Joseph Farkasdi
Posted April 26, 2015 by Joseph Farkasdi
What gurus fail to teach and people following gurus fail to realize is that it is not your thoughts, what you think about, that affects and even, at times, changes reality. It is the awareness that you have about your thoughts that does the affecting towards change. Descartes so had it wrong, when he placed emphasis upon a limitation. Correcting our focus, the self-evidence is obvious. I am, therefore I think. Yes, having positive life-affirming thoughts, like peace and equitable justice and oneness amongst all and so forth, can and does over generations time change the social behavior and outlook of a society of people. Yes, focusing on a desired outcome elevates the spirit, and occasionally motivates a few into achieving under fortunate circumstances. But, intending and meditating and willing these thoughts themselves are not what does any changing. Just as misplaced emotional investment often does not generate one's desired results.

For the universe cares not what we think. The universe holds no value of one or one's ideals over that of another. As well, the universe does not respond to our moral views about life, as if somehow things should indeed be this way. Instead, the universe portions the same chance of events to anyone and everyone equally and, then for some, from our perspective, terribly unfairly. The reason for this is observable, in that the universe does not respond to what we think, the use of limited in meaning and imagination words we directly focus upon. Rather, it is affected by our observation, and all the modern science points directly to this with evidence. It is our wordless observation of life that causes responses, both within us and in what we perceive around us. No matter how we might want things to be on an intellectual and emotional level, the universe unfolds in its logical impartial way based directly on our observation alone. Or, the lack of observation, observant awareness, as is most often more often the case.

For example, an atom will not change state in a laboratory so long as it is being observed, shifting from particle to wave before an active watcher. Entangled atoms traveling at different distances will amazingly, somehow, anticipate an observation of it before this observation even happens. For example, a person achieving a state of deep wordless meditative awareness is able to survive normally deathly conditions unharmed, or is able to remiss a normally death-incurring disease, returning fully to a healthy state until his or her lifespan has expired.

These are documented scientifically verified events that have occurred numerous times amongst numerous peoples. But, never once has it been shown that any of these events have occurred during or because of a conscious focus on a worded image. Rather, what is demonstrable in all of them is the affect upon the universe, and upon ourselves in this universe, during these moments we transcend meanings and expected outcomes. It is in these moments of just being, of mindful awareness, that amazing surprises find their appearance. During the moments we suspend our expectations, however so briefly. I am, therefore I think. Therefore, I am aware that I am thinking, and now I am simply genuinely observing. The universe cares not what we think, only whether we are in fact fully observing. All the rest is commentary upon this. Commentary that may or may not take root at a social and pocket level.

Are we aware of our thinking, when we are thinking? Are we aware enough? What would happen if we all together, for just a brief moment, suspended our thoughts and just observed?

Thoughts on my reflection this Shabbat?
Comments
Stan Ellis wrote at May 6, 2015
0 Votes
Joseph, in your response to C-Jean you made the following statement of FACT.

There is no evidence of an individual soul or spirit that exists separately of the body-mind that generates the perception of it.


Actually, there is plethora of scientific evidence that consciousness continues into an afterlife before reincarnating again. Here is the University of Virginia's scientific link:
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departme...

For even more evidence Google Michael Newton, PhD. He is considered by the Academic Community and many scientist, to be the leading expert proving that life between lives (the afterlife) is real.
Last Update on May 6, 2015 by Stan Ellis
Stan Ellis
Joseph Farkasdi wrote at May 6, 2015
0 Votes
I appreciate your attempt, Stan. Really do, but evidence of a perception happening is not evidence of a reality event happening. Where are the scientific demonstrable measurements of intact energy beings that have separated themselves from individuals experiencing physical death? Where are the quantum mathematics or physics mathematics the clearly shows this reality is in part comprised of energy beings transferring in and out of physical bodies? I do not discount possibilities, but possibilities are not necessarily probabilities. We cannot see gravity or electromagnetism, until it has a direct affect upon the world of matter. A causal effect from interaction. But, we can predict it mathematically and demonstrate the evidence of it by way of cause and effect within the universe. The same is not the case with an immaterial spirit being. ... I'll explain my stance this way, I don't hear anyone in the scientific community questioning the existence of gravity or of electromagnetism, because the evidence for it we all experience daily as a reality within our world. It is self-evident. A whole lot of people, not willing to face the demonstrable reality that we are not eternal - we have a birth point and a death point - find consolation from this horrible reality through an ancestral idea of gods and spirits and other worlds. No proof has been needed, because the reason for it is not scientific, but rather emotional fear of the reality of things and an emotional feeling that it is terribly unfair. Thus, there has to be more, proof or not. Then, in comes the realm of science, which literally explain so many aspects of this universe, to include how it came about, how it is and how it works, and how it's most likely to end. We have uncovered the world of psychological disorders which explain people related events that used to be seen as possession of demon (spirit world) influence. It took reason to face this reality and see some things as they are, despite the fact that it tends to take the emotional comfort factor away when we do so. ...

I would ask anyone the following, for I ask it of myself daily: If more than one explanation or reason can be given for an event not yet fully understood, where experimental evidence does not conclusively define or demonstrate, is the reason most often hoped for and given really correct? For example, Near-Death Experiences - this is simply just this, a cognitive experience that has occurred within the body-mind during a time of near-death. A perceptual generation of the mind. To add anything more to this is to take a position out of the realm of reasoning science and into the realm of emotional-driven superstition. But, what of examples of no brain activity, you might ask? Who says the mind of the collective cellular body called human is solely and completely in the brain itself, and not just focused there? The experience itself suggests on its own nothing more, just a near-death experience that has occurred for the individual experiencing this near-death. Another example, humans claiming to remember past lives, and it can be demonstrated that somehow they know incredible historical detail about an event or place or life of a different time, even though they had no discernible prior exposure to this information. Again, this is simply what it is, they know things they were not taught. Now, pseudoscience will tell you that this is the workings of reincarnation, and is a form of proof of it. But, this is NOT the only possible explanation for such occurrences. In fact, there is a higher probable chance that we will discover in the future that such occurrences of knowledge are due not to reincarnation but, rather, are due to either ancestral memory being tapped into - memory stored in unexpected places in the body, such as the recently discovered centrioles for gene expression - or due to a demonstrable form of collective conscious that can tap into periods of time one is presently not living in. This theory is just as valid as the theology that somehow we are energy bodies inhabiting multiple physical bodies over eons of time. A theology many have attempted to address scientifically and have yet to incorporate into our scientific view of the world evidence of a spirit world permeating reality. But, we have discovered worm holes, dark matter, and singularity points, which are mathematically demonstrable and, through proof of the device that I am typing this on, applicable and able to be manipulated in some real world way. Apparitions and after-death communications are again, no different than reincarnation and no different in that they demonstrate the possibility of a stored ancestral collective conscious, rather than independent free floating spirits. Again, a perceptual generation of mind and/or singular/collective imagination. Each person has their moment of living on the time line but, through genetic connection, their life experience is not entirely lost through this entanglement of information carried forward - even though they themselves in all that they once were is no more, dead and decayed, and recycled into the basic building blocks of the universe (in time), never experiencing life ever again beyond this timeline presence.

Just because we intuitively want something to be the reality, does not make it a demonstrable reality, especially when a probable counter theory equally exists. I know of no counter theories to gravity and electromagnetism, just further attempts to refine experiential knowledge on what was known (without emotional self-serving bias) before scientist were born to investigate and study it. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, ... I'm really not! But, just because humans have perceived a spirit world for almost as long as we have been aware of the effects of gravity and lightening, does not make the spirit world real. It took scientists no hard effort at all to demonstrate the self-evident reality of gravity and electricity and magnetism and so forth. After this many years of scientific study, for every assumed proof of an individual existing spirit that is separate of the body-mind, there is a just as much, if not more plausible, demonstrable explanation that fits within the realm of the reality we all experience. I know this sucks! I emotionally hate it, too. Because, I, too, want to live forever in all my emotional naivety. But, this does not make me rational to believe this is so or will be so, until there is scientific evidence that supports what everyone of any time period has been able to see and know as self-evident reality. The realm of religions, a human creation, has never been without competing views on the same topic. It is inappropriate, in my opinion, to apply scientific studies to try to prove the existence of what always has been contended, rather than focusing on establishing the evidential and demonstrable facts. ... Where is the evidence?! If it is real, it is self-evident to anyone and everyone - regardless, how they name it, express it and explain it - in any time in history. It was not that long ago in our short history, thus far, of evolutionary adaptation into thinking and reasoning human beings that we believed collectively that lightening strikes and volcanic eruptions were the real world expressed anger of the imagined world of gods and goddesses. If it is real, it is self-evident to all, regardless how we perceive in our given times. Personally, I doubt the belief of spirits being anything other than our way of explaining the energetic generation of conscious, produced by the body-mind or collective cellular body, that occurs when a formed human being discovers his/her self-consciousness. The self-evidence of a separate eternal spirit existence is not a reality in my experience of this world. So, how is it self-evident, when it is not universally self-evident? I don't doubt gravity, even though I believe that gravity is not a "force" as most scientists believe but, rather, a causal effect of the fundamental forces we know about. Regardless the diverging views, all humans know that something is keeping us to this planet, which we call in our times gravity. ...

Now, I appreciate the attempt being made here to find evidence that executing deliberate willful "intent" directly affects the physical universe we live in, and demonstrating that it is a usable act of energetic force that we can use to manipulate our world. At least, to some degree that natural tendency towards disorder and competing intentional desires will allow for. I believe that, like atoms entangling, we, too, socially entangle on an unconscious collective consciousness level, when competing intentions are similarly aligned for mutual benefit of those intending. But, this is a far cry from taking an irrational leap of saying that the universe directly responds to our worded and intended thoughts and creates itself based upon them, or that our existence has meaning beyond our self-generate reasons created in the moment of living and experience. So far, the physics only shows that, somehow and in someway that we do not yet fully understand, the universe is aware when we are observing it. Nothing more, just simply responding to our observation and going from a wave state of probability to a physical particle state of existence, based on this observation. Present conducted experiments, thus far, only reveal that the probability of being becomes a potential predictable physical reality when we are aware of it. The data suggest nothing more, and I am not inclined to put a mystical spin upon it, just because it would make me feel better about this reality, or that I have some greater measure of control over it than I actually do, or that it would give meaning and order to a universe that is throughout in competition with itself. At times, I do wonder, just how many similar thoughts that four-legged, six-armed, four-eyed conscious and creatively-intelligent reasoning "living being" across on the other side of the universe, on its home planet looking up at the night sky, is having that are like mine? Does this being have the same fears and hopes and struggles between reason and emotional wishful thinking? Does it, too, have science to explain things, and religion for that which science cannot confirm? Has it been around as an adapted species of evolutionary development and experimentation on its planet for, say, far longer that we have on our planet? Say, for our fifty thousand years of existing as a species, maybe they're at four hundred thousand? Have they learned to differentiate, yet, between valid emotional hope governed by rational wisdom, and unbridled emotional need to somehow validate that which is not self-evidently obvious to all - even across the universe by us on our planet? ...

I am all for the intention experiment, but to say it is more than a test of whether we can as a species find others to entangle with on matching intent and working together, knowingly or unknowlingly, together or apart, in same or different time periods is not rational. For, the self-evidence of our history on this planet shows that, like the rest of the intelligent evolved life on this planet, we within our own species are constantly in competition over what intent we should be focussed on. Maybe, in time, a threshold will occur where the majority will share similar intents (say such as peace, goodwill, and justice), but it is unscientific and presumptious and even irrational to think that we will have universal order on a set of intents. The reason is self-evident. The universe stagnates on sameness, and we are not the only intelligently aware lifeforms in existence. Just one small recent branch of cosmic experimentation. And, we haven't been here that long. ... I know it sucks! But, we each have our religions to take care of that part, if we can't handle reality as it is and just accept it. Accepting it does not mean sitting down and doing nothing. It can equally mean being truly scientific and testing the boundaries realistically and rationally, for greater understanding and discovery of possibilities.
Last Update on May 6, 2015 by Joseph Farkasdi
Joseph Farkasdi
C-JEAN wrote at May 2, 2015
1 Vote
Hi Joseph.

You have thoughts about our thinkings.
You have thoughts about the non-physical and the physical,
our body. . .etc. . .

My arguments about: how our mind/spirit really DO work on the material are:
1 = The random generators,
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/911formal.html

2 = the placebo effet.

The "1 =" prooves the effect of our minds on the computers.
The "2 =" we ALL know the effects of our mind on our body.

About "intentions", Lynne McTaggart is one of the "stars" in the 3 DVDs kit of
"What the bleep do we know ?!" "down the rabbit hole".
http://www.whatthebleep.com/

DO borrow, rent, buy that kit. It WILL change the way you see the world !!
It DID for me !! B-)

Blue skies.
C-JEAN
Joseph Farkasdi wrote at May 4, 2015
-1 Vote
I know, we so want the universe to behave and be the way we want it to be. We so want the computer and the physical reality to behave the way we intend for it to behave. To give us the results we are expecting. We so want to know that we are that important to this universe. That we are the source. That the universe cannot function without our presence. So, are we not sure that we are not tweeking the results of inconclusive experiments conducted in insufficient number to demonstrate phenomena that is not yet self-evident? Regardless what you call it, gravity is real and is a universal experience. It is testifiable, demonstrable, and self-evident in any place of the universe and by any species of intelligent life. There is a difference between what is real and provable and what is subjective and only provable to oneself, is there not? If one person consistently demonstrates that data from experiments consistently confirms to the experimenter's intent, and one person consistently demonstrates that the data results are always the generation of random chance - who is right? The one who wishes to believe his intents matter (to more than himself)? Or, the one who simple collects the evidence, and looks for the patterns that can be seen and duplicated by anyone willing to conduct the experiment? There is evidence for a collective consciousness amongst those who are part of a living species. There is no evidence of an individual soul or spirit that exists separately of the body-mind that generates the perception of it. I know, it sucks to be born into a world where you have little direct control, but you and I and each one of us that has been born are the luckiest individuals in the world for even having the chance to even experience it - whether a single intention of ours is fulfilled or not. Is this not enough, I wonder, to stand in the face of the not fully conceivable and be simply amazed and in awe of it? In all its pleasures and fearful unfairness, whether we like it or not? I believe that intentions work both individually within the individual and in a collective consciousness sort of way amongst those who will mutually benefit from the intents fulfilling. So far, I have yet to see any data from experimentation that would refute this, self-evidently and conclusively.
Last Update on May 4, 2015 by Joseph Farkasdi
Joseph Farkasdi
James Milton wrote at May 1, 2015
2 Votes
Interesting post Joseph. You present your argument well. I would differentiate between thought and desire when it comes to Intention. Intention starts with a desire of some sort that does not have to be thought of intellectually, simply a desire felt in the heart, which in my world is the connection to Source and ALLTHATIS. The next step is to imagine that that wish is already fulfilled and appreciate the change, to enjoy it as though it had already happened.

If change were simply based on observation then nothing would ever change because the observations would always be of what already is, not what is desired.

Even so, when you suggest suspending thought, I believe that you are on the right track. It's not a question of thought, we simply have to BE, to allow the inner Light that can bring harmony to the World, the Universe, to shine.
James Milton
Joseph Farkasdi wrote at May 4, 2015
0 Votes
Like your response. Though, I would add one caveat to it. Enjoy the outcome of your intending exactly as it becomes. Expectations added onto intentions of desire lead to either disappointment, when it does not happen, or inflation of importance, when perceived as having happened. By expectations, I mean the "hoped for" outcome, rather than just having "scientific" curiosity as to what will happen. The universe is not concerned about our desires, for this is our individual domain of concern. Rather, the universe is filled with "competing" intentions of desire by many living things, and this is self-evident when we only honestly look. The universe is also geared by natural design towards competition and diversity for the sake of survival, which means - those best fit for now to survive and/or succeed are the likely fittest to achieve some level of intention fulfillment, until uprooted from this success by life now more fitter. But, this is not to say that we can't self-motivate and other-motivate to produce limited and specific change. It's called social consciousness and influential networking, two demonstrable methods of fulfilling desired intent.
Last Update on May 4, 2015 by Joseph Farkasdi
Joseph Farkasdi
Stan Ellis wrote at May 2, 2015
1 Vote
Well said James... concise and to the point.
Stan Ellis
Stan Ellis wrote at April 28, 2015
2 Votes
Thanks for you thought provoking observations and related opinions. My holistic observation, as opposed to reductionist, is in agreement in that I know that I exist (I am)thus it is my nature to think. I also holistically agree with your comments on awareness and those on observation.

From sub-atomic particles to the cosmos everything exists within patterns that also fall into a natural order... and order implies "intelligent design." Thus proactive harmony is always present... it's awareness that comes and goes.

Activating awareness through being ever mindful expands the depth of awareness. The awareness of simply observing or witnessing does indeed become a cause for change (effect), as quantum physics proves.

But lets take observation a few steps further. How does one observe? Do you suspend judgment? That is a form of judgment. I think observation is probably related to one's perception and how they "FEEL" about what they are perceiving during observation. For example, Using scientific reductionist thinking, Renee Descartes sought to prove he exist by refuting all outward laws and forms that validate existence. He deduced that he doubted existence and that doubt was a form of thinking, thus proving we exist. I think therefore I am. Your holistic observation implies knowing we obviously exist, thus I exist therefore I think (an innate quality of being or existing). So there are two examples of perceptual observation and both are right. "Whether or not one believes in something or not, they are right... no matter what that something may be."

In support of your refutation of intentional thought causing manifestation I offer this. Using the Law of Attraction some gurus propose that thoughts focused on attracting more money will manifest that reality. A virtuous person may indeed focus on acquiring more money, but for heartfelt altruistic reasons like a better home for his family, college education for his children, philanthropy for needy causes, etc. in addition to increasing his own indulgent wants. Indeed this virtuous person may acquire more money, but the SUBCONSCIOUS FEELING at the core of his conscious intentional thoughts is one of SCARICITY, thus he attracts perpetual scarcity that leads to always wanting more money(materialism).

So Observation is underpinned by Perception which is subject to how one Feels. "If there is a discrepancy between thought and feeling... your feeling will be the truth."
Last Update on April 28, 2015 by Stan Ellis
Stan Ellis
Joseph Farkasdi wrote at April 29, 2015
-1 Vote
Personally, I will start believing in the guru's "law of attraction" when it is demonstrable in existence. Meaning, regardless what we personally think or feel about gravity, whether we understand intellectually or intuitively, whether we believe in it or deny its very existence, the law of gravity applies itself to all equally and without regard. It does not change based on feelings of scarcity at a subconscious level, and is not directly affected or altered by one's uniting of subconscious intent with conscious intent. It simply applies and has its affect. Everyone can and does make use of it in the same way. This is the nature of the universe. From a human perspective, this reality is either in our favor or unfairly against us, depending on how we choose to perceive its unbiased affects. The nature of the universe has its own built in law of attraction, and the same exists in the application of attraction as exists in the example above with gravity. When it becomes self-evidently demonstrable that there is another form of law of attraction that applies equally to all, regardless the personal views on it (thoughts), that can be accessed by all and anyone successful every time with predictable outcome results - wherein, you align your subconscious and your conscious intents and you get your intentions fulfilled, regardless who you are and regardless your present circumstances - then, I will hold no doubt in the credibility of the "belief." It is far too easy to hold on to beliefs that cannot be demonstrated as a physical law of existence, and it is way too easy to justify the failure to show it applies to all equally within the realm of subjective experience. Not that I am not open to the possibility, but .... I kind of want more. Life is not about our wants and desires. Rather, life simply is and we, in our self-generated conscious state, recognize and desire more. We are the one's in need of rectifying the seeming and displayed incongruence between want and reality. Intentional thought is best put to service, in my opinion, as a tool to direct the mind towards aware observation. Remember, the results only matter to us, the one's with the vested expectations.
Last Update on April 29, 2015 by Joseph Farkasdi
Joseph Farkasdi
paul cross wrote at April 27, 2015
2 Votes
Obviously the basis of what you are contemplating in this post is at the heart of the 2 slit experiment in which observation has an effect upon the consequences of atoms passing through as a particle or as a wave form. But do we not have to use our thought process to decide to observe? If we decide not to observe then the universal atom continues it merry little wave adventure to produce the observable interference pattern(no change) and if we choose to observe(a thought to look)the atom acts as a particle form of itself and no interference pattern is formed and so we have effected the normal behavior of the universe. Were we not to have even existed(akin to not observing) we must assume that the atom acts wavelike all the time because observing is the cause for a change. Our observing is not with our conscious body here because we are limited and have no way to observe without implementing a device of our creation that will sense(observe) the atom passing through either of the slits. The implementation of our creation of the sensing device is the difference maker because if we leave on a vacation and leave the sensing device in place and the experiment continues the atom will never revert back to wave like behavour. Suspension of thoughts is rather like the decreasing of temperature in an attempt to reach absolute zero and is the process of meditation. In human reality neither ever reach the zero state as observed in that our bodily functions continue, albeit at altered rates. Now one concept to realize in trying to get a handle on this is to realize the difference between our reality and the reality of the quantum world. We do not exist in the quantum world and many of our rules do not apply as well. In fact we probably do not have the capacity to understand the quantum actions(which indicates limitation)and yet we have the capacity or instinctual ability to think a thought about it. And we need to keep in mind also that perhaps thought itself is a consequence of quantum activity. Probably our closest connection. Just like quantum activity is thought to be at the root of photosynthesis in plants, making us and plants seem rather similar in one respect. Anyway, thanks Joseph for an interesting and thought provoking blog. I hope others will take the time to weigh in because you are poised upon the avenue to perhaps understanding better a few hows, whys and other questions dealing with our existence.
Last Update on April 27, 2015 by paul cross
paul cross
Joseph Farkasdi wrote at April 29, 2015
1 Vote
Observation does not require thought. Thought is the result of observation. Neuroscience demonstrates that it takes about two years for a newborn child to develop conscious self-awareness, the ability to distinguish unique I from unique you. Before this, he or she is simply observing and learning to think. The universe does not require thought to exist, only observation which then produces thought. The production of thought, like physical manifestation, is the generation of information within the universe.
Joseph Farkasdi