Myswizard

I tend to use terms that are sometimes familiar to the spiritual aspirant and sometimes not. There are words I use which I have become familiar with because of my teacher, Dr. David Hawkins, MD, PhD. Some of the words are in caps because of their reference to God, and some words are used within the practice of Devotional Nonduality and Dr. Hawkins’ teachings. I hope to make all of my readers familiar with these words, so I will list as many of them here as I can to familiarize you with them. There are words here that should be in the dictionary and others that will become recognizable as time and society move forward. Although I did not make this clear in my first book, “Journey of the Spirit,” I hope to make up for this error to my readers here.

Names of God
There are more names for God than perhaps any other thing in existence. I have my own terms, but any word that is in caps, and is not a proper noun, generally refers to God. These are some:
The Field, The Infinite Field, The Infinite Field of Intelligence, Divine Intelligence, Divinity, Divine Knowledge, The Akashic Records, The Divine Field of Intelligence, The Mind of God, Truth, Absolute Truth, Divine Truth, The All, The Light, Source, Divine Source, Absolute Source, The All That Ever Was or Will Be, The Infinite, The Everlasting, Universal Intelligence, Allness, Beingness, The Presence, The Presence of Divinity, Eternal Source, Electromagnetic Field, Divine
Creator, Source, Totality, Beingness.

LOC (Level of Consciousness)
I use the term, “level of consciousness” often and may from time to time abbreviate it with LOC. It refers to levels on the MAP (Map of Consciousness, Dr. David R. Hawkins, Power vs. Force)

MAP (Map of Consciousness)
One of the most important discoveries of the spiritual world. A Map of where everything is, at the level of consciousness. Complete studies are available within all of Dr. David R. Hawkins works. (See bibliography, Myswizard.com for a referential version, or Veritaspub.com)

Calibrations or Calibrate
This is in reference to the levels of human consciousness, on the MAP of Consciousness. It also refers to what level something calibrates at within its’ own frequency, such as an inanimate object, which in and of itself may not have “life” but may send off a vibratory quality which may be calibrated, such as a place, ideology or book.

Integrous
This word is used by Dr. Hawkins and I love it. It’s not in the dictionary, but should be. It simply means that which is ‘of” integrity. “ous” is an adjective suffix which means, possessing the qualities of. There may be other words from time to time that don’t have a corresponding adjective which “ous” may be added onto.

‘ness’
The state : condition : quality : degree. This may also be added to the end of words to describe that which otherwise is indescribable, such as “Beingness, Allness, and Knowingness. These words may have a direct connection to a description for God.

Consciousness
Consciousness is the Invisible, Infinite Energy Field of All That Exists.* It is omnipresent, omniscient, all encompassing, infinitely powerful, all-inclusive, limitless, and formless. It records all that has ever existed throughout time in both the material and the non-material realms of existence, with complete and Absolute potentiality. Because of the qualities of consciousness, it is capable of having calibratory levels of frequency or vibration. (See page 14 of Dr. Hawkins book, Truth vs. Falsehood for a ‘Summary of the Essential Principles of the Science of Consciousness.’)

Consciousness within the material world evolves as matter evolves. Within higher levels of sentience come forth the abilities to raise ones intrinsic level of consciousness. At the present time 1000 (Map of Consciousness, Consciousness Research) is the highest logarithmic level one can attain within a physicality. Divinity’s’ level of consciousness is Infinite, therefore, raising of ones level of consciousness higher than 1000, becomes possible within the non-physical realm.
*Caps are used to denote Divinity, which is The Source of consciousness

Pre-Kushana Ayagapatta from Mathura Jainism (pronounced in English as /ˈdʒeɪ.nɪzm̩/), traditionally known as Jain Dharma (जैन धर्म), is a religion and philosophy originating in the prehistory of South Asia. Now a minority in modern India with growing communities in the United States, Western Europe, Africa, the Far East and elsewhere, Jains have continued to sustain the ancient Shraman (श्रमण) or ascetic tradition.

Jainism has significantly influenced the religious, ethical, political and economic spheres in India for well over two millennia. Jainism stresses the spiritual independence and equality of all life with a particular emphasis on non-violence. Self-control (व्रत, vrata) is the means by which Jains attain moksha, Keval Gnan, or realization of the soul’s true nature.

A lay Jain is termed a shravak (श्रावक) i.e. a listener. The Jain Sangha (संघ), or order, has four components: monks (साधु), nuns, lay men and lay women.

Overview of Jain Dharma
Jain philosophy is considered a compilation of eternal, universal truths. Over a period of time, these truths may lapse among humanity and then reappear through the teachings of enlightened humans, those who have reached enlightenment or total knowledge (Keval Gnan). Traditionally,in our universe and in our time, Lord Rishabh (ऋषभ or रिषभ) is regarded as the first to realize those truths followed by Lord Parshva (877-777 BCE) and Lord Vardhaman Mahavir (महावीर) (599-527 BCE).

Jainism teaches that every living thing is an individual with an eternal soul, jīva, and responsible for its actions. This teaches the individual to live, think and act with respect and honor the spiritual nature of all life. Jains view God as the unchanging traits of the pure soul of each living being, chiefly described as Infinite Knowledge, Perception, Consciousness, and Happiness (Anant Jnän, Anant Darshan, Anant Chäritra, and Anant Sukh). Jainism does not include a belief in an omnipotent supreme being or creator, but rather in an eternal universe governed by natural laws, the interplay of the attributes (gunas) of matter (dravyas) that make it up.

The primary figures of Jainism are Tirthankars. Jainism has two main divisions: Digambar and Shvetambar. Both believe in ahimsa (or ahinsā), asceticism, karma, samsar, and jiva. Jain scriptures were written over a long period and the most cited scripture is the Tattvartha Sutra, or Book of Reality written by Umasvati (or Umasvami),the monk-scholar, more than 18 centuries ago.

Compassion for all living beings, along with humans, is central to Jainism. It is the only religion that requires both monks and laity, from all its sects and traditions, to be vegetarian. In regions of India with a strong Jain influence, often the majority of the local non Jain population is also vegetarian. In many towns, Jains run animal shelters, e.g. a bird hospital in Delhi is run by a Jain temple. Historians believe that various strains of Hinduism became vegetarian due to a strong Jainism and Buddhism influence.

Jain layman worshipping at the temple at Rankapur. Jain cleaning the temple at Ranakpur. When we speak or open our mouths, sometimes spittle sprays out. The mask over his face is to prevent spit droplets from landing on holy images or books. .Jainism’s stance on nonviolence, goes simply beyond vegetarianism. The orthodox Jain diet excludes most root vegetables, as they believe such vegetables have infinite individual souls, invisible to our eyes. Another reason for not eating roots is to avoid killing the plant. Jains will not eat food obtained with unnecessary cruelty. Many are vegan, due to the violence of modern dairy farms. Observant Jains do not eat, drink, or travel after sunset, and always rise before sunrise.

Anekantavad is a foundation pillar of Jain philosophy. Literally meaning “Non-one-endedness” or “Nonsingular Conclusions”, Anekantavad consists of tools for overcoming inherent biases in any one perspective on a topic, object, process, state, or on reality in general. One tool is The Doctrine of Postulation, Syādvāda. Anekantavad is defined as a multiplicity of views for it stresses looking at things from another’s perspective.

Jains are remarkably welcoming and friendly toward other faiths. Several non-Jain temples in India are administered by Jain individuals. The Jain Heggade family has run the Hindu institutions of Dharmasthala, including the Sri Manjunath Temple, for eight centuries. Jains willingly donate money to churches and mosques and often help with multi-religious functions. Jain monks, like the late Acharya Tulsi and Acharya Sushil Kumar, actively promoted harmony among rival faiths to defuse tension.

Jains have been an important presence in Indian culture, contributing to Indian philosophy, art, architecture, sciences, and to Mohandas Gandhi’s politics, which led to the mainly non-violent movement for Indian independence.

Universal History and Jain Cosmology
According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Each upward or downward cycle is divided into six eons (yugas). The present era, a downward movement, is the fifth of these cycles. These ages are known as “Aaro” as “Pehela Aara” or First Age, “Doosra Aara” or Second Age and so on. The last is the “Chhatha Aara” or Sixth Age. These ages have well defined durations of thousands of years.

When this cycle reaches its lowest level, even Jainism will be lost in its entirety. Then, on the next upswing, the Jain religion will be rediscovered and reintroduced by new leaders,Tirthankars (literally “Crossing Makers” or “Ford Finders”), only to be lost again at the end of the next downswing, and so on.

In each enormously long cycle of time, there are always twenty-four Tirthankars. In our era, the twenty-third Tirthankar was Parshva, an ascetic and teacher, whose traditional dates are 877-777 BC, i.e., 250 years before the passing of the last Tirthankar Lord Mahavir in 527 BC. Jains regard him, and all Tirthankars, as reformers who called for a return to beliefs and practices in line with the eternal universal philosophy upon which the faith is based. The title Bhagavan (”Lord”) applied to Mahavir and all other Tirthankars means Venerable.

Bhaktamara Stotra: Tirthankara is shelter from ocean of rebirths.

The twenty-fourth and final Tirthankar of our age is called, Mahāvīr, the Great Hero (599-527 BC). A wandering ascetic teacher, he recalled Jains to the rigorous practice of their ancient faith.

Jains believe that reality consists of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of infinite identical spiritual units; while ajiva (non-jiva) is matter in all forms and conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement.

Both jiva and ajiva are eternal; they never came into existence for the first time and will never cease to exist. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc.

Any contact whatsoever of jiva with ajiva causes the former to suffer and Jains understand that worldly existence inevitably means some suffering. Neither social nor individual reform can totally stop suffering. In every human, there is jiva, and this jiva suffers because of its contact with ajiva. To avoid suffering, the jiva must leave the four gatis (stages) of Human Life, Heavenly Bodies, Plants/Animals/Insects/Fish Life, and Hell, by never forgetting the ultimate aim and by practising Jainism continuously and thus attain liberation,

Karma and transmigration keep jiva locked in ajiva. Liberation from the human condition is difficult. Jiva continues to suffer during all its infinite reincarnations. They believe that every action, good or evil, opens up sense channels (sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell), through which invisible karma, filters in and adheres to the jiva within, weighing it down and determining the conditions of its next reincarnation.

The consequence of evil actions is heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower existential level. Good deeds, on the other hand, lead to light karma, allowing jiva to rise to a higher level in its next life, where there is less suffering. However, good deeds alone can never lead to liberation.

The fylfot (a.k.a. swastik) is one of the holiest Jain symbols. Worshippers often use rice grains to create fylfot symbols around the temple altar.The way to moksh (release or liberation) is withdrawal from the world. Karma is the cause-and-effect mechanism by which all actions have inescapable consequences. Karma keeps the jiva chained in an unending series of lifetimes in which it suffers to a greater or lesser extent. Thus liberation means release from karma, its annihilation and avoidance of new karma.

Then, at death, with no karma to weigh it, jiva will rise free of all ajiva, free of the human condition, free of all future embodiments. It will rise to the highest state in the universe,Siddhashila, where jiva, identical with all other pure jivas, will experience its own true nature in eternal stillness, aloneness and liberation. It will be totally free. The way to burn up old karma is to withdraw from worldly involvement as much as possible, and close sense channels and the mind to prevent karma. Such eternal liberation by freeing Jiva from Pudgala (ajiva), so no new reincarnation occurs, is Moksh. Ignorance (ajñāna) causes attachment, while true knowledge (keval jñāna)leads to liberation.

S. Vernon McCasland, Grace E. Cairns and David C. Yu describe Jain cosmology thus:

“In Jain tradition, the first teacher, Rishabh, lived in the third period of Avasarpini, during which half of the world cycle things are getting worse. Since evil had appeared, a teacher/Tirthankara was needed to help people cope with life. In the fourth period, evil proliferated so much that twenty-three more Tirthankaras came into the world to teach people how to defeat evil and achieve moksh. The present time, part of the fifth period, is ‘wholly evil.’ Now, men live less than 125 years, and the sixth epoch will be even worse. ‘A man’s life span will be only sixteen to twenty years and his height will be reduced to that of a dwarf. . . . But then the slow upward movement of the first half of the upward cycle, Utsarpini, will begin. There will be steady improvement until, in the first era, man’s needs will be fulfilled by wish fullfilling trees, his height will be six miles, and evil will be unknown.’ However, eventually things will degenerate, with Avasarpini followed by Usarpini in a neverending cycle.” (McCasland, Cairns, and Yu, Religions of the World, New York: Random House, 1969: pages 485-486)

Beliefs and practices

The hand with a wheel on the palm symbolizes the Jain Vow of Ahinsa, meaning non-violence. The word in the middle of the wheel reads “ahimsa.” The wheel represents the dharma-chakra. This logo represents halting the cycle of reincarnation through relentless pursuit of truth.There are monks who practice strict asceticism and strive to make this birth their last. On the other hand, there is the laity, who pursue less rigorous practices, striving to attain rational faith and to do as much good as possible in this lifetime. Due to strict Jain ethics, the laity choose professions and livelihoods that protect life and do not involve any violence to living beings.

Jains consider that devas (angels or celestial beings) cannot help jiva to obtain liberation. This must be achieved by individuals through their own effort. In fact, devas cannot achieve their own liberation until they reincarnate as humans and undertake the difficult action of removing karma. Jains believe that no spirit or divine being can assist them. Their effort to attain the highest, the most exalted state of Siddha, the permanent liberation of jiva from all involvement in worldly existence, must be their own.

The Jain ethical code is taken very seriously. These Five Vows are followed by both laity and monks/nuns. These are:

Nonviolence (ahinsa, or ahimsa)
Truth (satya)
Non-stealing (asteya)
Chastity (brahma-charya)
Non-possession or Non-possessiveness (aparigrah)
For lay people, ‘chastity’ means confining sexual experiences to marriage. For monks/nuns, it means complete celibacy. Nonviolence involves being vegetarian and some choose to be vegan. Jains are expected to be non-violent in all thoughts, words and deeds, not only towards humans, but towards all living creatures. While performing holy deeds, Jains wear masks over their mouths and noses to avoid spittle falling on texts or deities.

Along with these Five Vows, Jains avoid harboring harmful feelings towards others and practise forgiveness. They believe that Atma can lead one to become Parmatma and this has to come from one’s inner-self; no one can lead another on any path but can only show the way to the path. Jains know that anger towards another is one’s biggest enemy, they believe in “Jeeyo aur jeene do” (live and let others live).

Mahatma Gandhi was deeply influenced by this Jain emphasis on peaceful, protective living and made it an integral part of his own philosophy.

Jain symbols
Jains have few core symbols. One symbol incorporates a wheel on the palm of a hand. The holiest one is a simple unadorned swastika or svastik.

Major Jain symbols include:

24 Lanchhanas for Tirthankaras.
The Ashta-mangalas.
Om.
Triratna and Shrivatsa symbols.
A Tirthankar’s mother dreams.
Dharma-chakra and Siddha-chakra.

Jain fasting
Fasting is very common among Jains and a part of Jain festivals. Most Jains will fast at special times during the year, at festivals and holy days. However, a Jain may take it upon him or herself to fast at anytime. The monsoon period (in India) is a time of fasting.

The aim of fasting
Fasts may be done as penance, especially for monks and nuns. Fasting purifies the body and the mind, reminding one of Mahavir’s emphasis on renunciation and asceticism. Mahavira spent a lot of time fasting. It is not sufficient for a Jain simply to stop eating when fasting, they must also stop wanting to eat. If they continue to desire food, the fast is pointless.

Types of fast
There are several types of fasting:

Complete fasting: giving up food and water completely for a period.
Partial fasting: eating less than you need to avoid hunger.
Vruti Sankshepa: limiting the number of items of food eaten.
Rasa Parityaga: giving up favourite foods.
Great fasts: Some monks fast for months at a time, following Mahavir, who fasted for over 6 months.

Different types of fast
Choviharo Upavasa - To give up food and water for the whole day.
Upavas - To give up only food for the whole day.
Digamber Upvas - One can only drink water once a day,before sunset.
Shwetamber Upvas - One may drink many glasses of water,however this must be done before sunset.
Ekasan - To eat one meal a day at one sitting and drink water as desired between sunrise and sunset.
Beasan - To eat two meals a day, (one meal per sitting) and to drink water as desired any times between sunrise and sunset.
Ayambil: Eating food once in one sitting. The food is spice free and boiled or cooked. Also, no milk, curds, ghee, oil, or green or raw vegetables.
Chaththa - To give up both food and water or only food continuously for two days.
Aththama - To give up food and water or only food continuously for three whole days.
Aththai - To give up food and water or only food continuously for eight days.
Masaksamana - To give up food and water or only food continuously for a whole month.
Santhara - To give up food and water entirely as voluntary death
Navkarsi: Food and water is consumed forty-eight (48) minutes after sunrise. For the orthodox, brushing teeth and rinsing one’s mouth must be done after sunrise.
Porsi: Taking food and water three hours after sunrise.
Sadh-porsi: Taking food and water four hours and thirty minutes after sunrise.
Purimuddh: Taking food and water six hours after sunrise.
Avadhdh: Taking food and water eight hours after sunrise.
Tivihar: After sunset no food or juice shall be taken, but one may take only water until sunrise the next day. Many Jains follow this type of fasting on daily basis.
Navapad oli - During every year for 9 days starting from the 6/7th day in the bright fortnight until the full moon day in Ashwin and Chaitra months, one does Ayambil. This is repeated for the next four and half years. These ayambils can also be restricted to only one kind of food grain per day.
Other austerities are varshitap, Vardhaman, and visasthanak tap, etc.

Jain literature
The oldest Jain literature is in Shauraseni and Ardha-Magadhi Prakrit (Agamas, Agama-tulya, Siddhanta texts, etc). Many classical texts are in Sanskrit (Tatvartha Sutra, Puranas, Koshas, Shravakacharas, Mathematics, Nighantus etc). Later Jain literature was written in Apabhramsha (Kahas, rasas, grammars, etc), Hindi (Chhahdhala, Mokshamarga Prakashaka, etc), Tamil (Jivakacintamani, Kural, etc), Kannada (Vaddaradhane, etc.). See Jain literature for more details. Tatvarth Sutra, Padma Puran (Rama Charitra), JinPravachanRahasya-Kosh, Chhahdhala and Shravakachars such as Ratnakarandak Sharavakachar and ShravakDharmaPrakash are available for free download at http://www.AtmaDharma.com

Jain worship and rituals
Jains have built temples where images of their Tirthankaras are venerated. Jain rituals can be elaborate and include offerings of symbolic objects, with the Tirthankaras being praised in chant. In some Jain sects, temples and images are not required.

Every day Jains bow their heads and say their universal prayer, the Namaskara Sutra. All good work and events start with this prayer of salutation and worship.

Jain worship may or may not involve temples. The sadhumargi Shvetambar Jains such as The Terapanthi Jains do not believe in idol worship hence do not have temples.

Jain rituals include:

Pancha-kalyanaka Pratishtha
Pratikramana
Guru-vandan, Chaitya vandan etc.
The Jain rituals for marriage and other family rites are distinct and uniquely Indian, usually minor variants of those in orthodox Hinduism.

Digambar and Shvetambar traditions
It is generally believed that the Jain sangha became divided two major sects, Digambar and Shvetambar, about 200 years after the nirvana of Mahāvīr. Bhadrabahu, chief of the Jain monks, foresaw a period of famine and led about 12,000 people, to southern India. Twelve years later, they returned to find that the Svetambar sect had arisen. The followers of Bhadrabahu became known as the Digambar sect.

The Digambar monks do not wear any clothes because they believe clothes are like all other possessions thereby increasing desire to material things, which needs to be removed. The Svetambar monks wear white clothes because they believe there is nothing in Jain religious books to condemn the wearing of clothes. The different points of view are caused by different interpretations of similar holy books. The sadhvis (lady religious persons) of both sects wear white clothes. There are also minor differences in the enumeration and validity of each sect’s Agama (sacred) literature.

There are also many other differences between Digambar and Shvetambar traditions. The former believe that women cannot attain moksha,while Shvetambars believe that women can attain liberation.

Some historians believe that there was no clear division until the 5th century. The Valabhi council of 453 resulted in editing and compilation of scriptures of the Svetambar tradition.

Excavations at Mathura have revealed many Kushana period Jain idols. In all of them the Tirthankaras are represented without clothes. Some of them show monks with only one piece of cloth which is wrapped around the left arm. They are identified as belonging to the ardha-phalaka sect mentioned in some texts. The Yapaniaya sect is believed to have originated from the Ardha-phalakas. They followed Digambara practice of nudity, but held several beliefs like the Shvetambaras.

Both traditions are further subdivided into several sects, such as Sthanakvasi, Terapanth, Deravasi, and Bisapantha. Some of these can be divided into murtipujak (idol worshipper) and not murtipujak. In recent decades, attempts have been made to bring the sects together. In 1974, a new religious text Samana Suttam was compiled by a committee consisting of representatives of all the sects.

[edit] Geographical spread and influence

Jain temple in RanakpurIt has been advanced that the pervasive influence of Jain culture and philosophy in ancient Bihar gave rise to Buddhism.

The Buddhists always maintained that by the time Buddha and Mahavira were alive, Jainism was already an ancient and deeply entrenched faith and culture in the region. For a discussion about the connections between Jainism and Buddhism see Jainism and Buddhism.

At 4 to 5 million adherents, Jainism is among the smallest of the major world religions, but in India its influence is much more significant than the numbers would suggest. The Jains live throughout India; Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat have the largest Jain population among Indian states. Other states of India with relatively large Jain populations among its residents are Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh.

Jainism has a large following in the Indian region of Punjab, especially the town of Ludhiana and Patiala. There were many Jains in Lahore (Punjab’s historic capital) and other cities before the Partition of 1947. Many then fled to the Indian section of Punjab.

It is practiced by adherents in all the metropolitan cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai as well as Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Hyderabad.

There are 85 Jain communities in different parts of India and around the world. They speak local languages and sometimes follow different rituals. However they all follow essentially the same principles.

Outside of India, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania & Uganda) have large Jain communities. Smaller Jain communities exist in Nepal, Japan, Singapore, Australia etc. Jainism as a religion was at various times found all over South Asia including Sri Lanka and what are now Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Afghanistan.

Jain philosophy and culture have been a major cultural, philosophical, social and political force since the dawn of civilization in South Asia, and its ancient influence has been traced beyond the borders of modern India into the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean regions. Jainism is presently a growing faith in the United States as well, where several Jain temples have been built. American Jainism tends to accommodate all the sects in its institutions.

Over several thousand years, Jain influence on Hindu philosophy and religion have been considerable, while Hindu influence on Jain temple worship and rituals can be observed in certain Jain sects. For a detailed discussion see Jainism and Hinduism.

Jain contributions to Indian culture
While the Jains are only 0.4% of the Indian population, their contributions to culture and society in India have been considerable.

The Jains are among the wealthiest of the Indians. They are also among the most philanthropic, they run numerous schools, colleges and hospitals. They have been the most important patrons of the Somapuras, the traditional temple architects in Gujarat.

Jains have greatly influenced the cuisine of Gujarat. Gujarat is dominantly vegetarian, and its dishes all have pleasing and soothing aromas due to the lack of foods with pungent odors, such as onions and garlic.

According to the 2001 census, the Jains are the most literate community in India. India’s oldest libraries at Patan and Jaisalmer have been preserved by Jain institutions.

Literature The Jains have contributed writings in many of the India’s classical and popular languages.

In Kannada almost the entire early literature is of Jain origin.
Some of the oldest known books in Hindi and Gujarati were written by Jain scholars.
Several of the Tamil classics are written by Jain authors or have Jain beliefs and values as the core subject.
Practically all of the known texts of the Apabhramsha language are Jain works.

Jainism and Indian archaeology
Archaeological evidence such as various seals and other artifacts from the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3000–1500 BC) has been cited by some scholars as attesting to the faith’s roots in pre-Indo-Aryan migration India. (Refer to the discussion page as well as the ’specialized sources’, below.)

Decipherment of Brahmi by James Princep in 1788, permitted reading of ancient inscriptions in India, which established the antiquity of Jainism. Discovery of Jain manuscripts, a process that continues today, has added significantly to retracing the history of Jainism.

Jain archaeological findings are from Maurya, Sunga, Kushana, Rashtrakuta, Chalukya, and Rajput and later periods.

Several western and Indian scholars have contributed to the reconstruction of Jain history. They include western historians like Bühler, Jacobi, and Indian scholars like Iravatham Mahadevan who has worked on Tamil Brahmi inscriptions.

Holy sites

Palitana TirthaThere are many Jain tirthas (pilgrimage sites) throughout India.

Shikharji also know as Parasnathji located in Giridih district in the Jharkhand state is held to be the most sacred place of the Jains all over India. Parasnath Hill is about 4481 feet high. Parasnath Hill is Jerusalem to the Jains as, besides Mahavira, Twenty Tirthankaras had attained Nirvana at this hill.GoogleEarthLocation
Shravanabelagola, monumental statue of the Jain saint Gomateshwara in Hassan District, Karnataka.
Dilwara Temples, complex of white marble Jain temples on Mount Abu, Rajasthan.
Ranakpur Temples, extensive complex of white marble Jain temples in Ranakpur, Rajasthan.
Palitana, most visited Jain temple in Gujarat.
Bawangaja, a complex of Jain temples and monumental statues in Barwani District, Madhya Pradesh.
Gwalior’s fort is home to dozens of Jain rock-cut sculptures.
Bajrangarh, Atisaya-kshetra in Guna district in Madhya Pradesh, India
Kundalpur, Siddha-kshetra having 63 temples, famous for beautiful statue of Bade Baba in Damoh district in Madhya Pradesh, India
There is also one temple in the United States that is considered to be a pilgrimage place. Siddhachalam is located in New Jersey.

Jain temples in the West
UK
The Jain Centre in Leicester, England, the first Jain Temple consecrated in the western world
The Oshwal Centre in Potters Bar, England, the only traditional Jain Temple in Europe.
USA
The Hindu Jain Temple in Monroeville, Pennsylvania is the first combined Hindu Jain temple in the World.
The Jain Center of Greater Boston in Norwood, Massachusetts is the first Jain Center in North America.
The Jain Society of Metropolitan Chicago in Bartlett, Illinois
The Jain Center of Northern California in Milpitas, California
The Jain Center of America in Elmhurst, New York
The Jain Center of Greater Atlanta in Atlanta, Georgia
The Jain Society of Greater Detroit in Farmington Hills, Michigan
The Jain Society of Metropolitan Washington in Silver Spring, Maryland
The Siddhachalam, International Mahavir Jain Mission in Blairstown, New Jersey
The Jain Center of Southern California in Buena Park, California
The Jain Society of Houston in Houston, Texas
Find more links at http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/jainsoc.html

Holy days
Paryushan Parva, 10/8 (Digambar/Shwetambar) day fasts, to observe, 10/8 important principles to follow.
Mahavir Jayanti, birthday of Lord Mahavir.
Diwali, day of attaining nirvana by Lord Mahavir.
Kshamavaani, The day of asking forgiveness from all.
Shawani Hirshnadi, The celebration of Hirsh’s triumph over the forces of evil.
The Jain Calendar gives the dates for major Jain festivals, vratas and fairs.

Jainism and other religions
South Asia has a rich history of diverse philosophies. Connections among these are discussed at:

Jainism and Hinduism
Jainism and Buddhism
Jainism and Sikhism
Even though Jainism is of Indian origin, it shared some principles with the Hellenic tradition, specially with Stoic and Pythagorean philosophies of Europe. A comparison with modern western religions can be found at:

Jainism and Christianity
Jainism and Judaism
Jainism and Islam

See also
Jainism Portal
List of Jains
Veganism
American Jainism
Jain community
Tamil Jains
Tulu Jains
Jainism in Delhi
Jainism in Gujarat
Jainism in Rajasthan
Jains of Maharashtra
Jainism in Mumbai
Jainism Portal at Wikipedia
Jains in India according to 2001 census

References
Introductory:

Jain, Duli C. (Editor), Studies In Jainism: Primer, Jain Study Circle, 1997.
Parik, Vastupal Jainism and the New Spirituality, Peace Publications, 2002.
Detailed Introduction:

Shah, Natubhai, Jainism : The World of Conquerors, Motilal Banarsidass, 2004.
Jaini, Padmanabh S., Jaina Path of Purification, Motilal Banarsidass, 2001.
Titze, Kurt, Jainism : A Pictorial Guide to the Religion of Non-Violence, Mohtilal Banarsidass, 1998.
Wiley, Kristi, Historical Dictionary of Jainism, Scarecrow Press, 2004.
Mishra, Mamta, Bharatiya Darshan, Kala Prakashan, Varanasi, 2000.
Lawrence A. Babb, Absent Lord, University of California Press, 1996.
Vallely, Anne, Guardians of the Transcendent, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. (Jain nuns)
Kelting, Whitney, Singing to the Jinas, New York: Oxford, 2001. (Jain laywomen)
The Assembly of Listeners, edited by Michael Carrithers and Caroline Humphrey, 5-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Specialized sources:

Mary Pat Fisher, Living Religions (5th Edition), 2003, p.130
Bhaskar, Bhagchandra Jain, Jainism in Buddhist Literature. Alok Prakashan: Nagpur, 1972.
Campbell, Joseph, Oriental Mythology, 1962.
Nakamura, Hajime, Gotama Buddha: A Biography Based on the Most Reliable Texts. Kosei Publishing: Tokyo, 2000.
Ramachandran, T.N., Harrappa and Jainism 1987.
Subramaniyam, Ka Naa, Tiruvalluvar and his Tirukkural. Bharatiya Jnanpith: New Delhi 1987.
Thomas, Edward, Jainism, or the Early Faith of Asoka. Asian Educational Services: New Delhi, 1995 (reprint of the original by Trubner: London, 1877).
Cort, John, Jains in the World: Religious Values and Ideology in India’, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Jain Philosophy, Webb, Mark Owen
Vallely, Anne, Gaurdians of the Transcendent, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.
Kelting, Whitney, Singing to the Jinas, New York: Oxford, 2001.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Jainism”.

Here are 2 sites for you to read about the The Double -slit Experiment. It’s about wave-particle duality and light refraction. The first is the Wiki article and the second is an interesting site I found which offers simpler explanations for many things within the field of Science. The second author however, does not dare to cross the line of the linear world, so his interpretations are based on scientific knowledge and opinions only. In effect, without crossing this line, many studies leave the studier in a quandary.

Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie and others, it is now established that all objects have both wave and particle nature. Although some of the material regarding this light experiment is highly technical, the conclusions of the experiment are astounding. Because of the way light acts within the Double -slit experiment it appears light has some strange qualities. The author of the second article however, is careful about drawing conclusions.

Due to the fact my site is mostly about the world beyond science and how certain sciences come close to the non-linear, I have no problem at all with drawing a conclusion. There is a fear of crossing the linear realm into the non linear world, so I’ll help them out here. The author of the second article says particles do not “know” anything. This may be due to over-intellectualizing or absence of the acknowledgment of the unknown.

Particles (electron, photons, etc.) have intelligence. Light has intelligence. They are a part of The Infinite Field of Intelligence, therefore they have certain qualities of that field. The action of electrons and waves reported within the experiment, would be understandable within a scientific/spiritual paradigm. Scientific theories would take on a contextual quality.

Perhaps there is a confusion regarding awareness and intelligence. Certain forms of intelligence can be present without awareness. This would be an intelligence with certain proclivities or potentialities and not necessarily that of a biological or a sentient being who is aware that they exist. Photons are carriers of light energy, and a characteristic of all energy is that it cannot be destroyed. For anything to be carried there has to be movement, therefore a driver for the carrier of that eternal energy would be necessary__ergo intelligence. In fact all scientific experiments of a quantum nature would become crystal clear within the Infinite Knowledge of The Field.__Myswizard
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Double-slit experiment”.
Theories With Problems

The Field, The Infinite Field, The Infinite Field of Intelligence, Divine Intelligence, Divinity, Divine Knowledge, The Akashic Records, The Divine Field of Intelligence, The Mind of God, Truth, Absolute Truth, Divine Truth, The All, The Light, Source, Divine Source, Absolute Source, The All That Ever Was or Will Be, The Infinite, The Everlasting, Universal Intelligence, Allness, Beingness,The Presence, The Presence of Divinity, Eternal Source, Electromagnetic Field, Divine Creator, Source

There are an infinite amount of names for God. Many are right here on this site*, and more can be found in religious books and doctrine. The strange thing about a name is it’s only a label. It’s a local identification. It has no meaning other than the one “we” give it. We can, for instance call a table a chair and it doesn’t change the “nature” of what it is. If I called you a name other than the one you were given, it wouldn’t change what you are. God as a name for Divinity actually is bothersome to some, although I haven’t a clue as to why.

The problem with giving God a name is God isn’t a locality. God is non linear. How does one give a name to the Un-nameable? In Judaism, for example, there are words for God that cannot even be written, because of the sacredness of the word. However you put it to paper it’s still naming that which cannot be named. We have to call things by a name for identification purposes, so we persist. By not taking names with a seriousness that only we can place on it, we are able to dispense with having to put a meaning on everything. As we witness it, we realize it just is. It’s an advanced concept, but you are on the path to enlightenment, or you wouldn’t be here right now reading this. “Everything is it’s own meaning,” as Dr. David Hawkins says.

We can’t help wanting to put a meaning to everything that we see, feel and hear, but it is what it is. That’s all. Releasing the “need” to name everything may also bring on the state that you aren’t who and what you “think” you are, also. Try going a day without a name for yourself. It may be scary, but when you’re ready it’s freeing. I happen to love the name my parents gave me, but I’m not attached to it. It’s meaning is twofold…From the Hebrew name Channah which meant “favour” or “grace”. Hannah was the mother of Samuel the prophet in the Old Testament. The Latin version of this name is Anna…and this is the name traditionally assigned to the mother of the Virgin Mary, though she is not mentioned in the Bible. None of these is my actual name however, which is a diminutive of Hannah and Anne…Nancy.

See how confusing this all gets? Imagine for a moment all the names of everything on the planet and beyond and all the various meanings for all the names. It’s mind boggling! Now close your eyes and imagine something before you, say for instance an ice cream cone. One wouldn’t need to name it to know this is something I like. It is what it is.

So instead of finding “the” name for God, (which is the simplest one I can think of,) try imagining God as Infinite Love. It’s a good start.

The knowledge regarding the path to enlightenment is expanding exponentially. Even as I write these words they become obsolete in their own way, as the ability to access the Infinite Field of Knowledge becomes increasingly available. This is one of the capabilities of a proactive website, which is my intention.

While browsing through my own library, flipping through past chapters in the vast amount of spiritual books I’ve read, I realized how many authors have had their own personal journeys. Books from twenty years ago almost pale against the writings in present books of Truth and integrity.

As humans evolve so does the knowledge of the experiential. More humans are becoming enlightened (albeit at a very minuscule percentage of the total population throughout time). Even those who have not yet reached enlightenment, but the levels just preceding it, have the capacity to eloquently explain the higher levels of spirituality in their own terminology.

As I’ve said in previous articles, there is no new spiritual knowledge but only new abilities to relate this knowledge based on present levels of intellectual capacity. I wonder however, how high our intellectual abilities for explanations and our capacity for understanding have to become, before we cease to write or speak at all. At that point I imagine, just the Knowing will be all there is. ©Myswizard all rights reserved ‘05-’06

Although I use the terms Divine Intelligence, Mind of God, Infinite Field, Akashic Records, Divine Inspiration, Infinite Intelligence, The Absolute, Absolute Truth, Truth and more, (in reference to God) I often use my own phrases to describe where information* is coming from. So here are the phrases I may use to describe all of the above so as not to confuse anyone:
Spark
Light bulb
It hit me
Opening
Whoosh
There it was
All of a sudden
It came to me
This is merely subjective to my own descriptions of how I process Inspiration. Hopefully I pray, with humor.

Epistemology
Epistemology is one of the core areas of philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. Epistemology has been primarily concerned with propositional knowledge, that is, knowledge that such-and-such is true, rather than other forms of knowledge, for example, knowledge how to such-and-such. There is a vast array of views about propositional knowledge, but one virtually universal presupposition is that knowledge is true belief, but not mere true belief (see Belief and knowledge). For example, lucky guesses or true beliefs resulting from wishful thinking are not knowledge. Thus, a central question in epistemology is: what must be added to true beliefs to convert them into knowledge?

1 The normative answers: foundationalism and coherentism
The historically dominant tradition in epistemology answers that question by claiming that it is the quality of the reasons for our beliefs that converts true beliefs into knowledge (see Epistemology, history of). When the reasons are sufficiently cogent, we have knowledge (see Rational beliefs). This is the normative tradition in epistemology (see Normative epistemology). An analogy with ethics is useful: just as an action is justified when ethical principles sanction holding it (see Justification, epistemic; Epistemology and ethics). The second tradition in epistemology, the naturalistic tradition, does not focus on the quality of the reasons for beliefs but, rather, requires that the conditions in which beliefs are acquired typically produce true beliefs (see Internalism and externalism in epistemology; Naturalized epistemology).

Within the normative tradition, two views about the proper structure of reasons have been developed: foundationalism and coherentism (see Reasons for belief). By far, the most commonly held view is foundationalism. It holds that reasons rest on a foundational structure comprised of ‘basic’ beliefs (see Foundationalism). The foundational propositions have autonomous justification that does not depend upon any further justification which could be provided by inferential relations to other propositions. (Coherentism, discussed below, denies that there are such foundational propositions).

These basic beliefs can be of several types. Empiricists (such as Hume and Locke) hold that basic beliefs exhibit knowledge initially gained through the senses or introspection (see A posteriori; Empiricism; Introspection, epistemology of; Perception, epistemic issues in). Rationalists (such as Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza) hold that at least some basic beliefs are the result of rational intuition (see A priori; A priori knowledge and justification, recent work on; Rationalism). Since not all knowledge seems to be based on sense experience or introspection or rational intuition, some epistemologists claim that some knowledge is innate (see Innate knowledge; Knowledge, tacit; Kant, I.; Plato). Still others argue that some propositions are basic in virtue of conversational contextual features. (See Contextualism, epistemological; Contextualism, epistemic, recent work on).

Foundationalists hold that epistemic principles of inference are available that allow an epistemic agent to reason from the basic propositions to the non-basic (inferred) propositions. They suggest, for example, that if a set of basic propositions is explained by some hypothesis and additional confirming evidence for the hypothesis is discovered, then the hypothesis is justified (see Inference to the best explanation). A notorious problem with this suggestion is that it is always possible to form more than one hypothesis that appears equally well confirmed by the total available data, and consequently no one hypothesis seems favoured over all its rivals (see Induction, epistemic issues in; Goodman, N.). Some epistemologists have argued that this problem can be overcome by appealing to features of the rival hypotheses beyond their explanatory power. For example, the relative simplicity of one hypothesis might be thought to provide a basis for preferring it to its rivals (see Simplicity (in scientific theories); Theoretical (epistemic) virtues).

In contrast to foundationalism, coherentism claims that every belief derives its justification from inferential relationships to other beliefs (see Knowledge and justification, coherence theory of; Probability theory and epistemology; Bosanquet, B.; Bradley, F.H.). All coherentists hold that, like the poles of a tepee, beliefs are mutually reinforcing. Some coherentists, however, assign a special justificatory role to those propositions that are more difficult to dislodge from the web of belief . The set of these special propositions overlaps the set of basic propositions specified by foundationalism.

There are some objections aimed specifically at foundationalism and others aimed specifically at coherentism. But there is one deep difficulty with both traditional normative accounts. This problem, known as the ‘Gettier Problem’ (after a famous three-page article by Edmund Gettier in 1963), can be stated succinctly as follows (see Gettier problems): suppose that a false belief can be justified (see Fallibilism), and suppose that its justificatory status can be transferred to another proposition through deduction or other principles of inference (see Deductive closure principle). Suppose further that the inferred proposition is true. If these suppositions can be true simultaneously - and that seems to be the case - the inferred proposition would be true, justified (by either foundationalist or coherentist criteria) and believed, but in many cases it clearly is not knowledge, since it is a felicitous coincidence that the truth was obtained.

One strategy for addressing the Gettier Problem remains firmly within the normative tradition. It employs the original normative intuition that it is the quality of the reasons which distinguishes knowledge from mere true belief. This is the defeasibility theory of knowledge. There are various defeasibility accounts but, generally, all of them hold that the felicitous coincidence can be avoided if the reasons which justify the belief are such that they cannot be defeated by further truths (see Knowledge, defeasibility theory of).

2 The naturalistic answers: causes of belief
There is a second general strategy for addressing the Gettier Problem that falls outside of the normative tradition and lies squarely within the naturalistic tradition (see Quine, W.V.). As the name suggests, the naturalistic tradition describes knowledge as a natural phenomenon occurring in a wide range of subjects. Adult humans may employ reasoning to arrive at some of their knowledge, but the naturalists are quick to point out that children and adult humans arrive at knowledge in ways that do not appear to involve any reasoning whatsoever. Roughly, when a true belief has the appropriate causal history, then the belief counts as knowledge (see Knowledge, causal theory of).

Suppose that I am informed by a reliable person that the temperature outside the building is warmer now than it was two hours ago. That certainly looks like a bit of knowledge gained and there could be good reasons provided for the belief. The normativists would appeal to those good reasons to account for the acquisition of knowledge. The naturalists, however, would argue that true belief resulting from testimony from a reliable source is sufficient for knowledge (see Social epistemology; Testimony).

Testimony is just one reliable way of gaining knowledge (see Reliabilism). There are other ways such as sense perception, memory and reasoning. Of course, sometimes these sources are faulty (see Memory, epistemology of). A central task of naturalized epistemology is to characterize conditions in which reliable information is obtained (see Information theory and epistemology). Thus, in some of its forms, naturalized epistemology can be seen as a branch of cognitive psychology, and the issues can be addressed by empirical investigation.

Now let us return to the Gettier Problem. Recall that it arose in response to the recognition that truth might be obtained through a felicitous coincidence. The naturalistic tradition ties together the belief and truth conditions of knowledge in a straightforward way by requiring that the means by which the true belief is produced or maintained should be reliable.

3 Scepticism
The contrast between normative and naturalized epistemology is apparent in the way in which each addresses one of the most crucial issues in epistemology, namely, scepticism (see Scepticism). Scepticism comes in many forms. In one form, the requirements for knowledge become so stringent that knowledge becomes impossible, or virtually impossible, to obtain. For example, suppose that a belief is knowledge only if it is certain, and a belief is certain only if it is beyond all logically possible doubt. Knowledge would then become a very rare commodity (see Certainty; Doubt).

Other forms of scepticism only require that knowledge be based upon good, but not logically unassailable, reasoning. We have alluded to scepticism about induction. That form of scepticism illustrates the general pattern of the sceptical problem: there appear to be intuitively clear cases of the type of knowledge questioned by the sceptic, but intuitively plausible general epistemic principles appealed to by the sceptic seem to preclude that very type of knowledge.

Another example will help to clarify the general pattern of the sceptical problem. Consider the possibility that my brain is not lodged in my skull but is located in a vat and hooked up to a very powerful computer that stimulates it to have exactly the experiences, memories and thoughts that I am now having. Call that possibility the ’sceptical hypothesis’. That hypothetical situation is clearly incompatible with the way I think the world is. Now, it seems to be an acceptable normative epistemic principle that if I am justified in believing that the world is the way I believe it to be (with other people, tables, governments and so on), I should have some good reasons for denying the sceptical hypothesis. But, so the argument goes, I could not have such reasons; for if the sceptical hypothesis were true, everything would appear to be just as it now does. So, there appears to be a conflict between the intuition that we have such knowledge and the intuitively appealing epistemic principle. Thus, scepticism can be seen as one instance of an interesting array of epistemic paradoxes (see Paradoxes, epistemic).

Of course, epistemologists have developed various answers to scepticism. Within the normative tradition, there are several responses available. One of them is simply to deny any epistemic principle - even if it seems initially plausible - that precludes us from having what we ordinarily think is within our ken (see Commonsensism; Chisholm, R.M.; Moore, G.E.; Reid, T.). Another response is to examine the epistemic principles carefully in an attempt to show that, properly interpreted, they do not lead to scepticism. Of course, there is always the option of simply declaring that we do not have knowledge. Whatever choice is made, some initially plausible intuitions will be sacrificed.

Within the naturalistic tradition, there appears to be an easy way to handle the sceptical worries. Possessing knowledge is not determined by whether we have good enough reasons for our beliefs but, rather, whether the processes that produced the beliefs in question are sufficiently reliable. So, if I am a brain in a vat, I do not have knowledge; and if I am not a brain in a vat (and the world is generally the way I think it is), then I do have knowledge. Nevertheless, those within the normative tradition will argue that we are obliged to withhold full assent to propositions for which we have less than adequate reasons, regardless of the causal history of the belief.

Contextualism, mentioned earlier, responds to the sceptical problem in a way that does not fall neatly into either the normative or naturalistic tradition (see Contextualism, epistemological; Contextualism, epistemological, recent work on). There are many varieties of contextualism, but central to all of them is that the truth conditions of a sentence or utterance attributing knowledge to someone will vary from one context to another. Hence, the utterance `Sarah knows that the car she left in the parking lot is still there’ will be true in one context when the standards for knowledge are lower than they are in a context in which the standards are those approaching certainty. In such a high standards context, Sarah will fail to know. Thus, by extension, says the contextualist, both our ordinary claims to knowledge and the sceptical claims that we don’t have knowledge can be true because of variations in the contexts of the utterances. So-called `invariantists’ deny that there is such a contextual shift of the truth values of the utterances and, hence, they reject the contextualist solution to the sceptical problem.

4 Recent developments in epistemology
Some recent developments in epistemology question and/or expand on some aspects of the tradition. Virtue epistemology focuses on the characteristics of the knower rather than individual beliefs or collections of beliefs (see Virtue epistemology). Roughly, the claim is that when a true belief is the result of the exercise of intellectual virtue, it is, ceteris paribus, knowledge. Thus, the virtue epistemologist can incorporate certain features of both the normative and naturalist traditions. Virtues, as opposed to vices, are good, highly prized dispositional states. The intellectual virtues, in particular, are just those deep dispositions that produce mostly true beliefs. Such an approach reintroduces some neglected areas of epistemology, for example, the connection of knowledge to wisdom and understanding (see Wisdom).

In addition, there are emerging challenges to certain presuppositions of traditional epistemology. For example, some argue that there is no set of rules for belief acquisition that are appropriate for all peoples and all situations (see Cognitive pluralism; Epistemic relativism). Others have suggested that many of the proposed conditions of good reasoning, for example ‘objectivity’ or ‘neutrality’, are not invoked in the service of gaining truths, as traditional epistemology would hold, but rather they are employed to prolong entrenched power and (at least in some cases) distort the objects of knowledge (see Feminist epistemology).

In spite of these fundamental challenges and the suggestions inherent in some forms of naturalized epistemology that the only interesting questions are empirically answerable, it is clear that epistemology remains a vigorous area of inquiry at the heart of philosophy.

KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). Epistemology. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved December 27, 2005, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/P059

Epistemology, from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge. Historically, it has been one of the most investigated and most debated of all philosophical subjects. Much of this debate has focused on analysing the nature and variety of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth and belief. Much of this discussion concerns the justification of knowledge claims.

Not surprisingly, the way that knowledge claims are justified both leads to and depends on the general approach to philosophy one adopts. Thus, philosophers have developed a range of epistemological theories to accompany their general philosophical positions. More recent studies have re-written centuries-old assumptions, and the field of epistemology continues to be vibrant and dynamic.

Definition of knowledge

Justified true belief
In Plato’s dialogue the Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of definitions of knowledge. One of the prominent candidates is justified true belief. We know that, for something to count as knowledge, it must be true, and be believed to be true. Socrates argues that this is insufficient; in addition one must have a reason or justification for that belief.

One implication of this definition is that one cannot be said to “know” something just because one believes it and that belief subsequently turns out to be true. An ill person with no medical training but a generally optimistic attitude might believe that she will recover from her illness quickly, but even if this belief turned out to be true, on the Theaetetus account the patient did not know that she would get well, because her belief lacked justification.

Knowledge, therefore, is distinguished from true belief by its justification, and much of epistemology is concerned with how true beliefs might be properly justified. This is sometimes referred to as the theory of justification.

The Theaetetus definition agrees with the common sense notion that we can believe things without knowing them. Whilst knowing p entails that p is true, believing in p does not, since we can have false beliefs. It also implies that we believe everything that we know. That is, the things we know form a subset of the things we believe.

The problem of defining knowledge
For most of philosophical history, “knowledge” was taken to mean belief that was justified as true to an absolute certainty. Any less justified beliefs were called mere “probable opinion.” This viewpoint still prevailed at least as late as Bertrand Russell’s early 20th century book The Problems of Philosophy. In the decades that followed, however, the notion that the belief had to be justified to a certainty lost favour.

In the 1960s, Edmund Gettier criticised the Theaetetus definition of knowledge by pointing out situations in which a believer has a true belief justified to a reasonable degree; and yet in the situations he describes, everyone would agree that the believer does not have knowledge.

A priori versus a posteriori knowledge
Western philosophers for centuries have distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

A priori knowledge is knowledge gained or justified by reason alone, without the direct or indirect influence of any particular experience (here, experience usually means observation of the world through sense perception. See Rationalism, below, for clarification.)

A posteriori knowledge is any other sort of knowledge; that is, knowledge the attainment or justification of which requires reference to experience. This is also called empirical knowledge.

One of the fundamental questions in epistemology is whether there is any non-trivial a priori knowledge. Generally speaking rationalists believe that there is, while empiricists believe that all knowledge is ultimately derived from some kind of external experience.

The fields of knowledge most often suggested as having a priori status are logic and mathematics, which deal primarily with abstract, formal objects.

Empiricists have traditionally denied that even these fields could be a priori knowledge. Two common arguments are that these sorts of knowledge can only be derived from experience (as John Stuart Mill argued), and that they do not constitute “real” knowledge (as David Hume argued).

Knowledge and belief
Knowledge is true and believed and …There are two slightly different meanings of belief that must be distinguished. In the first sense John might “believe in” his cousin Joe. This may mean that he is willing to loan Joe money, trusting in his paying it back. In this sense, John might say, “I know it is safer to fly than drive, yet I don’t believe it” in which case John doesn’t trust in the pilots of commercial aircraft, even though as a cognitive matter he may understand the pertinent statistics.

In the second sense of belief, to believe something just means to think that it is true. That is, to believe P is to do no more than to think, for whatever reason, that P is the case. It is this sort of belief that philosophers most often mean when they are discussing knowledge. The reason is that in order to know something, one must think that it is true - one must believe (in the second sense) it to be the case.

Consider someone saying “I know that P, but I don’t think P is true”. The person making this utterance has, in a profound sense, contradicted themselves. If one knows that P, then, amongst other things, one thinks that P is indeed true. If one thinks that P is true, then one believes P. (See: Moore’s paradox.)

Knowledge is distinct from belief and opinion. If someone claims to believe something, they are claiming that they think that it is the truth. But of course, it might turn out that they were mistaken, and that what they thought was true was actually false. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. We would not say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must be true.

Similarly, two people can believe things that are mutually contradictory, but they cannot know (unequivocally) things that are mutually contradictory. For example, Jeff can believe the bridge safe, while Jenny believes it unsafe. But Jeff cannot know the bridge is safe and Jenny cannot know that the bridge is unsafe simultaneously. Two people cannot know contradictory things.

Distinguishing knowing that from knowing how
Suppose that Fred says to you: “The fastest swimming stroke is the front crawl. One performs the front crawl by oscillating the legs at the hip, and moving the arms in an approximately circular motion”. Here, Fred has propositional knowledge of swimming and how to perform the front crawl.

However, if Fred acquired this propositional knowledge from an encyclopedia, he will not have acquired the skill of swimming: he has some propositional knowledge, but does not have any procedural knowledge or “know-how”. In general, one can demonstrate know-how by performing the task in question, but it is harder to demonstrate propositional knowledge. Michael Polanyi popularised the term tacit knowledge to distinguish the ability to do something from the ability to describe how to do something. Gilbert Ryle had previously made a similar point in discussing the characteristics of intelligence. His ideas are summed up in the aphorism “efficient practice precedes the theory of it”. Someone with the ability to perform the appropriate moves is said to be able to swim, even if that person cannot precisely identify what it is they do in order to swim. This distinction is often traced back to Plato, who used the term techne or skill for knowledge how, and the term episteme for a more robust kind of knowledge in which claims can be true or false.

Justification
Much of epistemology has been concerned with seeking ways to justify knowledge statements.

Irrationalism
Some approaches to justifying knowledge are not rational — that is, they reject the notion that justification must obey logic or reason. Nihilism started out as a materialistic political philosophy, but is sometimes redefined as the apparently absurd doctrine that there can be no justification for knowledge claims — absurd because it appears to be self-contradictory to claim that one knows that knowledge is impossible, but perhaps for a nihilist, self-contradiction is simply unimportant.

Mysticism
Mysticism is the use of non-rational methods to arrive at beliefs and accepting such beliefs as knowledge. For example, believing that something is true based on emotion would be regarded as epistemological mysticism, whereas believing based on deductive logic or scientific experiment would not. An instance of this may be when one bases one’s belief in the existence of something merely on one’s desire that it should exist. Another example might be the use of a daisy’s petals and the phrase “he loves me/ he loves me not” while they are plucked to determine whether Romeo returns Juliet’s affections. The mysticism in this example would be the assumption that such a method has predictive or indicative powers without rational evidence of such. In both of these examples, belief is not justified through a rational means. Mysticism need not be an intentional process: one may engage in mysticism without being aware of it.

Rationality
If one does not reject rationality, but still wishes to maintain that knowledge claims cannot be or are not justified, one might be termed a skeptic. Here we are on firmer philosophical ground; since skeptics accept the validity of reason, they can present logical arguments for their case.

For instance, the regress argument has it that one can ask for the justification for any statement of knowledge. If that justification takes the form of another statement, one can again reasonably ask for that statement also to be justified, and so forth. This appears to lead to an infinite regress, with every statement justified by some other statement. It would be impossible to check that each justification is satisfactory, and so relying on such a series quickly leads to skepticism.

Alternately, one might claim that some knowledge statements do not require justification. Much of the history of epistemology is the story of conflicting philosophical doctrines claiming that this or that type of knowledge statement has special status. This view is known as Foundationalism.

One can also avoid the regress if one supposes that the assumption that a knowledge statement can only be supported by another knowledge statement is simply misguided. Coherentism holds that a knowledge statement is not justified by some small subset of other knowledge statements, but by the entire set. That is, a statement is justified if it coheres with all other knowledge claims in the system. This has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special status for some particular sorts of statements. But since a system might still be consistent and yet simply wrong, it raises the difficulty of ensuring that the whole system corresponds in some way with the truth.

Synthetic and analytic statements
Some statements are such that they appear not to need any justification once one understands their meaning. For example, consider: my father’s brother is my uncle. This statement is true in virtue of the meaning of the terms it contains, and so it seems frivolous to ask for a justification for saying it is true. Philosophers call such statements analytic. More technically, a statement is analytic if the concept in the predicate is included in the concept in the subject. In the example, the concept of uncle (the predicate) is included in the concept of being my father’s brother (the subject). Not all analytic statements are as trivial as this example. Mathematical statements are often taken to be analytic.

Synthetic statements, on the other hand, have distinct subjects and predicates. An example would be my father’s brother is overweight.

Although anticipated by David Hume, this distinction was more clearly formulated by Immanuel Kant, and later given a more formal shape by Frege. Wittgenstein noted in the Tractatus that analytic statements “express no thoughts”, that is, that they tell us nothing new; although analytic statements do not require justification, they are singularly uninformative. W.V.O. Quine, in his famous Two Dogmas of Empiricism, challenged the legitimacy of the analytic-synthetic distinction altogether.

Epistemological theories
It is common for epistemological theories to avoid skepticism by adopting a foundationalist approach. To do this, they argue that certain types of statements have a special epistemological status — that of not needing to be justified. So it is possible to classify epistemological theories according to the type of statement that each argues has this special status.

Empiricism
Empiricists claim knowledge is a product of human experience. Statements of observations take pride of place in empiricist theory. Naïve empiricism holds simply that our ideas and theories need to be tested against reality, and accepted or rejected on the basis of how well they correspond to observed facts. The central problem for epistemology then becomes explaining this correspondence.

Empiricism is associated with science. While there can be little doubt about the effectiveness of science, there is much philosophical debate about how and why science works. The Scientific Method was once favoured as the reason for scientific success, but recently difficulties in the philosophy of science have led to a rise in coherentism.

Empiricism is sometimes associated with a tradition called logical empiricism, or positivism, which places higher emphasis on ideas about reality rather than on experiences of reality.

Idealism
Idealism holds that what we refer to and perceive as the external world is in some way an artifice of the mind. Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), are held to be true without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements. George Berkeley, Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel held various idealist views. Idealism is itself a metaphysical thesis, but has important epistemological consequences.

Naïve realism
Naïve realism, or Common-Sense realism is the belief that there is a real external world, and that our perceptions are caused directly by that world. It has its foundation in causation in that an object being there causes us to see it. Thus, it follows, the world remains as it is when it is perceived - when it is not being perceived - a room is still there once we exit. The opposite theory to this is solipsism. Naïve realism fails to take into account the psychology of perception. (See: G.E. Moore.)

Phenomenalism
Phenomenalism is a development from George Berkeley’s claim that to be is to be perceived. According to phenomenalism, when you see a tree, you see a certain perception of a brown shape, when you touch it, you get a perception of pressure against your palm. On this view, one shouldn’t think of objects as distinct substances, which interact with our senses so that we may perceive them; rather we should conclude that all that really exists is the perception itself.

Pragmatism
Pragmatism about knowledge holds that what is important about knowledge is that it solves certain problems that are constrained both by the world and by human purposes. The place of knowledge in human activity is to resolve the problems that arise in conflicts between belief and action. Pragmatists are also typically committed to the use of the experimental method in all forms of inquiry, a non-skeptical fallibilism about our current store of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge proving itself through future testing.

Rationalism
Rationalists believe that there are a priori or innate ideas that are not derived from sense experience. These ideas, however, may be justified by experience. These ideas may in some way derive from the structure of the human mind, or they may exist independently of the mind. If they exist independently, they may be understood by a human mind once it reaches a necessary degree of sophistication.

The epitome of the rationalist view is Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum (”I think, therefore I am”), in which the skeptic is invited to consider that the mere fact that he doubts this claim implies that there is a doubter. Because doubting is a kind of thinking, the claim must be correct. Spinoza derived a rationalist system in which there is only one substance, God. Leibniz derived a system in which there are an infinite number of substances, his Monads.

Representationalism
Representationalism or representative realism, unlike naïve realism, proposes that we cannot see the external world directly, but only through our perceptual representations of it. In other words, the objects and the world that you see around you are not the world itself, but merely an internal virtual-reality replica of that world. The so-called veil of perception removes the real world from our direct inspection.

Relativism
Relativism as advocated by Protagoras maintains that all things are true and in a constant state of flux, revealing certain aspects of truth at one time while concealing them at another. It claims that there is no objective truth: anything which a person can perceive is true for that person, but not necessarily true for the next person. By equating perceptions and beliefs with truth, overt self-contradiction is avoided.

Skepticism
When scientists or philosophers ask “Is knowledge possible?”, they mean to say “Am I ever sufficiently justified in believing something in order to have knowledge?” Adherents of philosophical skepticism often say “no”. Philosophical skepticism is the position which critically examines whether the knowledge and perceptions people have is true; adherents of this position hold that one can never obtain true knowledge, since justification is never certain. This is a different position from scientific skepticism, which is the practical stance that one should not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced.

Contemporary approaches
Much contemporary work in epistemology depends on the two categories: foundationalism and coherentism.

Recently, Susan Haack has attempted to fuse these two approaches into her doctrine of Foundherentism, which accrues degrees of relative confidence to beliefs by mediating between the two approaches. She covers this in her book Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology.

Gettier
Main articles: Edmund Gettier, Gettier problem
Edmund Gettier argued that there are situations in which a belief may be justified and true, and yet would not count as knowledge. Although being a justified, true belief is necessary for a statement to count as knowledge, it is not sufficient. At the least, the set of our justified true beliefs contains things that we would not say that we know.

Some epistemologists have attempted to find strengthened criteria for knowledge that are not subject to the sorts of counterexamples Gettier and his many successors have produced. Most of these attempts involve adding a fourth condition or placing restrictions on the kind or degree of justification suitable to produce knowledge. None of these projects has yet gained widespread acceptance. Kirkham has argued that this is because the only definition that could ever be immune to all such counterexamples is the original one that prevailed from ancient times through Russell: to qualify as an item of knowledge, a belief must not only be true and justified, the evidence for the belief must necessitate its truth. Though this seems to imply a sweeping skepticism, Kirkham notes that it doesn’t exclude the possibility of rational belief altogether.

Gettier’s article was published in 1963. Right after that, for a good decade or more, there was an enormous number of articles trying to supply the missing fourth condition of knowledge. The big project was to try to figure out the “X” in the equation, Knowledge = belief + truth + justification + X. Whenever someone proposed an answer, someone else would come up with a new counterexample to shoot down that definition.

Some of the proposed solutions involve factors external to the agent. These responses are therefore called externalism. For example, one externalist response to the Gettier problem is to say that the justified, true belief must be caused (in the right sort of way) by the relevant facts.

In the aftermath of the publication of the Gettier problem and other similar scenarios, a number of new definitions were formulated. While there is general consensus that truth and belief are two necessary facets of knowledge, there is a debate about what needs to be added to the true beliefs to make them knowledge, and a debate about whether justification is necessary in the definition at all.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Epistemology”.

Throughout the history of humankind, God has been depicted as having so many qualities it would be a monumental task to list them all here. (see Wiki article”God”) The names given to God* probably number in the thousands. Some religions alone, have dozens of names for God. Humans have not found anything to even come close to naming God, let alone trying to describe God’s nature. How can one describe the qualities of anything so incomprehensible as an invisible being in the non-physical with The All Encompassing Power of Creation?

I am not a Quantum Physicist (although there are articles on related subjects here), so I dare not try to explain God in scientific terms. My doubt lies in even trying to achieve this feat regardless. How could even the most brilliant scientists on the planet describe something that is out of the realm of their expertise? Since something is not born from nothing, the assumption that there is no God, has no validity. There are no arguments for the material, arising from the nothing, without first a something there to create it. Of course there are many agnostics(skeptics), and athiests(non-believers), as well as those who believe, but have fallen so far away from God, that their existence calibrates at the lowest levels of human survival. At these levels of skepticism, disbelief, and apathy, there is no need for concern about sharing information regarding God at all. When they are ready God is always present.

Because of the egoistic nature of humans, God is pictured to look as we do. It is said in the bible that God created man in his image. This is due to the self centered reasoning that we are superior as beings on the planet, therefore we must look like God. That would exclude every other living creature in our (or any other) universe. Pretty vain idea. In my whimsical imaginings of God also being a Being of absolute humor, I thought, “What if God looked like a soft furry Koala Bear just to poke fun at us? In God’s reality, I’m sure He/She could take on the physical form of anything, if he so desired. So I suppose He could be George Burns after all!

What God is not is punishing, demanding, or needy. God does not want anything, nor does He care how you act or what you do. God does not have an ego, therefore His feelings cannot be hurt, nor can we assign any human qualities to Him. God is not human, and yet is everything. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

God is The Electromagnetic Field of the universe, which encompasses all linear and non linear reality. That is all you can see and all that cannot be seen in the physical universe. There are books written about “The Field” (see my library selections). Most books on this subject, however, even though many are written by physicists, have to stop at the limitations of physical explanations. God cannot and will not ever be aptly described in physical terms.

I like to envision God as an All Loving, All Powerful, All Forgiving, All Light Presence of the greatest Absolute Magnitude…All Encompassing, Ever Present and Eternal Source of what we, and everything else in this Infinite Field of Universes and Planets are. I see us, and every other creature, as a creative extension of This Magnificent Presence…physical, but eternal in our true nature… loving, but capable of falling away and falling down …spiritual, but defining ourselves within the limitations of religions and egoistic ideas…conscious and aware, but having lapses of memory and forgetting what we are… Perfect within our self imposed imperfections nevertheless… because how can we be anything other than the True Perfection of The Source of our creation?

* Some of the names for God that are used on this site and in my own writings are:__ The Field, The Infinite Field, The Infinite Field of Intelligence, Divine Intelligence, Divinity, Divine Knowledge, The Akashic Records, The Divine Field of Intelligence, The Mind of God, Truth, Absolute Truth, Divine Truth, The All, The Light, Source, Divine Source, Absolute Source, The All That Ever Was or Will Be, The Infinite, The Everlasting, The Presence, The Presence of Divinity, Eternal Source, Electromagnetic Field, Divine Creator, Source ©Myswizard all rights reserved ‘05

The Akashic Records have also been called Divine Intelligence, Infinite Field of Knowledge, All Knowing, The Presence, The Field, Higher Consciousness and The Mind of God. Although I have the wiki article which is written by authors with opinions, The Akashic Records have been calibrated to be Truth. The history is quite interesting as well as other references to it under my Topics… Religions and Great Books and Writings in Library… Myswizard

The Akashic Records (Akasha is a Sanskrit word meaning “sky”, “space” or “aether”) are said to be a collection of mystical knowledge that is stored in the aether; i.e. on a non-physical plane of existence. The concept is common in some New Age religious groups. The Akashic Records are said to have existed since the beginning of the planet. Just as we have various specialty libraries (e.g., medical, law), there are said to exist various Akashic Records (e.g., human, animal, plant, mineral, etc). Most writings refer to the Akashic Records in the area of human experience.

History of Akashic Records
Some who believe in the Records claim that they were used by ancient peoples around the world, including the Tibetans, Egyptians, Persians, Chaldeans, Greeks, Chinese, Hebrews, Christians, Druids, and Mayans. The belief is that the pre-Buddhist priests of the Himalayas knew that each soul recorded every moment of its existence in a “book”, and that if one attuned oneself properly then one could read or view that book. In Egypt, it is said, those who could read the Akasha were held in high standing and were often found advising Pharaohs on daily activities and dream interpretation. A Chinese gentleman named Sujujin was reported to need only the first name of anyone to access the Akasha and describe their life history; another Chinese seer, named Tajao, explored a variety of topics in the Records which span over two thousand years.

Believers claim that the Druid cultures of England and Wales (400–900) demonstrated the ability to access the Akasha. To gain access to the Akasha, the famous fortune teller Nostradamus claimed to have used methods derived from the Greek oracles, Christian and Sufi mysticism, and the Kabbalah. Individuals who claim to have consciously used the Akashic Records include : Charles Webster Leadbeater, Annie Besant, Alice Bailey, William Lilly, Manly P. Hall, Lilian Treemont, Dion Fortune, George Hunt Williamson, Rudolf Steiner, Max Heindel and Edgar Cayce.

Despite claims that the Akashic Records have been used by mystics throughout history, the term itself, along with the concept of an aetheric library, originated with the 19th century movement of Theosophy. Skeptics suggest that the concept of Akashic Records has been attributed indiscriminately and inappropriately to a wide range of historical religious figures and movements.

The theory has also been rejected by the scientific community, due to a lack of any independently verifiable evidence.

Description and explanation of the Akashic Records
The Akasha is said to be the library of all events and responses concerning Human Consciousness in all realities. Every human therefore supposedly contributes and has access to the Akashic Records. It is claimed that to gain access into the Akashic Records, every individual human can become the physical medium, and various techniques (e.g., yogic breathing, visualizations) can be employed to quiet the mind, become a “witness”, and achieve the focused, preconscious state necessary to access the Records. While in the Akashic Records and viewing the past, both the events and responses are said to be visible. This can be compared to seeing a full color movie with a plot and characters. When viewing the future, the events are known, but the responses are only probable. Based on an individual’s responses in the past, the Akashic seer/reader can investigate probable future responses and give the highest future probability. A simple illustration of this might be witnessing several alternate endings to the main characters in a movie (e.g., Run, Lola, Run). However, at some point in the evolution of the Akashic reader, a state of unification and awareness can be achieved whereby even the future responses are known with absolute clarity instead of only as a probability.

Specific accounts of the Akashic Records
In Theosophy and the various New Age-related faiths, the Akashic Records are records of all knowledge, including all human experience down to the finest detail, held in the universe. The Akashic records resemble a library and are also compared to a universal computer (some would say the ‘Mind of God’).

The Akashic Records are referred to by Edgar Cayce, who stated that each person is held to account after life and ‘confronted’ with their personal Akashic record of what they have/not done in life in a karmic sense. This is not however a process evaluated by the supposed limited lowly earth plane mind—i.e. the brain—but one fathomed by the higher mind or one’s ’super-consciousness’.

Jane Roberts in the Seth books describes a different version of a similar idea when Seth asserts that the fundamental stuff of the universe is ideas and consciousness, and that an idea once conceived exists forever. Seth argued that all ideas and knowledge are in principle accessible by “direct cognition”. Direct cognition is similar to or perhaps identical to intuition and is said to allow direct knowing without time elapsing and without knowledge needing to be transferred e.g. in speech or text. This is similar to what Robert Monroe refers to as rotes in his out-of-body book trilogy.

Some writers believe that free from and independent of all religions and faiths, there exist many libraries or record repositories such as the Akashic library throughout the universe, albeit on various planes of existence.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Akashic records”.