Select Page


  1. Karin Burke

    Loved your article… where does it stand with Aristotle’s the whole is greater than the sum of its parts ? … or when we transpose the words…. the sum of its parts is greater than the whole… it garners more meaning… more clues ?

    Is the whole just a dimension, a visible and experiential representation of the sum of all parts? both parts of the objective and the the subjective I/Me ? ….

    Can it indicate that there is another or other dimensional influence/s ? … creation a sense of more to our consciousness…. that we liken to the spirit …. the soul ?

    Remember our empathic connection to others, how we can sense a presence of another at a distance before they com in our vision… even mild evidence of telepathic connections when strong emotions are involved… of thinking of each other at the same time, knowing when a loved one is injured even when it happens thousands of miles away… when thoughts, energetic memories of the other appear to be influencing our responses… our perceptions… These speak of other senses other than taste or smell… or vision…

    • Aravinda Korala

      Hello Karin,

      Thanks for the nice words and thanks for the comment.

      To be honest I did not get very far with reading Aristotle. I will try and research a bit and see whether I can respond to your questions.

      On telepathy, I am a sceptic I am afraid, so I do not think there is a phenomenon there to be explained. But again I will research it a bit.

      Thanks again.


    Dear Mr Aravinda
    First, your idea is superb and probably the closest to the TRUTH. I am an Interventional Cardiologist from India with a deep interest in the workings of that greatest thing in the universe, the Human Mind . I had spent quite a lot of years into understanding the workings of this mind, esp. with focus on consciousness and had been dismayed at the varied ideas, opinions and thoughts. The Sandhya, Yoga and Advaita philosophies got in the concept of Atman (soul) or Ishwara or Brahman, as totally contributing to the Consciousness or Being Consciousness itself. But there was no logical or rational proof but simplistic assumption of this as the only way to explain the presence of SOMEONE OR SOMETHING THAT IS OBSERVING OR WITNESSING EVERYTHING WITHOUT ITSELF BEING SUBJECTED TO ANY CHANGE. The alternative and the right explanation should have been to include THIS WITNESSING to be one more wonderful faculty of the evolved human mind, like phenomenal memory, extraordinary imagination, modeling, prediction etc. This more scientific explanation ( so much of work in the fields of consciousness over the last 5 decades) would totally take away the need for that SOMETHING ELSE AS THE UNITARY OBSERVER. I had come to certain somewhat similar conclusions as to what Consciousness is but am totally amazed at your way of putting it across so well. I have never come across such a succinct representation of what consciousness is and can only marvel at your ending line: I model, therefore I am!


      Sankhya (not Sandhya)

      • Aravinda Korala

        Thanks. 🙂

    • Aravinda Korala

      Thank you Dr Reddy. I appreciate your feedback very much.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *