The Buddha was a scientist. Instead of using a microscope or a particle accelerator, the Buddha used ESP. He had several psychic powers that allowed him to perceive in detail the psychology of karma, the evolution of consciousness, and subatomic particles. He discovered love and self-love to be organizing principles that evolved early in the history of intelligent consciousness, especially with regard to feelings and emotions. Every person has the deepest need to love and be loved. He solved the mind-body problem by perceiving the physical basis of intelligent consciousness. These psychic powers are acknowledged in Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, but extremely few people have them. This book is essentially a meditation report written by someone who has them. While this sounds like an invitation to return this book to the shelf in a bookstore, it also documents in depth another report by a physicist, Stephen Phillips, who relates in comprehensive detail the relationship between modern superstring theory and extrasensory observation of the elements of the periodic table by Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater of the Theosophical Society. This strong connection between modern physics and psychic powers of the Buddha is a real challenge to both the modern scientist and the modern Buddhist.
Extraordinary science, according to Thomas Kuhn, is about the unexpected in science. While it eventually generates a new paradigm, it often starts out with an unexplained fact. The problem for the scientific community is how to deal with unexpected facts in a truly scientific manner. Sometimes we have to wait for a genius to come along and fix the problem. This book is about an extraordinary fact established by Stephen Phillips about a correlation between known facts about the elements of the periodic table and the clairvoyant observations made by Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater who claimed to be able to "see" atoms. You are not asked to believe this seemingly bizarre fact. No. Instead, you are asked consider how the scientific community should deal with it. Obviously, the correlation should be examined to see if it is reasonable. You can do that by reading Phillips' book. But what if the correlation turns out to be "reasonable?" What then? Do we take a "what-if-it-is-true" approach and look for more evidence that it is valid or invalid? Do we look at the paradigm suggested by Phillips? You decide and post your answer on my blog, if you wish.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.