Consciousness is a fundamental field of the Cosmos

 A new theory proposed by Maria Strömme, a Norwegian physicist is making headlines recently and the title of her paper says:

Universal consciousness as foundational field: A theoretical bridge between quantum physics and non-dual philosophy

 I have long argued that this paradigm shift is inevitable in my paper on academia titled:

Why the polytheistic mythos of the esotericists is inevitable?

Abstract: "A growing number of scholars, scientists and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric worldview without themselves being aware of this. While there seems to be much confusion on how to reconcile modern science with eastern and western esotericism most of the confusion seems to have come from choosing incompetent scholars for their study. The paper not only gives the correct approach for reconciling modern physics with Advaita Vedanta but also puts the hypothesis of the ontological and philosophical similarities between the two ancient monistic systems Valentinian Monism and Advaita Vedanta on a much firmer ground. An ancient method is also proposed to test this worldview and the paper concludes with the profound implications that it might have for religion, science and philosophy."

As you can see my claim in the abstract of my paper is turning out to be true mainly that, "A growing number of scholars, scientists and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric worldview without themselves being aware of this."

I think most of the ground work for connecting the bridge between quantum physics and non-dual philosophy should be credited to the French theoretical physicist, Bernard D'Espagnat for his work on Veiled Reality. 

Evil is an emergent property of the cosmos

God did not intend to create evil. It was not in his mind to make us suffer in this world. God held our perfection with in himself when he created the cosmos and wanted to give back the perfection to us when we returned to him out of love. This ignorance of the Father (imperfection) gave rise to evil and suffering in this world which was an emergent property of system due to the design choice made by God. The origin of evil was in a way inevitable.

People started hurting others and participated in sinful acts because they had no knowledge of from whither they have come and whither they are going. This is the state of affairs in the world as we know it from the Gospel of Truth. Now what do we do? How can we proclaim our perfection back? How can we get back our lost identity? Well, the fact of the matter is God did not gave us free will, you might do lots of charity, help the poor and the diseased, feed hungry people and do all kinds of good things and yet there is no guarantee that God will save you and send you to heaven. You might still end up in hell even after leading a righteous pure life. Why? It is because God saves you not based on works of the Law but based on unmerited grace. He saves us because he loves us, period. Nothing less nothing more.

Rather than saying God's grace is arbitrary you need to the see the world from the viewpoint of God. The truth is we are all souls with each one having the full potential within us to become the Holy Father, we are the Holy spirit, that's our true identity. Once you know this you cannot hate God for what he has in store for us. He(God) can do anything with yourself and with this world because none of the things in this world are yours, it is his body and his world and he has full authority over it, one of the reason why the Gospel of John says do not love this world nor the things in this world, the lust of the eyes and the prideful way of life is not from the Father but is from the world, the world is a passing by but one who does the will of the father will live forever or will obtain immortality.

You cannot bribe God's grace by trying to please him by doing good deeds, you cannot earn God's grace no matter what you do, there is no way through which you can earn God's grace, the grace from God should come to you all by itself. The only way now for us is to love the Father unconditionally (because that's what he wants from us) and not turn away from him or blame him when he gives us hardships instead see those difficult times as a testing period and hope that one day he will release our soul from this world and gives back our true identity which we all deserve.

Spacetime is a mental construct - Part II

In my earlier post titled Spacetime is a mental construct I had stated that the photon or the electron or a lump of atoms does not really pass through any or both of the slits in a double slit experiment and said that they just pop out into existence from nowhere.

Here is similar argument or work proposed by Jim Walker which adds support to my views.

Does Light Exist Between Events?

There is no classical world and the whole concept of causality has to be abandoned. Matter instantaneously affects other Matter no matter how far apart they are in the universe. This is how the cosmos was working since the beginning. You can see the birds flying in the sky not because a light ray reflected from them hits your retina instead a jiggling of the birds in the sky just jiggles the electrons in the retina and no light travels between you and the birds.

There are no trajectories between the influences of matter on one another instead there exist only inherent random probabilistic events which gets triggered from nowhere. This view resolves a hell lot of problems in quantum physics and it also explains the bizarre phenomena of quantum entanglement.

Spacetime is a mental construct

The contextual nature of Quantum mechanics proves that Space and Time are not fundamental. Scientists and physicists should drop the view that the mathematical nature of their theories are actually describing the external physical world out there existing independent of us. 

Any new theory of Quantum Gravity combining Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity should be non-real. All the competing theories the Twistor theory of Penrose and the String theory fall short of this basic requirement. 

“It is not at all clear how to construct a theory of gravity that is not real, which is what we need to do if we want to quantise gravity.”

- Vlatko Vedral, Reality Check by Michael Brooks.

Modern physicists will have a clear picture of the world if they treat space and time as categories of mind as Kant argued in the 18th century rather than viewing spacetime as something which exists independent of us.

Quantum mechanics does not explain why events happen. The wavefunction or the probability wave should be treated just as a mathematical tool to predict the possible outcomes of our experiences and no greater reality should be attributed to quantum superposition of states.

"So does the universe exist independently of measurements? That is a question we will have to face. Maybe it is time to revisit Einstein’s lost quest, if we are serious about uncovering the basic laws of the universe; the money spent on particle smashers such as the Large Hadron Collider certainly suggests we are. Perhaps we need to move quantum entanglement and the nature of reality to the centre of the quest to find a theory of everything. What was once a quirky side show may yet prove to be the main event." 

- Reality Check by Michael Brooks

Let's go back to the single particle double slit experiment, the photons or the electrons comes in two forms either in lumps or in waves as Richard Feynman explained in his lectures. How is that the electron or the photon behave as waves when we are not detecting them and behave as particles possessing a precise position and trajectory when we try to detect them? How does nature know about the choices we are going to make and decide to behave accordingly?

Its a serious problem for the objectivity of science. How do we know that when a photon or an electron when it leaves from its source is transiting as a wave or as a particle? Delayed choice experiments prove that the behavior of the photon in the past can be changed by the choices which we make at present or in the future. The future affects the past. There is one way to come out of this bizarre unreasonable weirdness of quantum physics it is to accept that the universe is super-deterministic and we have no choice in asking any questions to nature. Physicists do not want to take this road because it is the death of induction, the very foundation of science. Well I'm afraid if physicists have any chance of retaining an objective account of reality then they must give up the belief that they have free will.

"To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we’re looking at it." 

- Reality Check by Michael Brooks.

What I believe is that when you send a photon through two slits the photon neither passes through one of the slits or passes through both of the slits instead the photon doesn't go through any slit at all instead they just pop out into existence from no where just at the right moment when you place a detector near the slits or on the interference screen which acts as a detector eventually providing enough information to create the experience of a photon in our minds. What this means is that photons and electrons do not exist out there independent of us. Waves and particles are just concepts created by humans and it is unjustifiable to expect nature to behave or to work according to our pre-defined notions of reality. There is something else which exists in the external physical world which is causing the detectors to click giving us the experience of photons and electrons. Why do the detectors click the way they do is a theory which we are yet to understand.

“We need to rethink and radically revise our basic physical concepts before we can make the next big breakthrough in physics.”

- Caslav Brukner, Reality Check by Michael Brooks.

Think about it nature is using Quantum entanglement as we speak to communicate the state of a photon faster than the speed of light outside of spacetime but you stupid physicists (John Bell - "Who do we think we are?") who boast about creating the photons cannot use it for communication because you all are prisoners of the cave because what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and when you are in this state of mind you are indeed a prisoner of the spacetime continuum. One has to escape the spacetime continuum or in other words one has to transform his mind and go into a different state in order to view the external physical world existing independent of us.

The dream of Stephen Hawking will never ever come true because physicists will always be vulnerable to dark mysterious forces since they are not certain of their own future or predict with certainty about any event. Quantum mechanics may be the most intellectual and successful theory human beings have ever come up with but it is actually a big embarrassment to physicists over mother nature. You physicists spent billions and countless hours on math just to figure out this? I mean this? A fact which the pagan mystery religions ushered us long ago when human beings were goat herders. 

Physicists must adopt panpsychism into their worldview rather than viewing rocks, rivers, mountains, light, air, space and time as dead non living entities they must start treating them as anthropomorphic beings who manifest themselves through their respective images in this world. In fact Conway and Kochen prove that if we human beings have free will then even photons and electrons must have the free will to choose a trajectory given a set of possible paths. They should start looking at a wholistic picture of the cosmos rather than viewing light as separable entities. They should treat it as a conscious being. There is only one photon in the universe and it behaves according to the cosmic plan of the creator of this universe. How does light know about the choices which we are going to make in advance and changes its appearance to us accordingly? Light knows it because it is a conscious being and that being can see our future actions which we do not have access to. Science will never ever reclaim its objectivity and realism if it does not accept the truth of platonic realism. The truth that everything has come to us in shadowy images rather than how they really are.

Isaiah 45:7 - I make peace, and create evil

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 

-Isaiah 45:7

I have long argued that God is both a murderer and a savior. Check out this post ---| http://my-waking-dream.blogspot.in/2015/11/god-is-both-murderer-and-saviour.html

Jehovah, the god of the Jews is absolutely correct here. God creates both good and evil as he himself admitted. Now I am a Valentinian gnostic and not a Marcionite to use the above verse as an evidence to prove that the god of the Jews was an evil god. We Valentinians respect the God of the Jews in believing that he is almost equivalent with the Holy Father in the Pleroma but he is just a lesser ignorant being than the beings in the Pleroma which resides above him.

Evil was created in the cosmos when the Holy Father in the above Pleroma made the choice to with hold the perfection of the Aeons with in himself. The Holy Father did not created us as perfect beings instead he created us with imperfection. There is no flaw in us but instead there is an inherent flaw in the very creation itself. The Holy Father in the Pleroma allowed evil to originate into existence when he decided to create us as ignorant beings. Evil exists as long as the ignorance of the father exists. Why did God created an imperfect world with imperfect beings? It is because he wants us to love him and he will give us back our perfection in return of returning to him out of love and humility. But, hey, how can he expect us to love him when he has not given any freedom whatsoever to make our own choices? No matter how much righteous you are and how much you consciously refuse to sin, God could always manipulate you and push you towards evil and make you sin and finally deny a place in the heaven which you longed for so much. God can elect anyone and reject anyone based on his personal whim. Saint Paul has advised us not to judge God's actions and choices. Where does this leave us? We have to lead our lives as slaves of God and be a part of his grand plan and blindly hope that one day God is going to free us from our bondage?

Quantum Physics and Veiled Reality

Reality is not what you make it instead reality is what has been constructively given to us to experience it. A view held by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant argued that the real world which we see has not been given to us to perceive it directly but the mind plays an active role in constructing a different reality for us. Kant made a very clear distinction between the noumenon (the thing in itself) and the phenomenon (the thing as it appears to us) claiming that it is impossible to know the noumenon.

One physicist figured out that quantum physics affirms Kantian views more than any other philosophical dictum and he was Bernard D'Espagnat who died out recently. Even Bohr held Kantian views when he said this, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature." Bohr is right because experiments have confirmed that there is no reality independent of quantum measurements. To make the matters worse the phenomenon of Quantum Entanglement is forcing us to re-consider our notions of space-time pushing us to a Kantian worldview because Quantum Entanglement has been shown to exist independent of space-time. There are not only spatial correlations but in fact there exist timely correlations which begs the question whether the effect precedes the cause.

Shoot a beam of photons to a polarizer with a vertical orientation and quantum theory predicts that there is a 50% probability that a photon may pass through the slit vertically polarized and a 50% probability that a photon may be polarized horizontally. The real problem of interpretation arises when you send the vertically polarized photons to a second polarizer which is oriented diagonally in the z-direction and in this scenario the photons stream out of the second polarizer randomly either polarized vertically or horizontally as accurately predicted by QM. The property of the polarization of the photon depends on the choice of the experimental context chosen by the physicists in this case of adding a second polarizer. The vertically polarized photons lost its reality and emerged out of the second polarizer randomly with either a vertical polarisation or a horizontal polarization showing us that the properties of a quantum system does not exist prior to measurements. We cannot assign any values to the properties of a quantum system without actually performing a measurement on them and their properties depend on the choice of the experimental apparatus chosen by the physicist. Its as though that nature can answer to only one question asked to it at a time. Ask it whether a photon will appear vertically or horizontally polarized when passed through a polarizer oriented vertically it gives you an answer and when you add a second polarizer oriented diagonally and ask the same question again the previous answer given by nature makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because by adding a second polarizer you changed the rules of the game and therefore you need to modify your wavefunction accordingly. This is the blunder which is plaguing quantum physicists worldwide for well over a century. The fact that the properties of a quantum system are contextual and are dependent on our measurements raising the question what do we really mean by a measurement.

To add more trouble to the pain measurements not only disturb an entangled quantum system here but it also instantaneously disturbs the entangled system separated at a spatial distance from the other giving rise to non-locality. Send two pairs of entangled photons in two different tunnels separated by kilometers apart and let Alice measure one of the photon at her end and Bob at the other end. Now as soon as Alice finds that the photon as a spin up the other photon immediately changes to spin down no matter even if the other photon is at the other end of the Milkyway. We cannot use this for superluminal communication between Alice and Bob because both of them choose the orientation of the apparatus randomly and it is only when they both communicate classically through a cell phone that they will come to realize that the results of their experiment was correlated. Its true that this does not conflict with relativity but raises the philosophical objection raised by John Bell which I approve:

Do we then have to fall back on ‘no signaling faster than light’ as the expression of the fundamental causal structure of contemporary theoretical physics? That is hard for me to accept. For one thing we have lost the idea that correlations can be explained, or at least this idea awaits reformulation. More importantly, the ‘no signaling …’ notion rests on concepts that are desperately vague, or vaguely applicable. The assertion that ‘we cannot signal faster than light’ immediately provokes the question: 

Who do we think we are? 

We who make ‘measurements,’ we who can manipulate ‘external fields,’ we who can ‘signal’ at all, even if not faster than light. Do we include chemists, or only physicists, plants, or only animals, pocket calculators, or only mainframe computers? (Bell 1990)

I am with John Bell, Einstein, Gerard 't Hooft and Roger Penrose here and I believe that some deeper superdeterminstic theory will explain those correlations and do away with the inherent randomness of Quantum mechanics. Correlations cry for explanations and such a super-determinstic theory might come from religion. The Aryan religion and even the Biblical religion teaches us that the external physical world was made up of just five elements: Space, Air, Water, Fire and Earth and these five elements mixed with each other to form the gross elements. Since we have found that the elements perceived by us is not made of these five subtle elements we can safely conclude that all the particles of the Standard model does not exist in the external physical world as it really appears to us. I am not claiming that those particles do not exist but that it doesn't exist in a way we imagine it to exist. All the properties of these particles like mass, color, parity, spin, position, velocity, angular momentum etc is assigned to it by the mind. We all know that there is no such thing as red photons or blue photons it is the mind which adds all these additional properties to a particle and retrospectively creates a reality for us. There is indeed an external physical world but it is actually made up of the above five elements and not by the particles of the Standard Model. Nature knows what choice you are going to make in advance and it stimulates the mind to make us perceive a reality accordingly.

Majority of the stupid physicists think that relativity and quantum physics describes the external physical world out there independent of us and there in lies their root problem but actually no, they do not, they describe only the perceived reality of the mind and it is with this foolishness that they think that they cannot do superluminal communication even though nature is using it every time as we speak. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not the laws of the external physical world but instead they are the laws which can be applied only when the mind is in a particular state of affairs. Physicists fool themselves taking their models of reality with reality itself. There is one thing which can travel faster than the speed of light in the external physical world which physicists are not aware of and that is the elan vital life force Prana which pervades the entire cosmos and it is what causes the action at a distance.

Panchikaran - How matter was created from the five subtle elements?

Does God allow evil to exist in the world?

If God is omni-benevolent then he must not allow evil to exist in the world. How did evil came into existence in the first place? As it is said in the Gospel of Truth when God emanated 30 odd Aeons and created the Pleroma he held their perfection with in himself and kept all of them in ignorance and did not gave them the Gnosis of the Father which they all were lacking. It was at this point that ignorance entered the world, it was at this point sin entered the world, it was at this point evil entered the world. Good and Evil, Gnosis and Ignorance, Sin and Righteousness are mutually exclusive if one exist then the other disappears into non-existence.

Why did God held the perfection of the Aeons with in himself which in turn led evil to enter the world? Think about it in the other way around if God had given the perfection to the Aeons and if all the Aeons had the knowledge of the unknowable Father then Sophia wouldn't have to search for the unknowable Father, she didn't had to err in her passion to know the Father and the Father did not had to cast her non-spiritual elements which emanated in the form of Achamoth outside the Pleroma. Jesus did not had to descend from the above Pleroma to save Achamoth and Achamoth did not had to emanate the immature spiritual seeds out of happiness while seeing Jesus descend from the above Pleroma and without the immature spiritual seeds Jesus need not had to request Achamoth to bring forth the Demiurge Jehovah, the God of the Jews to create the heavens and the earth and create Adam and Eve in the image of the above Pleroma for the spiritual seeds to grow and become mature.  

As you can see we wouldn't have existed if God had given the perfection to the Aeons. All the above course of events would not have taken place if God had given the knowledge of himself to the Aeons. He deliberately held back their perfection within himself. Why did he do like that? According to Gospel of Truth God held back their perfection because he expected them to love him back and wanted the Aeons to return to him out of love to receive his gnosis in return. We often notice that if we get something very easily we don't get to realize its true value its only when we earn something out of hard work we will realize the true worth of something or someone. Even parents don't buy whatever their kids ask without making them realize the fact that life is a difficult road to drive in. In the same way God held the perfection of the Aeons with in himself in order to make us know his true value and the true worth of his gnosis otherwise if the gnosis of the Father could be easily bought for a few penny then no one would have given respect to the Holy Father.

Okay, God created this world in the hope that the beings in it would love him back and return to him but hang on a second on one hand he expects us to love him back and on the other hand he has held back our free will without allowing us to make a choice for ourselves. How does God decide whom to give gnosis and whom to keep in ignorance? Is God's grace arbitrary? By keeping us ignorant of him and there by holding back our perfection which belongs to us is he allowing evil to exist in the world? If he really wants us to love him back he could have really wiped out the evil archons of the world who is keeping humanity in ignorance and stimulate our minds to love him back.

It seems God is in a dilemma here if he gives our perfection too early there is a danger that the fruit of gnosis may rot due to our immaturity and if he delays it he will be responsible for allowing evil in the world. The advice from the Gospel of Truth is to not to take evil too seriously and not to weep for all the evil done by the archons of the world but instead we must prepare ourselves to return to the Pleroma and wait for our time to receive the gnosis of the Father.

Anima Mundi - The soul of the Cosmos

"Sol mundi mens est."

"The sun is the mind of the universe."

 - From Macrobius, Saturnalia 1. 19. 9,  Iamblichus, Protrepticus 21, 115; Ammianus Marcellinus, 21. 1. 11.

"sūrya ātmā jaghatastasthuṣaśca || "

"The soul of all that moveth not or moveth, the Sun hath filled the air and earth and heaven."

- From Rig Veda, Book 1, Hymn 115 on Surya.

"ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς"

"In Christ dwells all the pleroma of deity in bodily form."

- From Colossians 2:9, Saint Paul of Tarsus.

"...we must declare that this Cosmos has verily come into existence as a Living Creature endowed with soul and reason owing to the providence of God....For that Living Creature embraces and contains within itself all the intelligible Living Creatures, just as this Universe contains us and all the other visible living creatures."

- From Timaeus, Plato (30b-30c).

"It was quite amazing that the Aeons were in the Father and that they were able to emanate in as much as they were not able to perceive and recognize the one in whom they were."

- From Gospel of Truth, Valentinus, a Syrian Christian.

The soul of the cosmos has been identified by various cultures across different timelines through out the history of the human race as you can see above. It is the fundamental belief of the Vedic Aryans that Savitr, the golden tongued Sun god exists in every Pindanda (womb or living creature or microcosm) and as well in Brahmanda (cosmos or the universe). Vedantic scholars and followers have misled people from understanding the true philosophy of the Vedas and the Upanishads by making it appear more idealistic or solipsistic or subjective by using the words like "within", "inner cleansing" etc etc.

Molecular biology has shown that there is no god or soul with in us or inside us and we will not find anything not matter how much we dig deep with in ourselves. We have to abandon such subjective usage of terminologies in favor of Realism. When Vedic and Upanishadic seers use such words they are merely talking of a physically localized another platonic realm altogether. So in order to attain the truth we have to look above us or behind us and not with in us.

When the revelation of God occurs at your own place then it is in the microcosm where you will see the God because he exists behind every living creature and he is the one who is stimulating the intellect standing behind it. Now when the revelation of God occurs through an apocalypse like when Paul says in Corinthians that I know a man who was caught up in the third heaven with his body or without god knows or the ascension to heavens described in texts like Mithras Liturgy then it is in the macrocosm where you will see the same god. In this way God has entered into every living creature and contains with in himself all the living creatures like a ship.

How do we visualize such a grandiose design of the cosmos? One bad analogy would be to consider yourself or your bodily form as the all encompassing living creature. Now the individual hairs over your body will themselves be one whole Pleromas but each individual hair is blinded by its own small world and is not aware of in whom they actually exist (meaning your body). Moreover each individual hair thinks and believes that it has a separate distinct individuality of its own and believes that it acts according to its own will without realizing the fact that each one of them posses the entire blue print (genome) to generate the whole body which they themselves are part of.

In the actual solar world of Helios-Mithras his body is formed of divine light rays and one can retell the same analogy replacing "hairs" with "divine light rays". Each individual light ray on his body is a pleroma by itself and the Aeon which is the manifestation of the light ray is actually an anthropomorphic god but the Aeons do not actually know that they exist inside the Father. The Father replicated himself and entered inside each of these Aeons so that they can seek him at their own places at the time when they want to return to him out of love.

So the actual truth is that we all are just light rays who exist inside the body of God. Since we are trying to visualize the cosmos from the perspective of the God its getting difficult for us to imagine such an alternative view as we are so accustomed to view the world as it is constructively given to us by our minds.

The Holy Father and the Holy Mother generated the Aeons and the last of the Aeon named Sophia generated Achamoth and Achamoth in turn generated the souls (light rays) of human beings out of joy when she saw Christ descending from the above Pleroma to save Achamoth but these souls or light rays were immature and could not be part of the body of the Holy Father which constitutes the Pleroma and therefore Christ ordered Achamoth to bring forth the Demiurge Jehovah, the god of the Jews so that he can create the heavens and the earth and create a man and an woman in the image of the above Pleroma so that the man and the woman could commune and have intercourse in order to produce a house or a place for the souls of Achamoth to reside themselves and that house or place of residence is none other than the fetus which is growing inside the womb of every mother so that the soul can easily enter into the fetus of a mother for the sole purpose of maturing itself and finally return to the Pleroma.

Every light ray constitutes the following elements earth, air, fire, water and space which forms the subtle body and the sense organs of the soul, a mind to perceive, a soul to experience the world, an intellect to reason and to search for truth and finally behind that intellect the replicated Holy Father himself. The soul which experiences the world as self consciousness is who we all are which is merely nothing but a light ray.

This is the grand design of our cosmos but where does Non-duality come into picture here? The replicated Holy Father or God is none other than our ego, God is the ego and it is he himself who is responsible for every event which is occurring in the cosmos. The spirited soul enslaved itself by matter is merely a puppet which sits and experiences the world played by the ego who is none other than God himself but unlike an evil demon trying to hoax us into believing in the reality of the world and keep us onto eternal slavery our God is a good god for he has given us freedom and immortality by showing us the truth that the soul of God is no different from the soul of each human being, the revelation which I had that the prana or the elan vital or the soul or myself is Jesus, Buddha, Mithras, Helios and just about everything and including nothing, the place of non-duality. We don't know this because we identify ourselves with the physical containers or with the cloth (bodies) en-covering the soul rather than identifying ourselves with the soul itself. We all are suffering from an identity crisis and it requires the gnosis of the Holy Father preached by Jesus Christ and his great apostle Saint Paul to get over it.

I do not believe in Intellectual Property Rights

There was no concept of intellectual property in the ancient world, and plagiarism was widely seen as a homage to the original author. The Stanford Encyclopedia claims "It must also be recognized that 'forgery' is a modern notion. Like Plotinus and the Cappadocian Fathers before him, Dionysius does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition." However, while the Pseudo Dionysius can be seen as a communicator of tradition, he can also be seen as a polemicist, who tried to alter Neo-Platonic tradition in a novel way for the Christian world that would make notions of complicated Divine Hierarchies more of an emphasis than notions of direct relationship with the figure of Christ as Mediator.

Yes, there was no concept of intellectual property in the ancient world. None of the seers of the Upanishads ever claimed themselves to be its authors because they knew that they do not have metaphysical free will and everything was working according to the will of the Father.

"Just as the demiurge secretly moved by Sophia believes that he acts alone the same also with human beings." 

- Excerpts of Theodotus

 The Vedic seers knew that this body and this world belongs to God and surrendered their will to him without publishing their works in their names. It is the attitude of stupid scientists who cry out like silly school children when their works are plagiarized who think that this idea is theirs as though they have invented the idea all by themselves. The truth is there is no such thing as invention instead we only discover ideas which are already invented by God. Neither I am going to give attribution to others works nor I am going to ask attribution for my ideas.

Measurement problem: A big thorn at the heart of quantum mechanics

Quantum Mechanics blurs the distinction between the observer and the observed. Even after eighty decades since the inception of Quantum Mechanics the measurement problem is not resolved and still haunts the theory in every imaginable way. Physicists however have no problems in continuing to carry out their experiments and making predictions from quantum theory because they can safely ignore the measurement problem for all practical purposes.

Schroedinger devised his cat paradox to show the absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation which was the instrumentalist view of Neil Bohr. It was here that he coined the term entanglement. The quantum state of the radioactive atom |psi> = |decayed> + |not decayed> and the quantum state of the poisonous gun |psi> = |fired> + |not fired> and the quantum state of the cat |psi> = |dead cat> + |live cat> are all entangled and exist in a superposition of states and evolve according to the Schroedinger equation. Quantum particles behave like ghost particles where each particle passes through both the slits at once and tunnel through walls and change their properties according to the context of the choice of measurements we make on them. Matter exists in a state of potentialities and not in a state of actualities. 

If this is the true nature of matter then why does our world which is made up of matter appears to us in a state of actualities rather than in a state of potentialities. What prevents billiard balls from being smeared out as waves and existing at multiple locations all at once or what prevents them from tunnelling through walls? Physicists have sought to answer this question in many ways while some propose decoherence through environment and while others speculate the existence of parallel worlds and few others taking the wavefunction to be real postulate that the weavefunction collapses to produce a specific outcome which can be recorded in the form of detector clicks and events none of these answers solve the question in hand. Decoherence theory fails to account for Quantum interference observed in molecules as big as Buckminster fullerenes which are so hot so much that it is never isolated from the environment. Quantum entanglement has been observed in room temperatures. The parallel worlds carry too much baggage and no experimental evidence supports them and it is highly unlikely for the wavefunction to be real and objective collapse theories are not the way to move forward.

The contextuality of Quantum Mechanics can be explained by a pair of colourless cosco balls. Let a bowling machine emit a pair of colourless cosco balls which will travel through different tunnels where it passes through a color detector at the each end of a tunnel. Let there be a mathematical constraint in the theory such that if you see one pair of a ball having one color the other ball at the other end of the tunnel should also have the same color. What quantum mechanics is saying to us is that matter does not possess any objective properties prior to measurements or in other words it is the very act of measuring the ball by the color detector which assigns a value say the color red to the ball in an absolutely random way, we just don't know in what color the ball will pass out through the tunnel, it may be red, pink, yellow, blue or green and there is no way of knowing it which is the presence of inherent randomness in the quantum system. The weirdness does not stop here the measurement made by the color detector not only assigns a color to the ball at this end of the tunnel it also instantaneously assigns a color value to the ball at the other end of the tunnel which might be hundreds of kilometres apart violating locality. Numerous experiments have confirmed this behaviour and quantum entanglement is an empirical fact now that measurements not only changes the system which is being measured here it also changes the system which may be situated at the other end of the universe.

All the strangeness, randomness and weirdness of Quantum mechanics is not because of the Schroedinger equation which is perfectly deterministic instead it is due to the measurement made on the quantum system. Every quantum physicist knows that they have to understand what is meant by measurement if they have any chance of clearly understanding quantum mechanics. Given the importance of measurement and observation in the theory of quantum mechanics which was recognized by Fritz London and Edmond Bauer who advocated for the advent of Phenomenology we certainly need to reconsider our notion of perception.

Below I will speculate a lot on how this measurement problem may be connected to the theories of perception in Indian philosophy.

“According to Western medical science, light vibrations from outside strike the retina and an inverted image is formed there. These vibrations are carried through the optic tract and optic thalamus to the centre of vision in the occipital lobe of the brain in the hind part of the head. There a positive image is formed. Only then we see the object in front of us. The Vedanta theory of perception is that the mind comes out through the eye and assumes the shape of the object outside.” (Mind and Its Mysteries: p. 70)

“The mind assumes the shape of any object it intensely thinks upon.” “When you pass through a mango garden, a ray of the mind comes out through the eye and envelops the mango. It assumes the shape of the mango. The ray is termed a Vritti. The enveloping process is called Vritti-vyapti. The function of a Vritti is to remove the Avarana (veil) that envelops the object and the Upahita-chaitanya (consciousness defined by an adjunct). The veil that envelops the mango is removed by the Vritti or the mental ray. There is Chaitanya (consciousness) associated with the Vritti. This Chaitanya illuminates the object ‘mango.’ This result is termed Phala-vyapti. Just as a torch-light illuminates an object in a flash, this Vritti-chaitanya (consciousness conditioned by the mental mode) illumines the object. Only then does perception of the mango take place” (Mind and Its Mysteries: P. 194). “According to the Advaita theory of perception, it is the Chaitanya within us that makes perception possible. The Chetana (intelligence) within us unites with the Chetana (intelligence) in the object, and the result is perception. It does not follow from this that the mind and the senses are useless,…..for they serve the purpose of determining the special object of each sense” (Ibid, p. 205)

- The Theory of Perception

Indian philosophy does recognize the existence of a physical world independent of observers which is made up of five elements: fire, earth, water, air and space called as Panchabhoothas and all the objects including our bodies which we can see are made from the mixtures of these five elements. The non-physical mind along with its sense organs which exists in the subtle body reaches out to the external objects made up of Bhoothas and alters the Bhoothas giving rise to the appearance of a classical world and these Panchabhoothas does not possess any objective properties with in themselves and all objective and cognitive properties of an object like speed, position, momentum, spin, angular momentum, velocity, mass, color, smell, dimension and time etc etc are assigned to this object by the mind and in turn alters the state of these Panchbhoothas. It is not that reality is what you make it or that you can change your reality just by observing it differently instead reality is what has been constructively given to us by the external non-physical mind. We don't construct reality inside our brains in fact brain is just a construct of the mind.

Immaneul Kant long argued this in his theory of transcendental Idealism where the categories of the mind constructs the phenomenal reality including the space-time continuum and quantum mechanics upholds this view more strongly than anything ever has.

"Kant taught that space and time are not part of external reality but are rather preexisting structures in our minds that allow us to relate objects and events."

- Steven Weinberg

So again why does billiard balls appears to us to always possess objective properties irrespective of whether we observe them or not while the same is not true for electrons and photons when both billard balls and electrons and photons are made from the same Panchabhoothas? Caslav Brukner and Kofler have explained the emergence of the classical world from the quantum world in their paper answering this very question.

Do classical laws arise from quantum laws?
A coarse-grained Schrödinger cat

“The physics community is mostly divided into two groups,” Johannes Kofler tells PhysOrg.com. “One group believes that quantum theory is underlying the classical world, and that classical physics comes from the quantum. The other group thinks that quantum physics has to be altered. It forbids that quantum mechanics works on a macro level in the classical world by postulating additional laws.”

Kofler belongs to the former group


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2007-11-classical-laws-quantum.html#jCp

“The physics community is mostly divided into two groups,” Johannes Kofler tells PhysOrg.com. “One group believes that quantum theory is underlying the classical world, and that classical physics comes from the quantum. The other group thinks that quantum physics has to be altered. It forbids that quantum mechanics works on a macro level in the classical world by postulating additional laws.”

Kofler belongs to the former group


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2007-11-classical-laws-quantum.html#jCp

“The physics community is mostly divided into two groups,” Johannes Kofler tells PhysOrg.com. “One group believes that quantum theory is underlying the classical world, and that classical physics comes from the quantum. The other group thinks that quantum physics has to be altered. It forbids that quantum mechanics works on a macro level in the classical world by postulating additional laws.”

Kofler belongs to the former group


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2007-11-classical-laws-quantum.html#jCp

“The physics community is mostly divided into two groups,” Johannes Kofler tells PhysOrg.com. “One group believes that quantum theory is underlying the classical world, and that classical physics comes from the quantum. The other group thinks that quantum physics has to be altered. It forbids that quantum mechanics works on a macro level in the classical world by postulating additional laws.”

Kofler belongs to the former group


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2007-11-classical-laws-quantum.html#jCp

Macroscopic Realism Emerging from Quantum Physics

 Above image taken from Caslav Brukner and Kofler paper.

So the classical world is classical because the mind by making coarse grained measurements on external objects has constructed a classical world to us. This view obviously introduces problems for quantum cosmology and also a classical detector can act as a measuring device and there is no need for conscious observers or human beings. So does this mean that even measuring devices have a mind of their own and this leads to some kind of panpsychism? I do not wish to speculate further on this path but the world might be like this who knows but the conclusion of this article is very much this:

It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.

-- Wheeler, John A. (1990), W. Zurek, ed., "Information, physics, quantum: The search for links", Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley) 

Realism is going to stay for a while

What Bell did by Tim Maudlin.

"EPR had already ruled out local indeterministic theories, and “On the Einstein-Podolosky-Rosen paradox” ruled out local deterministic theories. Between the two of them, they licked the platter clean. Locality must be abandoned."

So as long as there is no inequality theorem which rules out the theory of Bohmian mechanics (a non-local deterministic theory), realism is going to stay for a while. Thanks to Tim Maudlin for clearing out some of the misconceptions of what Bell's theorem proves and what are its implications to our place in the cosmos.

Kochen-specker theorem does not rule out hidden variable theories as long as the hidden variable theories are Contextual. Bohmian mechanics is one such theory which fully reproduces the behaviour of standard quantum mechanics where all other properties of the system are contextual in nature except the position of the particles.

Contextuality in Bohmian Mechanics

Bernard D'Espagnat is no more with us

Bernard d’Espagnat, 93, Physicist, Dies; Sought Implications of Quantum Theory

I thank the Templeton Foundation for recognizing the work of Bernard D'Espagnat and for honouring him. He was the only Physicist who openly proclaimed that Quantum Mechanics is a pointer to an independent reality that exists independent of us. He was the only one who truly understood the implications of Quantum Mechanics and the famous Bell's theorem. Quantum Mechanics is pointing towards Platonic Realism which can be read from Bernard's own words.

“Plato’s ideas do not belong to space-time but they exist independently of the human mind and are the cause of phenomena. This is why, when we talk of Plato, we sometimes talk of the realism of essences. In this sense (a distant independent reality, probably not situated in time and space-time), it is difficult for the philosophical realism of a physicist to avoid being a little bit Platonist. Bohm himself, previously a standard bearer of the “materialist” physicists, even says now that perceived objects are only projections of what exists (4).”

Thus we see a legitimization of a scientific Platonism which is a philosophical consequence of the scientific demonstration of our world’s non-ontological character.

        - Speech for the diner in honor of Bernard D'Espagnat
 

I am feeling sad that Bernard D'Espagnat is no more with us to provide rigorous analysis on the development of new physics and its implications on Philosophy and Reality when fucktards like Stephen Hawking are saying that "Philosophy is dead". We need to carry forward his good works from where he left us.

Bernard d’Espagnat (2009)

PDF

Scientists Statements about Bernard d'Espagnat

Statement by Professor Bernard d'Espagnat

Fact Sheet

Reflections on Key Books and Publications

Books and articles by Bernard d'Espagnat

Career of Bernard d'Espagnat

links

Reality and the Physicist

Veiled Reality

On Physics and Philosophy

"The Quantum Theory and Reality," Scientific American, November 1979

Invisible Reality: A dialogue on nonlocal quantum entanglement World Science Festival, New York City, May 30, 2008

More Information on physicist John Bell

More information on Bell's Theorem

More information on Bell Test Experiments

BIG QUESTIONS – VIDEOS

Is it possible that not all of reality can be observed?

Can scientific research encourage spirituality?

What do we learn about the nature of reality from quantum physics?

Iamblichus: Taking the Shape of the Gods

Taking the Shape of the Gods: A Theurgic Reading of Hermetic Rebirth
 
This is an another paper like the earlier one Offering to the Gods: A Neo-platonic perspective which shows the supreme wisdom of the Neo-platonic philosopher Iamblichus and how he defends the art of theurgy.

People often misunderstand theurgy as an irrational shallow practice since they normally do not understand the esoteric perspective behind those practices. But Theurgy and Esotericism being a profession carried out by only elite members of a society possessing special interests is intelligible only to those who have special knowledge.

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

Strong AI is impossible without conscious machines.

RP. I can give examples of non-computational things, but it’s not obvious why they are non-computational. The one I like the best is the tiling problem. You have these shapes made out of squares glued together, things called polyominoes. You’re given a collection of these, a finite number of different sorts but an unlimited number of each sort, and you are asked: can you use these shapes to cover the entire plane without gaps or overlaps?

That is an example of a non-computational problem. That is to say, there is no computer programme which will answer yes or no for any given set of tiles: no programme where you can feed in the information of the tiles into the computer and ask it, will they tile the plane or not. Although the answer "no" can be computational, the answer "yes" is not computational. That is to say there is no way of being sure, for an arbitrary set of polyomino shapes, that they will tile the plane. It’s quite a subtle piece of mathematics to show that this is a non-computational problem. There is no computer programme whatsoever that can make this decision for any possible given set of tiles.

CC. Okay, so there are some non-computational problems. Now your argument is that there are some of these problems which cannot be solved computationally, but which can be solved by bringing in human consciousness. How does this argument go?

RP. You have to phrase the problem in the right way. In the case of the tiling problem, the way it works is like this. Suppose you were given a computer programme which would answer correctly "yes" or "no" to a set of tiles, but sometimes it will say not come to any conclusion at all (you could certainly have computers like that). Then by knowing that the computer doesn’t give you the wrong answer, from the computer’s construction you could build a set of tiles which the computer will get stuck on: a set of tiles which you know will tile the plane, and which you also know will not be able to be answered correctly by this computer.

CC. But when you say "you know" what is it about me as a conscious human being that enables me to know, what particular faculty is it that I’m applying?

RP. It’s the understanding really. It’s basically Gödel’s theorem, but you have to know that the computer doesn’t give the wrong answers. Gödel’s theorem is telling you, if you like, that the procedures we’re prepared to accept as proof cannot ever be limited to specific computational procedures: they’re never computationally limited because once you can phrase the rules of the computational system then you can see how to transcend them. So provided that you trust those rules, so that you’re prepared to count following the rules as constituting a proof, then you can see how to get methods of proof which are outside it. Our mathematical understanding, or mathematical intuition as Gödel would put it, is something outside computation.

CC. Is the open-endedness of this procedure crucial here? I take Gödel’s theorem as producing some proposition that you can’t prove, but always with a bigger system in which you can prove it. But you don’t just stay with the bigger system - isn’t the crucial point here that you can always keep going out to yet another proposition that you can’t prove?

RP. It is like that, that’s right. And in fact in our understanding we’re using this kind of procedure all the time; it’s not limited to sophisticated mathematical logic. Imagine you have some procedure at which you work away, and you think you’ve got the rules right; and then you get worried and think maybe it’s not doing everything … so you step back and you look at what it is that you’ve put into that system, and you think about what are the implications of the kinds of rules you’ve been using. This sort of reasoning ¾ stepping back from the system ¾ is doing the same thing as Gödel’s theorem, and you always have to bring your awareness in to do that. 

CC. So the insight you’re talking about is self-reflexive: looking at your own thinking in order to enlarge it ?

RP. I think that’s essentially right; that’s basically what you’re doing.

An interview with Professor Roger Penrose - Published in Network,May 2000 Interviewer: Chris Clarke

I think Penrose has made an important discovery here that in order for machines to have the capability of strong AI surpassing human intelligence they have to be conscious beings first because without awareness it is virtually impossible to analyse self-referential statements (emphasizing bold words from RP) and therefore machines without this fundamental quality in them would never be able to transcend Gödel's statements and therefore forever remain below the levels of human intelligence. It is our nature of Self awareness which helps us in our mathematical understanding and allows us to transcend Gödel's statements.

But Self awareness or the procedures of mathematical understanding itself might be something which you cannot simulate it on a computer i.e. human thought process or awareness itself might be non-computable (Penrose proves this in great lengths in his Shadows of the Mind) which in such a case the proponents of Strong AI are doomed because without conscious machines there can be no Strong AI but without a non-computable machine simulating human thought process there can be no conscious activity.

The universe is non-local, non-real and super-deterministic

The Kochen-Specker Theorem and the Measurement Problem

Experimenter's Free Will and Quantum Certainty

Quantum Physics and Free Will

Locality, Realism (Value Definiteness + Non-contextuality)  and freedom of choice all three premises should be abandoned. The Universe is 

1. Non-local - instantaneous communication is possible between the two opposite ends of the universe outside of the space-time continuum.

2. Non-real  - The universe is only a state of mind and empirical reality does not exist independent of observers.

3. Super-deterministic - Everything in the universe is predetermined and we have no freedom of choice to choose between different measurement settings or different polariser orientations without in any way affecting the prepared quantum ensembles.

We need to give up local-realism, non-local realism as well as our freedom of choice to be consistent with nature.

 

Quantum Mechanics does not apply to me

I have repeatedly stated that Science cannot give an objective account of reality because Quantum mechanics proves that Scientific realism is false. While the sadist alternative is to resort to solipsism there is still one optimism for realists like me which is Platonic Realism which has withstood the test of times.

In this 1939 paper London and Bauer question the validity of scientific objectivity and claim that consciousness or our "faculty of introspection" is a distinct property possessed by systems like us who can treat ourselves as alien external observers who can modify the Schroedinger's wavefunction without ourselves being subjected to it.

Consciousness is the only true measurement apparatus and leads to mind over matter. The fact that physicists cannot solve the measurement problem even after eight decades proves that non-physical minds exists and quantum mechanics even gives us a clue that the evolution of such non-physical minds should be non-linear or even non-computable as Penrose argues.

The Theory of Observation in Quantum Mechanics by Fritz London and Edmond Bauer (1939)

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND OBJECTIVITY

At first sight it would appear that in quantum mechanics the concept of scientific objectivity has been strongly shaken. Since the classic period, the idea has become familiar that a physical object is something real, existing outside of the observer, independent of him, and in particular independent of whether or not the object has been subjected to measurement. The situation is not the same in quantum mechanics. Far from it being possible to attribute to a system at every instant its measurable properties, one cannot even claim that to attribute to it so much as a wave function has a well-defined meaning, unless referring explicitly to a definite measurement. Moreover, it looks as if the result of a measurement is intimately linked to the consciousness of the person making it, and as if quantum mechanics thus drives us toward complete solipsism.

Actually, however, we know that the relations between physicists have undergone practically no change since the discovery of quantum mechanics. No physicist has retired into a solipsistic isolation. Physicists use the same means of scientific exchange as in the past and are capable of cooperation in studying the same object. Thus there really exists something like a community of scientific perception, an agreement on what constitutes the object of the investigation, and it is this that still has to be looked into.

First of all, it is easy to recognize that the act of observation, that is, the coupling between the measuring apparatus and the observer (see our example in §11), is truly a macroscopic action and not basically quantal. Consequently one always has the right to neglect the effect on the apparatus of the “scrutiny” of the observer. Tracing things back in time, one will obtain definite conclusions about the state of the apparatus (or the photographic plate) and consequently the state of the object before the observation (but of course after the coupling is turned off). Moreover, nothing prevents another observer from looking at the same apparatus; and one can predict that, barring errors, his observations will be the same. The possibility of abstracting away from the individuality of the observer and of creating a collective scientific perception therefore in no way comes seriously into question.

It might appear that the scientific community thus created is a kind of spiritualistic society which studies imaginary phenomena—that the objects of physics are phantoms produced by the observer himself. In classical physics, one can picture a system at every instant in a unique and continuous way by the set of all of its measurable properties, even when it is not subjected to observation. It is exactly the possibility of this continuity of connection between properties and object that has ordinarily been considered as proof that physics deals with something “real,” that is, having in principle an existence “independent of all observers.” In quantum mechanics an object is the carrier, not of a definite set of measurable properties, but only a set of "potential" probability distributions or statistis referring to measurable properties, statistics which only come into force on the occasion of an effective well-defined measurement. If one abstracts away from all acts of measurement, it is meaningless to claim these measurable properties as realized; the very mathematical form of the statistics does not allow it (see §8).

But that does not keep us from predicting or interpreting experimental results. Theory fixes the rules. It teaches us first of all how to filter an object to get a pure case —that is, reproducible conditions, then it suggests how to make measurements, either to check theoretical predictions or to discover new empirical regularities. The theory adapts itself truly marvelously to the realities of experiment. It gives answers on all desired details and is silent on hypothetical questions with out experimental meaning.

In present physics the concept of “objectivity” is a little more abstract than the classical idea of a material object. Is it not a guarantee of “the objectivity” of an object that one can at least formally attribute measurable properties to it in a continuous manner even at times when it is not under observation? The answer is No, as this new theory shows by its internal consistency and by its impressive applications. It is enough, evidently, that the properties of the object should be present at the moment they are measured and that they should be predicted by theory in agreement with experiment.

In the limiting case of macroscopic phenomena, quantum theory rejoins classical theory. Thus it justifies the use of the “naive” concept of “objectivity” and at the same time specifics the limitations of this concept.

What has just been said relates to an important philosophical problem that we cannot enter into here: the determination of the necessary and sufficient conditions for an object of thought to possess objectivity and to be an object of science. This problem was perhaps posed for the first time in any general way by such mathematicians as Malebranche, Leibniz, and especially by B. Bolzano. More recently Husserl (1901, 1913; see also the rather similar ideas in Cassirer, 1910, 1936) has systematically studied such questions and has thus created a new method of investigation called Phenomenology.”

Physics insofar as it is an empirical science cannot enter into such problems in all their generality. It is satisfied to use philosophical concepts sufficient for its needs, but on occasion it can recognize that some of the concepts that once served it have become quite unnecessary, that they contain elements that are useless and even incorrect, actual obstacles to progress. One can doubt the possibility of establishing philosophical truths by the methods of physics, but it is surely not outside the the competence of physicists to demonstrate that certain statements which pretend to have a philosophical validity do not. And sometimes these “negative” philosophical discoveries by physicists are no less important, no less revolutionary for philosophy than the discoveries of recognized philosophers.

God is both a murderer and a saviour

I have been concentrating way too much on the concept of Pleroma in my posts and many people might think that I am a dualist. So in order to clear out those misconceptions I am going to unleash the real Kraken in this post. I am concentrating too much on the concept of Pleroma rather than talking about Non-dualism because that's a path of attaining Non-dualism which people have forgotten, very few people take that road to reality nowadays and I emphasized on Pleroma so that people can see and understand how radically different the concept of Non-dualism really is than what you hear from spiritual gurus or from New Age fellows. I stressed on Pleroma so that people can understand the true implications of the idea of Non-dualism.

What if I am going to say to you that Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela are equivalent to Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bhakr Al Bhagdadi?

The former and the latter persons are equivalent to one and another because they are neither responsible for the good and evil actions that they did or committed. Mahatma Gandhi was not a Mahatma and neither was he a great human being and nor Adolf Hitler was a bad human being. Now one might ask how is Adolf Hitler not a bad human being when he was responsible for the death of millions of Jews? This is where the whole world slips. According to the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Valentinianism and the pagan mystery religions we human beings really have no free will, we are not in control of our lives, everything we dream of, think of and possess is not really ours.

Just as the Demiurge secretly moved by Sophia thinks that he acts alone the same also with human beings.

- Excerpt of Theodotus, Valentinian Christian

God is really the demon of Rene Descartes who deceives us into falsely believing that this world is real, that these bodies are ours, deceiving us that the voice which speaks inside us is us, deceiving us into believing that the psyche or the character is what make us who we really are only to wake up to realize to the truth that the dreams which we are chasing all our lives are not truly ours but instead it was someone else's to begin with. Its like we all are being set up to fight, to kill and to love each other without being aware of the fact that none of our thoughts are truly originating from us.

Western psychology has a very loose definition for the concept of Pride or Ego but in the traditional Indian psychology "Ego" is directly identified with God. In fact this is the whole essence of the Gayatri verse that many people chant it blindly today that God is the one who stimulates our thoughts.

• God is the one who makes us commit sins and he is also the one who brings the wrath upon us for those sins.
• God is the one who murders people and he is the one who saves us.
• God is both evil and good.
• God is both heat and cold.
• God is both fire and water.
• God is both love and hate.
• God is both moral and immoral.
• God is both our enemy and our friend.
• God is both omnipresent and he is also omniabsent.
• God is omnibenevolent and he is omnimalevolent.
• God is omniscient and he is omniweak.
• God is the one who sends us to hell and he is the one who sends us to heaven.
• God is the one who makes us cry and he is the one who makes us laugh.
• He is the one who forces us to take revenge upon others and he is the one who makes us to forgive those who do bad to us.
• God is the one who make us commit adultery and fornification and he is the one who makes us be loyal to our husbands or wives.
• God is the one who makes us fall in love and he is also the one who breaks our heart.
• God is the one who brings famine and drought and he is also the one who brings harvest and rain.
• God is the one who implants bombs at Churches, Mosques and at Temples and he is the one who sends aid to those who are killed at those places.

Can you see where am I going with this? To make you guys understand the real message out of this I have to quote the words of a great Quantum Physicist, Erwin Schroedinger who was deeply immersed in the Upanishads and contemplated its true implications.

"Our perceiving self is nowhere to be found with in the world picture because it itself is the world picture."

- Erwin Schroedinger, From Science to God by Peter Russell

Nārada Muni continued: What I referred to as the chariot was in actuality the body. The senses are the horses that pull that chariot. As time passes, year after year, these horses run without obstruction, but in fact they make no progress. Pious and impious activities are the two wheels of the chariot. The three modes of material nature are the chariot’s flags. The five types of life air constitute the living entity’s bondage, and the mind is considered to be the rope. Intelligence is the chariot driver. The heart is the sitting place in the chariot, and the dualities of life, such as pleasure and pain, are the knotting place. The seven elements are the coverings of the chariot, and the working senses are the five external processes. The eleven senses are the soldiers. Being engrossed in sense enjoyment, the living entity, seated on the chariot, hankers after fulfillment of his false desires and runs after sense enjoyment life after life.

Ego is a much more higher concept than Intelligence and the casket of Intelligence by itself cannot do anything without someone from behind stimulating our thoughts and that chariot driver is none other than Ego or God or in terms of Advaita Vedanta, it is Ishvar.

Now are we really in this world picture? Think about it, if none of our thoughts, our inner voice, our tastes, desires, dreams, our looks and characters are not truly ours then is there anything left that makes us who we are.

We all are prisoners of the cave whose souls are caught up in this world and this world is the cave of Mithras, now we have got two choices after realizing this truth, we can take the blue pill and continue to lead our lives experiencing all the pain, joy, sorrow, torments, insults, injustice, abuses, love, hate, kindness and cruelty that life has to offer us or take the red pill and escape from this world and realize who we really are.

There is no doubt that our souls are captivated in this world otherwise what's the whole point of trying to attain salvation. Now many believers of Advaita Vedanata have a false notion that they have already become Brahman or God since Non-dualism insists that "Thou are Brahman or God". They find the view that Brahman is caught up in this world and is being subject to suffering irreconcilable with the view that Brahman is all knowing and all blissful.

If Jiva is Brahman according to Advaita are Advaitics deluding themselves by believing that Brahman is not in bondage with nature (prakrithi)? Doesn't this prove that Brahman is vulnerable to corruptibility of ignorance?

A question which I asked on Quora just to let people know that they have misunderstood Advaita Vedanta if they already thought that they have become God or Brahman since Advaita Vedanta says so.

We must accept the fact that our souls are caught up in this world and we are still in duality and not falsely believe that we have become one with God when we are not truly there yet. Remember, to attain Non-dualism one must ascend to all the higher heavens just like the apocalypse of Saint Paul and how he went high up to the Ogdoad to meet the Holy Father and just like the Egyptian priest in Mithras liturgy ascended to various heavens to finally meet King Helios Aion Mithras in order to receive immortality. That's how crazy the idea of Non-dualism really is, if you think you can attain Non-dualism by meditating silently at the footsteps of the Himalayas then you are wrong. You have to be the next Saint Paul of Tarsus or at least get caught up in some of the higher heavens because only a pure soul can pass over the guardians of the heavens.

Most people are just embarrassed to hold such a view of Non-dualism in this 21st century age, everyone wants to talk about Quantum Physics and science so that somehow it gives them some kind of credibility and more respect to their shitty ideas by mentioning some scientific words and by the invocation of few reputed scientists. Sorry jackasses if you want to attain Non-dualism you need to be the next Dante or the next Carl Gustav Jung, you need to rise up to the Ogdoad and meet the Holy Father in the heavens, that's how crazy it is so don't even imagine in your dreams that you know Brahman or God just by reading a few Upanishads and texts of Shankara and trying to find parallels to it from Modern Physics.

Carl Gustav Jung, the famous psychologist and Gnostic cracked this mystery through his studies of the Nag Hammadi Library which we can verify from his Red Book and the Seven Sermons to the Dead. (The Spiritually dead refers to the orthodox Christians).

                                

Seven Sermons to the Dead

Sermo II

In the night the dead stood along the wall and cried:

We would have knowledge of god. Where is god? Is god dead?

God is not dead. Now, as ever, he liveth. God is creatura, for he is something definite, and therefore distinct from the pleroma. God is quality of the pleroma, and everything which I said of creatura also is true concerning him.

He is distinguished, however, from created beings through this, that he is more indefinite and indeterminable than they. He is less distinct than created beings, since the ground of his being is effective fullness. Only in so far as he is definite and distinct is he creatura, and in like measure is he the manifestation of the effective fullness of the pleroma.

Everything which we do not distinguish falleth into the pleroma and is made void by its opposite. If, therefore, we do not distinguish god, effective fullness is for us extinguished.

Moreover god is the pleroma itself, as likewise each smallest point in the created and uncreated is the pleroma itself.

Effective void is the nature of the devil. God and devil are the first manifestations of nothingness, which we call the pleroma. It is indifferent whether the pleroma is or is not, since in everything it is balanced and void.

Not so creatura. In so far as god and devil are creatura they do not extinguish each other, but stand one against the other as effective opposites. We need no proof of their existence. It is enough that we must always be speaking of them. Even if both were not, creatura, of its own essential distinctiveness, would forever distinguish them anew out of the pleroma.

Everything that discrimination taketh out of the pleroma is a pair of opposites. To god, therefore, always belongeth the devil.

This inseparability is as close and, as your own life hath made you see, as indissoluble as the pleroma itself. Thus it is that both stand very close to the pleroma, in which all opposites are extinguished and joined.

God and devil are distinguished by the qualities fullness and emptiness, generation and destruction. Effectiveness is common to both.

Effectiveness joineth them. Effectiveness, therefore, standeth above both; is a god above god, since in its effect it uniteth fullness and emptiness.

This is a god whom ye knew not, for mankind forgot it. We name it by its name Abraxas. It is more indefinite still than god and devil.

That god may be distinguished from it, we name god Helios or Sun. Abraxas is effect. Nothing standeth opposed to it but the ineffective; hence its effective nature freely unfoldeth itself. The ineffective is not, therefore resisteth not. Abraxas standeth above the sun and above the devil. It is improbable probability, unreal reality. Had the pleroma a being, Abraxas would be its manifestation. It is the effective itself, not any particular effect, but effect in general.

It is unreal reality, because it hath no definite effect.

It is also creatura, because it is distinct from the pleroma.

The sun hath a definite effect, and so hath the devil. Wherefore do they appear to us more effective than indefinite Abraxas.

It is force, duration, change.

The dead now raised a great tumult, for they were Christians.

Sermo III

Like mists arising from a marsh, the dead came near and cried: Speak further unto us concerning the supreme god.

Hard to know is the deity of Abraxas. Its power is the greatest, because man perceiveth it not. From the sun he draweth the summum bonum; from the devil the infimum malum; but from Abraxas life, altogether indefinite, the mother of good and evil.

Smaller and weaker life seemeth to be than the summum bonum; wherefore is it also hard to conceive that Abraxas transcendeth even the sun in power, who is himself the radiant source of all the force of life.

Abraxas is the sun, and at the same time the eternally sucking gorge of the void, the belittling and dismembering devil.

The power of Abraxas is twofold; but ye see it not, because for your eyes the warring opposites of this power are extinguished.

What the god-sun speaketh is life.

What the devil speaketh is death.

But Abraxas speaketh that hallowed and accursed word which is life and death at the same time.

Abraxas begetteth truth and lying, good and evil, light and darkness, in the same word and in the same act. Wherefore is Abraxas terrible.

It is splendid as the lion in the instant he striketh down his victim. It is beautiful as a day of spring. It is the great Pan himself and also the small one. It is Priapos.

It is the monster of the under-world, a thousand-armed polyp, coiled knot of winged serpents, frenzy.

It is the hermaphrodite of the earliest beginning.

It is the lord of the toads and frogs, which live in the water and go up on the land, whose chorus ascendeth at noon and at midnight.

It is abundance that seeketh union with emptiness.

It is holy begetting.

It is love and love’s murder.

It is the saint and his betrayer.

It is the brightest light of day and the darkest night of madness.

To look upon it, is blindness.

To know it, is sickness.

To worship it, is death.

To fear it, is wisdom.

To resist it not, is redemption.

God dwelleth behind the sun, the devil behind the night. What god bringeth forth out of the light the devil sucketh into the night. But Abraxas is the world, its becoming and its passing. Upon every gift that cometh from the god-sun the devil layeth his curse.

Everything that ye entreat from the god-sun begetteth a deed of the devil.

Everything that ye create with the god-sun giveth effective power to the devil.

That is terrible Abraxas.

It is the mightiest creature, and in it the creature is afraid of itself.

It is the manifest opposition of creatura to the pleroma and its nothingness.

It is the son’s horror of the mother.

It is the mother’s love for the son.

It is the delight of the earth and the cruelty of the heavens.

Before its countenance man becometh like stone.

Before it there is no question and no reply.

It is the life of creatura.

It is the operation of distinctiveness.

It is the love of man.

It is the speech of man.

It is the appearance and the shadow of man.

It is illusory reality.

Now the dead howled and raged, for they were unperfected.

Jung is speaking the same thing in terms of Gnostic terminology as what Erwin Schroedinger said that we are nowhere to be found within this world picture and that all the dualities of life is carried out by the supreme God Abraxas.

But do we really have the choice even to take the blue pill or the red pill, isn't it true that even that is preordained by God. Then how can we say that it is by our effort and by our works of the Law that we attained redemption. Did we? Really? This is where the grace of God comes into the picture. Obviously such a God is not worthy of worship who turns us away from him and at the same time brings the wrath upon us for not loving him when we have absolutely no freedom over the choices that we make.

Our only hope and belief is to believe that this God is good and he will free us from this bondage through his grace for us. In fact this is the belief in the pagan mystery religions that God is preparing all of us to make ourselves free from bondage so we must stop weeping for every small things that goes along with our lives.

There is no concept of Devil in the pagan mystery religions and also in the Upanishads and the Vedas. Now in a typical Christian environment all the good things would be attributed to God and all the evil things that happens in one's life would be attributed as done by the Devil. This is not our view, according to us both Good and Evil is carried out by the Supreme God for everything is working according to the Will of The Father and our true self is nowhere to be found with in this world picture.

All our souls have the potential within themselves to become God but the potential in us can only be extracted by God alone through his grace for us, he has to bring us to his feet and he has to make us pray for him and he has to show us the real truth as to who we really are.

Where then is boasting?

Isn't this the death of Ego and the emergence of the truth of Non-dualism that "I am God, God and I are One"?

Cracking the code of the mystery-religions

I'm currently reading the latest 25 books I purchased a week ago, and some library books:

o Hellenistic myths and mystery religions

o The controversy over Copenhagenist quantum mechanics

o Tenseless (illusory) time

o Several ~$85 books on determinism, including in Stoic thought

o Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category

The Gnostics, like the mystery initiates, understood the threat of block-universe fatalism to human freedom, and were motivated mainly by hating such a metaphysically disempowering jail cell of "astrological" cosmic determinism, and by *wanting* and *attempting* to find a way of transcending, in some sense, the frozen space-time cosmos.  

Whether they succeeded, in some sense, at transcending the ego-killing trap of illusory/frozen time is a matter of debate and a matter of investigating the notion of transcendence.  All the hatred and loathing of my block-universe idea exhibited by some contemporary Gnostics only serves to confirm the plausibility of my portrayal of how the ancients had mixed feelings about the Fatalism they perceived and believed in.

I'm not interested in truth per se, but by making sense out of mystery-experiencing.  I'm constructing a simple, consistent model of how our personal power of will and self-control sits with respect to the time dimension, and how the ancients experienced initiation in the mystery religions.  The ancients were concerned above all with the problematic metaphysical aspects of personal freedom.  

We cannot say, with low-level detail, that their myths had only one meaning, regarding our metaphysical freedom or lack of it, or our transcendence of metaphysical unfreedom.  But we can certainly say that the Gnostics and mysteries had one high-level, overarching meaning: grappling with the problematic nature of personal metaphysical freedom.   

Each Gnostic group or thinker, and each mystery tradition, and each myth, may have drawn different conclusions or told the religious story in different ways, but there is one commonality across all this diversity: they all were concerned primarily with the problematic nature of personal metaphysical freedom.  When certain contemporary Gnostics rail against my model of the frozen block universe, they only add support to the above thesis of what concern, what issue, what *problem* unites all the variant traditions of the diverse Gnostic groups and mystery traditions.  

I have cracked the code, penetrated the mysteries, and solved the puzzle, by identifying the question, the problem, what was really at issue.  The way to finally make sense of the various Hellenistic myths in an encompassing way is through reading them as encoded allegories of mystic-state encounters with the problematic nature of personal metaphysical freedom.  Cries by certain Gnostics against the frozen block-universe model only strengthen this thesis.  

o  Is the universe in fact frozen, with time being illusory? 

o  Is our power and freedom a frozen illusion as well? 

o Can we meaningfully transcend such deathly freezing or rock-embedding of the entire time axis? 

o  Is there a legitimate and coherent way that we can, like Mithras, exit from the rock-womb and become legitimately free?  

These are matters for debate and do not overthrow the value of my model of time and personal control, as a fundamental and basic model to consider as a hypothesis and reference point that all initiates must know.  No one should believe that time is an illusion, along with our personal power to author our own future, but *everyone* should *know* this idea as a fundamental hypothesis and point of reference. 

        - Ego death.com - Hellenistic Mystery Religion