For further information visit the following URLs:
It is argued that bistable percepts provide excellent visual “objects” to contemplate the rela-
tion between the percipient and the percepts (psyche & physis). See for nu-
merous examples and a discussion from a quantum physics and cognitive psychology per-
spective (i.e., quantum cognition).
य वििेक
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
Dr. Christopher B. Germann (2018)
Marie Curie Alumnus, PhD, MSc, BSc
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
In the context of modern neuroscience and psychophysics, the Vedāntic scripture en-
titled Dŗg-Dŗśya-Viveka
(transl. An inquiry into the nature of the seers and the seen)
is of great pertinence. The text is primarily attributed Bĥaratī Tīrtha (circa 1350) who
was the teacher of high priest Vidyāraya. It provides a logically cogent (i.e., syllogis-
tically valid) rational analysis of the relation between the Seer (Dŗg) and the Seen
(Dŗśya), viz., subject and object, the observer and the observed, the internal and the
external, psychology and physics. This introspective inquiry is of great importance for
an understanding of Advaita Vedānta philosophy and for the interface between psy-
chology and physics. The concise and semantically dense text is composed of only 46
ślokas  (i.e., poems in the style of Sanskrit poetry) and it has been descripted as an
“excellent vade mecum for the study of higher Vedānta” (Nikhilananda, 1931; vade
mecum being Latin for referential handbook). Bibliometric distributions indicate that
the number of books which are published every year is constantly increasing. For in-
stance, in the last ten years, more books were published than all books published
within the history of humanity taken together (a conservative estimate). However, the
number of books which are relevant after decennia is minute and the number of books
which are relevant after millennia is consequently much smaller. The Dŗg-Dŗśya-Vi-
veka contains timeless knowledge which remains pertinent in the 21
century, i.e., it
has a high degree of “memetic fitness” to use quasi-evolutionary terminology (cf.
Kendal & Laland, 2000). The first śloka
of this profound philosophical text goes
straight into the heart of the psychophysical subject-matter without wasting time on
introductory preliminaries (a style common to many Eastern philosophies) and it can
be regarded as the most important section of the entire book. What follows is a trans-
lation from Sanskrit into English by Swami Nikhilananda from 1931 (n.b., tradition-
ally the śloka would be chanted in Sanskrit
due to the importance of phonetics in
An English translation of the full text is available under the following URL:
In Sanskrit Dŗg means seerand Dŗśya „the seen“. The term viveka“ () means discernment, discrimination
knowledge, or right understanding. In the context of Indian psychology it has been interpreted as a as sense of
discrimination between the real and the unreal, between the self and the non-self, between the transient and the
permanent (Rao & Paranjpe, 2016).
Shloka (Sanskrit:  śloka; can be translated as song, etymologically derived from the root śru, “to hear)
refers to a verse line or poem developed from the Vedic Anuṣṭubh poetic meter.
The first śloka chanted in Sanskrit by Swami Sarvapriyananda in 2016 can be found under the following
timestamped URL:
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
language perception and processing
, moreover, it would be memorised by the student
in order to foster the slow process of intellectual understanding):
The form
is perceived and the eye
is its perceiver
. It (eye) is perceived and the
is its perceiver. The mind with
its modifications is perceived and the Witness
(the Self) is verily the perceiver
. But It
(the Witness) is not perceived (by any
This śloka demonstrates that the mind is subject to perception. The quintessential
question is: Who is perceiving the mind. According to Advaita Vedānta, the ultimate
percipient is Ātman, the true-self.
The third śloka continues to analytically dissects the nature of perception described in
the first śloka:
The eye, on account of its interchangeable nature, is an object and its perceiver is
the mind.”
The fifth śloka further inquiries into the unity of consciousness and emphasised the
distinction between mind and consciousness (a semantic distinction which is currently
lacking in the majority of psychological discourses):
That the mind undergoes all these changes is known to all. Because of its changeable
nature, the mind is an object of perception and Consciousness is the perceiver. This
is because all the changes are perceived by Consciousness. Consciousness perceives
Interestingly from a neuroanatomical and psycholinguistic point of view, the syntactic and phonetic aspects of
language perception are predominantly processed in the left hemisphere (Boca’s area, i.e., pars triangularis and
the pars opercularis of the inferior frontal gyrus) while prosodic and melodic aspects of language perception are
processed in the contralateral right hemisphere (Meier & Pinker, 1995).
Form The word implies all objects of sense perception.
Eye It stands for all the organs of perception such as nose, ears, etc.
Perceiver The eye is perceiver only in a relative sense because it is itself perceived by the mind.
Mind The sense organs, unless the mind is attached to them, cannot perceive their objects. In a state of deep
sleep, the sense organs do not perceive anything because the mind, at that time, ceases to function.
With etc. This includes Buddhi, Chitta, and Ahaṃkāra.
Perceiver The mind is controlled by the conscious Self.
It The Atman or the innermost Self is the ultimate perceiver. If a perceiver of the Ātman is sought, the en-
quiry will end in what is known as a regressus ad infinitum. All entities from the gross objects to the mind are
products of Avid which itself is insentient. Hence, they also partake of the nature of insentiency. Therefore,
they are objects. The subjective character of some of these is only relative. But the Self is the ultimate Seer be-
cause no other seer is known to exist. The knowledge of the Knower is never absent.
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
all the states because it is a unity. These states, though distinct in nature, become
unified in Consciousness or Self.”
A more detailed discussion of the text goes beyond the scope of this thesis. We would
like to suggest that, given the importance QM places on observation (e.g., the unre-
solved observer-problem which is central to the subject), a deeper conceptual analysis
of the relation between the observer and the observed (an inquiry into the nature of
the seer and the seen) seems to be a potentially fruitful path to a better understanding
of the conceptual basis of QM and psychophysics in general. That is, a truly psycho-
physical analysis might help to begin to tackle the hard problem of consciousness
which may turn out to be intimately related to the “enigma of QM” (Rosenblum &
Kuttner, 2002, 2011). Insights into the ultimate nature of perception are of utmost
importance for a complete analysis of perceptual processes. Gustav Fechner (the
founder of psychophysics) wrote extensively on the “world soul or anima mundi
(Greek: ψυχ κόσμου psuchè kósmou; discussed in the introduction of this theses)
Fechner’s conception resembles the Vedāntic conception of universal consciousness
(the same concept can also be found in Mahāyāna Buddhism (recall Niels Bohr’s affin-
ity to Buddhistic symbolism in the context of quantum-physical complementarity and
also the Pauli-Jung conjecture in the context of double-aspect monism). The same uni-
fied viewpoint has been formulated by the renowned Austrian quantum physicist and
Nobel laureate and founder of quantum physics Erwin Schrödinger who was deeply
impressed by Vedānta philosophy. He wrote in his seminal book “What is Life”:
The only possible alternative is simply to keep the immediate that consciousness is
a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that,
which seems to be a plurality, is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing,
produced by a deception (the Indian Maya); the same illusion is produced in a gallery
Recall also the etymological definition of psychology as discussed previously: The ancient Greek word psu-
khḗ (ψυχή) or psyche means “life/soul/spirit” and also “breath”. Interestingly, breathing techniques are a central
aspect of yoga, i.e., prāṇāyāma, often translated as “extension of the prāṇa (breath or life force)”. The sys-
tematic “control of breath” enables the yoga practitioner to control the mind which is crucial for deeper media-
tion and self-discovery. From a linguistic point of view the Sanskrit word Ātman forms the basis for the German
word “Atmen” which means “breathing”. Likewise, the Chinese symbol for "spirit, soul" is which also means
“breath”. Hence, the linkage between “soul/spirit” and breath was formed independently by separate cultures.
Thus defined, psychology is the study of “life/soul/spirit” and “breath”, i.e., Ātman.
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
of mirrors, and in the same way Gaurisankar and Mt. Everest turned out to be the
same peak seen from different valleys…” (Schrödinger, 1944, p. 89).
Schrödinger is not the only influential quantum physicist who postulates the primacy
and continuity of consciousness. For instance, his eminent German colleague and fel-
low Nobel laureate Max Planck (who coined the term “quantum”) states in his speech
on “Das Wesen der Materie” [The Nature of Matter]:
Als Physiker, der sein ganzes Leben der nüchternen Wissenschaft, der Erforschung
der Materie widmete, bin ich sicher von dem Verdacht frei, für einen Schwarmgeist
gehalten zu werden. Und so sage ich nach meinen Erforschungen des Atoms dieses:
Es gibt keine Materie an sich. Alle Materie entsteht und besteht nur durch eine Kraft,
welche die Atomteilchen in Schwingung bringt und sie zum winzigsten Sonnensystem
des Alls zusammenhält. Da es im ganzen Weltall aber weder eine intelligente Kraft
noch eine ewige Kraft gibtes ist der Menschheit nicht gelungen, das heißersehnte
Perpetuum mobile zu erfindenso müssen wir hinter dieser Kraft einen bewußten
intelligenten Geist annehmen. Dieser Geist ist der Urgrund aller Materie.” (Planck,
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the
study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much:
There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force
which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar
system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a
conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” (as cited in
Pickover, 2008)
The English translation is not perfect and “Mind” should be translated as “Spirit”
(Geist) an important distinction. The same non-dual perspective as articulated by
Schrödinger and Planck can be found back in several ancient Indian wisdom tradi-
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
For example, the great scientist of the mind Patañjali writes in Sanskrit:
 
“To identify consciousness with that which merely reflects consciousness this is ego-
ism.” (Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali, Chapter 2, Aphorism 6; Swami Prabhavananda trans.,
1991; p.74).
According to quantum physicists Henry Stapp (who worked with Heisenberg and
Wheeler) the wave function is made out of “mind stuff”. Stapp became well known in
the physics community for his work on S-matrix theory, nonlocality, and the place of
free will in orthodox von Neumann quantum mechanics. Stapp argues that most con-
temporary physicists would explain that the wave-function is a vector in a linear Hil-
bert space. Stapp argues that this explanation points to the fact that the wave-function
is not a material thing but a mental concept. It belongs to the realm of mind and not
to the domain of matter. In classical Cartesian dualistic terminology: it belongs to the
res cogitans and not to the res extensa.
According the Cartesian framework it appears as if two players would be involved: the
observer (the one who is asking the question) and the observed (i.e., matter/nature).
However, according to Henry Stapp quantum theory combines this dichotomy be-
tween epistemology and ontology because it was realized that the only things that re-
ally existed were knowledge. That is, ontology is always defined by epistemology which
is primary. In simple terms, knowledge (a faculty of the human mind) is primary and
hitherto “objective” matter secondary. In a sense, quantum physics addressed a quin-
tessential and long-standing philosophical problem, namely how epistemology and
ontology interact and relate to each other. Thereby, quantum physics overcomes this
dualistic notion inherited from western philosophy and merged the concepts into one
integrated whole.
Note that we are not trying to argue that the ancient advaitic tradition is scientifically supported by quantum
physics. However, there are undeniable and interesting parallels between these widely separated fields of in-
quiry which both inquire into the ultimate nature of reality. The Upanishads (which form the scriptural basis of
Advaita Vedānta) are to a large extend formulated in terms of poetry and metaphors (e.g., Brahman is often
compared to the ocean). However, quantum physics also utilises metaphorical terms with oftentimes technical
meaning, e.g., “quantum foam” (aka. spacetime foam) a concept devised by theoretical physicist John Wheeler
(Wheeler, 1955).
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
A similar monistic perspective on the primacy of consciousness was advocated by Sir
Arthur Eddington who argued that dualistic metaphysics (which form the unques-
tioned implicit basis of the large majority of contemporary scientific theories) are not
supported by empirical evidence:
The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individ-
ual conscious minds. […] The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are
part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it. […] It is necessary to keep re-
minding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of
physics is constructed, has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the
nerves to the seat of consciousness. […] Consciousness is not sharply defined, but
fades into subconsciousness; and beyond that we must postulate something indefi-
nite but yet continuous with our mental nature. […] It is difficult for the matter-of-
fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental char-
acter. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experi-
ence, and all else is remote inference.” (Eddington, 1929, pp. 276281)
This position clearly shows the importance of psychology in the scientific endeavour
and specifically physics. Currently, physics is regarded as the science par excellence,
even though it struggled hard to achieve this status which is partly due to the link be-
tween physics and industrialism (Morus, 2005). However, given that science (and
hence physics) is an activity which takes place within the human mind, psychology
should be rank-ordered above physics (which is purely concerned with the physical
world). It can be syllogistically argued that psychology is more primary than physics.
It should be emphasised that psychological knowledge (self-knowledge in which the
investigator becomes an object of knowledge himself) is much harder to obtain than
knowledge about the external physical world (even though both are ultimately inter-
related) due to the multi-layered and seemingly tautological complexities associated
with introspective observations (as opposed to extrospective observations). Further-
more, the mere reliance on the outward directed senses organs neglects the human
capacity of deep self-inquiry which leads to true insights about the nature of the self
and existence (beyond the superficial constantly changing forms of appearance, cf. the
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
Vedic concept of Māyā
, (Brooks, 1969)). Despite the difficulties associated with
the endeavour of self-knowledge, we predict that this shift in emphasis (from physics
to psychology) will be a defining feature of 21
century science. We are currently ap-
proaching a tipping-point (or phase-shift). This turning point is of immense im-
portance because humanity needs to overcome the clearly detrimental, myopic, and
superficial materialist paradigm in order to evolve and mature as a species as has been
pointed out by countless sincerely concerned scholars. Currently humanity is lacking
consciousness and self-awareness and this manifests in detrimental behaviour which
seriously endangers the survival of the species. The “doomsday clock” which is since
1947 maintained by the “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Science and Security Board”
is presently set to “two minutes to midnight” which is closer to disaster (i.e., “techno-
logically or environmentally-induced catastrophe”) than ever before in human history
(Bostrom, 2008; Krauss, 2010). The evolution of consciousness is essential in this re-
spect. If humanity wants to change its behaviour the species needs to evolve into a
higher stage of consciousness. Insights into the unity of existence provide a firm basis
for the evolution of human consciousness and the survival of the species (which is cur-
rently under severe threat). Moreover, the realisation of interconnectivity is crucial for
the protection of the environment and biodiversity which is currently under enormous
threat. We are currently causing the 6
mass extinction (Berkhout, 2014; Crutzen,
2006; Lewis & Maslin, 2015), i.e., the first human-caused (anthropogenic) global mass
extinction (collapse of biodiversity). Western science has made great progress in ma-
nipulating the external physical world, however, from a psychological it is extremely
immature, primitive, and underdeveloped (a dangerous and volatile combination,
think about nuclear weapons in the hands of ego-driven, greedy, and aggressive
Māyā is an ancient Indian concept which connotes that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is
spiritually unreal (Hiriyanna, 1995). It has been roughly translated as illusion even though this translation has
its shortcomings (translations from Sanskrit into English face many hermeneutical difficulties, another twofold
Vedantic translation is “projection” and “veil”). Nobel laurate Erwin Schrödinger referred to the concept in his
analysis of the unified nature of consciousness (see section Error! Reference source not found.). A connatural
concept can arguably also be found in Plato’s “Allegory of the cave” (Republic, 514a520a). Plato was very
much concerned with eternal forms and most mathematicians can be regarded as Platonists (Burnyeat, 2000;
Mueller, 2005) even though they might not be explicitly aware of this philosophical heritage (cf. the importance
of Δianoia in Plato's Theory of Forms(Cooper, 1966; Tanner, 1970)). Interestingly, Plato’s allegory has re-
cently been revived in the context of quantum dynamics and quantum computation, particularly with regards to
the quantum Zeno effect (Misra & Sudarshan, 1977; Peres, 1980; Stapp, 2001) and projected reality perceived
through noncommutative “sequences of measurements (but see Burgarth et al., 2014).
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
political leaders e.g., Hitler in Nazi Germany). In other words, humanity is techno-
logically highly developed, but its psychological development lacks far behind. Our
misconception of the nature of self leads to irrational decisions with far reaching con-
sequences. The strong identification with the ego is a driving force behind many det-
rimental behaviours. A dissociation from the ego-identity and an association with a
more inclusive level of consciousness would provide a much more solid basis for
planned and reflective behaviour. It cannot be denied that humanity is currently in a
crisis and this crisis is ultimately caused by a lack of consciousness and awareness. The
behavioural manifestations are just symptoms of a much deeper psychological/spir-
itual deficit. All behaviour is based on thought and thought is largely determined by
perceptual inputs. Therefore, humanity needs to change its ways of perceiving and
thinking (mental hygiene
) in order to address the behavioural deficits. Realisations
of unity (the unity of humanity as a species) are extremely important for moral and
ethical reasons and for our understanding of human psychology (which is currently
extremely limited due to the ego-boundedness of the predominant materialistic para-
digm). The same hold true for the realisation of the unity and intimate interconnect-
edness of all living beings (cf. the hologenome theory of evolution and symbiogenesis
(Rosenberg, Sharon, & Zilber-Rosenberg, 2009; Rosenberg & Zilber-Rosenberg,
2008, 2011)). Our primitive psychology lies at the very heart of the anthropogenic
mass-extinction humanity is currently causing (i.e., the so called “holocene extinction”
(Harrison, 1984; Johnson & Wroe, 2003; Newbold et al., 2016; Stuart, Kosintsev,
Higham, & Lister, 2004; Worm et al., 2006)). If homo sapiens does not evolve to a
more inclusive level of consciousness (which entails deep realisation of the
We take great care of what we are eating, and bodily hygiene plays an important role in everyday life. How-
ever, our senses are exposed to very unhealthy inputs which are oftentimes systematically designed to misguide
us (e.g., the PR industry and the mass-media (Bernays, 1928; Chomsky, 1992; L’Etang, 1999)). We therefore
need to rigorously control our mental contents (Chomsky uses the phrase “mental self-defence”, otherwise the
resulting behaviour will be of low quality (a simple inputoutput relation in the scheme of behaviouristic SR
psychology). However, because many systematic psychological manipulations (e.g., Cambridge Analytica,
2017- a company which combines data anlytics with behavioural economics and which former director of
research Christopher Wylie described as “a full blown propaganda machine”) explicitly target the unconscious
mind, i.e, System 1 processes to use the terminology of contemporary behavioural economics (but see Chomsky,
1992; Fleming & Oswick, 2014; Mullen, 2010; Mullen & Klaehn, 2010), mental self-defence is oftentimes ex-
tremely difficult. Introspective mediation is thus a critical tool in this respect in order to inspect and scrutinise
the contents of the mind. If we unreflectively and naively identify the self with the contents of our mind we lose
the necessary metacognitive degrees of freedom which would allow us to interfere with its contents.
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
interconnectedness of nature and the importance of biodiversity, e.g., biophilia) our
chances of survival are extremely low.
We would also like to emphasise the pertinence of other knowledge sources for psy-
chophysics. In the same way mathematics (Kerala school of mathematics), logic (Ve-
danta logic), and linguistics
were inspired by particularly Vedāntic traditions, Psy-
chophysics can do as well (e.g., the concept of nonduality, panpsychism, and panen-
Swami Vivekananda articulates the following on psychophysical complementarity
(even though he does not use this specific nomenclature) in one of his excellent lec-
tures on “practical Vedānta” which he delivered in London in 1896:
There are two worlds, the microcosm, and the macrocosm, the internal and the ex-
ternal. We get truth from both of these by means of experience. The truth gathered
from internal experience is psychology, metaphysics, and religion; from external ex-
perience, the physical sciences. Now a perfect truth should be in harmony with expe-
riences in both these worlds. The microcosm must bear testimony to the macrocosm,
and the macrocosm to the microcosm; physical truth must have its counterpart in
the internal world, and the internal world must have its verification outside. Yet, as
a rule, we find that many of these truths are in conflict. At one period of the world's
history, the internals become supreme, and they begin to fight the externals. At the
present time the externals, the physicists, have become supreme, and they have put
down many claims of psychologists and metaphysicians. So far as my knowledge
goes, I find that the real, essential parts of psychology are in perfect accord with the
essential parts of modern physical knowledge. It is not given to one individual to be
great in every respect; it is not given to one race or nation to be equally strong in the
research of all fields of knowledge. The modern European nations are very strong in
their research of external physical knowledge, but they are not so strong in their
study of the inner nature of man. On the other hand, the Orientals have not been very
For instance, the influence of the ancient Sanskrit philologist and grammarian Pāṇini on Noam Chomsky’s
influential theories.
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
strong in their researches of the external physical world, but very strong in their re-
searches of the internal. Therefore we find that Oriental physics and other sciences
are not in accordance with Occidental Sciences; nor is Occidental psychology in har-
mony with Oriental psychology. The Oriental physicists have been routed by Occi-
dental scientists. At the same time, each claims to rest on truth; and as we stated
before, real truth in any field of knowledge will not contradict itself; the truths inter-
nal are in harmony with the truths external. … What we call matter in modern times
was called by; the ancient psychologists Bhutas, the external elements. There is one
element which, according to them, is eternal; every other element is produced out of
this one. It is called Âkâsha.” (Vivekananda, 1896)
Similarly, William James and Lord Bertrand Russel can be regarded as proponents of
a non-dual philosophy of science as the following quotations (expressis verbis)
The instant field of the present is at all times what I call the ‘pure’ experience. It is
only virtually or potentially either object or subject as yet. For the time being, it is
plain, unqualified actuality, or existence, a simple that. [...] Just so, I maintain, does
a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the
part of the knower, or a state of mind, or “consciousness”; while in a different con-
text the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an ob-
jective ‘content.’ In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as
a thing. [...] Things and thoughts are not fundamentally heterogeneous; they are
made of one and the same stuff, stuff which cannot be defined as such but only expe-
rienced; and which one can call, if one wishes, the stuff of experience in general. [...]
‘Subjects’ knowing ‘things’ known are ‘roles’ played, not ‘ontological” facts’.”
― William James (James, 1904)
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
My own belief for which the reasons will appear in subsequent lectures is that
James is right in rejecting consciousness as an entity, and that the American real-
ists are partly right, though not wholly, in considering that both mind and matter
are composed of a neutral-stuff which, in isolation is neither mental nor material.”
― Bertrand Russel (Russel, 1921)
Perhaps the best “timeless” articulation of this stance has been provided a long time
ago by the great Advaita Vedanta logician Śakarācārya (Sanskrit:  
“Even in the state of ignorance, when one sees something, through what instru-
ment should one know That owing to which all this is known? For that instrument
of knowledge itself falls under the category of objects. The knower may desire to
know not about itself, but about objects. As fire does not burn itself, so the self does
not know itself, and the knower can have no knowledge of a thing that is not its ob-
ject. Therefore through what instrument should one know the knower owing to
which this universe is known, and who else should know it? And when to the
knower of Brahman who has discriminated the Real from the unreal there remains
only the subject, absolute and one without a second, through what instrument, O
Maitreyī, should one know that Knower?”
Jagadguru Śakarācārya
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
Berkhout, F. (2014). Anthropocene futures. Anthropocene Review, 1(2), 154159.
Bernays, P. (1928). Propaganda. Citizenship Studies (Vol. 8).
Bostrom, N. (2008). The doomsday argument. Think.
Brooks, R. (1969). The Meaning of “Real” in Advaita Vedanta. Philosophy East and
West, 19, 385398.
Burgarth, D., Facchi, P., Giovannetti, V., Nakazato, H., Pascazio, S., & Yuasa, K.
(2014). Quantum Computing in Plato’s Cave.
Burnyeat, M. (2000). Plato on Why Mathematics is Good for the Soul. Proceedings
of the British Academy, 103, 183.
Cambridge Analytica. (2017). Cambridge Analytica. Retrieved from
Chomsky, N. (1992). Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. East.
Cooper, N. (1966). The Importance of Δianoia in Plato’s Theory of Forms. The
Classical Quarterly, 16(1), 6569.
Crutzen, P. J. (2006). The anthropocene. In Earth System Science in the
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
Anthropocene (pp. 1318).
Eddington, A. S. (1929). The nature of the physical world. Book.
Fleming, P., & Oswick, C. (2014). Educating consent? A conversation with Noam
Chomsky on the university and business school education. Organization, 21(4),
Harrison, C. (1984). Holocene penguin extinction. Nature.
Hiriyanna, M. (1995). The essentials of Indian philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass
Johnson, C. N., & Wroe, S. (2003). Causes of extinction of vertebrates during the
Holocene of mainland Australia: Arrival of the dingo, or human impact?
Kendal, J. R., & Laland, K. N. (2000). Mathematical Models for Memetics. Journal
Of Memetics, 4(2000), 19. Retrieved from
Krauss, L. M. (2010). The Doomsday Clock still ticks. Scientific American, 302(1),
L’Etang, J. (1999). The father of spin: Edward L. Bernays and the birth of public
relations. Public Relations Review, 25(1), 123124.
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Defining the Anthropocene. Nature.
Meier, R. P., & Pinker, S. (1995). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates
Language. Language, 71(3), 610.
Misra, B., & Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1977). The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory.
Journal of Mathematical Physics, 18(4), 756763.
Morus, I. R. (2005). When physics became king. University of Chicago Press.
Mueller, I. (2005). Mathematics and the Divine in Plato. In Mathematics and the
Divine (pp. 99121).
Mullen, A. (2010). Twenty years on: the second-order prediction of the Herman--
Chomsky Propaganda Model. Media, Culture & Society, 32(4), 673690.
Mullen, A., & Klaehn, J. (2010). The Herman--Chomsky Propaganda Model: A
Critical Approach to Analysing Mass Media Behaviour. Sociology Compass,
4(4), 215229.
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Arnell, A. P., Contu, S., Palma, A. De, Ferrier, S.,
Purvis, A. (2016). Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the
planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science, 353(6296), 288291.
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
Peres, A. (1980). Zeno paradox in quantum theory. American Journal of Physics,
48(11), 931932.
Pickover, C. A. (2008). {Archimedes} to {Hawking}: laws of science and the great
minds behind them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rao, K. R., & Paranjpe, A. C. (2016). Psychology in the Indian Tradition. New Delhi:
Springer India.
Rosenberg, E., Sharon, G., & Zilber-Rosenberg, I. (2009). The hologenome theory of
evolution contains Lamarckian aspects within a Darwinian framework.
Environmental Microbiology, 11(12), 29592962.
Rosenberg, E., & Zilber-Rosenberg, I. (2008). Role of microorganisms in the
evolution of animals and plants:The hologenome theory of evolution. F. E. M. S.
Microbiol. Rev., 32, 723735.
Rosenberg, E., & Zilber-Rosenberg, I. (2011). Symbiosis and development: The
hologenome concept. Birth Defects Research Part C - Embryo Today: Reviews.
Rosenblum, B., & Kuttner, F. (2002). The observer in the quantum experiment.
Foundations of Physics, 32(8), 12731293.
Rosenblum, B., & Kuttner, F. (2011). Quantum enigma: physics encounters
consciousness. Quantum enigma: physics encounters consciousness.
A systematic introspective psychophysical inquiry into
the ultimate non-dual nature of the seers and the seen
Stapp, H. P. (2001). Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature. Foundations of
Physics, 31(10), 14651499.
Stuart, A. J., Kosintsev, P. A., Higham, T. F. G., & Lister, A. M. (2004). Pleistocene to
Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth. Nature,
431(7009), 684689.
Tanner, R. G. (1970). Δianoia and plato’s cave. The Classical Quarterly, 20(1), 8191.
Vivekananda, S. (1896). The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Practical
Vedanta and other lectures/Cosmology. Delivered in London, 12th November
Wheeler, J. (1955). Geons. Physical Review, 97(2), 511536.
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., …
Watson, R. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services.
Science, 314(5800), 787790.