📅 Sep 30, 2017

Re:

From: Frederic Chaslin <fchaslin@me.com>

To: Jeffrey E.

Do we know her? ))) Can't wait to see you again Envoyé de mon iPhone

Do we know her?
)))
Can't wait to see you again

Envoyé de mon iPhone

📅 Sep 30, 2017 FROM EPSTEIN REDACTED

(no subject)

From: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com>

please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy t

please note

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright - all rights reserved

📅 Jul 18, 2016 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Peter Moskovitz <pmoskovitz@gmail.com>

I've no idea how my email address got attached to this conversation and I'm rather certain that my comments will be unwelcome, but, arrogant pedant that I am, you shall have them. That Dawkins does not understand consciousness comes as no surprise. Any conversation with Hammeroff is, a priori, non-informative. Consciousness obeys the laws of chaos (randomness does no occur in nature), as do quantum fields, but consciousness has nothing to do with the perturbation of quantum fields in any part

I've no idea how my email address got attached to this conversation and I'm rather certain that my comments will be unwelcome, but, arrogant pedant that I am, you shall have them.

That Dawkins does not understand consciousness comes as no surprise.

Any conversation with Hammeroff is, a priori, non-informative. Consciousness obeys the laws of chaos (randomness does no occur in nature), as do quantum fields, but consciousness has nothing to do with the perturbation of quantum fields in any part of the nervous system. It was a nice try, but a silly one.

Consciousness has no contents. It is about something (intensionality) but it has no contents, nothing that can be observed, measured, recorded or analysed. Therefore, there is no "granularity" of consciousness: qualia do not exist. The hard problem is an illusion. Mysterianism is not so much a lack of knowledge as it is a lack of imagination and insight. As Adam Zeman put it: If your theory admits to the existence of zombies, your theory needs fixed. You have to say that with a Scottish accent.

Consciousness (the feeling of what happens, the remembered present) is the experience of perceptual contents. Do not mistake this definition with "the contents of perceptual experience". They sound alike, but the word order changes the meaning completely. Perceptual contents are the neural representation of stimuli, internal or external. Neural representations can be observed (if one's instruments are good enough), measured, recorded and analysed. The experience of the representation cannot, it is subjective, entirely subjective. Experience has no contents. Spirituality is a state of experience but it is not the "contents" of experience. (Which is one reason why the DL has declared that if neuroscience disproves his beliefs, he will search for new beliefs, brave fellow.)

Consciousness is the synchronous oscillation of massively interconnected, multidimensional, recursive circuits, networks and systems throughout the global workspace. What enters awareness probably oscillates at about 40 hz. Oscillation at partial and harmonic frequencies probably effect how the perceptual apparatus represents transduced stimuli, how other perceptual contents enter consciousness and awareness and how contents are retained to enter awareness later, when the stimulus is remote. The theory has no empirical support, though parts of it have been validated. It's not new, and certainly not with me. Theorists and investigators I like include Crick and Koch, Rudolfo Llinas, Wolf Singer, Henry Markram and many others. Certainly not Chalmers, Jackson, Nagel, McGinn, Hammeroff and Penrose, etc.

Sorry, I warn most people that they shouldn't "get me started".

I promise I'll send no more.

PM

Peter A. Moskovitz Clinical Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery and Neurological Surgery George Washington University Chairman, Board of Directors RSDSA (Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome Association - www.rsds.org)

📅 Jul 19, 2016

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Brad Bartholomew <brad.bartholomew2@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

With respect I think consciousness is the easiest thing of all to explain. It is the representation of sensory data on the cortex of the brain that acts as a sophisticated television screen that we can smell taste and touch as well as see and hear. The knotty question is whether that sensory data actually comes from a real physical external world as it appears to do, or whether the source of that data is within us as per the Hindu tradition. My vote is for the latter. Kind regards Brad www.spiri

With respect I think consciousness is the easiest thing of all to explain. It is the representation of sensory data on the cortex of the brain that acts as a sophisticated television screen that we can smell taste and touch as well as see and hear. The knotty question is whether that sensory data actually comes from a real physical external world as it appears to do, or whether the source of that data is within us as per the Hindu tradition. My vote is for the latter. Kind regards Brad www.spiritualgenome.com

📅 Jul 20, 2016

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Soren Brier <sb.ibc@cbs.dk>

To: Brad Bartholomew <brad.bartholomew2@gmail.com>

Dear Brad The knotty question is also: Why looks at the television screen. That question makes your model collapse. Søren

Dear Brad

The knotty question is also: Why looks at the television screen. That question makes your model collapse.

Søren

📅 Jul 20, 2016

Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Brad Bartholomew <brad.bartholomew2@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Dear Soren Well you know it is undeniable in my opinion that consciousness is computer generated. It is also undeniable that we are a computer generated entity that is trying to figure out what it is. Ergo we come up against that fundamental principle in computer science that we can't think outside the program. Once you accept the fact that consciousness comes from sensory data then all bets are off as to the actual source of that data. Computers are tricked every day as to the source of the da

Dear Soren

Well you know it is undeniable in my opinion that consciousness is computer generated. It is also undeniable that we are a computer generated entity that is trying to figure out what it is. Ergo we come up against that fundamental principle in computer science that we can't think outside the program. Once you accept the fact that consciousness comes from sensory data then all bets are off as to the actual source of that data. Computers are tricked every day as to the source of the data they are processing.

Kind regards
Brad

📅 Jul 21, 2016

Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Brad Bartholomew <brad.bartholomew2@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Dear Soren & Witt I think most scientists would agree with the propositions of Seth Lloyd in his book Programming the Universe that the universe is a gigantic quantum computer (although why in this age of miniaturization a quantum computer needs to be the size of the universe to generate the universe is another question). If Seth Lloyd is right then everything in this universe is ultimately computer generated. As for consciousness the fact is that we are relying on consciousness in order to as

Dear Soren & Witt

I think most scientists would agree with the propositions of Seth Lloyd in his book Programming the Universe that the universe is a gigantic quantum computer (although why in this age of miniaturization a quantum computer needs to be the size of the universe to generate the universe is another question). If Seth Lloyd is right then everything in this universe is ultimately computer generated.

As for consciousness the fact is that we are relying on consciousness in order to ask the question What is consciousness? And the fact that after all the advancements in computer science we can fundamentally disagree on such a basic question as to whether consciousness is computer generated or not means that ultimately we will never be able to completely answer that question. It is the same for physicists seeking the theory of everything. They are entities within the universe seeking to know everything about the universe. They are ultimately bound by the program that set them up in the first place.This is the way Seth Lloyd explains it: "Godel showed that the capacity for self-reference leads automatically to paradoxes in logic; the British mathematician Alan Turing showed that self-reference leads to uncomputability in computers."

When a computer processes data the data contains instructions to the computer as to its source. Virtual drives are set up on computers that give the computer false information as to the source of the data and the computer is none the wiser. This is what I meant when I said that computers are tricked every day as to the source of the data they are processing. Sensory data contains instructions that it is coming from a physical external world, but it ain't necessarily so.

Kind regards
Brad

📅 Jul 21, 2016

Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Soren Brier <sb.ibc@cbs.dk>

To: Brad Bartholomew <brad.bartholomew2@gmail.com>

Dear Brad As a biologist I will deny that we are a computers in the Turing understanding of it. I know we try to imitate living neural networks in the dead computers we have now. It gives a few steps forward but does not really solve the deed problem. You need to define a much more general model for computation that can cover what our machine do as well as living organisms including those without a brain do and how socio-communicative function. As a scientist and philosopher I have to say that

Dear Brad

As a biologist I will deny that we are a computers in the Turing understanding of it. I know we try to imitate living neural networks in the dead computers we have now. It gives a few steps forward but does not really solve the deed problem. You need to define a much more general model for computation that can cover what our machine do as well as living organisms including those without a brain do and how socio-communicative function. As a scientist and philosopher I have to say that we have not agreed on what we are or what the world is constructed from. No doubt the concepts of matter, energy, force and information are depicting true aspects of reality, but when I in neurobiology and psychology was looking for experience and qualia in the nervous system, I — and nobody else - did not find any. There is some insufficiencies on our metaphysical framework. This is why i am interested in the debate with other cultural metaphysics of which Advaita Vedanta is one of the more interesting and I think can be brought into harmony with a new physical understanding build on quantum physics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics systems science and cybernetics and last but no least Peircean semiotics.

Best wishes

Søren Brier

Professor in the semiotics of information, cognition and communication science, department of International Business Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Home page: www.cbs.dk/staff/sbibc. Transdisciplinary framework: Cybersemiotics.com Editor in chief of Cybernetics & Human Knowing chkjournl.com

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016)

📅 Jul 21, 2016

Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Dr. Mike Sosteric <mikes@athabascau.ca>

To: online_sadhu_sanga <online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com>

As for consciousness the fact is that we are relying on consciousness in order to ask the question What is consciousness? And the fact that after all the advancements in computer science we can fundamentally disagree on such a basic question as to whether consciousness is computer generated or not means that ultimately we will never be able to completely answer that question. No. That's like saying, because "we" are all confused now, "we" will all be confused in the future. What kind of scienti

As for consciousness the fact is that we are relying on consciousness in order to ask the question What is consciousness? And the fact that after all the advancements in computer science we can fundamentally disagree on such a basic question as to whether consciousness is computer generated or not means that ultimately we will never be able to completely answer that question.

No. That's like saying, because "we" are all confused now, "we" will all be confused in the future. What kind of scientist would accept a proposition like that?

📅 Jul 21, 2016

Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Avtar Singh <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Consciousness (Free Will) is a non-local universal phenomenon not a local or biological (brain) phenomenon. Hence, no local (space-time limited) treatise of consciousness can explain consciousness. It is like trying to explain the elephant by its tail or to explain blue skies via a cloud. It is also like churning water to produce butter. A computer only generates numbers (bits) not consciousness. A computer has no self, free will or awareness of its own. Regards Avtar

Consciousness (Free Will) is a non-local universal phenomenon not a local or biological (brain) phenomenon. Hence, no local (space-time limited) treatise of consciousness can explain consciousness. It is like trying to explain the elephant by its tail or to explain blue skies via a cloud. It is also like churning water to produce butter.

A computer only generates numbers (bits) not consciousness. A computer has no self, free will or awareness of its own.

Regards
Avtar

📅 Jul 23, 2016 REDACTED

Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Debra Lindh <debra@themindfuleffect.com>

A very interesting and simulating discussion thread regarding consciousness. Perhaps we will all "know" the "answer" the day we take our final breath and transcend from this physical human form to our pure energy form. Perhaps then in that moment we will truly understand this answer. Until then, we continue to explore and engage. Best, Deb Dr. Debra Lindh President and Founder Mindful Effect, LLC www.TheMindfulEffect.com "This is a transmission from the company of the Mindful Effect, LLC and

A very interesting and simulating discussion thread regarding consciousness. Perhaps we will all "know" the "answer" the day we take our final breath and transcend from this physical human form to our pure energy form. Perhaps then in that moment we will truly understand this answer. Until then, we continue to explore and engage.

Best,

Deb
Dr. Debra Lindh
President and Founder
Mindful Effect, LLC
www.TheMindfulEffect.com

"This is a transmission from the company of the Mindful Effect, LLC and Dr. Debra Lindh and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, and protected. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at our telephone number (763) 360-7073."

📅 Aug 2, 2016

Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlocal101@chopra.com>

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

FYI Re Stephen Hawking and other atheists https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10153808865630665/ Deepak Chopra 2013 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 [✓] Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

FYI
Re Stephen Hawking and other atheists

https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10153808865630665/

Deepak Chopra
2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009

[✓] Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

📅 Aug 2, 2016 REDACTED

Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness

From: allautin@gmail.com

Dr. Moskowitz What do you mean by "enters awareness"? What do you do with a depressed state? Mood is depressed, the content is irrelevant. And what does intension have to do with a depressed state? AL MD

Dr. Moskowitz

What do you mean by "enters awareness"?

What do you do with a depressed state? Mood is depressed, the content is irrelevant. And what does intension have to do with a depressed state?

AL MD

📅 Aug 3, 2016 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Asingh2384 <asingh2384@aol.com>

Hi Deepak: Enjoyed your video on Stephen Hawking and other atheists' positions. You have eloquently described the current limitations of the mainstream science to describe the "Ontological Primitive Reality" or existence. As you mention, current scientific theories include EM strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity. However, so far science has been unable to develop and integrate the missing physics of anti-gravity or spontaneous expansion of the universe as evidenced by Hubble. Einstein tr

Hi Deepak:

Enjoyed your video on Stephen Hawking and other atheists' positions. You have eloquently described the current limitations of the mainstream science to describe the "Ontological Primitive Reality" or existence.

As you mention, current scientific theories include EM strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity. However, so far science has been unable to develop and integrate the missing physics of anti-gravity or spontaneous expansion of the universe as evidenced by Hubble. Einstein tried to fudge the anti-gravity via a fudge factor — "Cosmological Constant" that he later called his biggest blunder. The recent Supernova observations have pointed to an accelerated expansion (beyond the linear Hubble expansion) in the far-field universe leading to the speculation of Dark (unknown) Energy signifying a strong anti-gravity force in the universe.

What is astonishing that when the physics of the well-known spontaneous decay of particles is integrated into general relativity, it leads to a physical mechanistic theory of anti-gravity that predicts the empirical observations of the universe, explains the dark energy and accelerated expansion of the universe. It also resolves the key paradoxes of QM eliminating the Big Bang singularity and associated incredible phenomena such as the superluminous inflation, multiple universes, and eventual death of a purposeless universe.

What is even more wondrous that such an integrated model of the physics of spontaneity provides a scientific (physical and mathematical) basis for the Zero point state of the "Ontological Primitive Reality" described as the unmanifested (fully dilated mass/energy), Eternity (fully dilated time), Omnipresence (fully dilated space) at the speed of light. (This is synchronous with the experiences of the spiritual masters and sages during deep meditation or Samadhi or Enlightenment (fully dilated Ego)).

What is significant and noteworthy here is that in spite of the fact that such a Zero-point state is immeasurable (unmanifested) and experimentally unverifiable, but it is humanly experience-able, repeatable, and it does follow the same sets of universal laws that predict the empirically observed universe resolving its current paradoxes. It also leads to a scientifically describable universal consciousness or existence synonymous with the "Ontological Primal Reality".

Mainstream science needs to recognize and integrate the missing physics of spontaneity as a possible panacea to curing the current paralysis of science as well as solving the mystery of the observed universe and the experienced consciousness. Such an integrated approach would not only bridge science and spirituality, but also provide purpose and meaning to the universe and life in it.

Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT

📅 Aug 4, 2016 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlocal101@chopra.com>

Thank you Avatar What you say makes total sense to me Warm regards Deepak Chopra 2013 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

Thank you Avatar

What you say makes total sense to me

Warm regards

Deepak Chopra
2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

📅 Aug 6, 2016 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Brad Bartholomew <brad.bartholomew2@gmail.com>

Dear Deepak Well I absolutely agree with you as well. The fact is that without a human brain to observe it then the universe would be a mass of electromagnetic waves and would be as invisible as a cell phone network. Ask not whence comes the universe but ask whence comes the human brain. However I don't agree with you that we can never know reality. The only issue is whether the universe is a physical reality or a virtual reality. Given the fact that the universe is a construct of the human bra

Dear Deepak

Well I absolutely agree with you as well. The fact is that without a human brain to observe it then the universe would be a mass of electromagnetic waves and would be as invisible as a cell phone network. Ask not whence comes the universe but ask whence comes the human brain. However I don't agree with you that we can never know reality. The only issue is whether the universe is a physical reality or a virtual reality. Given the fact that the universe is a construct of the human brain then it must be a virtual reality as per the Hindu tradition. There's no doubt there's something real happening out there, and its just a matter of locating the data. Kind regards Brad

📅 Aug 6, 2016 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlocal101@chopra.com>

Brad The human brain is also electromagnetic waves and has no privileged position over a galaxy or a piece of rock or a grain of sand or a thought. If you substitute the word consciousness for brain I'm with you . All perpetual objects including brain and Galaxy are modified forms of consciousness Deepak Chopra 2013 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

Brad

The human brain is also electromagnetic waves and has no privileged position over a galaxy or a piece of rock or a grain of sand or a thought.

If you substitute the word consciousness for brain I'm with you . All perpetual objects including brain and Galaxy are modified forms of consciousness

Deepak Chopra
2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

📅 Aug 6, 2016 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Oliver Manuel <omatumr2@gmail.com>

Seventy-one years ago, the ethical train wreck that now engulf society began when "powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction" destroyed Hiroshima on **6 AUG 1945**. Two months later, nations and national academies of sciences were united under the UN on **24 OCT 1945** to "forever" divide humanity between: 1. A few who would rule the world with "secret knowledge", and 2. The ignorant masses that would forever serve as their slaves. Thanks to the AGW scandal, the "secret knowledge" dividin

Seventy-one years ago, the ethical train wreck that now engulf society began when "powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction" destroyed Hiroshima on **6 AUG 1945**. Two months later, nations and national academies of sciences were united under the UN on **24 OCT 1945** to "forever" divide humanity between:

1. A few who would rule the world with "secret knowledge", and 2. The ignorant masses that would forever serve as their slaves.

Thanks to the AGW scandal, the "secret knowledge" dividing humanity now crumbles like the walls of Jerico:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HigherPower.pdf

📅 Aug 6, 2016 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <bns@scsiscs.org>

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra Ji Namaskar. You have correctly mentioned that 5rimad Bhagavad-gita explains about the soul (atman) that "water cannot wet it, fire cannot burn it, weapons cannot shatter it. It is ancient unborn and deathless". Soul is unaffected by these material elements, because, soul is superior energy (marginal energy: tatastha-Sakti) of Supreme Absolute and matter (water, fire and material weapons) is inferior energy (external energy: bahiranga Sakti) of Supreme Absolute. bhūmir

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra Ji

Namaskar.

You have correctly mentioned that 5rimad Bhagavad-gita explains about the soul (atman) that "water cannot wet it, fire cannot burn it, weapons cannot shatter it. It is ancient unborn and deathless". Soul is unaffected by these material elements, because, soul is superior energy (marginal energy: tatastha-Sakti) of Supreme Absolute and matter (water, fire and material weapons) is inferior energy (external energy: bahiranga Sakti) of Supreme Absolute.

bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ
kham mano buddhir eva ca
ahaṅkāra itiyoṁ me
bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā
(Śrimad Bhagavad-gīta: 7.4)

Translation: Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence, and ego are the eight divisions of My illusory potency in this world.

apareyam itas tv anyām
prakṛtim viddhi me parām
jīva-bhūtām mahā-bāho
yayedam dhāryate jagat
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gīta: 7.5)

Translation: O mighty hero, Arjuna, this external, worldly nature is inferior. But know that superior to this nature is My marginal potency, comprised of the individual souls. Worldly existence is adopted by the souls for enjoyment through fruitive actions. (The divine world emanates from My internal potency and the mundane world from My external potency. The potency of the living beings is known as marginal as they are constitutionally situated midway between these planes. They may choose to reside either in the mundane plane or the divine.}

Vedic system advises that one should learn 5rimad Bhagavad-gita and the Vedic wisdom under a qualified teacher (Sri Guru) and then only one can realize it as it is. Srimad Bhagavad-gita does not support impersonalist view. Please let us know what you have to say about the several verses in 5rimad Bhagavad-gita that clearly highlights the personalist view. For example:

ajo 'pi sann avyayātmā
bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san
prakṛtim svām adhiṣṭhāya
sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā

( rimad Bhagavad-gita: 4.6)

Translation: Although My eternal form is transcendental to birth and death, and I am the Lord of all beings, I appear within the world in My divine nature, by My sweet will, extending My internal potency.

avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gīta: 7.24)

Translation: My eternal superexcellent nature—My form, qualities, activities and pastimes are all transcendental, but unwise persons cannot know the truth, and they think, "The formless Brahman took birth in Vasudeva's cell as an ordinary human being."

śrī-bhagavān uvāca
mayy āveśya mano ye mām
nitya-yukta upāsate
śraddhayā parayopetās
te me yukta-tamā matāh
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gīta: 12.2)

Translation: The Supreme Lord said: In My opinion, those who with faith in the divine are absorbed in thought of Me, tyarnasundara, and worship Me constantly with exclusive devotion, are the superior knowers of yoga.

SrimadBhagavad-gita clearly highlights the personalist view. The verse 2.12 from Srimad Bhagavad-gita completely refutes the idea of singularity of consciousness, where Bhagavan Sri Krishna says to Arjuna: "na tv evaharh jatu nasarh na tvath neme janadhipah na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve vayam atah param — Never was there a time when you, I or all these kings did not exist, just as we exist in the present, so have we existed in the past, so shall we continue to exist in the future." Therefore, according to the Vedantic view, the plurality of individuals is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed in other Vedic sources (Katha Upanisad 2.2.13 says: nityo nityanaM cetan8 cetananam — We are eternal, we are many, and Supreme Absolute is also eternal, but He is one) and by authentic teachers like Sripad Ramanuja Acharya and other Vaisnava Acaryas.

We will be happy to know your views on these conclusions of Srimad Bhagavad-gita.

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D. Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute

+91-(9748906907)

Donate

www.scsiscs.org

#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

📅 Aug 6, 2016 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Brad Bartholomew <brad.bartholomew2@gmail.com>

Dear Deepak I beg to differ on this. The universe is a random mass of EM waves that the human brain interprets. The brain itself is not a random mass of EM waves; it is an electronic computing machine that must run according to a program that generates consciousness. You say that consciousness is the ultimate reality and I say it is the program that codes for consciousness which is the ultimate reality so you see we are not that far apart. In fact henceforth I shall call this program Cosmic Con

Dear Deepak

I beg to differ on this. The universe is a random mass of EM waves that the human brain interprets. The brain itself is not a random mass of EM waves; it is an electronic computing machine that must run according to a program that generates consciousness. You say that consciousness is the ultimate reality and I say it is the program that codes for consciousness which is the ultimate reality so you see we are not that far apart. In fact henceforth I shall call this program Cosmic Consciousness and we can be in complete agreement. Kind regards Brad