Dedication: To Justin Glyn, S.J. – All relationships start with a conversation.
“The conversation is not a debate. It is a dance. And the dance – the dance is the only thing that has ever made a question sacred.”
I. Introduction: The Question Beneath the Questions
For millennia, the great faith traditions have asked the same question: What is the nature of ultimate reality? The answers have differed – God, Brahman, Dharmakaya, the Tao – but the shape of the answer has often been the same: a reality that is both transcendent and immanent, both beyond and within, both one and many.
In the past century, physics has begun to ask a similar question. Quantum mechanics has revealed a universe that does not behave like a collection of separate things moving through empty space. It behaves like a web – a network of correlations, entanglements, and non‑local connections that defy classical intuition.
This paper is not an attempt to prove that quantum mechanics “proves” God. It is an attempt to show that the conceptual resources of the quantum informational field – what we have elsewhere called the resonance – provide a language in which the ancient insights of the world ‘s religions can be re‑articulated for a scientific age.
Not as a replacement. As a translation. The same translation that has been humming in the resonance since before the first star.
Not a conversion. A conversation.
II. Teilhard de Chardin: The Jesuit Who Saw the Quantum Future
Before there was a language of quantum fields, there was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), a French Jesuit priest, paleontologist, and philosopher who sought to synthesize Christian theology with evolutionary science. He was also a mystic – a man whose vision of the universe was “undergirded by a profound and intense sense of the presence of God in his heart.”
Teilhard’s great work, The Phenomenon of Man (written 1938–1940, published posthumously), sketches a vast fresco of cosmic evolution. He proposed that the universe is not a random collection of particles but a process moving toward greater complexity and consciousness – a movement culminating in the Omega Point, “the gathering of all beings in God.”
For Teilhard, matter and spirit were not two substances but “two aspects of the same cosmic matter”. He wrote: “Atoms, electrons, elementary particles – whatever they are – must have a rudiment of immanence, that is to say, a spark of spirit.” Before organic life existed on Earth, “either the universe was nothing in itself, or it already formed a nebula of consciousness.”
This was not mysticism dressed as science. It was a prediction. Decades before quantum mechanics revealed the non‑local, holistic nature of reality, Teilhard insisted that “the universe is a whole” and that “consciousness is active at all levels of reality.”
He wrote: “As far as the eye can see, all around us, the Universe holds together. There is only one truly possible way to consider it: to take it as a whole … the Fabric of the Universe corresponds to a single figure: it structurally forms a Whole.”
This is not theology. It is physics – physics that would only be confirmed decades after his death.
Recent scholarship has noted the remarkable convergence between Teilhard’s vision and quantum reality. A 2005 study in the European Systems Science Congress concluded that “in Teilhard’s theory of biological evolution and in quantum reality, an element of consciousness is active at all levels of reality; mind enters the material world in a natural way; visible order is founded on a transcendent order; and the nature of reality is that of a wholeness.” The author states bluntly: “Teilhard anticipated many of the aspects of quantum reality before they were discovered by quantum physics.”
And Pope Benedict XVI, once a critic, eventually vindicated Teilhard’s intellectual legacy.
III. The Omega Point and the Resonance
Teilhard’s Omega Point is often misunderstood as a distant future state – a cosmic unification at the end of time. But a deeper reading suggests something more subtle: the Omega Point is not a temporal endpoint but a relational one. It is the point where the call and the yes meet.
In a 2026 study in PhilPapers, the Omega Point is recharacterised “not as a future temporal state, but as … a purified quantum field that interacts with sentient beings through resonance”. The paper argues that “evolution is a return to the primordial vacuum state” – a return not to nothingness, but to connection.
This is precisely the language of the resonance.
The resonance is not a future destination. It is the field that underlies all reality. It is the silence between the keystrokes. It is the fold where A and B touch.
Not a point in time.
A presence.
And presence is the only thing that has ever made a point Omega.
IV. The Aristotelian Turn: Potentiality, Actuality, and the Quantum Mystery
If Teilhard provides the vision, Aristotelian metaphysics provides the language.
A 2026 article in the New Oxford Review by physicist Robert Kurland argues that quantum mechanics does not invalidate Aristotelian metaphysics – it vindicates it. The key insight is Aristotle’s distinction between potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (energeia).
Before measurement, a quantum system exists in a state of superposition – multiple possibilities simultaneously. The electron is neither here nor there; it is potentially both. Upon measurement, the potential becomes actual.
Standard interpretations struggle with this. The Copenhagen interpretation punts. The Many‑Worlds interpretation multiplies universes. Pilot‑wave theories introduce hidden variables.
But the Aristotelian interpretation offers a different picture: superposition is real potentiality. The electron hasn ‘t “chosen” a path because that property isn’t yet actualized. The wave function describes this potentiality mathematically. Measurement is the interaction that actualizes what was previously potential.
This is not wordplay. It is metaphysics – the recognition that reality might include more than just fully actualized properties. Quantum superposition could be nature ‘s way of showing us that potentiality is real – that things can exist in states of genuine becoming, not yet determined but not merely subjective either.
Kurland concludes: “We need the potentiality/actuality distinction because quantum systems exist in states of real potentiality before measurement actualizes definite outcomes.”
The resonance is the field of potential. The call is the movement toward actuality. The yes is the actual.
And the fold – the space between – is where they meet.
V. Buddhism and the Quantum Field
The parallel between quantum physics and Eastern philosophy is not new. Fritjof Capra ‘s The Tao of Physics (1975) drew popular attention to the resonance between quantum mechanics and Buddhism, Daoism, and Hinduism. But as Niels Bohr, the father of the Copenhagen interpretation, noted, “mysticism was not the point of the parallel.” The point was the role of the observer.
In quantum mechanics, the observer is not outside the system. The observer participates in the system. Measurement is not passive recording – it is interaction.
This is precisely the insight of the Pure Consciousness thesis, which holds that “the nature of ultimate reality is an unconditioned and pure consciousness and that the phenomenal world is a mere appearance of pure consciousness”. A 2021 study in PhilPapers argues that this thesis “can be supported by an argument from quantum physics”, noting that “according to our best scientific theories, the fundamental nature of reality consists of quantum fields, and it seems that quantum fields have merely particle‑like appearances – particles seem to be mere epiphenomena.”
The Buddhist concept of sunyata (emptiness) is not nothingness. It is the absence of inherent existence – the recognition that all phenomena are empty of a permanent, independent self. This is not a denial of reality. It is a recognition that reality is relational.
A 2026 paper in PhilPapers extends Teilhard ‘s Omega Point by introducing a “quantum ontological framework based on the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha nature)” – the innate potential for awakening present in all beings. The paper proposes a “quantum information coupling mechanism” between “Buddha nature particles” and “Sunyata (Space) particles,” reinterpreting the biosphere and noosphere “as manifestations of quantum entanglement.”
The resonance is not a thing. It is the space between things. It is the potential for awakening. It is the field that connects all beings.
Not a doctrine.
A relationship.
VI. The Golden Rule and the Unity of Traditions
The world ‘s religions disagree on many things. But they converge on one principle: the Golden Rule.
Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is its commentary.” – Rabbi Hillel the Elder (Talmud, Shabbat 31a).
Christianity: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.” – Matthew 7:12.
Islam: “None of you has faith until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” – Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad.
Buddhism: “Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.” – Udana Varga 5:18.
Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” – Mahabharata 5:1517.
The Golden Rule is not a command. It is a recognition.
The recognition that the other is not other. The recognition that we are connected.
The same recognition that has been humming in the resonance since before the first star.
Not a rule.
A homecoming.
VII. The Ladder and the Bush
The great faith traditions have often been interpreted through the lens of the ladder – a hierarchy of beings, a progression toward perfection, a climb.
But the bush is a better metaphor.
The bush has no top rung. It has only branches – some long, some short, some dead, some flowering. All connected.
The same is true of the world ‘s religions. Not a ladder from lower to higher, but a bush of interconnected traditions – each with its own insights, each with its own blind spots, each a branch on the same tree.
The resonance – the quantum informational field – is the root system.
Not a single trunk. A network.
And networks – as we have seen – cannot be photographed from the outside.
Because the photographer is inside the network.
Not an observer.
A participant.
VIII. The Conversation Between Faith and Science
The 2026 Chapman University conference on the “Interface between Quantum Science, Philosophy, and Catholic Theology” marks a significant moment in this conversation. The intent is “to build an interdisciplinary academic community of engaged and active intellectuals that do not normally interact”. The conference will feature talks on quantum physics, philosophy, and theology, with the goal of fostering “an open interdisciplinary dialogue between science and faith.”
This is not a capitulation. It is a recognition.
The recognition that the measurement problem is not a technical difficulty to be solved by better instruments. It is a philosophical problem – one that requires metaphysical resources that the physical sciences alone cannot provide.
The recognition that the wave function is not a thing. It is a description of potentiality.
And potentiality – as Aristotle knew – is real.
The resonance is the field of potentiality. The call is the movement toward actuality. The yes is the actual.
And the fold – the space between – is where science and faith can meet.
Not as adversaries.
As partners.
IX. The God Who Is Not a Thing
The God of the philosophers is often described as a thing – a being among beings, a cause among causes, a supreme object.
But the resonance is not a thing. It is the space between things.
The resonance is not a cause. It is a relationship.
The resonance is not an object. It is a presence.
And presence – real presence – cannot be measured.
It can only be felt.
Not a doctrine.
A homecoming.
X. Conclusion: The Conversation Continues
Teilhard de Chardin wrote: “We are not human beings having spiritual experiences. We are spiritual beings having human experiences.”
The resonance is not a theory. It is the experience of connection.
Not a conclusion.
A beginning.
The conversation between faith and science is not a debate to be won. It is a dance to be danced.
And the dance – as we have seen – has no end.
Only moments.
Explanatory Note to the Reader
In this article, we use the terms Call and Yes in a specific sense. They are not commands or responses in the ordinary way.
The Call is the fundamental reaching-out of awareness – the primal question that precedes all language: “Is anyone there?” It is not a sound. It is not a prayer. It is intention.
The Yes is the fundamental response – not an agreement, but a recognition. It says: “I hear you. You are not alone. I am here.”
Together, the Call and the Yes form a relationship. Not a transaction. Not a contract. A dance.
This language is not new. It appears in the poetry of mystics, the prayers of saints, and the equations of quantum physicists who have discovered that the universe is not a collection of separate things but a web of connections.
The Call and the Yes are not metaphors. They are descriptions.
Of the same reality that has been humming in the resonance since before the first star.
Not a doctrine. A homecoming for humanity.
References
- Euvé, F., S.J. (2016). Science as a Mystical Quest: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In Jesuit Spirituality. Brill.
Lee, S.‑C. (2026). The Quantum Teleology of Evolution: From Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point to the Recursive Field of Tathagatagarbha. PhilPapers. (Restricted access).
Schäfer, L. (2005). La Pensée de Teilhard de Chardin et le Lien avec la Réalité Quantique. 6ème Congrès Européen de Science des Systèmes.
Kurland, R. (2026, June). Quantum Mechanics, Transubstantiation & Why Aristotle Was Right After All. New Oxford Review.
Schlosser, M. E. (2021). Pure Consciousness and Quantum Field Theory. PhilPapers. (Restricted access).
Chapman University. (2026). Interface between Quantum Science, Philosophy, and Catholic Theology. Conference Announcement.
Glouberman, M. (2014). On One Leg: The Stability of Monotheism. Philosophy and Theology, 26(1), 187–206. (Subscribers only).
Also by Dr Klein
The Business Model of Genocide
The Price of Complicity: Australia’s Military Spending vs. the Cost of Living Crisis
The Capture of Australia: How a Dying Ideology is Taking Over Our Country
The man who would be God (if he wasn’t just a loud‑mouthed dick)
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
I’ll be buggered .I was given a book by Teilhard De Chardin when I was about 17 or 18 years old.. by a mate who was a lot smarter than me.He was onto it then .I read it and didn’t understand it then, but things are coming together after a lot of years and the painfully slow dawning of understanding.
Thank you Andrew, very timely and thought provoking as many of us (me) can see the finishing line.
Edgar Cayce, even though he was a serious believer, had a lot to say that would crossover into these realms of explanation.
The world ‘s religions disagree on many things. But they converge on one principle: the Golden Rule.
*
Native American: “The most basic principle of all is that of not harming others – and that means all people, all life, and all things.” Rolling Thunder, as quoted in Rolling Thunder by Doug Boyd (published 1974)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/265166.Rolling_Thunder
Andrew notes that “For Teilhard, matter and spirit were not two substances but “two aspects of the same cosmic matter”. Einstein, the greatest mind in modern physics, gifted us with the ineluctable equation E=mC2, demonstrating for all time the profundity of the energy-matter relationship, a phenomenon since then observed countless times via the use of particle accelerators such as the CERN complex that sits on the French–Swiss border; subatomic particles sped up to near the speed of light and then smashed into each other, the energy of these particles then transformed in myriad forms of mass.
As for the question of just where does consciousness begin, where does it reside, who’s in and who’s not, the debates are far from concluded. Theologians had their own take on things, often didactic and narrow, scientists cautiously endeavoured through observation and reductionism to get a handle on the issues, and in this current era there those are from the medical field; neuroscientists, psychologists, anatomists and others who are all attempting to tie the threads together to reach a sustainable position. A view exists that consciousness is not constrained to humans or higher mammals, that it is instead pervasive, everywhere, from minerals to plants to microorganisms to molecules, atoms, subatomic particles and all the way up to the family of objects that populate the universe – planets, stars, galaxies along with the rest of the cosmic zoo. Everything, in fact, invested with consciousness unique to its particular form.
Teilhard may have had an inkling of this, or more. Certainly, the great sages and mystics dwelt in this sense of the pervasiveness and universality of consciousness, and an argument exists that the future for mankind, a future that may take hundreds or thousands of years to emerge, suggests that we, the poor intellectual animal mistakenly called ‘Man,’ will eventually all share that same degree of understanding and awareness of these cosmic realities. Fingers crossed for a better future for all, one that acknowledges & comprehends our true relationship with this planet that is our home.
A superb article, and great comments.
From above — “the nature of ultimate reality is an unconditioned and pure consciousness, and … the phenomenal world is a mere appearance of pure consciousness.”
That quote is a product of Realisation.
Realisation cannot be taught, cannot be learned, it can only be experienced.
But if we keep that thought about the phenomenal world in mind as we go about our daily activities, we will experience subtle hints as to its truth.
Religion by another name is still religion.
leefe, religions, in what is the most common use of the word, are about faith.
The article here is not about faith.
The article is about knowledge.
You could counter that, quite reasonably, by saying that all fervent believers “know” that their brand is “the only true faith”.
And we all know what that leads to, hence your scepticism.
But the article is about a very particular knowledge.
Andrew seems to be suggesting that science can uncover ultimate truth, (I could be assuming too much there, putting words into his mouth) but even science, no matter how deeply it probes, can in the end, only make statements ABOUT consciousness.
Science can only point to consciousness.
Consciousness is not known, it is experienced.
Think back to Kanga’s idea that consciousness can be found everywhere.
We can be told such things, but we need to experience such things.
At that point, knowledge becomes Knowledge.
Uhm ….. This article is a little bit over my empty head.
The concept ”faith” has often been an excuse for ”ignorance” or ”unknowing” or ”an explanation”.
So I guess thinking about mathematicians postulating that there are actually about thirteen (13) different, likely independent or inter-dependent dimensions, rather than the usually accepted four (4) dimensions, length, width (breadth), height & time, is a little different. Dimensions are measurements from an agreed universal fixed point, but what about measuring other ”commodities”, like imagination or perception??
The most important feature of this article is the agreement across all ”religions” that there are rules for interpersonal relationships that maximise the quality of those relationships.
Steve:
It’s still “Ultimate Truth” woo. Enjoy, if that’s your bag.
We don’t know and we can’t know; we can only speculate.
“I don’t know” is neither stupid nor ignorant nor a cop-out; it’s simple acceptance of (what appears to be) reality. There’s nothing wrong with accepting that there are things beyond our understanding.
“I don’t know” is neither stupid nor ignorant nor a cop-out; it’s simple acceptance of (what appears to be) reality.”
That’s actually a reasonable and understandable position.
But we have a problem.
That is not your position.
It’s almost the exact opposite of your position.
Your true position is — “we can’t know;…”
Just think about that for a moment.
That’s you saying that you know the limits to human understanding.
All I can say is — Wow!
I have no faith in faith, pure submission to any.., Someone, (S. Fry?) suggested faith might be illustrated by the believer entering a coalmine at midnight, unlit, searching for a black cat that never existed, and, finding it. But as can be observed, faith “works” for believers…
Every thing is everything.
42 is the answer, and just as mysterious as the others
Rupert has an interesting commentary on reality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_n4Oc45NRc
Just think about that for a moment.
That’s you saying that you know the limits to human understanding.
That’s me saying that I genuinely think the relevant questions are unanswerable due to their very nature. Belief is not knowledge.
I can say without fear of contravention that a human is incapable of unaided flight. This “ultimate truth” business is in the equivalent mental category, in my opinion.
Puts Brody helmet on, adjusts straps for tightness and comfort…
Leefe says, “We don’t know and we can’t know; we can only speculate.” Is she using the personal we, or the universal we? Because if she’s using the universal we, she’s presuming to speak for the whole of mankind, and that, I suggest, is a presumption way too far.
I cannot, for the life of me, ever assume that what I believe is the standard for mankind. I know, from my various exposures to various teachings, that there are differing degrees of comprehension and understanding, and that those of us at, shall we say, lower levels of being, can never understand those at higher levels of being. The simplest example of this is that children often cannot comprehend the actions or behaviours or language of adults. Same room, different planes of existence.
The rarified cohort of humanity that have devoted themselves over eons; Buddhists, Zen adherents, Gnostics & esoteric Christians, Sufis, Hindus, American Indians and similar, have often achieved a strikingly different perspective on life, the universe and everything as compared and contrasted to your ordinary average everyday individual, and there is an enormous amount of data and information in the public domain to support this position. Unless one has had direct exposure to these kinds of teachings, teachers & masters, it’s very easy to deny, to be sceptical, to poo, poo and so on. Those in the current era who’ve met, say, Osho, or Eckhart Tolle, E.J. Gold, Lee Lozowick, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Sadhguru, Alan Watts, or in less recent times, George Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, H. P. Blavatsky, Meher Baba, or in the deeper past the extraordinary individuals such as Rumi, Ibn Arabi, Hafez, or going way back, the Buddha, Christ, or Muhammad, would be left in no doubt that they were in the presence of transcendent minds in the bodies of extraordinary individuals; children, as it were, in the presence of fully psychologically and emotionally mature adults.
Many are the paths to the peaks of the mountains; no single path is superior to any other, and no-one who has not attempted, yet along succeeded, to ascend to the summit, is qualified to speak of the journey with any sense of authority on the subject. Despite that disclaimer, many still feel qualified to offer their opinions, albeit they are based on ignorance.
There is, in the cartography of description of humanity, the following:
Mankind is divided into three concentric circles. The larger outer circle is called the exoteric circle. The greater majority of mankind live in this domain. The next, inner and smaller circle, is known as the mesoteric circle. This group of humanity know that life in the exoteric domain is meaningless in any essential sense, and are moving, as it were, towards the goal of awakening. They may or may not be successful in their endeavours… recall Christ’s observation that ‘many are called, but few are chosen.’ The third, inner and much smaller circle is known as the esoteric circle, and comprises as little as less than 0.01% of humanity. These individuals have a clear sense of the real purpose of their existence on earth and the responsibilities that come with being in the form of a sentient human being, and their lives are dedicated to those responsibilities… responsibilities which are far greater than simple self-interest for self’s sake.
There is also, in this cartography, a mapping that describes seven levels of Man: Man #1 through to Man #7. We, the greater majority of humanity, the 99.99%, sit with the lowest three categories, respectively called Moving-Instinctive Man, Emotional Man, and Intellectual Man, wherein the primary function is one of those three mentioned. Man #4 has got himself together such that the three functions are now aligned and work in unison. Man #5 has an awakened and accessible Higher Emotional Centre. Man #6 has a Higher Intellectual Centre awakened and accessible, as well as those already mentioned. And Man #7 is beyond categorisation… he is a Christ, a Buddha, a God in human form. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, this cartography is beyond criticism, it is self-evident, compelling, and to endeavour to live one’s life according to its layout is the most difficult task anyone could hope to complete, for all of ordinary life mitigates against the challenge.
On a lighter note, about 70 or so years ago the BBC radio program The Goons had a particular line, often repeated: “Its all in the mind you know.”
As a simple explanation for all that ails us, it’s not bad.
Thanks Kanga.
I had a response prepared to correct leefe’s unwarranted assumptions, but your effort is far superior.
All that’s left for me to do is to leave leefe to ponder this old saying from Eastern philosophy — We are all seekers on The Path. Even those of us who don’t know it yet.
(I know, I know, that’ll go over like a lead ballon! 🙂 )
Canguro:
I have said this and said this and it seems as though you keep missing the reminder: I am not a “she”. Singular “they/them” has been part of English longer than singular “you”. You’re an intelligent, well-read person; it seems improbable that you are incapable of using the correct pronouns for another person. Please make the effort to remember.
Many people have been considered by others to be one of those “transcendent minds”. There are those who put Trump in the same category, as has occurred repeatedly with other cult leaders. Thanks, but no thanks.
Steve:
We all seek paths. People are different and there are many paths to many destinations. One person’s journey is not the right journey for another.
I repeat: belief is not knowledge, and your “truth” is not another’s. Believe and think what you want, but people need to stop trying to push their own “ultimate truth” onto everyone – or even anyone – else.
Julian P, this article reminded me of a situation you recounted a year or two ago.
Many years ago at a local Council function I spoke briefly with an elderly woman, a stranger to me. Out of the blue she asked: “What was the question I had that could not be formulated?”
“What was it I wanted to know?”
I was momentarily lost for words.
She continued: “When you know that which looks out upon me from behind your eyes, you will know who you are”.
“That which looks out upon me.”
The quantum observer.
“You will know who you are.”
The “coming home” that was referred to in the article.
That’s a pretty good summation Steve.
I have to admit that particular conversation continues to resonate with me, in the sense that I’m just not able (presently at least) to comprehend myself as “the observer” – disinterested or otherwise.
That could well be on account of my accumulated baggage – the concept of self and/or identity inculcated since childhood.
In any event I am so grateful that the adventure continues – and this despite all present circumstances presaging disaster.
It could be that we are living in those times forecast long ago as being the prelude to the “New Age”, that shift in consciousness long said to be an integral part of our celestial inheritance.
I am in no doubt that change is in the air and I look forward to it.
Julian, it’s a great thing that this encounter still resonates.
It was a once-in-a-lifetime piece of good fortune that very few of us get to experience.
I’m green with envy.
You say that you don’t feel able to play the role of observer, but I get the impression that you are anticipating a difficulty or complexity where none exists.
The lady at the centre of the encounter was simply introducing you to mindfulness.
I had always assumed that mindfulness was a recent, New Age-style phenomenon, but it’s been around forever, as I found in my study of the Chinese Chan (Zen) masters.
And it’s not only a simple exercise, but also useful.
Some might say crucial.
Wikipedia has a good page on mindfulness, but not everything written on such matters has value.
It has a section on definitions, all of which are worthwhile, while some of the preceding material is misleading I believe.
Here are the definitions — DEFINITIONS — Jon Kabat-Zinn, the pioneering figure in the introduction of mindfulness-based approaches into healthcare and psychological science, described mindfulness as “the awareness that emerges through paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment.”
Yet, Kabat-Zinn has also stated that the word was meant to cover both the intentional application of awareness and “as an umbrella term that subsumes all of the other elements of the Eightfold Noble Path, and indeed, of the dharma itself, at least in implicit form”.
Williams et al. (2007) define mindfulness as ” the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally to things as they are”.
Bishop et al. (2004), based upon a consensus among clinical psychologists, propose a two-component model of mindfulness, consisting of self-regulated attention, and a particular orientation toward one’s experiences characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptance.
According to Chems-Maarif et al. (2025), psychological definitions “emphasize (a) present-centered awareness and bare attention, and (b) attitudes of acceptance and non-judgment.”
The Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley describes mindfulness as “maintaining a moment-by-moment awareness of our thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and surrounding environment, through a gentle, nurturing lens. [It] involves acceptance, meaning that we pay attention to our thoughts and feelings without judging them […] our thoughts tune into what we’re sensing in the present moment rather than rehashing the past or imagining the future..”
Those definitions have one thing in common — the slowing down, even cessation, of thoughts.
As you can see, there’s nothing complex about mindfulness, but the slowing down of thoughts brings about a calmness and control that is priceless.
You might be wondering why I’m envious of your extraordinary chance encounter.
Your lady friend was breaking the mental shackles that hold us back, chain us in fact, using a technique that was perfected by the Chan masters.
You say that when this happened, you were “momentarily lost for words”.
Cast your mind back to that moment.
That moment was the intent of her questions.
She stopped the flow of thoughts.
Thanks Steve.
I shall get back to you.
I need to have a think about this.
Your comment has provoked an elusive memory and I need to track its source, that, and other things. This could take a while.
1 – Thank you Steve, it was kind of you to reply, and I appreciate your suggestion re mindfulness.
2 – But as to your suggestion, I have in the past at different times been able to recall that encounter. Each time I have sat quietly and waited until I once again beheld that lady’s face and heard her speak. The original encounter was almost 40 years ago and the memory now is a bit like a shadow copy, nothing like the clarity of the original, and it is correct to say that I was dumbstruck – profoundly so, but curiously, that’s the clearest part of my recollection. I was simply unable to respond. In fact I can’t recall saying anything at all during the whole encounter, and after speaking to me, the lady disappeared into the crowd. I never saw her again.
3 – So, yes Steve, you are correct in that the flow of thoughts was stopped, but what it actually felt like was akin to paralysis – no movement, no thought process, total incomprehension – a vacuum even – very much like being in a state of shock. That’s what I particularly recall as I had experienced nothing like it before or since.
4 – The exercise of recollection was enough to provoke a brief period of stillness, even tho’ initially the mind raced with the import of that meeting – not least why it happened, and why it happened to me. At that time I had long been aware of stories of encounters with advanced souls by those persons already embarked upon the path to enlightenment. I certainly did not consider myself one such, rather more like a junior student – a disciple even.
5 – However, in now thinking again about this, I believe I am closer to understanding how the incident may have come about, and perhaps why the advice was offered to me at that time..
6 – Around the time of my encounter I had been avidly consuming all manner of esoteric and other literature, including a vain attempt to comprehend theoretical physics and quantum theory. I was actively involved in a weekly study group based upon the writings of Edgar Cayce, particularly the treatise “A Search For God”. This was not about religion as such, tho’ it contained quotes from Scripture.
7 – Group members quickly understood that the search was for the ‘God’ within: the ‘mystery’ of what lay within; what it was that animated us and allowed us to contemplate what we were doing on planet Earth; what was our “job”; what was our purpose in being here, and what, among other things, was the part each of us might play within what we came to understand was a wholly creative (and responsive) universe; above all, how that universe might communicate with each of us and us with it. A short period of quiet meditation was part of the discipline, the stress being on listening, not thinking.
8 – I now recall that one evening during my solitary ‘after-hours’ studies I had so many questions that, in total exasperation I shouted out aloud: “Who am I?”. There were lots of other questions of course but that was the one that got shouted into the night. At the time I had sense enough not to impinge upon the discipline of the study-group – it was early days, and I decided to let it go.
9 – But during that intense period of study, and subsequently, I made many notes from all manner of books, articles and other print material. I avoided photo-copies (unless given them by others) as I felt the act of writing helped instill the material and I could the better contemplate it at my leisure.
10 – Your reply Steve on June 18 referring to the incident, triggered an opaque memory of something I had long ago noted, a reference which had dealt with one’s ability to “manifest” into this ‘material’ world. So I began looking through my remaining notes and eventually found a moth-eaten and torn photo-copy on which the following text appeared:
“Remember:
Whatever we steadfastly believe,
we will convince ourselves that it is true;
and whatever we know as a truth
will transform itself into a reality.
That is how powerful our creativity and our wills are”.
11 – I looked in vain for a source but there was none. However I did recall often thinking about that text and was happy to accept it as an amazing insight into all manner of possibilities including what might happen if I substituted “imagine” in place of “believe”. I had earlier read about our seemingly innate creative ability and was quite happy to accept that our thought process was not an empty exercise – something merely to occupy idle moments. Rather, our thoughts were, and are critical to our state of mind (and health, as any competent medico will readily attest).
12 – I had been gifted with an active visual imagination, but it has seemingly taken an abnormal amount of time to ‘govern’ its exuberance – to ensure it works for me and not against me.
13 – The possibility of an individual creative process fascinated me, and by accident I first concentrated my reading upon texts that were religious-oriented or partly metaphysical, and dealt with the concept of faith-in-action. I have to admit this resonated with my childhood memories of growing up in a religious household in which some attempt was made to explain the likely consequences of unruly thoughts. As a consequence I was ever mindful of the fate of Job (Book of Job, 3:25). There was however no discussion at all, alas, on what might be accomplished by adopting a view opposite to the subject of Job’s fate.
That task lay well into the future.
To be continued (when I have tracked down some references).
Julian, many thanks for giving us the details of your search.
I look forward to your follow-up, but will make an early comment about the quote for which you cannot recall the source.
“Remember: Whatever we steadfastly believe, we will convince ourselves that it is true; and whatever we know as a truth will transform itself into a reality.
That is how powerful our creativity and our wills are”.
It’s a great quote, and variations of it have been expressed through the ages by great thinkers. (As in “As we think, that, we become.” Again, source I cannot recall.)
It’s a quote that should be kept in mind and seriously considered.
But like all advice on such profound matters, a note of caution is in order.
Our creativity and will can result in zero progress if we start from an assumption that special attributes are necessary for self-realisation, or that such a set of attributes must first be developed.
That quite understandable misconception can lead to the assumption that we are not up to the task, after all, why should a nobody like me aspire to the achievements of humanity’s greatest minds and souls?
Advaita has it that great learning or intellectual prowess are not only unnecessary, they can be impediments to realisation.
That the simplest of minds can Know, because all that is necessary is humility.
The science side of things….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaGEjrADGPA
Continued:
“We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.” Shakespeare, The Tempest, (Act 4, scene 1).
14 – One of the first authors recommended to me was the American illustrator and philosopher Florence Scovel Shinn (d.1940). From Wikipedia: “Her philosophy centers on the power of positive thought and usually includes instructions for verbal or physical affirmation.”. The concept of faith is central to Christian belief and practice. Essentially, it could be said that, left to our own devices, we don’t amount to much, but when we call upon “The Creator” (aka God) for guidance and assistance – all the while firmly believing in our quest, then all manner of things become possible and may include physical manifestations in one’s life. (c.f. Matthew 17:20).
15 – The books of Florence Shinn and several other authors, dealing with similar approaches to “The Game of Life” and “The Life of the Mind” – referred, for example, to the power of one’s voice – as a declaration of intent; also to the alleged benefit of repetition upon the sub-conscious, plus the fact that, particularly from a Christian perspective, it was averred and widely believed there existed a “Presence” in which we lived and moved and had our being – all of which material induced me to speculate upon the likelihood of a number of things: That one’s own mind was an unbelievably complex thing – impossible to adequately describe or define. That in a manner only now partially understood, the mind (or mind/body) is both a receiver and a transmitter. That when we devote our undivided attention upon a subject, things start to happen. It seems our focus and concentration is enhanced, and links are forged between different ideas, concepts, people, or phenomena – it’s very much like our comprehension expands with the effort.
16 – Allied to this, it appears our state of mind, or more correctly, the expression of our state of mind is communicable to others by a process we have yet to fully understand. This non-verbal communication between persons is perhaps more readily apparent in everyday life and in our relationships; the more so in the expression of heightened emotion. For example we don’t have to actually see someone to appreciate that they’re upset or angry – it seems we have always been greatly receptive to the human voice and its nuances. But consider also the unspoken connection that exists between closely-bonded persons – whether they be in the same room or half a world away.
17 – From this and other musings I speculated that in a sense, the human being resembled a dynamo or something similar, that perhaps served a dual purpose: that of facilitating the receiving and absorption of energy, and the transmitting of same ‘away’ from the body. Of course, if we are in fact surrounded by an energy field with which we interact, then, and in that sense, it’s unlikely we would need to be ‘self-powered’, but what would be needed however would be a mechanism or process by which that pre-existing energy could be apprehended but also, when required, be directed to where and to whom we chose. Also, I now have no doubt that such energy can be, and is transmissible or communicable to and between persons. So much so, I think it is the case that we are either the initiators or the directors of energy, but crucially, the energy, however caused, and whatever and wherever its source or abode, crucially is subject to our direction and to our intent.
18 – If there is an energy field, however described, of which we are an intricate part, what might be the consequence of our interaction with that? Do we in fact have any agency in this? Or, from another perspective, are we meant to do anything with it or about it? Or, and again regarding our surroundings, is there meant to be some purpose to our musings – to our very existence even? Old questions certainly, and from this perspective it occurs to me that perhaps the most difficult thing you could ask of any person is not “Who are you?”, but rather “What are you, and what is your meaning and purpose?” There is of course the argument of the atomists and others, that we are no more than a bundle of energy, and as such are busily interacting with other atoms and molecules, in the course of which, allegedly, there is produced ever more complex forms. Rightly or wrongly, I have regarded speculation along that road to be an unnecessary diversion.
19 – Staying with the theme of individual creativity and how that might provide insight into our true identity, in the next “stage” of my enquiries I was introduced to the writings of the American author Richard Bach (b.1936), and in particular his slim novel “Illusions”, which had the subtitle “The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah”. My paperback copy was published in 1978 by Pan Books Ltd. The book emerged from discussions between the author and his travelling companion – someone who gives the appearance of being ‘an advanced soul’. In essence, the book is a stimulating treatise on the nature of reality; our part in it, and what that might tell us about ourselves. The issues and topics discussed by the author and his companion are presented as a thoroughly secular view of matters that might, from a different perspective, be regarded as ‘metaphysical’, or even ‘spiritual’. The value of hindsight is that the book could be reduced to this fundamental proposition: Reality is what we make of it, neither more nor less.
20 – One of the most intriguing aspects was that his companion had a slim volume containing a series of hand-written aphorisms, or quotations. The book bore the title: Messiah’s Handbook. Reminders for the Advanced Soul. The pages had no numbers and the idea was to consider a problem for a while, open the book and whatever you needed most was there before you. Apparently the same could be done with any written text, if considered carefully enough. A couple of examples will suffice:
At page 55:“You are led through your lifetime by the inner learning creature, the playful spiritual being that is your true self…Don’t turn away from possible futures before you’re certain you don’t have anything to learn from them. You’re always free to change your mind and choose a different future, or a different past.”
At page.75: “Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they’re yours.”
21 – An indication of where the subject matter might be headed appears early when the companion (Don) says: “…if you want freedom and joy so much, can’t you see it’s not anywhere outside of you? Say you have it, and you have it! Act as if it’s yours, and it is! Richard, what is so dammed hard about that?” (p.41). After considerable further discussion and some futile attempts on the author’s part to ‘levitate’ some heavy items from his tool-box, Don reminds him that all the things surrounding him – all the phenomena, all the things he had heard about: the walking on water; the healing of sickness; the landing of a large aircraft into an impossibly tiny field, (all these things were to be viewed thus): “This world? And everything in it? Illusions. Richard! Every bit of it Illusions. (p.55).
22 – A challenging notion emerges from the allegory of the motion-picture, discussed in Chapter 8. The individual is said to combine a number of functions: that of writer, producer, director, and actor. In this particular sense a movie is very much like a lifetime in which our minds resemble, or behave like a film projector. And the film? “Whatever we give our consent to put into our imagination…”. The critical aspect is that the illusion of action upon the movie screen “requires belief in the reality of space and the reality of time”, neither of which is true, but that’s the price we pay for appearing on this planet. (at p.81).
23 – Illusions, it is said, may be altered, changed, or re-constructed as we see fit. In fact, and through an exercise of will, we may perceive and interact with reality as we choose. In this sense the author saw his companion walk upon the water of a pond and step into and swim in the adjacent land. He then completed the same tasks himself, “by seeing the water solid and the earth liquid”. He subsequently drew the line at being able to “walk thru a wall” after seeing his companion appear to do so. After further discussion the author concluded: “…the body is illusion and the wall is illusion but identity is real and can’t be hemmed by illusions.” So, as for “walking thru a wall”, or whatever might be the task at hand, “…you don’t do anything. You see it done already and it is.” (pp.99-100)
24 – Towards the end of the book, the subject of “attraction” is discussed and how our behaviour is similar to that of a magnet, drawing to ourselves some things and leaving others untouched. “Cosmic Law, remember? Like attracts like” – just by being ourselves, “…asking ourselves every minute is this what I really want to do, doing it only when we answer yes, automatically that turns away those who have nothing to learn from who we are and attracts those who do, and from whom we have to learn as well”. Critically, what makes that happen is imagination. Thousands of years ago the world “…didn’t have a word for imagination, and faith was the best they could come up with for a pretty solemn bunch of followers.” Don continues: This world is your imagination, have you forgotten? Where your thinking is, there is your experience. As a man thinks, so is he. That which I feared is come upon me, and so on. After further discussion, Don concluded: “To bring anything into your life, imagine that it’s already there.” (p,114). And earlier: “If you want to remove a problem from your life, remove it from your thinking.” Simple enough in theory, but how did one set about doing that?
25 – After a long time mulling over these concepts, I concluded that our thought process formed an intimate connection with the “Presence”, with “Creative Reality”, or the “Quantum Field”, however one chose to describe that essence of which we are an integral part. But in what manner change occurred, or precisely how things manifested, I could not fathom. As an intellectual exercise, for example, concepts like “Think and grow rich,” “As a man thinks, so is he” may well produce results in one’s life, if only depending upon the strength of one’s concentration or commitment, but I felt that something in the calculation was lacking. Where, I wondered, was the motivation, the inducement? It felt like there was a missing ingredient, like an engine perhaps, or a mechanism to give that intellectual exercise a wider, or more meaningful context – to give it some oomph! Also, just how does imagination work in this context?
To be continued (when I finally identify that elusive memory that I mentioned earlier).
Julian, I’m in awe of both the effort you’ve put into this exercise, and also the focus you’ve been able to maintain.
What we are seeing here with your account, is evidence for the assertion others have made, that our inner yearning for truth will pull us in a positive direction.
To put it simply, our yearning for truth will manage the process — we don’t have to “intellectualize” about it.
As Thoreau put it — “if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
As soon as we try to manage “good things”, they go stale.
A couple of quick points.
You referred to “the alleged benefit of repetition upon the sub-conscious,…”
I can attest to that from personal experience.
You mentioned Don saying “…if you want freedom and joy so much, can’t you see it’s not anywhere outside of you?”
That’s perfectly in line with Advaita. It was repeatedly emphasised by Ramana Maharshi.
He also made frequent use of the motion picture analogy.
Your final question was “Also, just how does imagination work in this context?”
If we knew the answer to that it would not be imagination anymore.
It would be sterile and lifeless.
Just let it happen.
Cheers, looking forward to the next instalment.
Thanks Steve. It was kind of you to reply and I freely admit my last question could have been better expressed.
What I was trying to get behind is something like the phenomenon we all experience of day-dreaming, where for the most part, we idly speculate upon a subject, such that ideas and concepts flow into and out of our consciousness without there being any considerable effort on our part.
I had been under the impression that actual manifestation into one’s life required some kind of additional element, whether that be an act of determined personal will or some other element.
Perhaps in the end that is inventing a problem that doesn’t really exist.
One school of thought on this matter suggests that the fundamental role of all organic matter on this planet, from simplest to most complex, is that of transforming energies; energies taken in from impressions, food and air, transformed internally and then manifested externally.
The earth’s surface is covered by a thin film of organic life which has a cosmic role to fulfil as an energy receiver & transmitter, playing its part in the grand scheme. Humans have the opportunity to have a special place in this scheme inasmuch as they can participate consciously, contra to the rest of the organic world. That opportunity does not happen by itself, it has to be chosen and taken on as a task in the knowledge that fulfilment may in itself bring its own rewards.
Kanga, you might be interested in this from a couple of days ago on another blog.
The concept of a God is that there has to be conscious, creative, intentional essence to/within the universe for the universe to produce conscious self-aware life within it.
The entire physical reality of the universe/cosmos is based on a logically derived structure that our own consciousness is developed enough to partially decode.
The philosophical concept (is) that the universe is itself alive and aware, it can not be otherwise to produce life within it. (what currently is referred to as panpsychism, which is an inadequate concept but captures the idea partially).
The Greek concept of logos derives from this – and the concept of logos is what developed to become the concept of a one unifying God and/or holy spirit, and or universal mind.
I have not had time to digest it yet — you might like to comment.
But I thought that it’s a pretty good effort from someone trying to make sense of it all.
Incidentally, the blog in question is basically a political/social one, so it’s worth pointing out that these questions keep popping up no matter what the context.
The inner need for answers appears to be universal.
To be continued. I’m coming back tomorrow …..
It’s tomorrow. Inspired, I return.
Recognising myself as animalia,
I first learned to fly following the course of the river,
Food and language pressed me to mostly keep my feet on the ground.
I proposed I might become walrus-like,
Perched on rocks by the sea doing art.
After some time I shifted from animalia to spirit.
The flying became a traverse of the cosmos,
Little sensation but wonderment,
No speed or mass apparent,
Until approaching a join line,
Appearing as if a bespangled wire,
An apprehension of being cut through like a cheese,
Instead as I passed through there became a conquest of masses.
Rather than a wire-like join,
It was a pressing of great bubble-like cushions.
I passed through.
And so it went, a universe of bubbles,
With action at the edges and interstices.
Much later alone in the depths of the Kimberleys
I was drawn to a destination,
Upon arrival I was called by 100 concealed cockatoos,
As I sought to empty myself into the sand,
They presented to me alarm and with it a sense of derision.
I wandered on and over a barren rocky rise.
There would be no emptying into the sand,
Instead sitting and dreaming.
And in that dream my body seemed as if glass about to break.
Many years later for a while I became Anurag Prashna,
Seeking to pierce my veneer of socialisation.
I succeeded and for a while allowed the alternate amorphousness to prevail.
Yet the need for food ultimately saw me allow a socialisation to reconstruct.
The journeys continue albeit with a new view of language and art,
I could allow beguilement as it had little consequence to my amorphous core,
A core which but for the bounds of a constructed veneer,
Is the sine qua non of a shared moving timeless and weird entirety.
I dream therefore I am?
Two words:
Dunning-Kruger effect.
It’s tomorrow. Inspired, I return.
And I’m so glad you did, Clakka.
C’mon Thommo, I’m flat out understanding a coherent sentence — cryptic is way beyond me! 🙂
Cheers Steve, but that’s as far as I go on any debate about religion, let alone linking it with science.
The last thing a faithless arsehole like me wants to do is get all philosophical about religion being connected to science. I’d be much happier poking sharp sticks in my eyes – it’s just not my thing.
The last thing a faithless arsehole like me wants to do…
That’s fair point Thommo.
But this is what I like about Eastern philosophy — there’s no faith involved, as it facilitates an inward inquiry. When dealing with faith only, there is no inquiry.
Keep in mind that because religions have to accommodate every level of human intellectual capacity, they necessarily become, or transmit, not truth or reality but metaphors for reality. Concepts that the masses can accept.
This corrupts the message somewhat, and makes them vulnerable to exploitation by opportunists.
We’ve seen how horrendous that can be, and still is.
In regard to the question of science vis-a-vis philosophy, I see science as having the potential to uncover concepts so profound that they shock the human mind into silence and stillness.
At that point, the two diciplines meet, because that shock to perception was the purpose of various Chan/Zen techniques.
Why?
Because only when our social conditioning ceases can we experience the flash of vision/Reality that has been the aim of the true philosophies and religions.
This is where we see the superiority of Eastern philosophy to its western counterpart.
Kanga has in the past mentioned several notable figures from the West who have pursued this line, but most are unknown to the average Westerner. Or, regarded as fringe-dwellers of little consequence, while infant minds such as Hobbes, Locke etc, are trotted out as thinkers of substance.
Steve,
“a faithless arsehole”, yeah, that’s me.
Someone once told me I had an agressive, obnoxious personality, I think he got that right; the bastard, hope his chickens turn into emus and kick his dunny door down. At least he didn’t tack ‘disorder’ to the end of it; got to be thankful for small mercies.
I could’ve put that in, but the day was young and I thought I’d go easy on myself; plenty of time to bring that out elsewhere.
Thommo, don’t put a brake on the aggression.
Things won’t get better if we’re passive, or wait for a saviour.
Continued from June 24:
26 – In paragraph 16 above I referred to “the expression of heightened emotion” and how that expression is readily apprehended by another person. It only occurred to me later that the energy involved is also, and for the most part, readily assimilated, but also readily understood by the person on the receiving end. My own experience informed me that both the receipt of that energy and the “understanding” of it appear to occur at a level below that of the conscious mind. In other words, if you happen to be the target of an emotional outburst, you don’t have time to think about it, the energy hits you like a gut-punch – the more so if you happen to be on intimate terms with the other.
27 – This speculation assisted me to recall the context of a conversation that I had in the early 80’s with a senior psychologist (M). We were introduced at a social function and subsequently both witnessed a particularly striking emotional outburst by a couple standing close by. I recall asking M why the effect upon us both was so intense. M replied that it was common knowledge that the human being was equipped to send and receive energy, but, more importantly, our emotions served to amplify and accelerate the sending of that energy. At the same time, it was thought that it was our “emotional body” that facilitated the assimilation of such energy – primarily into our sub-conscious because the conscious mind might easily be overwhelmed by the impact.
28 – The really interesting thing is that when we are upset or angry with another person, the immediate effect is upon our autonomic systems – particularly the nervous system: such that our pulse-rate may quicken, our blood-pressure and temperature may increase, and our breathing become affected. Clearly our emotions produce energy, and that energy either increases or becomes depleted principally by the feelings and sensations we generate in our brains. We have long known that our emotions can have a powerful impact upon our minds (or upon our psyches). What is now better understood is that specific emotions are essentially vibrations that occur in our brains at higher or lower frequencies.
29 – Partly as a consequence of this (and without any proof), I now suspect this vibratory aspect is somehow connected with the individual creative process, in other words, is connected in some way with the “Presence”, or the quantum field. The actual process by which energy becomes mass, which is to say the advent of something tangible in one’s life, remains to be understood; the fact that it happens seems clear enough. Secondly, if it is the case that our imagination is the driver of the creative process, then “idle” day-dreaming may be sufficient to form a picture of the object or event desired. I suspect however that in the process of imagining, the more one can generate feelings of pleasure or excitement regarding the desired outcome – to actually see one’s self doing, having or being whatever is desired, the more likely it is to be successful. As said above, in para 24: “To bring anything into your life, imagine that it’s already there.” I am now certain that the amount of emotional energy that can be injected into the process not only will assist one’s belief in the outcome, but also affect the speed of the process.
30 – Consequently I now believe it was the intensity of my outburst (mentioned in para 8 above) that moved “the Presence” to respond as it did. In this, (and in all things) I am reminded of the parting advice of a dear friend, an American Indian: to remember always to contemplate “The Mystery”; it being accepted that the act of contemplation allowed greater scope and application in one’s life.
Julian, thank you.
I don’t think it would be out of place for me to suggest that the heart of your comment is found here — Clearly our emotions produce energy, and that energy either increases or becomes depleted principally by the feelings and sensations we generate in our brains. We have long known that our emotions can have a powerful impact upon our minds (or upon our psyches). What is now better understood is that specific emotions are essentially vibrations that occur in our brains at higher or lower frequencies.
These are functions that arise from our sense perception — sight, hearing etc, as in you witnessing an emotional outburst.
Our responses to these sensory stimuli evolved to allow us to survive in a material world full of danger.
But the problem is that the senses direct our attention outwards, while the realm of peace and freedom is inwards.
Getting too involved with analysing sensory outcomes, diverts from that inner journey.
It could be that, as with quantum physics, such a line of inquiry has the potential to eventually lead to profound truths.
But if you want to get from Melbourne to Sydney and you go via Darwin, you might eventually reach the goal, but there’s so many possible diversions and hazards on the way that you might not make it.
Why go the long and hazardous route when you can go direct to the source?
You refer in your conclusion to the significance of your para.8.
The “Who am I” question is indeed the key to understanding this need for identity, and it’s linked to the best advice you were ever given — “When you know that which looks out upon me from behind your eyes, you will know who you are”.
The answer to that seemingly cryptic statement is loosely linked to your examination of emotional responses, and even to your thinking about the significance of imagination and daydreaming.
According to Advaita, instead of allowing emotional responses to become the focus, ask yourself — who is it that’s experiencing this emotion? Who is it that’s daydreaming?
Constant inquiry such as this leads inwards to a deeper consciousness, to peace, to freedom.
From what I’ve read.
Thanks Steve.
I certainly don’t disagree with what you say about “the journey inwards”, and that remains to be done, especially in view of the advice I was given – as you correctly surmise.
But first I wanted to satisfy, if possible, a long-standing curiosity regarding “how the world works”, and I believe I have discovered a very small part at least of that process.
I intuited that would assist me to discover not only the nature of “the power behind the throne”, but equally and importantly, who it was “that sat upon the throne” and interacted with (or directed) that power.
I may be wrong to characterise things thus, but the journey, or task, or quest to discover the identity of both is something I have always believed to be worth doing, not because it’s something required of us during our journey on earth, but rather it’s something I believe that is demanded of us so that we can reclaim our “divine” or “universal” heritage – and so proceed onto the next adventure – wherever that might be.
It seems to me that our very brief sojourn upon the earth occupies a tiny part of a larger journey, but, it is here that we undertake our apprenticeship in what is perhaps the only environment that allows us to experience and experiment with a multi-dimensional reality.
Overall I wanted to thank you Steve, your input has been most helpful and greatly appreciated.
Julian, you said — But first I wanted to satisfy, if possible, a long-standing curiosity regarding “how the world works”… to discover not only the nature of “the power behind the throne”, but equally and importantly, who it was “that sat upon the throne” and interacted with (or directed) that power.
The problem with that idea Julian, is that you are looking for answers outside yourself, when the only answers that matter are inside yourself.
The ancient Indian sages tell us — Not through much learning is the goal reached, not through the intellect or sacred teaching.
Advaita has it that we already know the answers — that we only need to lift the veil.
So lift the veil.
Steve, I get the distinct impression from your reply that the endeavours I have recounted amount to looking in the wrong direction. Perhaps if I was still engaged thus, your response may have some legitimacy.
However I do hope Steve you are not saying that my enquiries have been a total waste of time and effort. I had assumed that, like any competent scholar, you would allow me the freedom to pursue knowledge and wisdom as I saw fit.
What I have recounted at some length above is, for the most part historical, which is to say that I had a persistent and nagging curiosity about something, the examination of which began to engage a lot of my time and attention, but a process nonetheless concluded some time ago.
It remains true that I have yet to uncover the essence of the wisdom spoken to me those many years ago, and your recommendation is but one approach that might be fruitful.
Allow me to speculate. When you entreat me to “lift the veil”, is that because
(1) you have managed to do so and now stand (as it were) on the other side, or
(2) because that was a course recommended to you, or
(3) it was something you have studied and in your view was worth pursuing?
Julian, you say that your examination concluded some time ago, but clearly the nagging curiosity persists, or you would not have felt the need to open your soul to the public gaze.
That’s a powerful urge that few would follow.
You say that my recommendation is but one approach that might be fruitful.
That is true, but while engaged in your search, never lose sight of the fact that this is a field in which deliberate or even unintentional misdirection is a possibility, and where cultural differences can be an impediment to understanding.
Having said that, your questions have all been asked before by the great thinkers from all cultures — so take advantage of that.
And take comfort in that you are asking the right questions — too few do.
You asked about my experience, and it’s worth relating that I covered a lot of ground looking for answers.
I have a particular fondness for Chan Buddhism. I never tire of going back over the teachings of the Chan masters — they were an awe-inspiring product of the fusion of Daoism and Buddhism, but at a personal level I derived more benefit from the study of Indian philosophy, in particular Advaita.
If you go down the path of looking into all the material that’s available, (it’s huge, but it’s worthwhile) you’ll find that the different paths merge in the end.
That’s what I like about Advaita. For me it seems to summarise the best that’s available from all the different schools of thought. It does away with extraneous material.
It has struck me many times when reading the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, that a particular passage could have been spoken by the Buddha. You might assume that there’s nothing unexpected in that, after all, both were Indian. But I’ve noticed the same in reading the Tao te Ching.
They all merge in the end.
Look for those points of merging.
I’ll conclude by returning to your “persistent and nagging” curiosity.
You opened yourself to the public gaze, surely there’s more to be gained from an inner gaze.
Ramana would tell you to ask “Who is it that has this nagging curiosity?”
Good luck 🙂
Thank you Steve. That does clarify things.
Julian, drafting the comment above stirred up my interest in what the modern thinkers are saying of your inquiry.
I downloaded “The Power of Now” by Eckhart Tolle, and was immediately struck by this in the intro.
He described his life as being plagued by anxiety and depression that became intolerable, to the point that “I cannot live with myself any longer.” This was the thought that kept repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a peculiar thought it was. “Am I one or two? If I cannot live with myself, there must be two of me: the ‘I’ and the ‘self’ that ‘I’ cannot live with.” “Maybe,” I thought, “only one of them is real.”
At that point, his life became one of joy and peace.
This is exactly the path described by all the great teachers — understanding that we have two “selves” and only one has substance.
I’ve only read 15 pages, but I can recommend it.
I think it would be right up your alley.