Now don't tell me like Joesus that animals have a much less sense of self. I know it well. All these have been put in mathematical progression within the postings.

Please read them pausing over each statement, in case you want to appreciate the strong sense of self that has accumulated in you over millions of years of evolution.

Put two bones before a dog. It necessarily makes a choice which one to attack first.

The free will you talk of is simply an awareness of lots of choices and a compulsion to choose one or the other. It could even be a survival compulsion.

Animals have less evolved sense of self and less knowledge, restricting their choice remarkably.

So come out of your religious indoctrination.



Tell me where I painted God angry.

It's truly childishness to talk of free will as a mysterious element planted within consciousness.

The concept is absolutely necessary to magnify the extent of sins committed by christians, followed by the magical redemption of their savior.

Two parts are given in order to get over the prescribed length of the posting. It's obvious you haven't read them, for 7 laws are dealt with in the first part and the remaining in the second.

I have repeatedly acknowledged the neural basis of consciousness, almost in every law I dealt with. But try not to be stuck at the basis. I have clearly stated, over and above the neural basis, consciousness through its own potentials enable the process of recall and other facets of growth. I have given you sufficient example as well.

Consciousness is something you can study through your own observation of consciousness. This is what I have been repeating. Here lies the experiment and verification for me.

Without undertaking the pain of experiment, desire not to appreciate the law.

Path-breaking new discoveries hardly have reference or source. However there is some remote reference to the basic approach adopted. I would give it to you later.

Teilhard certainly talked of the omega point of evolution. I have read few things here and there. While stating that the world evolves towards oneness, and pinpointing a few common patterns of growth towards this oneness, he clearly acknowledged he was at a loss to discover the basic laws of the phenomenon of the mind, crucial for the oneness.

It's these laws, I have portrayed here.

Let people read the posting carefully, before reacting haphazardly.

For the reference Lucid asked for:

Is There Room for the Soul?
New challenges to our most cherished beliefs about self and the human spirit
By Jay Tolson
Posted 10/15/06 in U.S. News and World Report
Page 4 of 9
But does the biochemistry underlying these qualia (the plural of quale) adequately account for the experience itself, not to mention aspects of higher-order consciousness that we associate with a sense of self and language? Edelman appears to be of two minds. "We evolved structures that invented language," he says. Yet once humans acquired syntax, Edelman adds, "all bets are off." Biology, he seems to suggest, can take us only so far in understanding the symbol-using mind. "It's not totally reductive," he says.


Page 5 & 6 of 9

David Galin, a neuropsychiatrist and professor emeritus at the University of California-San Francisco, makes the point that researchers are often in such a hurry to explain consciousness in terms of their pet theories that they don't adequately examine just what they are trying to explain. "People treat consciousness as a thing," he says, "or as the system that generates the qualia or as the central mechanism that directs how it is employed-and those are all different things."

At least some of the philosophers involved with the modern study of consciousness have been aware of this problem from the earliest years of the enterprise. One of them, David Chalmers, now at the Australian National University, is widely known within the field for a speech he gave in 1994 at the first of a series of ongoing biannual conferences on consciousness held in Tucson, Ariz. (Out of these conferences would come both The Journal of Consciousness Studies and the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, a center that Chalmers would come to direct in 1997 and that is now directed by Stuart Hameroff, a professor of anesthesiology at the same university.)

Chalmers created a stir at Tucson I by trying to clarify the "hard problem" of consciousness: the problem, as he put it, of experience itself. "When we think and perceive there is a whir of information-processing," Chalmers declared, "but there is also a subjective aspect." This aspect, he continued, "is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field .... Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience."



The easier questions for Chalmers were things like the ability to discriminate among assorted stimuli or to report upon mental states. But subjectivity arising out of matter: that to Chalmers was a mystery so seemingly insoluble that he wrote a whole book (The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory) arguing that consciousness had to be considered a fundamental category like space, time, or gravity-explicable only by special, psychophysical laws.

Thanks for the attempt at clarification, Raja. I will try rereading your work a little later today.

Really? It thinks this one first and this one 2nd?
Put two bones before a dog it doesn't think about quality, benefit of one over the other, first or second, it picks one because it cannot eat both at the same time and he picks one because he can and is hungry.
If it isn't hungry it may bury it but there is no thought process of why and need.
Conscious choice is not made by an animal.


The free will I speak of is inspiration and imagination preceding a choice which is not laid out like two bones in front of you. Problem solving, invention, the choice to move forward in ones own evolution or backwards.
Give an animal a situation such as being caught in a trap and it will chew its leg off as it's only option.

That is what differentiates humans from animals.

I think you are projecting.


Silly me I meant deceitful, you are the one who is angry.


Without any understanding of it, labeling it as mysterious, it would be.


The concept is absolutely necessary to give a human the ability to call himself/herself christian without thinking some force outside of humanity manipulates one to think they have been made into a christian element. Even a critic such as yourself accepts or condemns with the ability to think either way.
Surely you don't think Christians are a separate species born with all of the inherent abilities to force you to be judmental of the Christian factor or that you were born with a judgment gene specifically designed to be critical of religion do you?
Do you give yourself credit for being free thinking and intelligent as well as deceitful and angry?

Think of it this way Joesus: Put two bones before a dog; pose there with a threatening stick as well. The dog surely wants to have the bones; it's conscious of its present hunger, conscious of its previous taste of bones; at the same time it's also aware of what a thrashing it can receive with the stick.

It weighs everything in its mind and makes a clever decision of leaving the bones and running away. Would you still not say the animal made a choice here?




Haven't you reflected about the inspirations of dogs. They react much more appropriately to every changing scenario, compared to the dull-headed / introverted human being. They would even get bored up with one monotonous posture or environment and suddenly move towards a different context, if only for a change. Observe them in this angle and you'll find what lots of inspirations they receive.

They certainly do not plan to attack someone on a future date; or do a favor to the master the next month. These are reserved for human beings. But problem solving, invention, the choice to move forward or backward, I bet, they do it in their own beautiful ways.

If you want to trap them, using your higher intelligence, you would surely outsmart them.



I certainly appreciate you for recognizing my anger while making yesterday's replies. Nothing wrong with being angry, Joesus. I am not God to have foreknowledge of the kind of replies I would get from some of you. The beauty of the internet is to be able to express our views boldly without much of a facade.

I admire your own anger about the way I describe God. Shows a lot of your attachment to this Profound Reality. Perfectly fine. But again you don't need to continue with your anger, if you truly understand what I am saying.

A wiser being certainly has the right to decieve immature ones for a definite period of time, with the real motive of helping them to discover the fuller truth on their own. Growth is simply impossible without this technique. I gave you a beautiful example from my own life situation, and you neatly chose to avoid the issue.

My depiction might go against all your previous knowledge of God. But why not to show some humility and accept joyfully what the limitless wisdom has rightly done with puny human beings like us.




Again a misunderstanding. I have made Christ the greatest revelation, standing for the ultimate immortality that mankind is destined to achieve. Obvious yet again, you haven't done a careful reading of my writings.



Absolutely, provided you have given up your continued anger against purposeful deceitfulness and anger per se.

No I would say it wants the bones but fear causes it to react and run away. This is not a conscious choice.
A conscious choice would be to discern if the man holding the stick was fighting for the bones, attacking through fear, wanting to play fetch or simply standing ready to protect himself out of his own fear. The Choice in humans is not at the same level of conscious awareness as a Dog.

You associate reaction to inspiration. You and I obviously have a different way of thinking.
Dogs do not think about comparisons nor do they reflect. The dull-headed human can evolve thru choice. The Dog cannot.


You're making an assumption about wisdom thru the relative relationship you have with God outside of yourself. A wiser person in Union with God always leads to a greater truth by standing in it. Truth (the absolute) is without deception. The only reason it appears to be deceptive to the lesser conscious person is because they do not understand the wisdom, truth, nor themselves.
The example you give about a deceitful God is simply stress related, a concoction of emotions and ideas not born from true revelation in clarity of thought.
Your admiration for my anger is simply a justification for grasping onto your own ideas and seeking confirmation from the outside for your own emotional position.

If you seek to practise Ishvara Pranidhana (surrendering to higher knowledge and Self) or learning, you must first have a clear experience of the Supreme Being. Such a being is without malice or deceit. Only then can you learn by becoming less defensive and more humble to your own creation and the extension of yourself and God.

You mean I obviously am not giving you what you want from your effort. Perhaps your work is not your greatest work. Aspiring to something is always good but if you put it outside of yourself you might also believe it is beyond your reach.

Many are angry at God for their own ignorance created by the choices they make in assuming things are a certain way. Being that God has given the human free will to realise their own divinity or make assumptions in separation, an ignorant human would assume that a higher power controls their ability to realise Truth.


Your depiction hasn't overshadowed the reality of God. Why assume your emotions have captured the essence of God?


This is a strange condition you are setting. You're saying you will change your appearance or be a certain way if I will change my appearance and be a certain way. Children often throw tantrums, but it is out of emotional desparation not clear thinking.
Perhaps God may reveal itself more clearly if you remove the personal and emotional judgments. The universal God is much larger than the personal God.

Raja, I have reread your post and it is amateur developmental psychology at best. Reading Jean Piaget, and even Hume, will help to open your eyes. Not that I agree with everything they've said, but what you're doing is trying to re-invent a wheel that Piaget has already invented, and he has the advantage of making his analysis eloquent, powerful, and influential. Your analysis pales beside it. For your own sake, read up on the psychology literature.

And I'll bring it up again since it's still an issue: namely, conscious impressions do not imply subsequent recall. Consider someone with anterograde amnesia.

Further, you note that "we are stuck at natural selection", yet start referencing 2nd-hand sources of Edelman in support of your ideas. Didn't you know that Edelman is a neural Darwinist?

Regarding the "hidden laws for the phenomenon of consciousness", have you read Chalmers, Searle, Baars, or anyone else studying consciousness? It's like your writing out of a bubble. Your completely cut-off from a vast sea of other people's ideas, and if you remedy this ignorance, your ideas and writings will be more original and more convincing. For example, I think you would learn a lot from Chalmer's book, published in 1996, called "The Conscious Mind".

Not substantially different from what I have been saying. The semi-conscious and reactionary choice of animals evolved into a more conscious and more deliberate choice of human beings.




Thanks for reinforcing my message.



Do you remember the example I gave you, regarding my answers to my little daughter. Are you talking of the same or some other concoctions. If it's the same hopefully, for your information, I enjoyed doing it to my daughter. I wish you were at home to see the hidden smiles between me and my wife. Yours is truly a wild imagination to concoct stress out of everything.





Can you tell me in what context I have proposed the necessity of God to deceive humans and that too for a definite period of history? Are you still talking of this, or something else?




Can I rephrase what I meant. I am certainly free thinking and intelligent, purposefully deceitful at times and purposefully angry at few other occasions.

Thanks for the references Lucid. I will definitely go into them as well.

Raja, I know some of my statements might be construed as overly-critical, but I trust you can separate the wheat from the chaff in my remarks, and it appears you're on an interesting path and I would encourage taking it further. Someone else whose ideas you may enjoy are Vernor Vinge's, though his ideas are more singularity related.

Do you consider your daughter in your example as being more human or animal. IF she is at a lesser state of evolution easily deceived by you would that make you more human and her less human?


You don't have a message. you have an experience. It becomes a message if it is universal in truth. Right now its still personal to you. The reinforcement is simply an illusion.


I remember the example you gave of your daughter, and I can see how you would imagine yourself as a God with the wisdom to lead your daughter to higher states of consciousness, but it has nothing to do with the imaginings created by illusions of separation between God and man. Your mixing apples and oranges.


Any context of separation between God and man is illusion.
Your depiction of religion is an opinion based on your own ideas.
Bring it closer to home. Everything you perceive is created by you and so God being in everything God is everything. Take away all separation of evolution and ideas of evolution and illusions of time and everything exists now. The mind simply clings to ideas of being this or that. You see your daughter as a child yet she is fully grown, not only in this life but in other lives as well. You think you have something to teach her yet it is more that you will receive a reflection thru her by the way you see yourself. In other words what you pass on to her is more likely to be the subconcious programs that influence you rather than your illusions of a projected higher evolved being. You think of her as less conscious than you already. Any personal system of conscious measure is flawed, prone to choices to purposely entertain deceit and anger and to use it against others. This is what you will give to your daughter.
Your present situation and awareness is built around the anger you have for God.
What you can't see and experience and what you aspire to, you blame on a power that is outside of you rather than your own choice to remain less than what you believe is the goal of humankind.


You can rephrase anything you want. This whole conversation and what you are rephrasing is in a different thought and emotional state now, than when you originally posted your Topic. We aren't there anymore and it has less meaning now then it did when you posted it.

So, you are convinced of the universality, the objectivity of individualistic experiences and that no individual view or perception may be upheld as true and objective. How neatly, you are hooked into this singular objectivity alone.

It's this objectivity you have tried hard to impose on others as well. Deeper still is your conviction, each perception is related to personal stress somehow or the other. It's this conviction that blinds you to appreciate any kind of objectivity in any statement offered by others. You have grown talented in attributing all kinds of motives and games for each and every discussion that people offer.

I would be least disturbed by any of the deep insights you have freely and habitually fabricated for every tiny experience and perception of mine. Better offer your psycho-analytical services for some fees rather than singing them free of charge.

You are most welcome to point out the flaw in arguments; not to assume the self-styled service of attributing motives and inner visions.

In my case, the argument boils down to this. I have presented an explanation for the half-truths, contradictions and the anti-science statements of all revealed texts of varying religions.

In case, you disagree with my position, it's your simple responsibility to offer your own explanation for all these classical errors and contradictions.

You can't merely escape by imagining I am angry with something or the other. I would know better than you what I am angry with and what I am not.

So, kindly come up with some explanation. Or at least state your position.

Because of the uniqueness of free will to interpret reality according to choice no two people see the world exactly the same. Tho we share similar experiences no two will see and experience any event with the same thoughts and projections. Even identical twins may have differing opinions of reality after having grown up in the same environement for even they will not be together, thinking the same thoughts and feeling the same things about life.
As for being hooked into anything.. well that is what the ego does. IT takes the universe and boxes it up in an neat package of absolutes.
The relative is anything but absolute, but what supports all unique perceptions of reality is.
I speak from my own experience but that does neither make your choice nor influence anyone else due to the nature of the absolute. Nothing can take away an individuals choice, and nothing is outside of ones own creative abilities to influence the relative and make it appear according to their beliefs and ideas other than something that is greater than the relative.
That which is greater has been called many things and those who are stuck in their egoic patterns of identity will continue to refuse anything that is outside of the box of interpretation, thus having a need to protect their box for fear of losing their sense of being.

In a conversation Moses had with God during the time he spent on Mt Sinai God spoke to Moses after Moses asked him what his name was. The most common story is that God said "I am that I am."
In the Eastern philosophies the meaning of "THAT" is the absolute in everything. "I am the absolute in everything."

Because of the psychological nature of individuality even God can be manufacture into relative attributes thru experience but if the experience doesn't remain stable and changes there is nothing to tie ones experience to other than a passing thought or feeling in time.
What is consistent in history is humanities relationship to the absolute and the relationships that are derived from interpretations of God and the absolute.

The masters of history, (Sages, Prophets, Seers, Religious founders) People like Jesus and Buddha maintained that any prayer and conversation with God is personal and cannot be made into an absolute rule or sequence of words.
The relationships between God and Man are pointed to in scripture and scripture is not just christian in nature it is Human in nature. It is the depiction of human experience.
Original scripture is also not the same as scripture that is taken out of context. It never is another mans experience tho it may have similarities.

You criticism of any scripture is never going to be the experience of those who created the words and experienced what they wrote. It will only be your opinion of what they wrote and maybe you resonate with it or you don't.

The science of religion doesn't separate ones relationship with God it unites it in the understanding of the universality of creation to its creator, Experiencer to the experience.
Because experiences change so do the ideas of God when the ideas are rooted in the relative.
When the root is the absolute and it does not change then it is stable.

God and the absolute are often confused. God is absolute but in the conversation God and Moses had there is one reference to God having said to Moses, "I am becoming" referring to the name or the image the mind tries to identify with in naming and sequestering God into an idea.
God was explaining to Moses that the manifestation of God or the image of God is change, is creation coming and going, Time and the countless experiences of the senses.
God being the absolute is beyond experience and time and can not be experienced in itself but the reflection of it can be experienced which leads to the continuing relationship of God and Man. Man percieves himself through the ego and when man sees through the ego Man experiences God.

This relationship is universal and not simply mine, tho I can experience it just as easily as anyone who would look beyond the relative boundaries of the ego.
No one can be hooked into it, it is available to anyone and also easily ignored by anyone.
Cognition is relative to choice.


As I said previously I cannot impose anything onto another and make them think anything. That is an illusion many have about religion, that it makes people think things without their ability to make their own choice. People like yourself are separated from their own divinity and freedom thinking that life comes at you and you are like driftwood on a wave being tossed about without the ability to make choices in how you grow and experience yourself.
Beliefs are created by repetative thoughts. Neural pathways are sometimes like well worn roads where people take themselves to a foundation in experiences of the past dragging the present with them.
An example is the differences between a seasoned adult and an innocent child.
The adult goes to work thinking of his day making complex judments about the future based on his relationship with the past.
The child approaches its day with wonder and playfulness. Without the subjective beliefs about success or failure it does not have to worry or protect itself from failure in the sandbox.
The average adult thinks some 100,000 thoughts a day and often these thoughts contradict each other and fill the mind with mindless chatter rather than stillness.
The differences in the minds funtioning when still and firing thoughts back and forth were studied by Abraham Maslow when he studied "Peak experiences".
The still mind is a mind filled with peace and wonder, a peak experience one of communion with nature and the manifest, love and appreciation.
The mind filled with thoughts is a stressed mind and it (stress) leads to delusions, projection and physical illness and death.

I simply pointed you back to your own anger and your decietfulness. The world around you reflects your belief of yourself and your awareness of God.
You yourself have sabotaged your ability to see clearly and to be objective about the past and about religion and scripture.
Tho you know there is a point where humanity achieves perfection in evolution you cannot percieve it in the present, to you it is somewhere out there in another time and place.
This is what is referred to in scripture as Hell. The inability to percieve reality as it really is.
Heaven is a word but it points to clear perception of reality and detachment from illusions of belief.
The mind itself is an instrument but universal mind is not subject to the manifest or bound by any belief.

All scripture is grown from the same roots and tho seen sometimes as separate, they are still branches of the same tree.
Humanity is not inherintly evil nor flawed. We see what we want to see. Life is a choice.


You are disturbed by your own perceptions. You would be threatened by anything that invades your sense of control and belief. I don't and can't disturb anyone.


You haven't really read all revealed texts of varying religions.
Your basing your experience of yourself and religion on an assumption which is influenced by your emotional state of stress.
Why jump to conclusions based on your current experience. Come back Ten years from now after really studying scripture of all religions and lets see if you still think the way you do now.


I'm not responsible for anything other than to live my life. I don't have to offer anything, but you asked me into your reality and so here we are. You may not get what you think you asked for but maybe you'll wake up to that.


Fear underlies anger and anger clouds judgment and perception of reality. It doesn't matter what you are angry at, I don't really care what you are angry about, you brought it up and it reflects itself in your approach to reality.


Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither

Let go of your position. Gain new understanding and then surrender that again..

Thank God, some semblance of discussion begins at least late in the thread.

Going through your long posting, I have two major feelings. For most part, yours is a better position compared to the ideological slots of specific religions. However, it's still a pitiable lot for some reasons, including the level of inconsistencies they offer.

1. According to you, every individual has unique experiences, which in turn change moment after moment. And yet, some have the ability to look beyond the relative boundaries of the ego and root themselves in the absolute. Those who create a box for themselves, do so out of fear to protect their being. "Man percieves himself through the ego and when man sees through the ego Man experiences God."
In stead of creating a hotch-potch of this nature, either you support relativism and fully respect each man's views and experiences including the box he possibly creates. But you fall short of this, since you are programmed to associate some kind of egoism for anyone who creates a box. Even more strange, you return to talk of some non-sensical absolute, something that people achieve when they look beyond relative boundaries.

2. You assert repeatedly that nothing is outside of ones own creative abilities and yet continue to hobnob with 'something' greater than the relative, for which people have attempted to offer various names.

3. At one point, you argue that God is the absolute in everything. You definitely sound that your absolute remains stable as well. Refer your statement: "When the root is the absolute and it does not change then it is stable." And yet, you would also like to believe "God is becoming". God simply implies change. Do make up your mind what exactly you want to maintain.

Would you at least agree that you have two hands and not three or six. It's granted that more sublime realities give room for varying experiences and perceptions. But there's always some basic truth that binds all of us. Pitiable indeed is the man who takes to the ideal of giving up a position in order to find a new one the next moment and longing to drop it down even before holding it for sure.

And the scriptures of varying religions are branches of a tree, rising out of the same root. Easily stated. Why then the majority of muslims, hindus, christians and buddhists would never perceive the common trunk and the root but would rather cling to their specific tree alone. Have branches drawn swords against each other anywhere in history. Would the Pope easily buy your theory? He would definitely end up stating all religions are branches; but christianity is the trunk. Islam refutes incarnation; but christianity can't do without it. How do you call these two branches of the same tree?

Coming to the talk of the still mind and the association of stress with excessive thoughts, I wonder if you did the long posting out of a still mind or a mind full of thoughts. What conclusion am I to reach, in case I follow your argument?

Still mind, peace, wonder ... all these are fine. But don't take the content out of the mind and fill it up with some mysterious peace and wonder. There's definitely a fine line between stressful thinking and creative thinking. No good dumping everything into the same basket.


Finally, no good being rigid even with your relativism and trying to make it superior to other perceived systems. Relativism is absolutely meaningless in quite many contexts and you need to give up your rigidity here, if you truly want to be a relativist.

For a minimum, we need to agree that both of us are utilizing English language and that this is a concrete reality for all those who peep into this thread. No two opinions here.

The roots themselves are branching, so in effect you have the branches converging to the trunk which then diverges to the roots. Maybe there's a deeper meaning there.

The absolute is absolute. It is not acheived it is ignored or recognised by the mind experiencing itself through the ego, Or cognized when the relative isn't referenced as the only lens of perception.
Within the creation of duality the absolute is expanded into perception of multiple experiences and directions of intelligent creativity. It is not isolated to the individual experience but the mind that has lost itself in the individual experience may feel separated from all other experiences of the absolute in the perception of multiple manifestations of perception. "Egoic identification of duality."

I don't see your problem here. You don't like where I'm going with this?


I made this statement yes.

I can of myself maintain nothing permanent, but I can be aware of that which is.
God is active, Omniscent, Omnipresent, loving. Within all experiences and all that is experienced,
God is also beyond perception which is relative, and does not die when the physical, mechanical operation of the senses end. The sense of self continues beyond the physical body when the body dies.
Put them both together and the senses as they evolve become aware of the Self that is immortal and the creation of sensory experience which always changes. One can live 100% in the relative and 100% in the absolute. This is called enlightenment.
In the experience of change one can experience that which does not change.
Of course it does not make sense to the mind which is anchored within relative boundaries of limits created by belief. But one can overcome changing beliefs.


Is it? Then going beyond the obvious realities that are associated with the present beliefs and experiences there also exists something greater than the present understanding of experience and experience of understanding.


That is really a broad generalization.
There are plenty of conscious people who have a background in all of those beliefs that recognise the common root of all interpretations of God.
Not all children will grow up in a single lifetime however to realise this.

History is full of the interpretations of God and the ignorance which creates rivalry in belief.
My Experience of God is more real than yours kinda thinking is the ignorant mind trying to separate humanity into classes that represent hierarchies in the relationship of humanity and God.
These beliefs do not isolate God into their way of thinking nor does it mean that we as a species aren't created equal with the same abilities to feel, love, evolve and become conscious of our relationship with the supreme.

Who cares what the Pope believes? The Pope is not the absolute point of reference. The Pope is an Icon only.
However both Islamic and Christian Icons started with the awareness of God and the kingdom or creation of God. Just because they grew up creating different sandboxes doesn't mean they aren't of the same sand.



That depends on you. If you are an emotional basket case and are subjectively motivated you will come from a place of narrow vision a mind filled with thoughts and several of those thoughts conflicting thoughts that create more stress. If however you are unaffected by the outside world and are clear headed and objective you will be able to see all beliefs as those ideas associated to impressions. You will have let go of those thoughts that are not relevent to the moment at hand.
The mind that is filled with thoiughts anchored in belief and stirred by emotions is not always clear. The mind that is clear is not necessarily filled with thoughts but that does not mean it does not experience thoughts. Clear perception allows for easy menueverabilty in any moment without confusion. The confused mind wanders back and forth between the past and its projections of the future not giving much comprehension to the present moment.
Abraham Maslow discussed the brainwave activity of the mind that is clear and without conflicting thoughts. Perhaps you would like to investigate the phenomenon.


There is only one constant and that is the absolute. Perception of any ridgidity beyond that is illusion.


There is only One, it only appears to be two or more when the mind is separated from its Self.

Glad that the discussion is getting even more focused.

I am gaining to appreciate your mind little more and it occurs to me that both of us have certain conclusions in common. Just to cite an example: One of my motives of writing the article was to show it was one and the same Spirit that has spoken through all religions and I am sure you agree with me here. There are also other agreements.

The crucial difference, though, is the approach two of us have adopted. If I may picturize it this way: you are trying to jump from heavens to the earth; I am trying to leap from the earth to heavens.

Your approach is similar to the basic, ancient Indian thought and Sankaracharya, if alive, might be delighted to meet you in person. You have also cleverly mixed up the Buddhist ideal of forsaking the past and future in favor of the present moment, regardless of the fact Buddha vetoed against soul, immortality and God. And you have searched hard in the Bible for words linking the Indian Absolute with the Hebrew Almighty.

I am an Indian; but I discarded both the Indian and the Biblical approach quite some time back, although I cling to the heights they point towards from a different via altogether.

The drawback of jumping from heavens is that we turn blind to hard evidence and attempt to build an airy castle from elements collected from heavenly bodies themselves. When we reach the earth, it's almost certain, we would break our bones beyond recognition.

This has been a classical mistake of religions, since their beginning, precisely due to the lack of growth of science in the early days.

Countless examples exist to prove my point; but let me take the ones you yourself have adopted.




God needn't die, when the physical, mechanical operation of our senses come to an end. Sounds logical. But what is this sense of self that continues beyond the physical body, when the body dies? What evidence you have for this sense of self, beyond death, since in any case you haven't died yet.

Can you explain, how the senses as they evolve become aware of the Self that is immortal. I know how they would, possibly in future. But my explanation is totally on a scientific, evolutionary basis, coupled with my own practical experiences for many years. Based on my hard evidence, I would perhaps put it this way: through a powerful, rational approach one can try to identify his/her individual self and the reality outside with the One Absolute Self. I definitely wouldn't make it sound as a kind of natural thing that happens, since it hasn't happened any way in history till now. The few who claimed such identity didn't offer a rational basis, including the evolutionary and psychological knowledge that's available today. Perhaps, it's improper to expect it of them.

But their statements have caused terrible confusions already, like some of your beliefs expressed above. Our senses don't grow with two-fold objectives, as you attempt to portray. They don't grow to be aware of some immortal self and the sensory experience which always changes. They merely become aware of their own self, as well as the reality they perceive. Refer my law on the sense of self. I can substantiate my claim with each and every conscious impression, that occurs in us. You simply have no basis to your heavenly claims.

The awareness of immortal self, as the basis of the manifested reality, is still in its pangs of birth for the story of evolution. It can occur only through greater human effort and greater divine manifestation, other than what has been manifested till now. I know it's programmed towards it. But I would never land into such mistakes as dividing the Absolute and the relative and claiming that I can live 100% in the Absolute and 100% in the relative. Too majestic claims with little explanation of a sum total of 200% emerging out of a single reality



I can understand the reality that keeps changing every moment. Can you explain what is this thing that does not change and yet perceivable through the change?


Is not your idea of the changeless reality a belief? Would you also come up with 'acceptable beliefs ' and 'unacceptable ones'?





Little later, you would argue: 'we as a species are created equal with the same abilities to feel, love, evolve and become conscious of our relationship with the supreme.

Do you perceive some conflict here? Now, you would tilt your statements to portray: God created us with equal abilities; but we didn't choose to grow equally. Why would anyone desire not to grow, if growth is clearly perceivable to him. If God didn't make it equally perceivable for all, is He not to blame.

See again the difficulty of the approach, when we swallow the theories of creation with equal abilities etc. For my part, I would simply explain it as evolutionary and historical growth with all limitations and possibilities existing just as they are. God perhaps intended it all. But no easy statements, such as He gave us the free will, the equal potentials, etc. etc.


I have no problem whatever to agree with you here. You have spoken of history and things that actually happened. For the benefit of other readers, let me add, you have brought this point in answer to my questioning if branches of the same tree of revelation would raise sword against each other.

Now why do you want to blame it all on the ignorance of man, if God ever had a hand in it. The Lord who failed to reveal Himself/Herself properly either through creation or through revelation, would definitely want a share in the mess. Why attempt to protect Him alone? Under what evidence, again?



What we need is the construction of a house, especially to worship the singular spirit. I have argued that the Spirit had a positive role in raising the sandboxes of varying shape and it's upto the scientific, rational mind to demolish them and create a new one with the same material to some extent. Here my evidence is precisely the evidence of revelation and miracles themselves. Now if you want to prove God has no complicity in this, you need to show how exactly a pure revelation of such and such words or meaning came to be twisted into such and such words by mankind. Mere attempts to offer figurative language such as sandboxes and trees wouldn't suffice.



See how totally irrational a heavenly approach can be that it begins to speak of the oneness of Self, when I am alluding to the concrete evidence of a common language between the two of us.

To conclude, 99.99% of religious thinkers have fallen a victim of the above approach, one way or the other. I was perhaps the worst of them all; but I have come out of it. However it's a price worth the struggle, for the final jewel is definitely something to be stolen from nowhere but the religious houses themselves.

It's still the same as it was when it started. You're still a non-believer without any faith in anything but your physical senses and your memories of the past.


You can picture it any way you wish. This is called free will and because God cannot be narrowed into terms you can experience evolution as rising from below or having highness descend into you, both are equally the same and neither are really true. The travelling to and from or from and in two are still created from being there already.


God is clever enough to present itself in so many ways that bridging any belief system to another is not so difficult if you understand any one of them. If you understand the basis of one belief system all others automatically are understood since they come from the same source.

I was an Indian once..
India was once a great enlightened civilization, unfortunately they fell into a rut when they began to analyze their faith. Similar to what you are doing. When at their height they began to question how they got there and as such lost their key to the kingdom which was not created by facts and reason but by faith and knowledge of the supreme being.


Actually you have it backwards. The Fall of India was turning toward hard relative evidence due to fear that faith was not real. India fell hard and the broken pieces still show themselves in the poverty and overcrowded cities. The few small groups who cling to their past have lost their way and still struggle to find their way back.


They don't evolve really. They are fully functional at birth. The thoughts that rally around desire create momentum towards certain experiences of life. Desires carried in any lifetime can have an impact on the manifestations of multiple layered universal realities. The universe and the individual does not just exist on one channel.
When one decides to change the channel that they are tuned into to a different channel then things automatically are percieved according to the natural laws of that channel.
In other words awareness is not subject to linear progression, it is unlimited except for the beliefs that narrow its potential into boundaries subject to a belief system.


Of course you wouldn't. As long as you believe it has to be manufactured it won't appear into your awareness because you refuse to accept it.


More accurately put, those who have risen above reason still refuse to subjectively define God into terms that the ego must have in order to protect themselves from God and control God.


Confusion is always the result of narrowing enlightenment into relative terms and desires of the ego prompted by fear of losing ones identity.

No they don't.


You make it sound like the senses have a mind of their own and that consciousness per se in the individual cannot be linked to the shift in conscious awareness.

You mean to say I couldn't possibly break your laws because you can't see any way to live beyond your own beliefs.


Not so oh worshipper of idols. God has no set way to manifest itself in relative terms. You are seeking God on a grand scale such as all humanity coming together first before God is present rather than to bring God forth in the chaos of your own perception of reality.
You're playing the waiting game. Sorta like the Christians and their waiting for the second coming. Bunches of people praying to God saying to themselves God is coming and when he does the rest of the world will see. In the meantime they wait and ponder the coming glory and then they die..
Go figure, they have the remote to the lifetime they are tuned into and they watch the same channel their ancestors watched thinking to themselves, "All my relatives as far back as I can imagine watched this channel and died, but maybe something different will happen to me if I watch it.!"
Someone once said something to me about stupidity and doing something over and over again hoping to gain different results.


No of course you wouldn't. The analogy was given by someone who would like to suggest that in Union of the absolute one doesn't overshadow the other.
Creation doesn't have to be an illusion as some suggest as a blanket statement. The relative is created by intelligence within the absolute. The perception of the absolute in motion is the perception of the manifest or creation. It is experienced in terms that are supported by the laws that govern levels of perception. Or I should say supported. The cosmic waters support the craft that is imagined until the desire and intention is completed. This is so the awareness can link activity together in the form of time rather than jumping back and forth like so many do in dreams that have no finish or ending and often starting in the middle of some unknown story.


It is not a thing and it is not a nothing or no thing. It cannot be defined or explained but it can be spoken of because it does reflect itself in all that is relative. It can be pointed to in relative terms but no one can really contain it so that it sits in front of the pointer because it is the pointer, the pointed to, the point and the need that creates the questions and the relative answers.


It is a belief and not a belief. It is not affected by belief and does not cease to exist when the belief in it fades and goes away or changes.
There are no acceptable or unacceptable beliefs, there are only beliefs. Conditions are set in different ideas of separation from the absolute or judgment based on ignorance of it.


I wouldn't no, but you have and God doesn't stop you from saying there is separation or experiencing it. The good news is he won't stop you from having the opposite experience that you are having now and telling yourself you can be and experience both.
Then from that platform of experience you may look further than your present understanding and experience to open the door to standing in two places at once. From there maybe a thousand places at the same time. (Brahman)
God is not at fault because there is no blame to white and black, hot and cold or the beliefs that appear to the observer. When the observer is deluded by fear and separation due to its beliefs that the universe is confined to the personal experience and that the universe cannot be more than the present experience until the experience changes, then God is responsible for ones misperceptions of reality.

When someone blames God can they really know God? Is the perceived blame correctly applied to the supreme being or a best guess in relative terms to ones own suffering and the need to find blame?


The difficulty always lies in trying to narrow god into specific terms.
Children are guided by stories that fit their ability to understand and so if you want to act like a child you'll get the Dr. Seuss version of God. Then if you want to act like an intellectual you will get that story.
IF you want to rise above or ascend all limitations of being at a level of being you'll get them all together so you can see the foundation that supports the stories.
Being critical is not always a good thing if you are not firmly rooted in something stable. If your foundation is always moving then your understanding never comes back to anything real, it keeps changing and morphing and as the mind tries to grasp onto something permanent it attemtps to build permanence out of something that will eventually fall away. Building sandcastles and labeling them as absolute doesn't make them so.



The ignorance of man creates blame, I merely pointed towards mans choice to separate themselves from the tree through belief. God is not to blame for ignorance in choice. God exists within the appearances of ignorance but just as some cells have different functions in the body the body exists as a whole because of the supporting functions that appear to be different.
The tree remains healthy if the root is watered rather than the individual branch. It doesn't matter what each branch is doing or which direction it grows. It has a function and a purpose to reach out in the potential that exists and reveal it.
If one takes their awareness away from the root and focuses on the tip of the branch one may not see the connection to the other branches but when the awareness is turned back toward the root then the branch is brought back into its point of origin. There all branches beginnings are cognised.


It's already created.