Parallel pharmaceutical treatments

“Balance aggravated Vata”; “Tonify aggravated essence”; “Enrich kidney Jing”; ‘”Promote water metabolism”; “Engender fluid”; “Disinhibit water”; “Soften hardness”; “Open body orifices”; “Extinguish Damp-Cold”; “Expel stagnant heat”. These are some of the permitted indications (claimed purpose or benefit) from which complementary medicine companies must draw when registering, and later labelling, their products.

An article by Esther Han, Health Reporter, on 9 Feb. 2018 in the Sydney Morning Herald states that:
• On advice from its Therapeutic Goods Administration, the federal proposes legislation to ‘restrict vitamin and herbal medicine companies to making only government-approved health claims on their products.’
• When lacking scientific evidence, ‘traditional use complementary medicines would be required to carry mandatory statements such as ‘traditionally used in Chinese medicine.’’
• ‘Australia has endorsed the WHO (World Health Organisation) … that traditional medicines have a valid function in modern medicinal frameworks.’
• Doctors and consumer interests have criticised the proposed approvals.

Other considerations in this matter are:
• Whether Australia’s trade agreements require minimal interference by participatory governments in any inter-country trade which reflects cultural practices and their underlying values.
• How effective are some prescriptions by doctors which may have been influenced by pharmaceutical company representatives? (‘Try this’ has been said to me by more than one Aussie doctor.)
• Just as some approved medicinal treatments are not equally effective on all patients, some complementary treatments can, and do, benefit the consumer.
• Are foreign nations influencing, if not dominating, Australia’s national policies through trade and/or defence agreements?

Advertisement

Revising history (2)

“Many of us are troubled by the present course of civilisation and are probing for ways out of the looming crisis. We must therefore ask about the nature of knowledge. What is knowledge? What is it that we are seeking to know? Are we content merely to know the names and numbers that explain the outer world, or are we seeking knowledge of a deeper reality? Are we satisfied with knowledge bound by time and space, or are we looking for eternal Truth?”

Comment: The above paragraph resonates with me. As a boy, I was curious about this question: How do we know what we know? More recently, as my WordPress posts will confirm, I am pre-occupied with this question: How could we investigate the non-material realm which is clearly an integral component of Earthly existence? My exposure to the domain of spirits and clairvoyance (refer my earlier posts) and my understanding of the limitation of the scientific method lead me to follow the guidance offered by books such as ‘In search of the cradle of civilisation’ by Feuerstein, Kak, and Frawley. Extracts from this book continue.

“We are looking for a deeper meaning and awareness than the factual mind can produce.”

“According to the Vedic view there are two levels of knowledge: The knowledge of the practical world of name, form, and appearance; and the knowledge of the ultimate, nameless, formless, infinite, and eternal Reality. There are certain fundamental questions that we all ask at some point in our lives. What is the Divine? What in us, if anything, transcends death? What is the origin of the Cosmos? Such questions cannot be answered by a knowledge that relies solely on name and form or time and space.”

“There can be little doubt that ancient humanity was more concerned with spiritual realities than we are.”

“In fact, all worship and prayer can be regarded as means of accessing the fundamental Reality that transcends ordinary ways of knowing.”

“Today we are in need of a philosophy, science and spirituality that are deep and broad enough to accommodate the emerging global civilisation. … … we inevitably are led back to considering, as did our ancestors, the infinite, eternal, impartite Reality. The reason for this is that only in that which has no boundaries can there be the ground for integrating all the diverse aspects of human creativity. This brings us face to face with the need to create a global spirituality that transcends all parochial religious modes of knowledge and experience.”

“As Carl Gustav Jung noted, ‘Man is never helped in his suffering by what he thinks for himself, but only by revelations of a wisdom greater than his own. It is this which lifts him out of his distress.’ This insight has more than personal relevance. It holds true of us collectively as well.”

“There are many spiritual teachings and traditions upon whose experience and wisdom we can call in our effort to create a global spiritual ‘science’ that steps beyond the limitations inherent in specific paths but that also does not seek to merely replace them or diminish their practical significance and value for spiritual seekers.”

“It would appear that none of the world’s extant traditions are as old and comprehensive as the Vedic-Hindu tradition. It is so embracing that it seems to contain all the different approaches to the Divine, or ultimate Reality, found in other traditions. Every spiritual means – from simple devotional surrender to complex visualisations to postural variation – has been systematically explored in this great tradition.”

“The Vedas embody what has been referred to as the perennial philosophy at its purest and noblest. … … Aldous Huxley, in his book ‘The Perennial Philosophy, explained: ‘The perennial philosophy is the metaphysic that recognises a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man’s final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being.’”

Food for thought?

Has our history been debauched?

“… when it comes to explaining the origins of the human race on Earth, academic science has cooked the books.” This is said to be the conclusion reached by Richard Thompson and Michael Cremo (of ‘Forbidden Archaeology’). Douglas Kenyon (the founder of ‘Atlantis Rising’ magazine) quotes Cremo thus: “In every area of research, from palaeontology to anthropology and archaeology, that which is presented to the public as established fact is indeed nothing more than a consensus arrived at by powerful groups of people.”

This resonates with me. I have identified in earlier posts the Big Bang Theory of cosmology and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as neither proven nor quite credible.

Kenyon quotes Cremo further. “I thought there might be a few little things that have been swept under the rug, but what I found was truly amazing. There’s actually a massive amount of evidence that’s been suppressed.” In this context, I recall reading that skeletons of humans estimated to have been10 to 12 feet tall were discovered in the USA. They were sent for safekeeping; but none of them can now be found.

Comparably, in the nineteenth century, the then director of the US Bureau of Ethnology “… sent his ethnology emissaries to systematically destroy the mounds and any evidence they contained that pointed to non-native origins.” (Peter Bros in ‘The case for the flood’). “During the nineteenth century, evidence of both European presence and the existence of a prehistoric civilisation was being uncovered all over North America, primarily in the mounds that dotted the countryside east of the Rockies.”

Since Gavin Menzies, who wrote about the 7 Treasure Fleets of Chinese Admiral Cheng Ho which sailed around the globe in the 15th century, had mentioned that members of the Fleet had met settled communities on the US mainland (presumably on the Pacific coast) who could speak some Chinese (dialect or language not specified), the so-called Europeans mentioned by Bros may have been whitish, well-built people from North China.

John Kettler (in ‘The martyrdom of Immanuel Velikovsky’) describes the collective actions of certain renowned astronomers against Velikovsky’s work. “Velikovsky was systematically attacked in the scientific journals via distortion, lies, misrepresentation, claims of incompetence, and ad hominem attacks, while there never seemed to be space in which he could defend himself.”

Peter Bros: “The scientific process merely accepts theories as scientific fact as long as they have not been disproved.” He also refers to Charles Lyell’s theory of uniformitarianism that “geological processes occur gradually.” That means that catastrophes are not acceptable as explanations. Bros then describes Louis Agassiz as “enthroning himself as the inventor of the ice age.” So, a universal flood is now denied, in spite of “the universal flood being a part of the myths and traditions of more than five hundred widely separated cultures.”

As Kenyon wrote: “… the mythology of many ancient societies is filled with cataclysmic destruction of Earth and its inhabitants.” “… such cataclysmic destruction is a recurrent feature in the life of Earth …”
(Note: The authors quoted above are contributors to ’Forbidden History’ edited by Douglas Kenyon. The sub-title of the book is ‘Prehistoric technologies, Extraterrestrial intervention, and the Suppressed origins of civilisation.” A book worth reading!)

What we do not know cannot be

The 8-year old boy who asked his parents how the Universe came about (or words to that effect) is now 89 years old. He is still pre-occupied with this question, having spent the intervening years reading and thinking about the matter, but in a sporadic matter. Having lived through the Stationary State Theory of cosmology, and then the Quasi-stationary State Theory, he is now confronted by the Big Bang Theory.

While not quite as an aside, I am disappointed that not only the media but also some science writers treat theories as confirmed facts.

A cosmogony which claims that something came out of nothing, and which apparently cannot explain the source of the vast energy needed for the explosive expansion which allegedly resulted in the universe we think we know is not convincing. It is less convincing than a Stationary-State universe. The probability of a Big Crunch (and the possibility of Little Bangs and Little Crunches in between) leads me to contemplate Hinduism’s concept of long periods of cyclical expansion and contraction, with short cycles within long cycles.

The Big Bang Theory is so firmly believed in that alternative explanations cannot be contemplated. In physical science, however, previously-held theories have lost their gloss. For example, that all geological change is gradual; or that the end of the last (imputed) ice age adequately explains that belief held by about 70 oral cultural histories about a universal flood; or that ‘punctuated equilibrium’, rather than cosmic catastrophes, explains the sudden emergence of new fully-formed species. The possibility of an advanced human civilisation existing before the Flood cannot be countenanced, because there is no evidence.

A lack of evidence – verifiable evidence, of course – is sufficient to deny (with great certitude) any alternative hypothesis offered as a tentative explanation worth investigating. Thus, consideration of an all-pervasive aether does not fit prevailing explanatory paradigms. That this aether is comparable to Hinduism’s Consciousness as the First Cause would be a sufficient reason for scientists wedded to the current mechanistic material paradigm to reject it outright.

That the ancient Indians reportedly came up with statements about the physical universe which are now being verified by modern Western scientists can be challenging. In any event, the then conclusion about the Michelson-Morley experiment on the existence of the aether is reportedly being queried.

There is already a significant list of events and explanations which apparently cannot be. What of Lysenko’s proposal about the inheritance of acquired physical characteristics? Apparently, Darwin agreed with Lysenko. There is no evidence of a genetic path, right? What of epigenesis?

There is so much we do not know in the physical domain. Yet, we are already looking for a t.o.e. (a theory of everything). Does this cover the mental domain, or the ephemeral domain? Significantly, when a prominent research professor in chemistry was asked why he chose not to investigate whether the boundaries of his discipline could be stretched, his response was reportedly that it would take more than his lifetime to pursue the question.

Add up all the things which cannot be. Reminds me of those eminent people who have sought to prove the non-existence of God. Is it possible to prove absence?

We really know nothing

Socrates reportedly claimed “I know nothing.” That statement resonates with me. After a sound colonial education, wide reading, thinking deeply about almost everything that affects us as human beings, comparing what the scientists are saying about cosmology with the beliefs offered by religions, and after a highly interactive and contributory life as an adult for 7 decades, I too feel that I know nothing.

But then, from about age 8, when I seemingly became aware that I had a brain with an associated mind, I began to ask myself “How do I know what I know?” No one could help me answer that question. The obvious answer? “I do not know!”

Continuing on a subjective plane of contemplation, are there not situations when one just ‘knows’ something, or about something? There are those who read the past accurately, or foretell the future accurately, or accurately read the thoughts of others, or see what is happening elsewhere (not always confirmable) – but seem untouched by their ability. It is as if they are merely conduits. My experience covers all these phenomena.

There are also those who communicate with the spirits of dead humans; and who say that the spirit realm influences – indeed, guides – some of us. As well, there is intuition, an understanding without perceivable cause; the so-called ‘third eye’ is often credited with this ability.

Is it therefore probable that those who seek knowledge, even through what we know as the sciences, can ever be certain that the explanations offered are (realistically) no more than theories, tentative in nature? What if some (many?) theories cannot be tested – ever? Does the use of mathematical calculations prove (that is, beyond challenge) any theory? Or, would a rigorous application of mathematical processes merely enhance the probability of the causal relationship being tested being potentially verifiable, were a process of verification to become available?

Since maths is apparently not created but discovered, does the human brain, drawing on only 5 senses (enhanced by some appropriate equipment), have the capacity to access the totality of the information which may be available? Worse still, the scientific method, which tells us reliably about the mechanistic material realm, is unable to deal with the ethereal realm. How do we obtain reliable information about matters neither measurable nor repeatable?

In reality, we puny humans can only hope to achieve a tentative understanding of matters of relevance to existence, by drawing upon what is set before us as knowledge, relying upon that ephemeral ability known as intuition. If only we could avoid being led into blind alleys by purveyors of faith in both the material and immaterial realms.

Knowing nothing, and awaiting hopefully for some slight infusion of insight from the ethereal realm may be sensible, while reconciling the tie to the material realm of Earth with that innate yearning for communing with the insubstantial Divine.

A Seeker of knowledge may thus need to settle for an understanding drawn from intuition, where the objective may actually be subjective!

Has science explained anything relevant to existence? (3)

I have not been able to accept the Big Bang Theory of cosmology. My problem?

• Can something come out of nothing? Is the mathematical concept of singularity, which denies us the right to ask if there was anything existing before the bang of creation, an explanation, or just a naming, or the door closed on thought?
• Where did the massive amount of energy needed for the claimed expansion come from?
• Did space exist before the Bang? It must have, in order to expand. But then, how could the ‘nothingness’ of space expand?
• Is the Hubble Telescope capable of peering into infinite space?
• What if light weakens (in layman terms) with infinite distance?
• Then there are quaint terms such as ‘space-time’ and space being ‘bent’ by an unexplained gravity? Are these mathematical concepts with no relation to material reality?
• I have recently read that galaxies are not rushing anywhere.
• Are we, as some clever person said, vivisecting the nightingale to trace its song?
Recent reading brought out the following (from Geoff Haselhurst):

• “A Doppler effect is for motion of matter in space, not for the expansion of space itself.”
• “… assumes that light is a wave, yet in other areas of physics light is claimed to be a ‘photon particle’ …”
• “The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is sensibly explained as due to radiation from cold matter in interstellar space.”
• In 1957, a “theory accounted for the growing evidence that the … composition (of elements) varies from star to star, something that would not be possible if the elements were produced by the Big Bang.”
• “Superclusters and Voids are older than the Big Bang Universe.”
• “The Universe is ordered, thus infinite.” (That is, there is no evidence of entropy.)
• “Inflation is an ad hoc solution to a theory that contradicts observation.”
• “Distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field are not ‘primitive’ and move as if surrounded by matter.”
• “The Big Bang satisfies the religious Creation Myth.”
• “Matter is formed from waves in space … space being infinite and eternal …”
I have reached the tentative conclusion that there has to be a Creator of all that exists (including generations of evolved ‘stuff’), because of the observed (and intuited) incredibly complexity, the close inter-relationships (or connections), and their beauty. But I could be wrong.

Back to the drawing board? How then how take into account the ephemeral realm of existence as well?

Has science explained anything relevant to existence? (2)

My problem with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Ever since I read about this theory (when I was 24), I have been a sceptic. I had read a little anatomy and physiology by then. I couldn’t see how the eye could have evolved through random mutation (mutations are usually errors in copying DNA); and how natural selection, which eliminates the failures in adaptation, could have had a role. As the whole process requires a very long time, an inconceivable list of intermediate forms would need to appear along the way.

Cosmic catastrophes may better explain the appearance of whole functioning forms; while yet needing an organising influence. Thus, extra-solar impacts may damage some Earth-bound species; some of the survivors may then evolve into complete, viable forms. These forms may not have been possible through the Darwinian process. Did the modern bird arise from the destruction of dinosaurs?

The concept of punctuated equilibrium, allegedly intended to counter cosmic catastrophes as a cause does not seem to be an explanation – only a description of what occurs. I have read an attempted explanation of this concept, but it was full of suppositions. As well, have intermediate forms (missing links) been found?

What then of flowering plants (100 million years old), with no intermediate species from non-flowering plants (300 million years old)? Most flowers need bees and other pollinators. How did this relationship evolve? By accident? By chance?

Whereas Darwinian evolution is based on competition, co-operation and symbiosis are clearly relevant in life. That competition was seen as the driver was consistent with Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism. Darwin and Marx were original thinkers of the 19th century. Marx’s viewpoint was that matter is the sole subject of change, which is the product of conflict arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all things. That view had a degree of plausibility then.

The biggest challenge was from Michael Behe, a biologist, who listed blood clotting, cilia, the human immune system, the transport of materials within cells, and the synthesis of nucleotides as irreducibly complex, and that no gradual route could have led to their creation.

Simple forms of life could have may have been deposited on Earth through crashing meteorites or comets. Apparently, there is sufficient evidence of this happening. Or, through some catastrophic impacts from space. Could the concept of panspermia also include life being brought to Earth by an advanced civilisation? Indeed, did extraterrestrials also tweak some life forms on Earth onto more complex levels? The Christian Bible refers to the Adam in much the same way that Zachariah Sitchin suggests, from Sumerian records, that the Anunnaki from the planet Nibiru created man (to be a slave).

Theorising that purpose is built into all forms of life on Earth may be of some value. If this is true, how did it happen? My observation of the trees and tall shrubs in my garden competing with one another is suggestive of purpose. Then, there is the issue of how certain lizards and insects were able to acquire the mechanism to change their skin colours at will, or to acquire, on a permanent basis, the colouration of the tree or leaf on which this life-form sites itself.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution may be the only theory available to explain inter-species change. But it has not been proven. Is it time to admit that we should start again?

(The ‘Big Bang’ Theory of Cosmology also does not make sense. Read Part 2)

 

 

Has science explained anything relevant to existence? (1)

A necessary prelude to unveiling this challenge is the reality that humans have only 5 senses of information, with their processor, the brain, obviously of a limited potential. As said by many people of competence, there could be many matters of relevance to human existence (such as mathematics waiting in cloudland to be discovered, or the evidently existing ephemeral realm, including the spiritual) which are beyond our comprehension.

Scientist David Bohm has introduced the concept of ‘implicate’ and ‘explicate’ orders, where the latter order represents the reality that we perceive as having been unfolded from an un-manifested state in the former order. But he has apparently not demonstrated the necessary causal or transactional link between them.

There is also an undeniable need to explain the reality of consciousness, and possibly other realities of existential significance, such as the manifestation on Earth of a spirit from the Afterlife. Such a spirit displayed to me (and a clairvoyant) his Earth memory, knowledge of events in my life after his death, and the ability to hear me while communicating psychically with the clairvoyant.

My reality is thus three-fold: physical, mental and spiritual. I accept that the study of the spiritual realm is beyond the capacity of the scientific method, which I studied during my training as a research psychologist. This method, quite correctly, requires repeatability. This is not available in the study of psychic phenomena, memories of past lives by young children of up to age 6, my own exposure to the spirit realm through clairvoyants of great reliability, and so on.

Yet, we have to rely upon the scientific method to investigate and tell us about our physical realm. Has it done that adequately? Is the mechanistic material paradigm underpinning this method adequate to this task?

While the structures, facets, and components of the physical realm are being investigated rigorously, subject to unavoidable human error, and some probable bias, there seems to be a reliance on speculative, unverifiable, theories to offer explanations. Such theories in science seem to evolve, or are modified, as more understanding of their limitations are discovered. Apparently, it is not possible to prove by experimentation some essential theories, or to express these on a sound mathematical basis. What then?

Could unverifiable speculative theories (tentative explanations), which are built upon one another, be relied upon to explain the more relevant realities of human existence? We need theories of creation and evolution which are more credible than the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. See Parts 2 and 3 of my post.

As well, how many theories of potential value have been rejected because they do not fit the prevailing paradigm? Of the hypotheses rationally available following a finding of a relationship or conclusion, what criteria might be applied to select one to be pursued? Since a theory has to explain, as well as to predict, would not the selection be crucial?

Moving on, why not adopt speculative, unprovable theorising in researching the non-material, the ephemeral – especially Consciousness? Or the aether, analogous to the ‘Ocean’ of Consciousness of mainstream Hinduism? Opening the minds of researchers to probabilities in matters of human existence may be of greater value than seeking proof through the scientific method or mathematics.

An understanding of reality may be available only through glimpses of what now appears ephemeral, such glimpses being of a probabilistic nature.

Space and time – are they real?

What is space? Is it not just the emptiness all around us? Is there any materiality in its makeup or constituency? And, there are spaces within us, like the sinus in my head.

But, space is not empty, is it? There are viruses (bits of protein looking for a home), bacteria, and a huge variety of life forms, in all spaces, including cosmic particles and rays. Reportedly, hydrogen is also to be found. It is said to be  everywhere, even in bell-jars from which all the air has been withdrawn. Yet, space is no more than the non-material environment within which much occurs all the time – like a room full of active little children.

Occurrences and events, as they happen, implicate the passage of time. But, time is surely no more than a record of things which have happened, or which are happening, and which (somehow and most improbably) record events to happen. For instance, a clairvoyant saw me addressing a group of youths 12 years before I was invited to be a guest lecturer at a university. And a ‘healer’ was told by her Spirit Guide about a couple of my past lives (of which I was not aware and cannot access).

Then, when certain scientists write about space-time, we are generally presented with a diagrammatic representation of a three-dimensional mesh. This doesn’t make sense to me. Why is time (representing three-dimensional activity) built into space (being nothingness), as if it is an integrated structure?

Then, to explain gravity, we are shown a dip in this ‘fabric’ of space-time where an object is subject to ubiquitous gravity. So, space-time can be bent. Thus, under a forest or a busy street in a city, this alleged fabric would have lots of sagging ‘spaces,’ right?

Scientific nomenclature, allied to semantics, lead me to prefer an insubstantial reality, where the material is only a sort of projection from the ethereal. ‘Space’ and ‘time’ are neither, as I suspect.

More on reincarnation and quantum theory

Part 2 of Dr. Robert Lanza’s theory about Biocentrism is set out below. Refer my previous post ‘Reincarnation supported by quantum theory?’ for Part 1 – Beyond Time and Space.

2. MULTIPLE WORLDS

This hope-instilling, but extremely controversial theory by Lanza has many unwitting supporters, not just mere mortals who want to live forever, but also some well-known scientists. These are the physicists and astrophysicists who tend to agree with existence of parallel worlds and who suggest the possibility of multiple universes. Multiverse (multi-universe) is a so-called scientific concept, which they defend. They believe that no physical laws exist which would prohibit the existence of parallel worlds.

The first one was a science fiction writer H.G. Wells who proclaimed in 1895 in his story “The Door in the Wall”. And after 62 years, this idea was developed by Dr. Hugh Everett in his graduate thesis at the Princeton University. It basically posits that at any given moment the universe divides into countless similar instances. And the next moment, these “newborn” universes split in a similar fashion. In some of these worlds you may be present: reading this article in one universe, or watching TV in another.

The triggering factor for these multiplying worlds is our actions, explained Everett. If we make some choices, instantly one universe splits into two with different versions of outcomes.

In the 1980s, Andrei Linde, scientist from the Lebedev’s Institute of physics, developed the theory of multiple universes. He is now a professor at Stanford University. Linde explained: Space consists of many inflating spheres, which give rise to similar spheres, and those, in turn, produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. In the universe, they are spaced apart. They are not aware of each other’s existence. But they represent parts of the same physical universe.

The fact that our universe is not alone is supported by data received from the Planck space telescope. Using the data, scientists have created the most accurate map of the microwave background, the so-called cosmic relic background radiation, which has remained since the inception of our universe. They also found that the universe has a lot of dark recesses represented by some holes and extensive gaps.

Theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton from the North Carolina University with her colleagues argue: the anomalies of the microwave background exist due to the fact that our universe is influenced by other universes existing nearby. And holes and gaps are a direct result of attacks on us by neighboring universes.

(Comment: The above sets the stage for what I often refer to as the Afterlife, my next home.)