DIS-EASE AND CURE

Swami Vijnananand (S. V.) had said:

“It is the non-matter that matters most”!

In the blogs to follow, we shall see the views expressed by S. V. on the “Cure of Human Disease”.

He has dealt the vital aspect of disease cure emphasizing the role of mind in a unique way. Besides other references, the books given below cover these views.

Death of Disease.Cure without Medicine.Cure Yourself.

These views were published in 1960s, which was before about 50 years, no due cognition was taken then. Now in the 1st/2nd decade of 21^st century, the science thinkers seem to appreciate the role of mind in the health treatment.

Science has to take cognition of MIND (Which is non-matter).

In his book “SPONTANEOUS EVOLUTION” Bruce Lipton says that the conventional science for its own courageous quest for the Truth has to disapprove its dogma which says “matter only matters”.

What really matters? To quote Einstein: The field is the only reality. The field is the other name of cosmic energy, energy filled in the Universe. The energy which enables the human life is also a part of the field. This energy is usually called soul energy or mind.

Bruce Lipton elaborates the benefits achieved by acceptance of MIND by science as follows:

1.    Once for all we can end the useless arguments between science and religion.

2.    By acknowledging the power of invisible fields, we open-up an entirely new field of enquiry and challenge science to explore what it has previously ignored.

3.    We can realize that humanity is operating on unified field of dreams and we can rejoice that the field is a playing field  not a battle field.

"Mind over Medicine". A recent book by Lissa Rankin, M.D.

Lissa explains, our minds can make us sick and they can make us well. Our feelings and beliefs impact our every cell. How we speak to ourselves matters. Whether or not we feel and express love affects our well-being. That very notion empowers me. It fills me with hope and curiosity. She explains, using some of the latest scientific research.

With this insightful book, Dr. Lissa Rankin reintroduces us to a spring of ancient intelligence that shows the power you have over your own health. She carries the torch passed down to her by some of the greatest mind-body healers of our time. Folks like Bernie Seigel, Dean Ornish, Deepak Chopra, Candace Pert, Jon Kabat-Zinn, and count- less other pioneers before her. Quite simply, Lissa is the leading voice of the next generation of medical trailblazers and innovators who marry hard evidence with heart.

With this review of latest Research the Mind- Brain relationship, the conventional science also is seen taking new mode accepting the mind’s role in directing brain.

Volunteering Reduces Risk of Hypertension in Older Adults

June 13, 2013 — It turns out that helping others can also help you protect yourself from high blood pressure. New research from Carnegie Mellon University shows that older adults who volunteer for at least 200 hours per year decrease their risk of hypertension, or high blood pressure, by 40 percent. The study, published by the American Psychological Association's Psychology and Aging journal, suggests that volunteer work may be an effective non-pharmaceutical option to help prevent the condition. Hypertension affects an estimated 65 million Americans and is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in the U.S. (Ref. Science News)

Humans Are Happier When They Do the Right Thing; It Also Helps Them Overcome Difficulties

June 12, 2013 — Communities that stick together and do good for others cope better with crises and are happier for it, according to a new study by John Helliwell, from the University of British Columbia in Canada, and colleagues. Their work suggests that part of the reason for this greater resilience is the fact that humans are more than simply social beings, they are so-called 'pro-social' beings. In other words, they get happiness not just from doing things with others, but from doing things both with and for others. The paper is published online in Springer's Journal of Happiness Studies.. . (Ref. Science News)

Brain Can Be Trained in Compassion, Study Shows

May 22, 2013 — So far, little was scientifically known about the human potential to cultivate compassion -- the emotional state of caring for people who are suffering in a way that motivates altruistic behavior. A new study by researchers at the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at the Waisman Center of the University of Wisconsin-Madison shows that adults can be trained to be more compassionate. The report, published Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, investigates whether training adults in compassion can result in greater altruistic behavior and related changes in neural systems underlying compassion. (Ref. Science News)

The role of mind training

Dr. Richard Davidson is a leading scientist in the field of brain plasticity and has demonstrated that by intervention of proper nurturing strategies at home, school and other effective media in the child environment and by imparting the training of contemporary practices; the skills of emotional intelligence can be effectively imparted. He is one of the leading scientists working for this cause on the platform of Mind and Life Institute. In one of his presentations (Google lecture 2009) the future role of MIND training is elaborated in his vision as follows: -

By year 2050

1.  Mental exercise will be accepted and practiced in the same way as physical exercise.

2.    We will have science of virtual qualities.

3.    We will incorporate mind back into medicine and better understand how brain can modulate peripheral biology. Biology in the way; that affects health.

4.    We will develop a secular approach to provide method and practice for contemplative traditions to :

5.    Teach teachers and children ways to better regulate emotions and attention and cultivate qualities like kindness and compassion.

6.    Transform corrections so that forgiveness can be cultivated in victims and emotion regulation and stress reduction in offenders.

7.    Increase awareness of our interdependence upon others and upon the planet and be more responsible care takers of our precious environment.

8.    Promote their wider spread adaptation into the major institutes of our culture. This will help to restore civility, humility, gratitude and other virtues in our culture.

The book “Train your Mind change your Brain” (Sharon Begley) is a detailed account of many aspects in this area. The maternal state of mind during prenatal stages plays a pivotal role whereas paternal care, too, matters. The spirit of three years, lives with us until 100 years, they say. Hence, prenatal and early childhood years can really shape our mind.

We shall see in details the treatment given by S. V. to this vital issue in the blogs to follow.

Vijay R. Joshi.

Notion of random evolution. (E O M - 9)

Myth Conception 4: 

(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind and the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21^st century. This blog also covers this topic.

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck born in 1744, for the first time published the theory of evolution in three volumes based on his ten years research. Lamarck’s idea about evolution and nature’s impulse toward perfection gained prominence in France. Lamarck suggested that evolution was the result of organisms acquiring and passing on environment-induced adaptations needed to sustain their survival in ever-changing world.

Unfortunately for Lamarck, his ideas about evolutionary progress being part of the course of nature had social implications. If nature could progress, then it was natural for lower classes of humanity to progress as well. So when the French revolution failed and King Louis XVIII restored the monarchy, Lamarck found himself out of favor with the church and ruling class. For some reasons his academic rival Baron Cuvier purposefully distorted and misquoted Lamarck’s work on evolution. Cuvier’s assessment of Lamarck and his ideas has ever since been (1832) cited as the document that justifies portraying Lamarck as buffoon (joker/ fool).

Ironically more than 175 years after Lamarck’s death (in 1829) science is finding that evolutionary intention may be a lot closer to the truth than Lamarck ever imagined. But between then and now other scientists also managed to push Lamarck and his ideas further into background. The Darwin evolution theory (survival of the fittest) was considered appropriate and acceptable.

The experimental science of genetics was officially launched in 1910. Later Thomas Hunt Morgan and in 1943 researchers Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck appeared to prove once for all that mutation was purely random event. Later up to 1988 many experiments confirming these findings led science to adapt the assumption that all mutations were random events.

Based upon these observations science adapted the seemingly iron-clad tenet: when mutation occur they are purely random and unpredictable events and have nothing to do with any need the organism might have at present or in the future.

Because evolution appeared to be driven solely by mutations, science concluded that randomly drawn evolution has no purpose. The idea fit wel with the scientific materialism’s belief in purely materialistic Universe and helped shift the focus from intentional creation to merely “throw of genetic dice.” A human being is just another among the “accidental tourist” who materialized in the biosphere through random act of heredity.

However in 1988, promonant geneticist John Cairns challanged sciences's established belief in random evolution.Cairns novel research on " The Origin of Mutants" was published in the presigious British journal Nature.

Cairns referred to this newly discovered mechanism as directed mutation. But the concept of environmental stimuli feeding back into an organism and direct a rewritting of genetic information was strongy disliked by the dogma of the conventional science.

Both Nature and the Amrican journal Science publised editorials raging against Cairn's findings. This was a clear indication that the white-coated prists of scientific materialism were ready to burn Cairns at the stake.

Over the next decade other researchers replicated Cairn's results. As a result, leading genetic researchers softened directed mutation to adaptive mutation and the relegated to beneficial mutation.

Cairn's work and subsequent studies introduced the realities that organism not only adapts to an environment but that they intentionally change their genetics to enhance the adaptation of future generation. In other words, science is coming to realize that evolution is not simply an accident as per Darwinian theory but a coordinated Lamarckian dance between an organism and its environment, a dynamic process in which organisms can continueously adapt to stressful circmstances.

In a way, evolution is a random process but the randomness seems to have a purposeful destnation.

We shall later see the views expressed by Swami Vijnananand when he guided to the young seekers of Manashakti Ashram in 1990 on the direction of the research needed to find the truth behind the process of evolution. But here one may take a note that Mind's role in evolution has to be considered as "pure materialistic attitude" is not acceptable to the conventional scientists too!

Vijay R. Joshi.

Genetic control of life (E O M - 8)

MYTH PERCEPTION THREE

(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind, the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21^st century. Next blog to follow aso cover this topics.

When Darwin put forth his heredity-based theory of evolution, the premise that traits were passed from parent to child made perfect practical sense to anyone who bred animals, like beget like.

Because the Newton view at the time emphasized the primacy of matter, it was seemingly assured that the secret of life would be encoded within the body’s own molecule.

Shortly after the turn of 19^th century, American geneticist and embryologist Thomas Hunt Morgan deduced that genetic factor that control heredity traits are arranged along the chromosome in a precise linear order. Further chemical analysis revealed that chromosomes are compresses of proteins and Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid (DNA). However the question as to whether the genetic key was the protein or the DNA remained until 1944 when Oswald Avery, Colin Mac Leod, and Maclyn McCarty (researchers from Rockefeller) determined empirically that DNA was the molecule that determined heredity traits. While this study was the first to distinguish DNA as the heredity-controlling molecule, it did not offer any insight into how DNA accomplished this feat.

In 1953, Watson and Crick changed the course of human history when their article was published in the British scientific journal ‘Nature’. Based on the nature of DNA coding mechanism, they posited (postulated) the concept known as ‘central dogma of molecular biology’. This is also referred to as ‘the primacy of DNA’. Central dogma mapped the flow of information in most biological systems being one directional: from DNA to RNA to protein.

Even before Watson and Crick were born, science had concluded that an assembly of physical molecules controls life. The only unanswered question was: “which molecule would it be”? When Watson and Crick reported their DNA results, the decision was a slam dunk (a task in which the success is deemed a certainty): DNA molecules control life.

Amazingly, biologists immediately adopted this central dogma hypothesis even though its validity was never assessed. But was this DNA primacy really true?

The key implication in this is: heredity information only flows in one direction, from DNA to RNA to Protein and never goes to the opposite direction. Which means protein cannot influence the structure and activity of the DNA code.

Here is the problem: the body that experiences life is made out of protein; because proteins cannot send information of life’s experience back to DNA, then environmental information cannot change genetic destiny. This means that genetic information is disconnected from the environment.

Genetic determination is the belief that genes control all of our traits-physical, behavioral, and emotional. Simply it is the belief that our fates are locked in our genes and because we cannot change our genes, we are truly, so they say, victims of our heredity.

However as the time went on, new discoveries undermined the surety of that belief. In the late 1960s, University of Wisconsin geneticist Howard Temin put forward his research publication which suggested that RNA information could flow backward and alter the host cell’s DNA code. Though Temin findings were not accepted initially, he ultimately shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology. Temin’s work broke the backbone of Crick’s central dogma by proving that hereditary information flows in both directions. The hereditary changes can be made by design or environmental influence and not only by accidental mutation as had been presumed.

By 1990, as reported by Duke University biologist H. Frederik Nijhout, genes are not ‘self-emergent’ and cannot ‘turn themselves on and off’. Genes are just like books. They don’t read themselves. Then who is responsible for reading genes? In Nijhout’s words: “When a gene product is needed a signal from its environment activates the expression of that gene”. Simply put ‘environmental signal controls gene activity’.

Epigenetics:

Biomedical sciences are being philosophically transformed by the new science of Epigenetic control. It describes how gene activity and cellular expressions are ultimately regulated by information from the external field or influence rather than by the internal matter of DNA.

Though this truth that genes do not control their own activity, was established more than 20 years back, basic science books, media, and especially the pharmaceutical industry continue to resist the movement away from the central dogma. They, thus perpetuate the layperson’s view that genes control their lives.

Mainstream media continues to focus on the concept that genes are controlling our lives. Every day new articles claim that gene has been found to control this trait or that trait. The concept of genetic determinism is so (deep and full of resonance) with the prevailing basal paradigm (basic pattern) that even irrefutable scientific proof cannot dislodge it.

Mind and Epigenetics:

The science of epigenetics recognizes that the environment, not the DNA in nucleus, determines the action of the cell. Information from the environment is translated into biological responses via the action of cell membrane, which acts as the cell’s skin as well as its brain. The description of the cell membrane is same as computer chip. The cell as well as the computer; both are programmable. And the programmer is always outside the mechanism. Who can be the biological programmer? Who or what is the genius behind the genes? The genius behind the genes is none other than our own minds, our own thoughts and beliefs.

The process of Nature and Nurture is what shapes human mind through thoughts and beliefs. The role of the mind assumes significant importance not only in personal health but more important holistic health. To make this role of mind more suitable, the scientific study of the mind and proper training to the mind should be the priority.

Here again we see that the new research in the initial years of the 21^st century support the views Swami Vijnananand mentioned while he wrote about the evolution and the role of mind in his books published in 1960s.

Vijay R. Joshi.

ONLY MATTER MATTERS.(E O M - 6)

MYTH CONCEPTION 1: ONLY MATTER MATTERS.(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind and the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21^st century. Next few blogs to follow cover these topics.

In order to examine why the materialistic attitude has been created among the scientists, we need to review the milestones of the science journey in the past.

Aristotle and other thinkers:

As the interference of church in the life proved mysterious and troublesome, the revolution based on the rational, logic based thinking got initiated in the society. The book ‘On the revolution of heavenly spheres’ by Copernicus created first challenge to the church’s authority in 1543 and marked the advent of modern scientific revolution.

The mission statement of science that time meant to “To gain an understanding of the natural order so that we can live in harmony with it”. The present (21st century?) mission of the science appears to be “To obtain knowledge that can be used to control and dominate nature”. (This is how the modern medicine controls the disease).

Essentially the scientific method involves making observation and measurements, creating explanatory hypothesis, and conducting experiments designed to test the hypotheses. The results of the experiments are then used to refine the hypothesis so they become more predictive of the experimental results. In the end predictability is the primary hallmark of the scientific truth.

Rene Descartes further called for completing the scientific reforms. He boldly suggested throwing out the existing ancient Greek beliefs and replacing them with verifiable truths. ‘Doubt everything’ said Descartes. That time the science search was only restricted to matter. The concept of invisible energy, matrix – which modern quantum physicist named “the field” and which Einstein later attributed as “the sole governing agency of matter” – was not clearly accessible to scientific observation at the time of Newton and Descartes.

Consequently, the parameters of the scientific method unavoidably limited science to the studies of the physical material world. By narrowing its focus of study and determining the non material concepts, such as spirit and mind which were out of the box of analytical science, these elements of the invisible realm were happily left to the church not subjected to the rigid rules of physical science. Thus science officially acquired the status of scientific materialism.

(This truce of distributing the ownership of matter to the science and that of non-matter to the church and creating separate kingdoms though suited to science at that time, the bad effects of negligence of science towards the spiritual realities of life are clearly seen today).

Rather than viewing the universe as controlled by spiritual forces, scientists pursued the notion that the Universe was a physical machine. To them the planets, stars, plants, and animals were merely mechanical gears in a giant clockwork mechanism.

Scientists supported the notion that God created the machine, they also believed that once the machine was set in motion, God was not personally involved in day-to-day operation.

Later the great contribution of Newton to science established the mechanics, (also known as physics) of the Universe and substantiated the Descartes theory.

Since the 1700s, three main tenets of Newtonian philosophy have shaped how scientists approached their study of the Universe.

1. Materialism: Physical matter is the only fundamental reality. Rather than dealing with unseen vital forces or spirits (viz. mind) science need to study and understand only visible physical parts. Simply stated: “All that matters is matter”.
2. Reductionism: To understand anything, take it apart and study its pieces.
3. Determinism: We (scientists) can predict and control the outcome of natural processes. An outcome can be predicted by the linear progression of the discrete (distinct, separate) events.

At the end of 19^th century the entire material universe rested on foundation of irrefutable Newtonian truth. In fact that time physicists were so pleased with themselves that they publicly acknowledged that the science of physics was complete and there was nothing more to learn. But later cracks in the mechanical world view started arriving.

Cracks to Materialism:

1. Investigation by German physicist Wilhelm Concard Roentgen of X-rays.
2. Detection of electron by Sir Joseph John Thompson and findings of Max Plank.
3. Einstein postulated the existence of Photons (1905).
4. Louis-Victor de Broglie later confirmed hypothesis that all particles of matter should also behave as non-material waves.
5. The particle-verses-wave confusion was eventually resolved with advent and establishment of Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein showed that atoms are actually not made out of matter but consist of non-material energy. Today it is fully established that physical atoms are comprised of a menagerie (collection) of sub-atomic units such as quarks, bosons, and fermions.

Jerk to “Reductionism”:

Plank demonstrated that some events cannot be linear cause-effect reaction but seem to occur simultaneously as a part of inter-acting energy matrix called “The field”. In order to understand the nature of the Universe, we must abandon reductionism and, instead, turn to holism, where-in everything interacts with everything else.

Determinism:

Science of quantum physics also dispenses with the notion of determinism. The doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, are predicted on a specific sequence of causal reaction that adhere to natural law. Simply stated, the determinism proposed that, with enough data, we can predict the future. Heisenberg theory of uncertainty applies to any two conjugate (joined together, coupled) variables such as position and velocity, time and energy, or angle of rotation and angular momentum. The theory implies that the measurement of one variable results in the disturbance of its conjugate partner, so that both variables can never be accurately predicted at the same time.

Existence of matter uncertainty: Not only Heisenberg theory is direct affront (open insult) to determinism, it also suggests that the existence of matter is itself, an uncertainty.

Dilemma:

This is the predicament we find our self in if we try to make sense of our world by only focusing on material realm (dominance).

What Einstein meant was that the field is the Universe’s energy matrix that governs all matter. He also said that “There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality”.

Still, many people tenaciously (firmly) hang onto the illusion of material reality. After a century passed, in spite of the Einstein’s establishing the mass-energy equation, it is hard to reconcile with such attitude of the so-called scientists.

Spirit: Interestingly, the invisible energy field that shapes matter, as defined by quantum physicist, has the same characteristics as the invisible shaping fields that meta physicians define as “Spirit”.

Newtonian Physics not negated (invalidated): Quantum physics is a larger realm of awareness that includes and substantially adds to the information provided by the Newtonian physics. Consequently, quantum physics accounts for what was already known plus a whole new realm of heretofore-unrecognized forces that control the unfolding of our Universe.

Science can’t have a Dogma.

If the established science cannot prove the existence of ‘the field’ by their known methods, it can’t avoid acknowledging the power of invisible field. We should open an entirely new field of inquiry and challenge science to explore what it has previously ignored.

Conclusion : 

It is the “non matter mind” which matters most. Swami Vijnananand (S. V.) has clearly stated that science can't reach to the TRUTH unless it opens its doors for the entry of 'MIND'.

Vijay R. Joshi.

WHAT MIND MEANS

'Revolution of Consciousness'

While I was thinking to initiate writing on ‘Mind’, a news items attracted my attention.

Russel Brand was the guest editor of NEW STATESMAN 24^th October 2013 issue. The theme he chose was 'Revolution of Consciousness', and his high-profile presence has already guaranteed that the issue got noticed and splashed on prime time British TV. In his appeal he says before we change the world, we need to change the way we think.

Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) is an English comedian, actor, radio host, and author. His bio-data on WIKI reflects a controversial personality. But such controversial screen figures are often popular in fans. As we know in India, fans of film stars like M.G. Ramchandran (MGR) and B Jaylalitha have constructed their temples; later both became popular political leaders. Sanjay Dutt, Bollywood hero, the person right now in prison for punishment, is popular for his filmy Gandigiri.

Lynn Mctaggart, (As per WIKI Lynne McTaggart is an American journalist, author, publisher and lecturer, now living in London. According to her author profile, she is a spokesperson "on consciousness, the new physics, and the practices of conventional and alternative medicine". McTaggart is the author of six books, including The Intention Experiment and The Field.) In her recent News Letter Lynn sites Brand’s appeal. She mentions:

Brand and the many other contributors in this issue – Alec Baldwin, Naomi Klein, David Lynch, and many others – essentially argue what Albert Einstein argued a century ago: we cannot reform a world with the same mindset that created it. And we can’t heal the current paradigm with any sort of Band-Aid. As Jamie Kelsey-Fry says, quoting Howard Zinn: ‘Civil Disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience.’  And Brand:  ‘We require a change that is beyond the narrow, prescriptive parameters of the current debate, outside the fortress of our current system.’

Brand says that we need to create a new revolutionary movement and revitalize the traditions of civil disobedience: ‘Our young people need to know there is a culture, a strong, broad union, that they can belong to, that is potent, virile and alive. . . .Take to the streets together with the understanding that the feeling that you aren't being heard or seen or represented isn't psychosis; it's government policy.'

Lynn continues: ‘I applaud Brand, Baldwin and all the celebrities in this issue for putting this issue front and center as a talking point on the international stage. But what’s missing in the magazine (and in most discussions of evolution) is a map for how all of us can participate, individually and as a group, in an organized system of evolutionary change. The biggest problem we face is our false sense of powerlessness. We are the most powerful generation, ever. We have a free and simple means, via the Internet to organize the entire planet in a system beyond the scope of any political party.

Here are a few preliminary thoughts of my own about what's really necessary’:

·       Making a revolutionary change of heart in each one of us, which truly recognizes on some visceral level, that we– friend and foe alike – are ultimately connected and that nature has designed us to cooperate, not compete.

·      Rejecting the mental hard drive we have all been programmed with that applauds and encourages the ‘I win/you lose’ mentality – competitive individualism at another’s expense.

·      Learning to see holism and to relate in holism.

·      Learning to organize in small and large groups.

·       Organizing all those yearning (deep desire with sadness) for change over the Internet as one vast consumer body, which will do the following 

·         Get political. Identify and vote out any politician supportive of the corrupt economic system that is killing the planet and denying you access to life-supportive foods and natural medicines.

·         Vote with your purse. Stop buying and supporting any product that is harming the planet or other living things, including dangerous or ineffective prescription and non-prescription drugs, processed or GM foods, refined sugar, tobacco products and various toxic chemicals

·         Get the true story.  Stop believing the lies of the corporate media.  They’re in the pocket of industry. Create a new one.

·         Join together all the ‘dots’ – all the many hundreds of thousands of smaller groups wedded to evolutionary change but presently small and powerless

·         Create a unified, highly organized non-violent movement over the Internet that empowers everyone with the tools for peaceful rejection of the current system and peaceful evolution to a safer, fairer, healthier and more inclusive society.

·         Ask celebrities like Russell Brand to help put up the cash to create what amounts to a kind of revolutionary LIVE AID.

With this, she invites people views and proposals to assist her to take the movement off the ground. Besides Brand and Lynn others too are raising such concerns. Among many we shall see concerns of some prominent persons.

Bruce Lipton in his book ‘Spontaneous Evolution’ expresses concern for the wrong base of the science in view of the latest research findings.

Bruce Lipton is American developmental biology best known for his research in epigenetics and biology of Belief. The following questions reflect his concerns.

What are the pillars of Western thought that are crumbling – what you call the Four Myth-Perceptions of the Apocalypse – and why are they crumbling?

• The four fundamental beliefs about our world that until recently have been the foundation of the scientific paradigm, have now been profoundly revised by the latest scientific discoveries.
• These crumbling pillars include:

1. Newtonian Physics
2. Genetic control of life
3. Survival of the fittest
4. Notion of random evolution

Because these radical new conclusions haven’t reached the general public, society’s institutions continue to navigate by these “burned out stars,” and thus are taking the world in a misguided direction.

With all the knowledge and information we have now, how could it be that much of what we know is wrong?

• While we have access to more content than ever before, content must be seen in the proper context in order for information to be used wisely.
• Unfortunately, the current context for holding information is based on scientifically disproved beliefs.
• We have accepted dis empowering programming as “truth and with new and more accurate knowledge comes empowerment.

If the Four Myth-Perceptions have proven untrue, what keeps them in place nonetheless?

• Just as surely as it took more than a century for the world to accept Copernicus’s proof that the earth revolves around the sun, world-shattering beliefs meet with resistance because most people don’t want their worldview shattered.
• Institutions founded on these now-disproved principles have a vested interest – i.e., their own survival – in keeping the old beliefs in place.
• Those organizations (religion, health care, banking, etc.) are not run by awareness but by profit. So the short answer what keeps it in place? Money, or more accurately, the unquestioned belief that money has the right to rule.

Why do so many of our institutions, from health care to banking, all seem to be failing at once?

• These institutions were founded to support, enhance and complement the structure of civilization based on prevailing beliefs of that time.
• Where once these beliefs adequately addressed the perennial questions, their answers are no longer accurate.
• As science is telling us, life operates as entangled whole, not merely as separate parts. Consequently, the failure of our institutions to integrate new understandings is system-wide, and so all systems seem to be failing at once.
• As we are seeing particularly in the above-mentioned institutions, patching up the old system cannot work. Because there has been a change in the core beliefs of society, fundamental systemic change is required.

DALAI LAMA while inaugurating the Washington 2009 conference of Mind Life Institutes expresses the formulating global education policy to eliminate the present problems.

Everybody wants happy life at least less disturbances. Everybody has that basic right. Basic mover of Evolution is this desire. For this we have to preserve this planet. In 20th century marks many new things. Technology, science, new concept, health, education, tremendous advance is seen. But this is also a century of bloodshed. More than 200 million of human being killed according to some experts. There was relatively more violence in first half. Second half was relatively better. 1st half (early part) of 21st century is in continuation of 20th century. No immediate threat of nuclear hazards is seen. Hopefully this should be less violent century.

Formal education is much developed world over but depression, mental problems are increasing. Japan is deep in depression. China’s financial condition is improving but children of rich parents are reported restless in their minds.

As long children play together, no much problem. Quarrels; but within minutes play together. Elders have more knowledge, more ambitions, more dis-trust and more stress. Brain dominants the heart. Positive emotions remain subdued and negative emotions prove prominent. Problems are experienced in families, society and also nations as the rulers, politician are also nurtured in such climate. Therefore education has to be improved, made more effective for positive emotions nurture.

Be wise selfish not foolish selfish. More compassionate mind reduces stress, anxiety, anger it also improves physical health Marriage, external beauty imp, but inner beauty more important so troubles in marriages would be lesser. We have reached a stage when the material based happiness is seen reaching limit. Prayers alone can ensure no guarantee for satisfied attitude.

Modern education system, does it meet its requirements? We have to think as a world community and formulate education policy to prepare responsible world citizens for the 21^st century.

My Comments: As already mentioned such concerns about world situation are being expressed by many thinkers and creating proper collective conscious is often a suggested solution. Consciousness is person's mind and thoughts. knowledge that is shared by a group of people. (Merriam Webster)

Thinkers are deeply concerned about the decline of morality and ethics and express desire for correcting measures. Brand expressed his desire to initiate revolution and Lynn Mctaggart probably wishes to lead this revolution as already engaged in similar projects. The task involves revolution of the thoughts/minds. The intended revolution is expected to bring about the improvement in responsible behavior. Behavior is the expression of mind. Is it really clear what ‘MIND’ which is the thing to be revolutionized means? So far at least no such all accepted definition is known. The thing to be transformed is not defined. 

Vijay R. Joshi.

.