From: Deepak Chopra To: Asingh2384 CC:" Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 06:30:52 +0000 I agree here with Avatar The is pure consciousness -Absolute And Conditioned Mind - Relative Dee ak Cho pra Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing On Aug 7, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Asingh2384 < wrote: Hi Deepak: Let me elaborate further on mental constructs or an interpretation of a combination of sensations images feelings and thoughts in consciousness. There are two distinct types of mental constructs: Firstly, objective mental constructs that are verifiable, repeatable, and experience-able by other minds and shown to follow a set of universal laws and order. Scientific observations and theories fall in this category. This could be called a universal mind (as quoted by Einstein). Secondly, subjective mental constructs that are unknown, unverifiable, and un-experience-able by other minds. Personal emotions, feelings, dreams, hallucinations, dogmas, beliefs that are random, unrepeatable, and do not follow a demonstrable set of laws and order. This could be called an ego-mind or personal mind. Universal or Cosmic Consciousness or true self-awareness transcends both minds above and their mental constructs, and exists eternally, Omni presently as Free Will (without any cause/effect). Type 1 mental constructs above are nothing but relative realities or derivative (temporal) existential forms of the eternal existence or cosmic consciousness. Type 2 mental constructs have no ontological existence and are illusions of the ego-mind. These descriptions are consistent with the non-duality principle also known as Advaita, which also means that consciousness and Type 1 (matter/energy/space/time) relative realities are fundamentally ONE and not dual or many. Cosmic Consciousness is not a supernatural entity but the unmanifested ONE set of eternal cosmic laws that universe is aware of. Only the form varies in manifestation due to the lack of full awareness of the observer, but the underlying realty is ONE. If the Cosmic Consciousness were above and separate from the cosmic laws of existence, it would violate the Advaita principle. Best Regards EFTA00822352

Avtar Singh, M. Alumni, MIT Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality" All experience and knowing of experience is in consciousness . Consciousness has no form and hence has to be non local . Matter as such does not exist . It is an interpretation of a combination of sensations images feelings and thoughts in consciousness . Mind /,Body/ Universe are human concepts - of experience and the knowing of experience . In other words there is only consciousness . The is the monisticAdvaita understanding based on exploring consciousness as self awareness . Dee ak Cho ra Original Message From: Deepak Chopra To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga Sent: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 1:35 am Subject: Re: (Sadhu Sanga) Consciousness All experience and knowing of experience is in consciousness . Consciousness has no form and hence has to be non local . Matter as such does not exist . It is an interpretation of a combination of sensations images feelings and thoughts in consciousness . Mind /,Body/ Universe are human concepts - of experience and the knowing of experience . In other words there is only consciousness . The is the monisticAdvaita understanding based on exploring consciousness as self awareness . Dee ak Cho ra Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing On Aug 6, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Kalluri Rao < > wrote: As per my immature understanding of the subject, One group of thinkers seem to believe that consciousness exists in both living and non living material. While the other group thinks that consciouness is the property of living only. KSR On Tue, 2.2016 at 5:50 AM. 'Serge Patlayskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. M. Puri Maharaja, < > wrote: [Stephen Jarosek] wrote: >All I know with certainty is that current interpretations fail to take >seriously the implications of entropy and the persistence of >complexity across time. ] I agree. Therefore I have constructed my own explanatory framework, and I started from scratch for not to repeat the mistakes of others. My integrated information system (a model I use to formalize the object of study) does take into consideration "the implications of entropy", and it helps to cope with complexity of the modeled object. So, I take a professional interest in other persons' "axiomatic assertions" to compare with my own, and I would be much obliged if you send me in private a page or two of the fundamentals of your approach. EFTA00822353