Thursday, April 21, 2016

Soros, maybe senile, but certainly misinformed, conflates China sovereign debt with U.S. mortgage debt

Soros says that China is in the same situation as the U.S. in 2007, 2008.

What’s happening in China "eerily resembles what happened during the financial crisis in the U.S. in 2007-08, which was similarly fueled by credit growth," Soros said. "Most of the money that banks are supplying is needed to keep bad debts and loss-making enterprises alive." Read more.

Except that China's debt is the debt of the government--in yuan--lent through banks, which are the fiscal "conduits" to the economy. China cannot run out of yuan.

On the other hand, American homeowners can run out of funds to pay their mortgages, which were bank credits (and booked as future bank profits/capital.)

Soros is clueless here. He has just joined the ranks of Kyle Bass, Peter Schiff and all the rest of the Bozo's.

It will be a pleasure to watch him lose some of that fortune.

Step up and get his money, kids.

31 comments:

John said...

It makes you wonder what the secret of his success is? Can he possibly have made his staggering fortune through expenses, commissions and insider trading? There must be a brain in there somewhere? After all, only Buffett and Icahn have made more money through investing, and that's presumably only because Soros was out of the game for many years trying to promote his weird Popperian open society.

Michael Norman said...

Insider trading. You hit the nail on the head. His famous trade--shorting the pound--was 'cause he knew that Britain would exit the ERM.

Mind you...that doesn't detract one bit from the fact that he's got big balls...but still, he misunderstands most things.

Matt Franko said...

"It makes you wonder what the secret of his success is? "

THAT'S where the stochastics should come in....

John said...

Matt, you think his success is the outcome of some sort of large numbers game? Someone is going to be left standing and everybody puts that down to his alleged financial genius, when in fact the financial results he exhibits are nothing more than a statistical outcome? If that's what you're saying, that no more than the discredited finance theory that's taught.

There must be a reason (or reasons) to his success. Insider trading, like Mike points out in the famous BoE trade, I can buy. But then he must have one helluva network of insiders pushing information his way. After all, that was just one trade out of thousands he's made, although admittedly that did make him a lot of money and made him the recipient of even more private money to "manage". Given how corrupt and fraudulent the financial world is, I can buy Soros running a huge insider trading operation.

But it makes you wonder why the other big boys (Bass, Ackman, etc) haven't cultivated a similar network of insiders instead of losing gargantuan amounts of money, and how it has gone undetected for some fifty years. It could be that someone like Soros is a smart speculator who also runs a huge insiders trading scam. The guy is worth about $20 billion!

There must be some smarts in that otherwise Russia-obsessed head of his. Buffett himself made a huge fortune as a hedge fund manager before becoming becoming what amounts to a one-man private equity army. Was Buffett running an insider trading operation? It's a murky area!

Tom Hickey said...

"It makes you wonder what the secret of his success is? "

"Karma."

Actually, the theory of karma explains it accounts for the transmission mechanism involved. But this assumes past lives and causality across lifetimes.

There is a good deal of anecdotal evidence for reincarnation, and it figures prominently in Eastern thought, Egyptian and early Western thought (Orphism), and Western esotericism. But is it backed by scientific research? See University of Virgina School of Medicine, Psychiatry And Neurobehavioral Sciences, Division of Perceptual Studies

Reincarnation is also called metempsychosis .

Jalaluddin Rumi:

I died as mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was man.
Why should I fear?
When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as man,
To soar with angels blest;
But even from angelhood I must pass on ...


Mansur al-Hallaj:

Like the herbage
I have sprung up many a time
On the banks of flowing rivers.
For a hundred thousand years
I have lived and worked
In every sort of body.


http://www.adishakti.org/_/reincarnation_in_islam.htm

Ignacio said...

IMO the key to to their large wealth is first and foremost connections, which give access to funds, credit, leverage and a large portfolio of potential opportunities and 'winner investments'. Being able to navigate and creep the underworlds of high finance is an added bonus (being a skilled corporate politician, which again, is linked to being able to build up networks of connections).

And like any business, the ability to surround yourself with competent people and build good teams is probably the most important skill they have (so access to talent, ability to recognize it, and skills to delegate tasks). I'm pretty sure there are tons of myths surrounding mythical 'traders' & 'insiders' when in the end is solid teams of competent people what builds up wealth (regardless of how much of it flows to the top of the corporate command chain).

Michael Norman said...

You're right, Ignacio.

I suck at that.

Tom Hickey said...

How about Jim Rogers? And lots of others who are not Soros but have also fallen into the big bucks even though they are morons.

Some call it "luck," others "karma." It sure was not smarts or other ability, unless they are putting on a good act.

Ignacio said...

Tom, connections (in someway, a form of luck) and marketing are enough sometimes to gain wealth, maybe Rogers was lucky to fall with Soros and profit from those years? Honest question: after those years, has he been a very successful trader or something? Because after that all he has done is exploit his past success with marketing, but where is his investment history? I don't think he has been that much of a successful trader on his own.

Some people is just lucky: they manage to be on the right place and know the right guy who manages to make a lot of money, and on the process make them rich. I guess that's an other way of saying Karma.


Soros is a disgrace, not because his investment history, but because his political connections and meddling. But he is a smart guy, maybe he is senile after all, or has an agenda as usually.

China current problems are very particular, is not financial institutions which will have problems (as all of them will be backstopped by the state, or are already part of the state), but on the 'shadow' system which is mostly small investors lending each other. So far the government has been supportive enough, and may manage to manufacture a soft landing, maybe Soros is banking against it. Is a risky bet, but for someone with so much wealth, the risk/reward is probably worth taking.

It's not easy to do it though, probably the only effective way to do it is on the ground or though some proxy (some commodities). I find betting against the CNY suicidal, as that's completely under control of the party (with the level of reserves they have), if they want to increase the level of exports or maintain exchange rates they can do both things and wipe anyone betting against that move. Is also a crowded trade, as a lot of people has been betting on a hard landing for quite a while.

Tom Hickey said...

The difference between luck and "karma" is that luck is by chance (random) whereas karma is determined. "Karma" just means action in Sanskrit. The theory of karma is based on the law of causality expressed wrt to action (thought, word and deed) as action and consequence.

Being born "with a silver spoon" in one's mouth or being "in the right place at the right time" are considered to be "the luck of the draw" from the POV of coincidence.

From the POV of the theory of karma, this is considered the consequence of past action and the impressions left on the storehouse of impressions The cycle is impression > feeling > thought > action > impression. This accounts for how the neural firing precedes conscious awareness of decisions. According to the theory, one acts on the basis of the dominant impression and thought is subsequent to the rising of a particular impression as feeling.

This cycle is called the "wheel of karma," since the storehouse as the seat of individuality persists across lifetimes. This accords with the view of modern empirical psychology that one's sense of individual self is based on memory.

There are different versions of the theory of karma, but this is the gist of it.

Matt Franko said...

Survivorship bias...

nivekvb said...

I read in the Guardian once that he has a team of very clever people behind him, he's just the front man.

nivekvb said...

I prefer modern science which says that the passing of time is an illusion, and that all time is here are once. I would love to see my mum and dad again.

Tom Hickey said...

I prefer modern science which says that the passing of time is an illusion, and that all time is here are once.

That is the view of perennial wisdom, too.

jrbarch said...


Time ... has it's hold on everyone
Slowly, but surely, Time puts things back where they belong.

Like building a castle on a beach .....

Little children come, and they play, and they make castles on the beach, and they dig holes
And then, when noone is looking, in the stillness of the night
The ocean comes, and puts everything back, where it was .... quietly, simply.

Each element will go back to its place. And is the same with us.

That Time has me included in it.

Everywhere I go, I see Time, working, working, on everything. In fact, there is nothing that I have ever seen with these eyes, that Time is not working on.

But within me, within you, is a place which is Timeless.

And when I visit this place, I find no Time.

That's the place, where Time does not reach, where Time does not go.

And that is the place where you can go too. That is the place that you can enjoy, too.


Because that .... is what make you, special.

[Prem Rawat]

John said...

"I prefer modern science which says that the passing of time is an illusion, and that all time is here are once."

"That is the view of perennial wisdom, too."

Sorry fellas, this doesn't make any sense. Modern science finds time almost impossible to explain. There is an easy way out, however. Make the case for time being an illusion. It isn't an illusion. It's real, and we'd better figure out a way of explaining it, rather than making up ludicrous theories. Why not go the extra mile and just say nothing in fact exists? There is no time, no space, no matter and no minds. There is no vacuum either. Even nothing doesn't exist.

Time is as hard a scientific problem as you can get. Claiming it doesn't exist solves nothing. It's just as reasonable to claim that time exists and we're the illusion. I'm a signed up member of the unfashionably objectively real scientific philosophy of space, time matter, minds and the universe in general existing. We're all conservative about something. That's one of mine.

Matt Franko said...

http://www.saviourofall.org/Tracts/Eons2.html

Time is an important concept in our current existence....

As is salvation or "saving"....

As is a time based return on said saving....

Matt Franko said...

Hey remember Keynes: "in the long run we are all dead...."

"In the long run" is a figure of speech for 'time'....

The clock is ticking... Its like a countdown to death... This has a powerful effect on mankind...

We are the only form of creation that KNOWS we are going to die at some point in TIME....

Tough assignment imo...

Matt Franko said...

Hey just listen to the Pink Floyd song "Time"... the artists among us are observant...

Matt Franko said...

" Someone is going to be left standing and everybody puts that down to his alleged financial genius,"

He did that early... the guy was one of the first in... pioneered offshore for tax avoidance...

I remember trading S&Ps over the phone back in the 90s at like 300 or 350 by that time he probably had a billion thru managing accounts offshore.... SPs are at 2100 now so like a 7x... if I knew THEN what I know NOW ... well I probably wouldnt be sitting here typing this...

I have a friend who had dealerships back in the late 70s and 80s pioneering import of Japanese cars (Honda/Toyota) all the Japanese were taking kickbacks offshore in the Caymans from the dealers to get product... $bazillions... so there was a lot of offshore $$$ looking for management...

Here is a more recent one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/olympus-to-pay-646-million-in-kickback-bribery-cases/2016/03/01/646a2c4c-dfe2-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html

All of this is done offshore... the whole f-ing thing is corrupt... I forget what he said Honda paid back then but it was like 100s of millions... one of the main guys took off for Barbados in a jet and couldnt get back in US for years... one of the guys (had to wear an ankle bracelet) got a pardon from Bill Clinton when his banker Hugh McColl of NCNB made a 500k donation at the Whitehouse... the whole thing is a cesspool...


Then look at the commissions.... Bridgewater (Dalio) has like 168 BILLION today... so they often do like a 2/20 so the 2 is like 3B and if he makes 5% that is like 8B and 20% of that is 1.6B... so the guy gets like 4.6B for measly 5% and that adds up over time especially if you are offshore...

So Soros made a lot in the pioneer days offshore and he hasnt squandered it...

Hes like 85 years old.... so he is 30 years past 55.... he was 55 back in '85 already... if he had a billion offshore back in '85 and just put in long only SPs and throw some client munnie on top of that he EASILY has 20B today..

Just from passage of TIME....

Ignacio said...

Right Matt, survivor bias and the simple pass of time with a semi-conservative investment strategy taking good opportunities would have been enough.

Times are different now, only people who managed to raid momentum on the several build ups of the last bubbles or managed to get on board and get out in time on the high growth in developing nations can replicate the returns that could be built up in that period of time. Even now with US equities which have a bias towards higher maximums due to how the USD monetary zone works in the global economy plus how 'savings'/pensions systems are capitalized and channelled to financiers, is not much higher than the year 2000 highs.

In a period of almost 20 years (2000-2016) the SP500 has gone up barely 40%, while in the 20 years from 1980 to 2000 the index went up >1300% Even a monkey could have make a "fortune" just reinvesting profits; in the period of 1950 to 1970 it went up >400%, so if you managed to weather the shaky decade of the 70's, you were just fine, even if you didn't, you were also fine (as the balance was neutral at the end of the decade, much like the 2000-2010 period). 20 years is a large chunk of most people working live, a whole generation (to put things into perspective).

And this is best case scenario excluding developing nations (this is why high capital is so fond of freedom of capital moves, so they can jump from bubble to bubble in each monetary region), take Europe or Japan and the situation is much more dire (and sorry to say, but the govt flows to the private sector are not changing this). Coincidently is when most of this old guys were the most active and made most of their money. On top, world population in the same time period is four or five times higher than the first half decade of the last century. Japan is entering almost its third generation of this new normal, and the West is just lagging behind...

That's why we hear about all this one-time wonder guys in HF that now are failing left and right, as there is not enough nominal growth to feed a parasitical sector like high finance with such huge rents, and hence the whole zombification of finance.

Simsalablunder said...

"Hey just listen to the Pink Floyd song "Time"... the artists among us are observant..."

The whole basis of music is time manipulation.

Tom Hickey said...

@ John

"I prefer modern science which says that the passing of time is an illusion, and that all time is here are once."

"That is the view of perennial wisdom, too."

Sorry fellas, this doesn't make any sense.


Meher Baba:

There cannot be anything hidden from the One who is everywhere present, for He is everywhere. And it naturally follows that when there cannot be anything hidden from this One He must also be All-Knowing, knowing everything.

The infinite-Knowing is 'seeing' everything at one and the same time, and seeing it NOW. It is that Knowledge which does not begin and does not end; which is indivisible and continuous, and to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be subtracted.

It is that Knowledge which makes God at this moment know that which He knew when it occurred countless aeons ago, and makes Him know that which will occur countless aeons hence; that Knowledge which makes everything known to God simultaneously and NOW. It is the Knowledge of the Perfect Masters and the Avatar.

In terms simpler to you it means that which you as individuals know at this moment I knew aeons ago, and what you individuals in ages to come will be knowing at a particular moment, I know now.


The Everything and the Nothing, 33, 1963, p. 58

jrbarch said...

I used to listen to that Pink Floyd song too (Time): - when you are really bored, time drags on; when you are intensely enjoying yourself – where did the time go? At the song’s end, I ‘want to come Home’ – especially when the ‘bell tolls’. The faithful fall to their knees, but what should those who have lost their faith do? They don’t want to believe; they want to know.

We strap time to our wrists, chop it up into little segments – but we have one life; there is no pause button. That is our forever. Time is a river, into which everything is thrown, and swept away. Time is a librarian, putting everything back in its place. The very young tell us time is moving too slow; old age tells us time is moving far too fast.

There are reports of people having a ‘near-death experience’, where it is like they are standing on a high hill, overlooking their life and the path they have taken through it. The soul is not interested in the stock market decisions you make: - it shows you when you heart was content; how you moved away or came closer, to You. Or in an accident, when time gets slowed right down, and the seconds in which you are flying towards the tree are stretched out forever. Apparently, a fly has a different visual frame rate - so the hand coming towards it to flatten it is in slow motion.

So, time is highly dependent upon the brain consciousness.

We build walls of concepts around us, it doesn’t matter what the subject matter is. Whatever our experience is, that is our reality, inside these walls. Always keep a ladder on hand and don’t sign away your right to scale your own walls. If someone is having a different experience to you and has different walls to scale – well, they are alive too.

When you go inside, there is a simple state you can arrive at where the body is asleep, and you are wide awake – more conscious than ever before. The attention has been withdrawn from the senses and the mind is still: - consciousness is centred in being rather than in the mind. When you go further, the whole persona drops below the level of consciousness, and when you are centred completely in Being, ”That's the place, where Time does not reach, where Time does not go”. In that place, there is only Being.

So, time is highly dependent upon the brain consciousness, and nobody thinks the bell is tolling for them.

John said...

Tom, to say that the all perfect creator - if there is one, which there almost certainly isn't - is omniscient is nothing more than repeating an alleged attribute. The problems of the physical universe, consciousness and being still remain. I recently read some silly bugger claim that the universe doesn't exist! He was being serious. As I said, I'm a traditionalist here. I have nothing but contempt for this alleged new "radical" science.

In case you have yet to come across it, you may like the following talk by the brilliant philosopher Colin McGinn, whose books I highly recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC8VKijydMU

jrbarch: "So, time is highly dependent upon the brain consciousness."

Time doesn't exist without humans experiencing it? Time will end if humanity suddenly died out? Time didn't exist for 14 billion years until we evolved to experience it? How did the universe evolve for these 14 billion years without time? If time doesn't exist, how do you explain the passing of time? Presumably if there is no time, then there can be no passing of time, and that too is an illusion? In which case, why, for instance, do you sleep? You can't be sleepy: sleepiness is a result of the passing of time.

The obvious conclusion is that time does exist. It is not an illusion; it is real. Explaining time is difficult. That doesn't mean we should go all postmodern and new age and claim it doesn't exist.

jrbarch said...

@John

Hello John - I wouldn’t make those kinds of statements about time (see above; ‘time is a river’ etc). Nor do I wish to offend anyone’s sensibilities and intelligence. If we need airplanes and roadways, we will need existing physics; and a monetary system.

Another thing said about time is that it is ‘time-space’ – a fabric.

This is my view, and perhaps I am wrong – it is just my view. Solidity is a property of ice. But it disappears when it changes state to water. Time is registered by the persona consciousness. It disappears when consciousness is established in the Divine. You will find this statement throughout the perennial wisdom. I personally, do not wish to deny the authors their experience. From the links Tom has provided, it seems that for some time, contemporary thinkers have been taking a mental approach to the subjects of reality and consciousness. I do not expect that will stop.

As said above, for me, people speak from their experience. You are “ .... almost certain” :-) ... that the Divine does not exist, because that is your experience. And we both know, some people believe in the Divine, some do not. Both are believers; so from that pov, it is better to know.

I agree time exists, is not an illusion, and is hard to explain – but also agree there is a place within you ”... where Time does not reach, where Time does not go”.

Random said...

Time is indeed constructed internally:

http://changingminds.org/explanations/meaning/time_paradox.htm

http://changingminds.org/techniques/language/metaphor/metaphor_time.htm

"The strange reality is that we construct time internally, by taking sequential experiences and noticing that they are different. We thus, literally, create time internally, making it a unique experience for each of us. Yes, we can look at a watch, but time is still the collation of the sequential images of looking at the watch.
This creates a strange scientific and philosophical dilemma. If we construct something internally, does it exist at all?"

Tom Hickey said...

@ John

If you read more widely in the history of global thought, I will find that you are expressing a particular point of view, naively, I might add. These are the enduring questions for a reason. If you think you have the answer, tighten up your thinking, write it up and publish it as the definitive philosophy, and see how it stands up to scrutiny. :)

Regarding experience, one of the deep questions is whether human experience is homogenous or heterogeneous, depending on different "levels of consciousness" or "modes of knowing." The general presumption is that human consciousness is homogeneous and we all perceive the same world, which we know to be "real" indubitably. In philosophy, this is called naïve realism.

But many people have disputed this view and world literature and tradition provide exhaustive evidence that contradicts that POV. Transpersonal psychology and cognitive science are now investigating this, but the jury is out. David Hoffman's article is interesting wrt to the angle he is taking, which is only one of many. Of course, religious people espouse the view of heterogenous levels, but most take a naïve position on this based on belief rather than rigorous inquiry.

The seers and sages, mystics and masters, and prophets have sometime explained their views rigorously and sometime simply posited them. For example, in the quotation above Meher Baba more or less posits omniscience but provided a rational in terms of omnipresence. However, he sets for the rationale based on what he claims to be his own experience in a body of works, chiefly God Speaks. He is hardly alone in this, which is why there is something called "perennial wisdom." It is a field of study based on a pretty vast body of primary and secondary works, and tons of scholarship. In the words of Rig Veda (1.164.46), "Being is one, the sages express it variously." (Sanskrit ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti). Sat means "being," or "that which is," but it can also be expressed as "truth," that is, knowledge of being.

Believers, those who assume they already know based on the self-evidence of their senses, and those whose confirmation bias rules it out will not be interested in this — yet. But at one time most of the world thought that the earth was the center of the universe and moon moved around it through the month and the sun moved around it through the year. Well, they got the moon right. But it took a long time and much travail owing to prevailing dogma to set the record straight. Could humans conception of "reality" be similar based on substantial justificatiion?

The problem most people have in reading philosophy, or anything for that matter, is confirmation bias. They reject what doesn't fit their confirmation bias and fasten on to what does. That is naïve thinking rather than critical thinking. And dogmatism is poison to critical inquiry.

continued

Tom Hickey said...

continuation

Regarding McGinn, perennial wisdom agrees that the "problem of consciousness" is unsolvable by ordinary consciousness. It is a "mystery." The irony is that, as Descartes point out but did not express extremely well, this is the given. According to perennial wisdom, fully resolving the problem of consciousness necessitates transcending ordinary consciousness and experiencing the entire range of consciousness. Experiencing even a slightly more expanded stage is sufficient to realize that ordinary consciousness is but one stage. (jrbarch as been driving this point home for some time here.)

This treated in great detail in perennial wisdom from the theoretical point of view of a conceptual model, which, it is stated, cannot be grasped by those it ordinary consciousness. Understanding the model doesn't by itself lead to transcending ordinary consciousness other than intellectually. But experience is required, for understanding without experience is empty.

According to perennial wisdom it is necessary to tread the path and climb the ladder of ascent oneself. The wisdom traditions are about doing this, and guidance is also available. But a central teaching is that nothing needs to be added to human consciousness. Only the veils need to be removed, for which the wise have elaborated various methods.

According to perennial wisdom, everyone and everything is already on this evolutionary track regardless of whether they are aware of it. Eventually, all beings realize the true nature of what we call "consciousness" as that from which all apparent diversity arises and to which all apparent diversity returns. So if you aren't interested at this point, no problem. Or maybe this is just a lot of hot air. :)

Tom Hickey said...

How does this relate to economics an political economy? It relates directly.

The standard model in econ is based on homo economicus. This is a stylized model with restrictive assumptions for tractability. The issue is the degree to which the model can be made representational for causal explanation, and also how useful it is instrumentally, not only for explanation and prediction but also policy formulation.

The problem as many have observed is the conception of human nature that characterizes homo economicus. Homo economicus is a rather simple stimulus-response machine that abstracts from homo sapiens and homo socialis as characterized by more complete analysis of human nature and behavior in other disciplines.

Conventional economists tend to argue that homo economicus is sufficient to the task, and also necessary in the sense that without restrictive assumptions models would be intractable. Homo economics captures the average person from the economic point of view, so it is not necessary to create more elaborate models. Moreover, no more elaborate models have been forthcoming that perform measurably better.

Heterodox economists and others in related fields dispute that for many reasons. Perhaps the most telling intra-argument is that the conventional model assumes that homo economicus is universal and timeless, a Platonic form, so to speak. Thus, conventional economics results in an economic model with social and political implications for which there is no alternative. TINA.

From the wider point of view there are many issues with this. From the spiritual point of view, human nature is not fixed. Quality of life as an individual is based on level of development, and the quality of society is based on the level of collective consciousness exhibited by culture, institutions and networks. These are not only malleable but also can be influenced. Assuming humans to be fixed as S-R machines is ahistorical. The "black box" changes based on many inputs, positive, or life-supporting, and negative, or life-damaging.

From the spiritual point of view, humans have the capacity to "grow" individually and socially in the direction of greater universality, to muddle along at the same level, or to backslide to levels of increasing particularity. In fact, individualism is form of particularity in which appreciation of universality is demonstrated only in limited ways.

Thus, focusing on material growth rather than spiritual or metaphysical growth, e.g., by raising the generally level of education, is actually anti-growth and anti-evolutionary in that it creates emergent challenges without adaptive change. Return on coordination, for example, is based on appreciation for greater universality.

The paradox of growth is similar to the paradox of thrift. If a few save, it is no matter and of benefit to them at least. But if all save simultaneously then effective demand declines and everyone is adversely affected. Similarly, if a few peruse self-interest, then they will likely enjoy greater benefits and the society may even enjoy greater growth that benefits most, for awhile. But if the pursuit of material growth is not accompanied by spiritual growth, then the result may be increasing negative externality and decreasing positive externally, leading to unsustainability.

jrbarch said...

In my spare time, I like to dabble in Science - as a lay reader - in particular atomic and quantum theory, and astrophysics and cosmology; psychology and philosophy. I do this to establish an overview of the historical development of ideas in this ‘raincloud of knowable things’, and to understand the scientific method as an ongoing process; the ‘love of wisdom’ in the “study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language” (philosophy); and the interaction between the two as philosophy of science and psychology. There is such a huge body of thought here that it is practical to devote only a measured amount of energy to it, as I also have an interest in more esoteric works of the perennial wisdom.

The one fact that emerges when one bridges these two very different worlds, is that Science takes place in the (lower) mind of the participants; the discoveries of the perennial wisdom, in being, as EXPERIENCE.

The ancient yogis such as Vyasa and Patanjali had none of the instruments of modern Science, nor its’ Theory. To the scientist, Theory is real; it is the multi-stranded truth, until better evidence turns up, or a better theory comes along. They dwell in the mind and it is their garden. Scientists are the most ardent seekers of truth on the planet today. Without them things would be a lot darker, as the embryonic religious truths have fallen by the wayside for many, and conflict and greed has overpowered the social truths that bring harmony.

These yogis developed within themselves an ‘eye’; an extension of vision that allowed them to roam throughout the physical body and map its organs and functions. Their vision extended to the four physical ethers, then to the astral plane wherein the equivalent of the senses in the astral body were developed; thence to the mental plane and the mental body (lower mind), buddhic plane and causal body (higher mind), where the equivalencies or powers of the higher bodies unfolded. From there they unfolded atma-buddhi-manas, the triadal sheath of the Spirit in man, and they wondered, and described themselves as an atom, a spark of the most beautiful and impassive Logos. Man is not conscious on the higher planes simply because his body on those planes is unevolved; but these yogis were not ordinary men. They too, described an atom, on each of the planes and its functions, but these were not the theoretical atom of Science.

So, it is like dreaming and waking. One world is a dream world, the other is real. No matter which one turns out to be true, we still live in a physical world and if we want to travel and communicate our current understanding of physics applies.

To Science, the instrument of discovery is the mind. To the yogis, the quickest route to the higher consciousness was through the heart. Man has to learn to feel – to feel the presence, the energy, of the Divine within. Then he can begin to understand more of his universe, of which he is even less than a subatomic massless particle; and what makes him truly significant.

Mind has no experience of the Divine and says so. Not a problem. But the human heart cannot be fooled and there are many hearts on the planet know something exists (even though mind turns it into religion or spirituality); today is the day that there are many more – I know of at least a million - who can not only feel the Divine within, but feel it every day; it’s beautiful sweetness and clarity, its freshness and perfume, it’s tranquil harmony and rhythm - recognise it and accept it, open themselves to it, allowing change in, in every way. Science will not be able to particalise them because of Experience which makes the mind stand still. Besides, there are people in all walks of life who know the Divine. From humble villagers to highly successful personalities – it is an attribute of the heart. It is our only potential.