Electromagnetism and Consciousness
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
1) Could consciousness be a fundamental field?
What “fundamental field” means
In Quantum Field Theory, a fundamental field:
Exists everywhere in the universe
Has its own equations
Has quantized excitations (like photons for the electromagnetic field)
Is not made of anything more basic
Examples:
Electromagnetic field
Electron field
Higgs field
Mainstream scientific view
Right now, physics does not treat consciousness as a fundamental field.
Instead, it is studied in:
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
👉 Consciousness is considered an emergent property of brain activity.
Why it’s not considered a field (yet)
No measurable “consciousness field”
No detector has ever measured it
No equations describe it like electromagnetism
No particles
Electromagnetic field → photons
Consciousness → no known “quanta”
Depends on biological structure
Damage the brain → consciousness changes
That suggests it arises from matter, not independently
Speculative ideas (not established physics)
Some thinkers have proposed deeper roles:
(A) Consciousness as fundamental
Sometimes linked to Panpsychism
Idea: consciousness is a basic feature of reality
(B) Quantum consciousness theories
Associated with Roger Penrose
Suggest quantum processes in the brain might be important
👉 Problem:
Brain is warm and noisy → Quantum Decoherence destroys quantum coherence very fast
No solid experimental confirmation
Could it still be discovered later?
Yes—but it would require:
New measurable effects
Predictive equations
Experimental verification
👉 Until then, it’s philosophy, not physics.
2) Is consciousness related to electromagnetism?
Yes (indirectly)
Brain activity depends on electromagnetism:
Neurons send electrical signals
These create electric and magnetic fields
But:
👉 These are ordinary electromagnetic processes, not a special “consciousness field”
Why EM ≠ consciousness
Because:
A computer chip also uses electromagnetism
Lightning uses electromagnetism
Neither is conscious
👉 So electromagnetism is necessary but not sufficient
3) Neuron excitation vs photon excitation
This is the core of your question.
Photon excitation
A photon (in Electromagnetism):
Is a single quantum event
Has:
Exact energy (E = h\nu)
No internal structure
Is described by simple, precise equations
👉 Clean, fundamental, minimal
Neuron “excitation”
A neuron firing involves:
Ion movement (Na⁺, K⁺)
Voltage changes across membranes
Neurotransmitter release
Network interactions with thousands of other neurons
👉 It is:
Macroscopic
Messy
Highly nonlinear
Key differences
1) Scale
Photon → smallest quantum level
Neuron → huge biological structure
2) Complexity
Photon → simple (few variables)
Brain activity → billions of interacting units
3) Stability
Photon → stable quantum state
Brain → rapidly changing, noisy system
4) Meaning
Photon → carries energy/momentum
Neuron activity → participates in information processing
5) Emergence
This is the most important point:
👉 A single neuron firing ≠ emotion
👉 Emotion = pattern across large neural networks
4) Why neuron activity creates emotions but photons don’t
Because of organization and information.
Think of:
A single transistor → nothing meaningful
Billions of transistors arranged properly → computer → software → meaning
Similarly:
Single neuron → simple signal
Brain network → patterns → memory → perception → emotion
5) Deep intuition
Photon excitation = a single ripple in a fundamental field
Brain excitation = a vast, coordinated storm of activity encoding information
Final takeaway
👉 Consciousness is not currently a known fundamental field; it is best understood as an emergent phenomenon built from complex electromagnetic and biochemical activity in the brain.
👉 A photon’s excitation is simple and fundamental, while neuron “excitation” is complex, large-scale, and only meaningful when organized into patterns across the brain.
If you want to go further, we can explore a very deep question:
What exactly turns brain activity into subjective experience (the “hard problem” of consciousness)?
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Electromagnetic (EM) field theories of consciousness propose that conscious experience is not just neuronal firing, but the integrated electromagnetic field generated by the brain. This theory argues that consciousness arises from the brain's EM field (detectable by EEG/MEG) acting as a unified information substrate, rather than fragmented neuronal signals. The Theory (CEMI): Proposed by thinkers like Susan Pockett and Johnjoe McFadden (Conscious Electromagnetic Information - CEMI field theory), it suggests that while neurons handle computational tasks, the experience of consciousness occurs in the brain's electromagnetic field.: EM fields naturally integrate information across the brain because of constructive interference, solving the "binding problem"—how disjointed sensory inputs become a single, unified experience. This view positions consciousness as a form of energy (material, yet not solid matter) rather than just a process of discrete neuronal firing.The best-known neuronal correlate of consciousness is the synchronous firing of neurons, which directly produces stronger, more coherent electromagnetic fields, aligning with this theory. While gaining traction, it remains a controversial, minority view in mainstream neuroscience, which usually focuses on synaptic connectivity as the primary substrate.
MacIver's paper, “Consciousness and Inward Electromagnetic Field Interactions,” provides insights into how electromagnetic fields generated by neuronal membranes might be crucial for consciousness. The paper addresses early criticisms of EM field theories and explores the use of non-linear dynamic analyses of EEG recordings to track consciousness levels. MacIver proposes an inward view of EMF energy “clouds,” suggesting that EM fields focused inward to the brain could provide stronger ephaptic connections to neural circuits and thus be causal, contrary to early critiques of EM field theories. This paper is significant for the Research Topic as it supports the idea that EM fields likely play a key role in mind-brain integration, and offers a new perspective on interpreting EEG data in the context of consciousness.
Keppler's paper, “Building blocks for the development of a self-consistent electromagnetic field theory of consciousness,” aims to assemble the foundational elements for creating a fundamental electromagnetic field theory of consciousness. It emphasizes the quantum electrodynamics vacuum state as a vibrant energy source, termed the zero-point field (ZPF), which is central to all electromagnetic phenomena. The paper theorizes that the brain functions as a resonant oscillator, selectively coupling to specific ZPF modes to compose specific phenomenal states. This theory posits consciousness as a result of the brain's interaction with ZPF modes, highlighting the significance of neurotransmitter-ZPF interactions for future research.
Young, Robbins et al.'s paper, “From micro to macro: the combination of consciousness,” explores the concept of consciousness extending beyond the individual to a collective level. It examines the synchronization of neuronally generated EM fields between individuals, proposing a model where individual agents may merge into a hierarchical cognitive system. The paper utilizes the axioms and conjectures of General Resonance Theory to describe this phenomenon of interpersonal resonant combination, suggesting that synchronized EM fields through behavioral interactions can optimize information flow and alter the conscious states of the agents involved. This research extends EM field approaches by proposing a physical basis for “group consciousness” and its empirical investigation.
Kitchener and Hales' paper, “What neuroscientists think, and don't think, about consciousness,” discusses the prevailing approach of neuroscientists toward consciousness, primarily focusing on its generation and characteristics, without a consensus on its underlying mechanism. It emphasizes the integral role of neurons and electromagnetic fields in brain functioning, underscoring the complexity of electromagnetic phenomena from the atomic level upwards in the brain. This research adds to the EM field theories of consciousness by highlighting the fundamental physics of neurons and glial cells in the brain, suggesting that a deeper investigation into the electromagnetic fields at the cellular scale could offer insights into the mechanisms of consciousness.
Winters' paper, “The temporally-integrated causality landscape: reconciling neuroscientific theories with the phenomenology of consciousness,” presents the Temporally-Integrated Causality Landscape (TICL) as a framework to understand consciousness. It compares and contrasts TICL with other neuroscientific theories like Integrated Information Theory, GRT, and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, emphasizing the importance of electromagnetic forces in neural causality. The paper contributes to the electromagnetic field theories of consciousness by exploring the spatial-temporal dynamics of brain activity and their relation to conscious experiences, proposing a more comprehensive approach to understanding consciousness in neurological terms.
The Young, Hunt et al. paper, “The slowest shared resonance: a review of electromagnetic field oscillations between central and peripheral nervous systems,” examines the role of EM field oscillations in both central and peripheral nervous systems. It explores the principle of the Slowest Shared Resonance (SSR) within GRT, positing that consciousness arises from the combination of micro- to macro-consciousness in coupled field systems, determined by the slowest common denominator frequency. This paper contributes to the Research Topic by suggesting a spatiotemporal hierarchy of brain-body shared resonance systems and supports the principle of SSR within EM field theories of consciousness.
Hales and Ericson's paper, “Electromagnetism's bridge across the explanatory gap: how a neuroscience/physics collaboration delivers explanation into all theories of consciousness,” focuses on integrating neuroscience and fundamental physics to address the “explanatory gap” in consciousness research. It argues that the brain, as an electromagnetic field object, can be understood through the standard model of particle physics, suggesting that all theories of consciousness are essentially interpretations of specific EM field behaviors in brain tissue. This interdisciplinary approach aims to provide a unified explanation applicable to all theories of consciousness, exploring how subjectivity might emerge from electromagnetic fields.
Ward and Guevara's paper, “Qualia and phenomenal consciousness arise from the information structure of an electromagnetic field in the brain,” explores the physical substrate for subjective, phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness). It proposes that the electromagnetic (EM) field generated by the brain's electrical charges serves as this substrate. The paper posits that a part of the thalamus in mammals generates this critical EM field, which is structured by emulating information from external and internal sources, forming the basis of qualia experienced in P-consciousness. This research contributes to EM field theories by suggesting how the brain's EM fields may structure the experience of consciousness.
Bond's paper, “The contribution of coherence field theory to a model of consciousness,” delves into the emerging paradigm in neuroscience that views resonance as central to consciousness. It discusses the role of oscillating flows within the brain's electric field in producing mind from matter and explores how vibrations in nanoscale atomic structures and photonic waves may contribute to consciousness. The paper touches on the “binding problem” in consciousness theory, questioning how trillions of atoms and billions of cells integrate to produce a unified medium of awareness. Bond also investigates how EM fields within neurons influence signal transmission, surpassing explanations based solely on ion diffusion. The paper's relevance lies in its exploration of how light interactions with biological systems and internal EM fields in the brain could contribute to consciousness, aligning with the Research Topic's focus on EM fields.
Hunt and Jones “Fields or firings? Comparing the spike code and the electromagnetic field hypothesis,” proposes that EM fields, from the local to the global, may be the primary seat of consciousness in the brain. It contrasts this hypothesis with the conventional spike code approach that focuses on synaptic firing as the basis for consciousness. The paper posits that while neurons and synaptic transmissions are necessary for consciousness, they are not sufficient to explain its complexity. It argues that consciousness arises from the intricate interplay between neuronal activities and EM fields, suggesting that these fields, rather than being epiphenomenal, play a central role in the emergence and unification of conscious cognition. The authors highlight the importance of EM fields in various cognitive processes, including memory and perception, and call for further research in this area. They present various sources of evidence that oscillating neural EM fields may make firing in neural circuits oscillate, and these oscillating circuits may help unify and guide conscious cognition.
“Consciousness: Meat or EMF?” by McFadden challenges conventional theories of consciousness that rely on the brain's neuronal matter, proposing instead that the substrate of consciousness is the brain's electromagnetic field. The paper critiques existing theories, showing how EM field theories provide novel insights into consciousness and potentially offer a route toward building artificial consciousness. It distinguishes between intelligence and consciousness, arguing that EM theories account for the emergence of consciousness through natural selection and the brain's neural activity. This paper contributes significantly to the Research Topic by offering a comprehensive examination of EM theories against established criteria and by discussing the evolutionary aspects of consciousness in relation to electromagnetic fields.
“Electromagnetic-field theories of qualia: can they improve upon standard neuroscience?” by Jones and Hunt, explores the potential of EM field theories in explaining qualia, the subjective aspects of consciousness like colors, pains, and emotions, which have been challenging for standard neuroscience to fully account for. The authors review various EM field theories of qualia of how our various qualia arise, assessing their strengths and weaknesses, and contrasting them with traditional synaptic neuroscience approaches. They focus on three key problems: identifying neural correlates of the various qualia, integrating qualia into a unified perceptual experience, and addressing the “hard problem” of consciousness, namely the metaphysical relationship between neural events and qualia. The paper suggests that EM field theories, while still in development, could offer promising avenues for better understanding consciousness and qualia, potentially improving upon the explanations provided by standard neuroscience.
Lacalli's paper, “Consciousness and its hard problems: separating the ontological from the evolutionary,” focuses on the role of evolution in theories of consciousness. It introduces the concept of a “consciousness machine” to explore how ontology and evolution contribute to consciousness. The paper examines whether consciousness originates from electromagnetic field effects or neural connectivity and information flow. It also discusses the evolution of consciousness and agency, suggesting that agency might be more a developmental than evolutionary process. The paper explores the emergence of consciousness and behavior links, suggesting a divide between phenomenal experience and agency in developmental and evolutionary timescales. The author concludes that understanding consciousness involves both easy problems, like the neurocircuitry innovations for consciousness, and hard problems, like the ontological basis of subjective experience.
The final paper, Gómez-Emilsson and Percy “Don't forget the boundary problem! How EM field topology can address the overlooked cousin to the binding problem for consciousness,” explores the “boundary problem” in theories of consciousness, an issue often overshadowed by the more widely discussed binding problem. The authors propose that EM field topology could be a key to understanding how distinct boundaries of consciousness are formed. They argue that while existing theories focus on how various experiences are unified into a single first-person perspective (the binding problem), they often neglect the question of why these unified experiences have specific spatial and temporal boundaries (the boundary problem). By examining EM field theories, the paper suggests that topological segmentation within EM fields could conceptually and empirically address this boundary problem, offering a novel perspective in consciousness studies.
In addition to these models, several other researchers have proposed variations on the idea that electromagnetic fields are integral to consciousness. For example, some theories posit that electromagnetic fields can serve as a form of long-range communication within the brain, enabling different regions to synchronize their activity and coordinate the emergence of conscious states. These theories emphasize the importance of neural synchrony and the global integration of information in the brain, which is thought to be facilitated by the electromagnetic fields generated by neural oscillations. Methodology These theories suggest that the brain's electromagnetic fields act as a medium for integrating the diverse activities of individual neurons and neural circuits, leading to the emergence of a unified conscious experience. One of the key aspects of electromagnetic field theories is the role of synchronization in brain activity. For instance, the gamma oscillations observed in EEG recordings are thought to reflect synchronized neural firing, which may be crucial for binding information across different sensory modalities and higher cognitive functions. This synchronization is thought to be mediated by the electromagnetic fields generated by neural activity, which can facilitate long-range communication within the brain. According to some electromagnetic field models, the collective behavior of neurons, as mediated by the electromagnetic fields, gives rise to conscious awareness by allowing for the integration of information across different brain regions. The Orch-OR model provides a unique perspective by incorporating quantum mechanics into the discussion of consciousness. By positing that quantum states in microtubules within neurons are involved in consciousness, this model suggests that the brain’s electromagnetic fields might be the means by which
quantum processes are orchestrated to produce conscious experience. While this hypothesis remains highly speculative, it offers an exciting avenue for further exploration into the nature of consciousness and its potential quantum underpinnings. Despite the promise of electromagnetic field theories, there are several challenges to their widespread acceptance. One concern is the difficulty of empirically testing these theories, particularly in relation to quantum processes that occur at the microscopic scale of individual neurons. While advances in neuroimaging have allowed for the visualization of brain activity at the macroscopic level, it remains unclear how quantum effects might influence this activity or contribute to consciousness. Additionally, while there is evidence linking synchronized neural oscillations with conscious experience, it is still uncertain whether these oscillations are necessary for consciousness or simply correlate with it. Another challenge is the issue of how to account for the subjective nature of consciousness. Electromagnetic field theories of consciousness, like other models, must ultimately explain not only the neural and physical processes that give rise to consciousness but also the subjective experience of being aware.
Hence AS ON DATE IT IS DOUBTFUL THEORY. CONSCIOUSNESS AS DEFINED IN VEDANTHA: According to Advaita Vedanta, these different categories of consciousness are classified as absolute consciousness (brahma-caitanya), cosmic consciousness (īśvara-caitanya), individual consciousness (jīva-caitanya), and indwelling consciousness (sāksi-caitanya). However, all these distinctions are due to limiting adjuncts (upādhis) and are not intrinsic to the true nature of consciousness, which is by itself one and non-dual. Advaita Vedanta says that there is a substratum of this universe, even finer than energy (prāna), called brahma-caitanya. The very nature of this substratum is sat-cit-ānanda: absolute existence (sat), pure consciousness (cit), and bliss (ānanda). In other words, pure being is Self-aware and is of the nature of pure conscious-ness and bliss, or ‘loving consciousnesses.From the ultimate standpoint, absolute consciousness did not become this world; it only appears to have done so. Shankara gave the classic example of the snake and the rope:We see a snake on the road at night, but as we approach the snake and flash a torch on it, we realize that it is actually a rope.This snake-universe is a superimposition upon the rope-Brahman. There is no more causal relationship between this world-appearance and Brahman than there is between the snake and the rope. However, the universe has no existence apart from Brahman, just as the snake has no existence apart from the rope.
This level of realization stems from a great Upanishadic truth: ‘From pure consciousness, which is of the nature of absolute bliss, all beings arise, by it are they sustained, and it they reenter at death.’ For those of us who possess ordinary human consciousness, however, only the world-appearance of name and form is manifest to the mind and senses. In our ignorance, we see the cat, not Brahman.
The second type of consciousness in Advaita Vedanta is called īśvara-caitanya, or Brahman united with maya as the Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer of this universe. With the purpose of explaining what īśvara-caitanya is, Brahman may be called the ultimate cause of the universe because, due to maya, the world-appearance is superimposed upon it. But Brahman can neither transform itself into the world nor create it, since that which is absolute reality, by definition, must transcend action and change. Therefore, Vedanta introduces the creative principle of Ishvara—Brahman united with maya—to explain the process of this universe’s creation, preservation, and dissolution, which is without beginning and without end. Ishvara is God with attributes. The personal God, according to Swami Vivekananda, is the highest reading of the Absolute by the human mind.
‘Are there two Gods then,’ we may ask, ‘one absolute and one personal?’ ‘No,’ Vedanta says, ‘Brahman appears as Ishvara when viewed through maya.’ ‘But,’ we persist, ‘what then is the difference between Ishvara and an ordinary human being?’ According to Vedanta, Ishvara is the wielder of maya—all-free, all-powerful, and all-knowing—whereas human beings are subject to maya because their freedom, power, and knowledge are limited. Human beings can become one with Ishvara, but they can never be individually the same as Ishvara.
This brings us to the third type of consciousness in Vedanta: human consciousness, or jīva-caitanya. The superimposition of the ego-idea upon pure consciousness is the individual’s first plunge into the whirlpool of maya. Vedanta says that the lie of separateness—the claim that ‘I am I (the lower I)’—is the initial act that produces the chain reaction of further superimposition and entanglement. Considering ourselves ‘individuals’ implies considering everything as ‘individual’. This attitude inexorably superimposes a world of multiplicity upon the one, undivided reality.
Initially, the ego-idea identifies itself with the body and mind, and with their attributes and actions. Instinctively we say: ‘I am young’, ‘I am short’, or ‘I am talking’. As the ego-idea reaches further out to claim external objects and conditions as its own, we find ourselves thinking and saying such things as: ‘I am an American’, or This property is mine’. As our superimpositions multiply, so do our extraordinary personal claims, such as ‘We are sending troops to the Balkans’, or ‘I carry health insurance’. Thus, the human ego continues to enlarge itself until it becomes identified with every known object in its universe, while the higher Self remains the detached witness to all these foolish shenanigans. At the same time, the Self makes them all possible by providing the mind with the light of consciousness, without which maya could not exist. In short, it is due to maya that we become identified with a psychophysical being—the shadow of our real Self.
‘Who am I?’ we may then ask. ‘What is my real nature? Like the world around me, am I a mixture of Brahman and maya—the real and the apparent, divine and human consciousness, Atman and jīva-caitanya?’ A passage in the Mundaka Upanishad describes the relationship of our true Self with the empirical self (jīva-caitanya):
Like two birds of golden plumage, inseparable companions, the individual self and the immortal Self are perched on the branches of the self-same tree. The former tastes of the sweet and bitter fruits of the tree; the latter, tasting of neither, calmly observes.
The individual self, deluded by forgetfulness of his identity with the divine Self, bewildered by his ego, grieves and is sad. But when he recognizes the worshipful Lord as his own true Self, and beholds His glory, he grieves no more. The state of one’s spiritual development does not matter; Vedanta upholds the real nature of every human being as the luminous Self, which is associated with the mind as the onlooker, or witness (sāksi-caitanya).
This brings us to the fourth type of consciousness in Advaita Vedanta, sāksi-caitanya. The witness-self transcends the changing states of the mind, neither suffering nor enjoying the mental and physical conditions of human existence. After realizing the witness-self, an aspirant returns to normal consciousness with a transformed mind. Such a soul perceives itself and the universe through a mind composed of finer matter. Like a sheet of glass, through which sunlight can pass unobstructed, the mind in this state allows the light of consciousness to reach the body and its organs unimpeded. As the witness, one perceives one’s Self to be distinct from the body and mind, which are clearly recognized as objects of perception. One knows, beyond doubt, that it is the self-luminous Atman that governs one’s entire psycho-physical being. In the mystical language of the Kena Upanishad, the Self is realized as ‘the Ear of the ear, Mind of the mind, Speech of the speech … [as] also Breath of the breath, and Eye of the eye.’ This witness-self is known as the ‘inner controller’ (antaryāmin), and is beautifully described in the Katha Upanishad as the rider within a chariot-body. The charioteer is the intellect (buddhi), and the reins are the mind—endowed with volition and emotion. The senses, say the wise, are the horses; the roads they travel are the mazes of desire. The wise call the Self the enjoyer, when he is united with the body, the senses, and the mind.
The subtle body is composed of the vital sheath (prānamaya kośa), mental sheath (manomaya kośa), and sheath of the intellect (vijñānamaya kośa). The vital sheath is the life force that operates the autonomic nervous system, thus controlling respiration (prāna), excretion (apāna), and digestion (samāna), and also various functions of the cerebro-spinal system such as exertion (vyāna) and growth. The vital sheath, moreover, mediates the soul’s departure from the body at the time of death (udāna). The manomaya kośa comprises the volitional, or deliberative mind, as well as the five organs of perception; whereas the vijñānamaya kośa (buddhi) is the cognitive or determinative mind, along with the five organs of perception.
Through the buddhi, or cognitive mind, all other faculties of the mind, whether volitional or emotional, receive their light. However, as already mentioned, the buddhi simply permits the passage of the light of the witness-self (sāksin) and thus appears to be self-luminous. Vedanta claims that though the buddhi is located in the heart within a tiny space (ākāśa) ‘about the size of a thumb’, the witness-self dwells even deeper within our being, within the buddhi itself. Therefore, the buddhi—only one step away from the witness-self—is still identified with the non-Self and asserts itself as the knower and the doer within the mental and vital sheaths, and functions as the empirical self that reincarnates.
Human cognition exemplifies how the various mental faculties function together within the mental and intelligence sheaths. According to Vedanta, cognition is a fourfold operation. First, the deliberative faculty of the mind (manas) asks: ‘What is this object?’ The memory (citta) attempts to recall similar objects. Then, the determinative faculty (buddhi) is able to ascertain: ‘It is a desk.’ Finally, the sense of egoism (ahamkāra) makes the association: ‘I am sitting at the desk.’ Throughout the cognitive process, however—whether we know it or not—the light of the Self, shining through the buddhi to the organs of perception, reveals everything that we experience. William M Indich, in his book Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta, explains: ‘In visual perception, then, Brahman intelligence reflected in mind is extended out along the medium of the organ of vision, which Advaitins claim is the nature of light (tejas) … contacts an object, assumes its form, and reveals it as known.’
How, then, can we attain pure consciousness, the light of the Atman, by which we obtain the clearest perception of reality? Shankara, the Advaita Vedantin, prescribes the four traditional methods (sādhana catustaya) that, when perfected, mark the qualifications of a rsi:
discrimination between the eternal and non-eternal;
renunciation of the tendency towards sensual enjoyment;
cultivation of the six treasures (tranquility, self-control, mental poise, forbearance, faith, and self-surrender); and
desire for liberation. Though all four qualifications work together as methods for refining, stabilizing, and elevating one’s mind, for the sake of brevity, we will focus only on the first two.
Vedanta scriptures exhort aspirants to first hear the truth, then contemplate it, and finally meditate upon it (śravana, manana, and nididhyāsana). To incorporate this technique into spiritual practice, Swami Turiyananda, a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, once taught a young monastic how to study the Bhagavad-Gita: ‘Take one verse at a time, meditate on its meaning, and live the verse for a week before going on to the next verse.’[13] By studying an entire scripture in this way, an aspirant refines and deepens the faculty of introspection, imbibes the spiritual truth of the passage, and thus activates and sustains a spiritual current of thought throughout the day. By developing subtlety of mind, one unleashes the powers of the mind.
According to the Vedanta … Cit is pure consciousness Itself. Mind is a real or apparent negation or limitation or determination of that. Mind in fact, in itself, that is considered as apart from Cit (from which in fact it is never separate) is an unconscious force which in varying degree obscures and limits consciousness, such limitation being the condition of all finite experience. Cit is thus Consciousness. Mind is Consciousness plus Unconsciousness, the intermingled Consciousness- unconsciousness which we see in all finite being.
K RAJARAM IRS 2426
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "societyforservingseniors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHCL5yKQN0d_KZ4XF6fXDMY%2BTpq339-DEOSf7mHzYU%2BMrRA%40mail.gmail.com.
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Thank you for this fascinating paper.
----
On Facebook, please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/keralaiyerstrust
We are now on Telegram Mobile App also, please join
Pattars/Kerala Iyers Discussions: https://t.me/PattarsGroup
Kerala Iyers Trust Decisions only posts : https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrust
Kerala Iyers Trust Group for Discussions: https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrustGroup
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KeralaIyers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to keralaiyers...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CAL5XZoo_gLZWtJ%2Bj2T%2BQNrH42fgn3Ck01oFZMTDsKzCc8kueoQ%40mail.gmail.com.
On Facebook, please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/keralaiyerstrust
We are now on Telegram Mobile App also, please join
Pattars/Kerala Iyers Discussions: https://t.me/PattarsGroup
Kerala Iyers Trust Decisions only posts : https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrust
Kerala Iyers Trust Group for Discussions: https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrustGroup
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KeralaIyers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to keralaiyers...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CADLnUxgOuF7f2uKP32%2BAEhYacUvN4_iuRu%3DdndnXp%3D4LTaN92Q%40mail.gmail.com.