The subconscious mind plays the lead role in the creation of insights—those moments when we have an Aha! experience; when we leap from the bath water, exclaiming, “Eureka!” Many of humanity’s breakthroughs in understanding followed an individual’s long period of puzzling over a problem, with no progress. Stuck. Then, following a period of relaxation or of mundane distraction (while the subconscious continued its background search), the answer popped into mind… as if on its own.
Newton, Einstein, and numberless other scientists had such sudden insights. Many saints on the spiritual path experienced similar breakthroughs about ultimate truths. Sophisticated brain research is showing that the subconscious literally creates the insight—as it searches diligently and patiently around the brain. Suddenly the symphonic answer comes blasting forth in one glorious trumpet blare.
What is curious about the insight process is that when it comes, there is no doubt but that it’s true. The person having the “Aha” experience is certain the problem is solved. The answer is there. It is simple, elegant, and right. (Note: this is very different from answers we get by self conscious analysis. We may reach a solution that way, but we know that it requires thorough checking out, before we’re really sure it’s right.).
The other curious thing is that the “Aha” solution cannot be forced; it cannot be arrived at by a purely intellectual effort. We cannot will the insight to come—it’s as if it’s somewhere in there, waiting to be discovered, but we must let go and open up to it. It is readily available to us, but it will not be manipulated or ordered around. In fact, if we try to bull our way through it, a mental block will be met. It’s fully within our reach, but not under our self control. It’s now in the possession of our subconscious mind which is the true genius of these amazing Aha experiences.
Jennifer,
If you like to do this editing,it can be done on “Flow Insights” where you are listed as an author….if you would like the e-mail address of the above comment,I would gladly send it to you.
Sid
Sorry……..I put my email address where I was supposed to put my name on above comment.
Incredibly brilliant piece!!! I have so much to say. I wish I could copy and paste this and interject my thoughts next to your text with a different color ink (clearly separating my thoughts/comments within yours). This piece was so well thought out and executed I need to reread again and again to truly absorb it. I need to pour it into a glass, swirl it around and treat it as if I am sampling the finest of wines.
Thank you so much for sharing this.
IF GOD IS IN THE BRAIN ONLY, THEN RELATIVITY THEORY DOES NOT
MAKE ANY SENSE
Today’s scientists are like religious gurus of earlier times. Whatever they say are accepted as divine truths by lay public as well as the philosophers. When mystics have said that time is unreal, nobody has paid any heed to them. Rather there were some violent reactions against it from eminent philosophers. Richard M. Gale has said that if time is unreal, then 1) there are no temporal facts, 2) nothing is past, present or future and 3) nothing is earlier or later than anything else (Book: The philosophy of time, 1962). Bertrand Russell has also said something similar to that. But he went so far as to say that science, prudence, hope effort, morality-everything becomes meaningless if we accept the view that time is unreal (Mysticism, Book: religion and science, 1961).
But when scientists have shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal, these same philosophers have simply kept mum. Here also they could have raised their voice of protest. They could have said something like this: “What is your purpose here? Are you trying to popularize mystical world-view amongst us? If not, then why are you wasting your valuable time, money, and energy by explaining to us as to how time can become unreal? Are you mad?” Had they reacted like this, then that would have been consistent with their earlier outbursts. But they had not. This clearly indicates that a blind faith in science is working here. If mystics were mistaken in saying that time is unreal, then why is the same mistake being repeated by the scientists? Why are they now saying that there is no real division of time as past, present and future in the actual world? If there is no such division of time, then is time real, or, unreal? When his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, Einstein wrote in a letter to his widow that “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Another scientist Paul Davies has also written in one of his books that time does not pass and that there is no such thing as past, present and future (Other Worlds, 1980). Is this very recent statement made by a scientist that “time does not pass” anything different from the much earlier statement made by the mystics that “time is unreal”?
Now some scientists are trying to establish that mystics did not get their sense of spacelessness, timelessness through their meeting with a real divine being. Rather they got this sense from their own brain. But these scientists have forgotten one thing. They have forgotten that scientists are only concerned with the actual world, not with what some fools and idiots might have uttered while they were in deep trance. So if they at all explain as to how something can be timeless, then they will do so not because the parietal lobe of these mystics’ brain was almost completely shut down when they received their sense of timelessness, but because, and only because, there was, or, there was and still is, a timeless state in this universe.
God is said to be spaceless, timeless. If someone now says that God does not exist, then the sentence “God is said to be spaceless, timeless” (S) can have three different meanings. S can mean:
a) Nothing was/is spaceless, timeless in this universe (A),
b) Not God, but someone else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (B),
c) Not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (C).
It can be shown that if it is true that God does not exist, and if S is also true, then S can only mean C, but neither A nor B. If S means A, then the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” become two meaningless words, because by these two words we cannot indicate anyone or anything, simply because in this universe never there was, is, and will be, anyone or anything that could be properly called spaceless, timeless. Now the very big question is: how can some scientists find meaning and significance in a word like “timeless” that has got no meaning and significance in the real world? If nothing was timeless in the past, then time was not unreal in the past. If nothing is timeless at present, then time is not unreal at present. If nothing will be timeless in future, then time will not be unreal in future. If in this universe time was never unreal, if it is not now, and if it will never be, then why was it necessary for them to show as to how time could be unreal? If nothing was/is/will be timeless, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anything can be timeless. If no one in this universe is immortal, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anyone can be immortal. Simply, these are none of their business. So, what compelling reason was there behind their action here? If we cannot find any such compelling reason here, then we will be forced to conclude that scientists are involved in some useless activities here that have got no correspondence whatsoever with the actual world, and thus we lose complete faith in science. Therefore we cannot accept A as the proper meaning of S, as this will reduce some activities of the scientists to simply useless activities.
Now can we accept B as the proper meaning of S? No, we cannot. Because there is no real difference in meaning between this sentence and S. Here one supernatural being has been merely replaced by another supernatural being. So, if S is true, then it can only mean that not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless. Now, what is this “something else” (SE)? Is it still in the universe? Or, was it in the past? Here there are two possibilities:
a) In the past there was something in this universe that was spaceless, timeless,
b) That spaceless, timeless thing (STT) is still there.
We know that the second possibility will not be acceptable to atheists and scientists. So we will proceed with the first one. If STT was in the past, then was it in the very recent past? Or, was it in the universe billions and billions of years ago? Was only a tiny portion of the universe in spaceless, timeless condition? Or, was the whole universe in that condition? Modern science tells us that before the big bang that took place 13.7 billion years ago there was neither space, nor time. Space and time came into being along with the big bang only. So we can say that before the big bang this universe was in a spaceless, timeless state. So it may be that this is the STT. Is this STT then that SE of which mystics spoke when they said that God is spaceless, timeless? But this STT cannot be SE for several reasons. Because it was there 13.7 billion years ago. And man has appeared on earth only 2 to 3 million years ago. And mystical literatures are at the most 2500 years old, if not even less than that. So, if we now say that STT is SE, then we will have to admit that mystics have somehow come to know that almost 13.7 billion years ago this universe was in a spaceless, timeless condition, which is unbelievable. Therefore we cannot accept that STT is SE. The only other alternative is that this SE was not in the external world at all. As scientist Victor J. Stenger has said, so we can also say that this SE was in mystics’ head only. But if SE was in mystics’ head only, then why was it not kept buried there? Why was it necessary for the scientists to drag it in the outside world, and then to show as to how a state of timelessness could be reached? If mystics’ sense of timelessness was in no way connected with the external world, then how will one justify scientists’ action here? Did these scientists think that the inside portion of the mystics’ head is the real world? And so, when these mystics got their sense of timelessness from their head only and not from any other external source, then that should only be construed as a state of timelessness in the real world? And therefore, as scientists they were obliged to show as to how that state could be reached?
We can conclude this essay with the following observations: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then SE cannot be in the external world. Because in that case mystics’ sense of spacelessness, timelessness will have a correspondence with some external fact, and therefore it will no longer remain a hallucination. But if SE is in mystics’ head only, then that will also create a severe problem. Because in that case we are admitting that the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists. That is why when mystics get their sense of timelessness from their brain, that sense is treated by these scientists as a state of timelessness in the real world, and accordingly they proceed to explain as to how that state can be reached. And we end up this essay with this absurd statement: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists.
It is true; Unconditional love is felt very differently than love that can be changed and altered by outside influences. Unconditional love is a powerful force and I can’t imagine it coming from the left brain at all. I do believe the heart does dominate unconditional love and the right brain has a direct connection to the heart.
I have a lot of deep thoughts on the subject of love and have written many many poems on it. I feel compelled to delve into it.
Jen…the right brain may have a direct connection to the heart…it is the emotional/feeling side of the brain.
And I would rather think of the right brain as the source of unconditional love while the left side is very conditional.
The intelligence of God and or the universe may be interpreted by our brain but I do believe the presence of God and love lies in our hearts. I don’t mean that metaphoricaly either. I believe the actual heart is the center of pure love and God.
Not so sure God is in the brain at all Sid. I kinda like to believe he is in our hearts. And yes, we should always strive towards harmony. You have my agreement there.
Jen,
“God is mass of energy….not a person.”
And that energy exist primarily for us in the right brain while the energy of the left brain is generally out of harmony with it…our aim should be finding a way to regain this harmony.
Yes i do feel that we recieve energy/insight from the universe/God but it is our biological system that calibrates it to our sences and hence understanding. other life in other universes pick up the same energy but maybe different frequencies and translate it through their unique system. We would not understand their language..they may not understand ours. we both may have a different set of senses so how could we interpret the intellegence the same.
Sid when we think human and earth we think very small. so when we think energy/intellence from God or some matrix we must also realize that that communication to us is not in words or images but instead in energy. We as human have the adapter (right brain) to translate the intellect of the universe to the language of our spieces. God is mass of energy….not a person. It would be an insult to say he has a consistant form.
Jen,
Is our brain similar to a radio capable of picking up many messages from the environment and the left brain selects the station ?…unfortunately it tends to stay on one station.
“If the mind is not bounded by our skin, do some insights arrive via some connection to the universal consciousness, or from God?”
Sid
I know this is true not because I have done research on it or because it sits right with me but because it has been my experience.
For some reason to which I am not sure of other than genetics(nature) and upbringing(nurture) I have ALWAYS been, not just aware of my right brain capabilities but consciously aware and connected to my right brain all the time. My left brain has learned to share the floor, sort of speak with my right brain since I was a baby. My left brain was never given the leverage to become completely dominant. Because of this, I have great insight to what others learn by research. I don’t look at it as me having greater intellegence or that I am above any one with a lesser right brain functioning ability. I just feel more aware than most.
There is a, what I like to call “a master mind” or “universal mind” an energy that can be drawn from, that is not available in our biological brain but instead is interpreted through our brain and our experiences. It’s not just lose information. It is energy that goes through as energy and then read through us like a code. The left brain is part of the process. Though it does come in through the right brain it must pass through areas of our left brain to acclaimate it to our human world and human grasp of understanding. For example; This insight that is recieved is only as good as our unique human gifts to translate. So what might be identical creative energy, it will take it’s form of creation based on the particular human brain construct that is decoding it to fit their unique brain structure. The pure energy from the universe is open to creation, advanced creation and creative creation. It has the possibiliy to be molded into anything based on free will.It is an awareness/understanding/intellegence that we tap into. It is not yet decided until we, the human mold it with our own biological brain, our own imagination, our earthly developed awareness and experience to our selves and environment(immediate, distant..vast and small, our thoughts, our expressions, our personalities and our perceptions and experiences and even our culture and education) All these things are the variable that is added to the equation of interpretation of outside rightbrain receptive energy/intellegence/awareness. When you feel this insight pop into your head, it already went through you left brain. It entered first unconciously….probably traveled through the subconcious and ultimaltely expressed through the 5 senses conciously. One might say this intelligent energy is a blue print up for interpretation with advanced intelligence tooled with it but ‘nothing’ tangable until it is encoded and decoded through our rightbrain to our left brain for its end product. Albert Einstein could draw from the universal intellegence information that he could interpret academically…mathematically because his biological brain had that pathway available and powerfully receptive to that energy as well as that particular decoding skill…and so on. We as humans are far more complex and far more simple at the same time than the human mind can even imagine. we are set up/wired for our task…our role in the big picture. While in our human form we will never know how big that picture is and what we have contributed to it. What we can be sure of is that we are not puppets or robots and we do create as we go…..whether it be illusion or reality we are choosing the outcome. This I know for sure.