The Self-Aware Universe

March 6, 2011

Post image for The Self-Aware Universe

The concept of objective reality


  • “Objective reality” is assumed to exist whether or not it is being observed.
  • The existence of separate objects is assumed to be verifiable by observation, at least in principle.
  • The predominant feature of all objects is that they are by definition separate from each other.
  • This means that separation is a basic assumption…
  • …so the observer-object is assumed to be separate from the observed-object.
  • These are all nothing but assumptions!

The All is Mind

Consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, declares University of Oregon physicist Goswami, echoing the mystic sages of his native India. He holds that the universe is self-aware, and that consciousness creates the physical world. Calling this theory “monistic idealism,” he claims it is not only “the basis of all religions worldwide” but also the correct philosophy for modern science. Once people give up the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable.

Bernard Haisch, whom is a well respected and published astrophysicist; copiously quotes from sources as wide and varied as The Upanishads, The Bhagavad Gita, The Bible, Einstein, Schrodinger, James Jeans, Aldous Huxley, Freeman Dyson and the list goes on; with the premise that all these sources are explaining or at least expounding upon the same thing, that is: Consciousness creates matter, not -repeat, not – the other way around.

Space-time, the observed universe, and the brain-sensory system are all manifested simultaneously. This does not occur “until” the wavefunction for a sufficiently complex brain-sensory system is present so that an aware, sentient being can be manifested simultaneously with the observation. Actually, this process is occurring constantly: Space-time, observing objects and observed objects are constantly and simultaneously being materialized…

“As above, so below”
[ The Emerald Tablet - Hermes Trismegistus] 
‘That which is above is the same as that which is below” … Macrocosmos is the same as microcosmos. The significance of this phrase is that it is believed to hold the key to all mysteries.  All systems of magic are claimed to function by this formula.

“The ALL is MIND; The Universe is Mental.”
[ The Kybalion ]

‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’
As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
[ The Bible, Acts 17:28 ]

“The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.”
[ Sir James Jeans, astrophysicist ]

“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.”
[ Teihard de Chardin ]

We are God having a human experience.
[ Bernard Haisch ]

Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see:
know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;
Not that which the ear can hear, but that whereby the ear can hear:
know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;
Not that which speech can illuminate, but that by which speech can be illuminated:
know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;
Not that which the mind can think, but that whereby the mind can think:
know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore.

[ The Kena Upanishad ]

The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Give up all questions except one: ‘Who am I?’ After all, the only fact you are sure of is that you are. The ‘I am’ is certain. The ‘I am this’ is not. Struggle to find out what you are in reality. To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. Discover all that you are not — body, feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that — nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realise that you are the limitless being.
[ Nisargadatta Maharaj ]
“Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 per cent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for “yourself “- and there isn’t one.
[ Terence Gray ]

When you renounce your attachment, there is nothing to shake you. It is the feeling of possession, of clinging, that disturbs the mind.
[ Buddha's teaching paraphrased by Satchidananda ]

Advaita is a sanskrit word that literally means “not two”. Synonyms of Advaita are non-duality (nonduality, non duality). Advaita is not a philosophy or a religion. Non-duality is an experience in which there is no separation between subject and object; a “me” and the rest of the universe; a “me” and God. It is the experience of consciousness, our true nature, which reveals itself as absolute happiness, love and beauty. Consciousness is defined as that, whatever that is, which is aware of these very words right here, right now.
[ Francis Lucille ]

I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Spacetime, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.
The world of our daily experience—the world of tables, chairs, stars and people, with their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds—is a species-specific user interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose essential character is conscious. It is unlikely that the contents of our interface in any way resemble that realm. Indeed the usefulness of an interface requires, in general, that they do not. For the point of an interface, such as the windows interface on a computer, is simplification and ease of use. We click icons because this is quicker and less prone to error than editing megabytes of software or toggling voltages in circuits. Evolutionary pressures dictate that our species-specific interface, this world of our daily experience, should itself be a radical simplification, selected not for the exhaustive depiction of truth but for the mutable pragmatics of survival.
If this is right, if consciousness is fundamental, then we should not be surprised that, despite centuries of effort by the most brilliant of minds, there is as yet no physicalist theory of consciousness, no theory that explains how mindless matter or energy or fields could be, or cause, conscious experience. There are, of course, many proposals for where to find such a theory—perhaps in information, complexity, neurobiology, neural darwinism, discriminative mechanisms, quantum effects, or functional organization. But no proposal remotely approaches the minimal standards for a scientific theory: quantitative precision and novel prediction. If matter is but one of the humbler products of consciousness, then we should expect that consciousness itself cannot be theoretically derived from matter.
[ DONALD HOFFMAN, Cognitive Scientist, UC, Irvine; Author, Visual Intelligence ]

How the Universal Mind can see itself

Western man has been disillusioned ever since the days of Copernicus when that great astronomer revealed that the earth was not the center of the universe. But recent discoveries in astronomy, physics, biology, paleontology, and geology show that a complex web joins us with our planet,our solar system, our galaxy, and with our universe. Suddenly a new vision of the universe is emerging. The universe is not a cold or hostile void. Instead, the earth is a focal point where intricate forces have come together and spun the web of life.

Hoimar von Ditfurth’s exciting ideas suggest that evolution may be creation seen from a limited human perspective; in the unfolding process of the universe.
He detects an “inner wisdom” that suggests science and religion may simply be using different vocabularies to express identical truths.

Dr. Bernard Haisch contends that there is a purpose and an underlying intelligence behind the Universe, one that is consistent with modern science, especially the Big Bang and evolution. It is based on recent discoveries that there are numerous coincidences and fine-tunings of the laws of nature that seem extraordinarily unlikely.

It seems that unfolding Universe creates complex brain-sensory systems which raise the level of its self-awareness.
All life forms, driven by evolutionary adaptation, reflect in their design and function the properties of the physical environment in which they live. For example, bird’s wing reflects aerodynamic properties (physical laws) of the air, the body shape of the dolphin reflects hydrodynamic properties of the water, an eye reflects physical laws governing the light…

The Kena Upanishad

By whom commanded and directed does the mind go towards its objects? Commanded by whom does the life–force, the first (cause), move? At whose will do men utter speech? What power directs the eye and the ear? Thus the disciple approached the Master and inquired concerning the cause of life and human activity. Having a sincere longing for Truth he desired to know who really sees and hears, who actuates the apparent physical man. He perceived all about him the phenomenal world, the existence of which he could prove by his senses; but he sought to know the invisible causal world, of which he was now only vaguely conscious. Is mind all– pervading and all–powerful, or is it impelled by some other force, he asked. Who sends forth the vital energy, without which nothing can exist? The teacher replies:

It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of the speech, the life of the life, the eye of the eye. The wise, freed (from the senses and from mortal desires), after leaving this world, become immortal. An ordinary man hears, sees, thinks, but he is satisfied to know only as much as can be known through the senses; he does not analyze and try to find that which stands behind the ear or eye or mind. He is completely identified with his external nature. His conception does not go beyond the little circle of his bodily life, which concerns the outer man only. He has no consciousness of that which enables his senses and organs to perform their tasks. There is a vast difference between the manifested form and That which is manifested through the form. When we know That, we shall not die with the body. One who clings to the senses and to things that are ephemeral, must die many deaths, but that man who knows the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, having severed himself from his physical nature, becomes immortal. Immortality is attained when man transcends his apparent nature and finds that subtle, eternal and inexhaustible essence which is within him.

There the eye does not go, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know That; we do not understand how It can be taught. It is distinct from the known and also It is beyond the unknown. Thus we have heard from the ancient (teachers) who told us about It. These physical eyes are unable to perceive that subtle essence. Nor can it be expressed by finite language or known by finite intelligence, because it is infinite. Our conception of knowing finite things is to know their name and form; but knowledge of God must be distinct from such knowledge. This is why some declare God to be unknown and unknowable; because He is far more than eye or mind or speech can perceive, comprehend or express. The Upanishad does not say that He cannot be known. He is unknowable to man’s finite nature. How can a finite mortal apprehend the Infinite Whole? But He can be known by man’s God–like nature.

That which speech does not illumine, but which illumines speech: know that alone to be the Brahman (the Supreme Being), not this which people worship here.

That which cannot be thought by mind, but by which, they say, mind is able to think: know that alone to be the Brahman, not this which people worship here.

That which is not seen by the eye, but by which the eye is able to see: know that alone to be the Brahman, not this which people worship here.

That which cannot be heard by the ear, but by which the ear is able to hear: know that alone to be Brahman, not this which people worship here.

That which none breathes with the breath, but by which breath is in–breathed: know that alone to be the Brahman, not this which people worship here. Ordinarily we know three states of consciousness only,–waking, dreaming and sleeping. There is, however, a fourth state, the superconscious, which transcends these. In the first three states the mind is not clear enough to save us from error; but in the fourth state it gains such purity of vision that it can perceive the Divine. If God could be known by the limited mind and senses, then God–knowledge would be like any other knowledge and spiritual science like any physical science. He can be known, however, by the purified mind only. Therefore to know God, man must purify himself. The mind described in the Upanishads is the superconscious mind. According to the Vedic Sages the mind in its ordinary state is only another sense organ. This mind is limited, but when it becomes illumined by the light of the Cosmic Intelligence, or the “mind of the mind,” then it is able to apprehend the First Cause or That which stands behind all external activities.

[ The Kena Upanishad ]

Related Links




An Example of “As above, so below” ?

While working on the illustration for the above post, we found something very intriguing…
Perhaps it is just a coincidence…
Please look at the following images and send us your feedback.

Click to enlarge any of the images below:

The image above depicts the galaxy IC 342, dubbed the ‘Hidden Galaxy”

IC 342 was discovered in 1895 by W.F. Denning. Edwin P. Hubble suspected it as a member of the Local Group, but later observations showed that it is at a distance of at least about 6, perhaps more probably 10 million light-years. IC 342 lies at low galactic latitude, only 10.5 degrees from the Galactic Equator, or the Milky Way’s disc plane. Therefore, it is heavily obscured by interstellar matter of the Milky Way; recent estimates give an extinction of about 2.4 magnitudes; without this extinction, this galaxy would be among the brightest in the sky, and certainly have been discovered much earlier. [ Image was published on the 'Astronomical Picture of the Day, oct 5th, 2006 with Credit & Copyright: Robert Gendler. More info: ]

Chambered Nautilus Shell
The image source:


Superimposed images of the Nautilus Shell and Galaxy IC 342

Superimposed images of semi-transparent photo of the Nautilus Shell and Galaxy IC 342

Many of the bright stars seem to appear on the “ribs” of the nautilus shell pattern


Note:  By displaying images on this site, there is no intention to infringe any legitimate intellectual right, artistic rights or copyright. If you are the rightful owner of any photo or images posted here, and believe that it should not be displayed or that suitable credit is required, then please email the webmaster and arrangements will be made for the image to be removed or alternatively credit provided where it is due. This site and its content are free of charge and therefore the site’s owner does not gain any financial benefit from the display and/or download of any of images displayed.

{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }

Regina M May 3, 2011 at 9:23 pm

The photos look like the eye and the inner ear!


Parker April 22, 2011 at 11:44 am

The nautilus picture is unfortunately innacurate.. which is why sites like this make me skeptical. The universe is 3d, not 2d, therefore you can’t transpose a 2d image of a nautilus on a 2d image and expect to gather any substantial evidence. While 1 star happens to land on a wall of the nautilus shell, one has to take into account it could be millions of light years toward or away from the viewer. This means if we transpose a 3d nautilus, it’s likely these stars won’t land on the walls at all. Because of this, this image in fact shows us nothing accurate.


Ron O. Cook April 20, 2011 at 6:26 am

Edwin G P Martell, you must be one of my former students who never could focus long enough to ascertain the course of the lesson. Any human that offers amplification can be heard or not heard due to the quality of the receiver. To put one down for offering additional information no matter how redundant or boring, is directly proportional to how spoiled the listener’s condition may be. You can read it or you can not read it. It is no skin off my back.

An old man, going a lone highway, _Came, at the evening, cold and gray, _To a chasm, vast, and deep, and wide, _Through which was flowing a sullen tide, _The old man crossed in the twilight dim; _The sullen stream had no fears for him; _But he turned, when safe on the other side, _And built a bridge to span the tide. _“Old man,” said a fellow pilgrim, near, _“You are wasting strength with building here; _Your journey will end with the ending day; _You never again must pass this way; _You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide” _Why build you the bridge at the eventide?”

The builder lifted his old gray head: _“Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said, _“There followeth after me today _A youth, whose feet must pass this way, _This chasm, that has been naught to me, _To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be. _He, too, must cross in the twilight dim; _Good friend, I am building the bridge for him.”


Ab Asaff April 11, 2011 at 2:00 pm

Here is my take on time and timelesness. Time is an illusion. Well you say the planets and moon spin around the sun creating day and night of different lengths and that is measurable by using seconds, minutes ,so on, therefore it must be real. Well it is and it isn’t. Time is only as real as the mind perceives it. To the time bound mind the physcial calculations of time are real but to the timeless mind those calculations mean nothing as it is always in the hear and now. The now is timeless and the only true reality, for the past is gone and the future is not here, so in reality there is only the now, we just don’t perceive that. The minute you say the word future, it immediately becomes the past, where is the substance? We are all just physcial passangers in a perceived time frame going round and round and it is only real to the extent that it can be measured by our physcial senses. At best, time it is but a measuring stick for an organic aging process. Step outside of that into the ageless, timeless spirit world and time becomes an abstract illusion, clocks then mean nothing for there is no past or future for the spirit is eternal and thus detached from time. The only way to recognize this is to become one with our spirit nature and detach from our animalistic human egotistic nature.

Imagine for a fleeting moment being forced to endure extreme torture for excately one hour. Well, that hour will appear neverending right up to the last second. When it is stopped, you would swear that painful hour lasted for hours. Now imagine that same hour you are performing a personal pleasureable task or watching a favourite TV show that you really enjoy or getting a body message than the hour appears to go by far quicker to you than the hour of torture. That hour feels more like a half hour. Why is that? In both instances it was 60 minutes. Time then becomes abstract and relative to our sensational perception. Go figure.


Edwin G P Martell March 29, 2011 at 10:38 am

Mr Ron O. Cook…

Just who is it that you are trying to convince by your long winded diatribes?
I have ofter heard that knowledge goes on and on; whereas Wisdom is fleeting.

When one talks too much… one can not hear oneself think.

Listen to yourself.


Ron O. Cook March 23, 2011 at 9:36 am

One of my favorites…

THERE IS A LIGHT THAT SHINES BEYOND ALL THINGS ON EARTH, BEYOND US ALL —beyond the heavens, beyond the highest, the very highest heavens. This is the Light that shines in our heart.

OM. There lived once a boy, Svetaketu Aruneya by name. One day his father spoke to him in this way: “Svetaketu, go and become a student of sacred wisdom. There is no one in our family who has not studied the holy Vedas and who might only be given the name of Brahman by courtesy.”

The boy left at the age of twelve, and, having learnt the Vedas, he returned home at the age of twenty-four, very proud of his learning and having a great opinion of himself.

His father, observing this, said to him: “Svetaketu my boy, you seem to have a great opinion of yourself, and think you are learned, and are proud. Have you asked for the knowledge whereby what is not heard is heard, what is not thought is thought and what is not known is known?”

“What is that knowledge, father?” Asked Svertaketu.

“[By] knowing a lump of clay, my son, all that is clay can be known, since any differences are only words and the reality is clay; “[And] by knowing a piece of gold all that is gold can be known since any differences are only words and the reality is only gold…”

Sventaketu said: “Certainly my honored masters knew not this themselves. If they had known, why would they not have told me? Explain this one to me, father.”

“So be it, my child. Bring me a fruit from this banyan tree.”
“Here it is, father.”
“Break it.”
“It is broken, Sir.”
“What do you see in it?”
“Very small seeds, Sir”
“Break one of them, my son.”
“It is broken, Sir.”
“What do you see in it?”
“Nothing at all, Sir.”
Then his father spoke to him: “My son, from the very essence in the seed which you cannot see comes in truth this vast banyan tree.”

“Believe me, my son, an invisible and subtle essence is the Spirit of the whole universe. That is reality. That is Atman, THOU ART THAT.” THE CRUX OF BEING…TO BECOME.

Every thing is information or Mind. We are the One with no second. We are Mind — a mind that must become. And in our becoming, we finally lose ourselves in the All…alas, rest.


Ron O. Cook March 22, 2011 at 2:38 pm

Larry, have it your way. I know whereof I speak. I will take my conclusions and ride the light. Timelessness is Eternity. It has always been. Have you ever tired to move your mentality by meditation upon one word? REASON.


Larry Peterson March 11, 2011 at 1:39 pm

It was the duty of the beheader to run, grab the head, and turn it to watch the body die. It is possible that enough electrochemical activity was present for a brief knowing glance and comprehension for only a fraction of a second. Is our philosophy changed to “I think, therefore I am not?” The problem with consciousness is that no one has defined it. The same applies to “mind.” If you cannot define what you try to prove-how can you prove it? The question is not how we are here,but why? If God(there is a considerable leap) cannot be known-then why search? More Metaphysical writings that explain nothing. Let me take one sentence-Timelessness is the Is. What the Hell does that mean?”Not that one is, but whereby Is,is”. Now there is a flash of insight. I will ponder all this Is, knowing time is timeless.


Ron O. Cook March 8, 2011 at 6:28 am

Moving Up to Knowing Our Own Being and Becoming…
Not that one is, but that whereby Is, is.

The Essence has always been. It is — therefore “Is”– is a state of being that shall always be in change and steadiness, unalterable in its state of Timelessness. All things are in, within and without (illusion) its essence. It has always been, though some of its parts cannot discern ALWAYS, since some parts begin and end sequences that seem final in their experiential states. The Essence is the realm we occupy in our many states of being whether in a linear state while existing in Time/Space and, or in a spiritual state where we are always present in a Timeless complexity where all is known and present. Some call this last state, Eternity. It is the root of being.

When one finds himself/herself deposited in Time/Space such as here on Earth as a person occupying a form as an “entity” in a physical state, utilizing that form as a means of motivation and communication – that circumstance of life seems to have a beginning and an end due to the condition/s of that state of being.

We are here to move in and through matter. Why is it so hard for lesser beings to know how moving the parts of this grand machine can create chaos unless total concentration of mind is applied properly? We must know the larger view of who made the lesser or reverse. Even this, being “made” may be unnecessary when one considers Timelessness. This study requires a trek in this physical realm and all its parameters of apparentness. We may have always been, and do not know what always means. What if there is no such thing as creating, where there is no mind to move? Therefore, mind is necessary if movement of such establishes linear Time and then Space to allow the presence of Time. Finally, through the realization of ourselves, enlightenment establishes a point of departure where we can understand the source of Timelessness. It has always been. It is the Is.

Everything is entwined within the light of the mind, which must move to know itself. Everything is Mind in motion…thus creating essence. This concentration within broadcast gets each and every minuscule elemental into leveraged motion that creates event-sequences locked in time and space. The goal is not to lose status, position, or self-control for “be-ness” in motion. If there were a loss, then becoming would not be the goal. To not create on the FLY is to suffer loss of leveragability. Those who do not move, die. Defeat is possible through acceptance of fear, loneliness, victimization, the void, or nonexistence. Defeat would also make us a casualty of our own lack of moral disposition. Here we open up the power to being defeated over and over if we do not become through the dawning of higher mental patterns of thought.


Mike Orrell March 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm

“Consciousness is the only true vehicle” wrote Seth as channeled through Jane Roberts whose collective works represents the new age Bible. Seth confirmed the existence of a separate reality and the limitless potential of the inner reality. “These countless dimensions of reality will someday be our permanent playground-Rick Stack, student of Jane Roberts and Seth. Decades later my new framework of reality enabled me to literally stumble upon the Rosetta stone to unlock some of mankind’s greatest mysteries as reported by the Los Angeles Times. Google “Inaja UFO Photo”


Ron O. Cook March 6, 2011 at 10:26 pm

Not that one is, but that whereby Is, is.

Ron O. Cook


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: