Home Page


All Posts

Course on Mathematics

Course on Subject Clearing

Glossary of Hinduism (Subject Cleared)

Glossary of Dianetics (Subject Cleared)

A Logical Approach to Theoretical Physics

Durant 1926: The Story of Philosophy

Course on Human Nature

KHTK Version of Scientology

Comments on Books

Physics Materials

Research Data


Glossary of Dianetics (Subject Cleared)

Reference: Hubbard 1950: Dianetics TMSMH

This special glossary has been developed for DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH with the help of Subject Clearing.


Dianetics (from Greek dia, “through”, and nous, “mind”) is a subject that addresses psychosomatic causes of illnesses and aberrations afflicting the human self. What makes Dianetics so revolutionary, and at the same time evolutionary, is that it examines the basic assumptions underlying the subject of life and the mind.

C-scale is the scale of consciousness that extends from mystery to knowingness. The lowest point on this scale is the mystery of unconsciousness and waiting. The highest point of this scale is the knowingness of intimate familiarity that is natural.

The human self is made up of identity and C-point. The identity is unique to each life cycle; but the C-point is shared among life cycles. Upon death the identity does not continue, but the C-point continues. In other words, the concept of “rebirth” applies to the C-point only, and not to the identity. There is no eternal identity; only the C-point can be eternal. See IDENTITY and C-POINT.

The identity identifies the self by its unique and individual body-mind system. The identity produces the sense of ‘I-ness’. Having an identity is natural and not a flaw.

I-ness is the sense of individuality associated with the identity. See IDENTITY.

C-point is the level of consciousness that forms the frame of reference of the human self. It has a position on the C-scale, or the scale of consciousness. The C-point is usually attached to the sense of I-ness of the identity. But the c-point may detach from its fixation on identity and expand to become eternal. See C-SCALE.

The eternal c-point is the point of knowingness on C-scale that is expressed as The Static Viewpoint.

Ego is a fixation on I-ness. Having an identity (I-ness) is natural, but having an ego (fixation on I-ness) is not natural. It leads to pride and haughtiness.

The soul refers to the narrow c-point attached to an individual identity. See C-POINT.

The idea of rebirth applies to the c-point (see SOUL) and not to the identity. It comes from variations in the characteristics that one is born with, along with the continuation of certain characteristics from one life cycle to the next. Both these factors may be explained through the phenomenon of genes and the programming they carry. However, it still remains to be explained what this genetic programming is and how it comes about. The genetic programming is the blue print that shapes the identity (body-mind system) of the organism. Its content comes from impressions of the life cycles that have already occurred. Most of this programming is evolutionary; but some of it contains anomalies that needs to be resolved. It is the resolution of these anomalies that drives the evolution of the self.

An anomaly is any violation of the oneness of reality. An anomaly consists of a discontinuity (missing data), an inconsistency (contradictory data), or a disharmony (arbitrary data). 

The human body is the structure of the identity. It is composed of many different types of cells that together create tissues and subsequently organ systems. It comprises a head, neck, trunk (which includes the thorax and abdomen), arms and hands, legs and feet. The body varies anatomically in known ways. Physiology focuses on the systems and organs of the human body and their functions. 

The human mind is the operating system of the identity. It perceives the environment and directs the body in response. It assimilates knowledge by resolving anomalies so that the c-point may evolve toward becoming static.

The mental matrix forms the core of the mind. In a normal functioning mind, the sensations of touch, sight, hearing, taste and smell from the environment are received through the sense organs. These sensations break down into fine elements and are arranged in a matrix type structure. In this matrix, the elements are associated with each other directly or indirectly in the form of circuit pathways.

The consciousness depends on the degree of fineness of the matrix elements. Human consciousness is much higher than the consciousness in animals because the matrix elements in humans are very refined.

Assimilation is the process where matrix elements are so associated that the circuits formed by them contain no anomalies (discontinuities, disharmonies and inconsistencies). The assimilated portions of this matrix behave analytically; the unassimilated portions behave reactively.

The analytical mind refers to that part of mental matrix which is assimilated. It presents an innate sense of the oneness of reality. This innate sense is not taught. Violation of this innate sense of oneness generates anomalies. The resolution of anomalies is necessary to maintain the analytical state of the mind.

The reactive mind refers to that part of mental matrix which is not assimilated. It consists of unresolved anomalies. It is responsible for the reactive behavior of the organism and its unwanted condition, such as aberrations and illnesses.

An aberration is a lapse from a sound mental state.

Perception depends on the assimilation of the incoming sensations in the matrix elements. That means you do not perceive the sensations that are not yet assimilated, and they may appear as only as pain or discomfort. The perception is proportional to the degree of assimilation.

Memory is stored as the “matrix element pattern” of the original sensation with a time stamp of when it was received. The matrix arrangement minimizes the multiple occurrence of same elements for efficient storage of memories.

Thoughts are generated by activating circuits made up of matrix elements. Infinity of different circuits possible within the mental matrix.

As new experiences come about, their sensations are received through sense organs. These sensations are broken down into elements as far as possible in real time and then arranged in the mental matrix. The process of breaking them down further into finer elements and assimilating them more deeply, continues with later contemplation. 

A trauma is an experience produced by sudden injury and shock, as from accident or violence. The sensations of trauma come in so fast that they are difficult to break down and assimilate in real time. They just have superficial connections with rest of the matrix. Therefore, the real time perception of a trauma is very poor. It is perceived primarily as pain, and its impression is retained as a literal recording. Injuries of the body may heal, but the mental trauma is not healed until its impression can be broken down and assimilated with later contemplation.

A facsimile is an unassimilated recording of a trauma. Once assimilated, it reduces to a memory pattern, and no longer continues as a recording. The painful core of the facsimile is called an engram. A major restimulation of the facsimile is called a secondary, and the numerous minor activations of the facsimile are called locks.

Restimulation is a very simple system of stimulus-response where the environment reactivates a facsimile, which then acts back against the body or the behavior of the person, and causes psychosomatic illnesses and aberrations. Analytical sense is necessary to handle the restimulation of the facsimile. The restimulation ceases permanently when the facsimile is assimilated. At that point the psychosomatic illness and the aberration also fade away.

Subject Clearing is the method of chipping away at the restimulation of the facsimile by resolving anomalies small and large. You take up the things in the environment that are most closely related to the restimulation, as the subject to clear. You start resolving the anomalies as you come across them, until you have drilled down to the basic postulates of the subject. Then take up the next subject and so on. Most people usually select the religion that they grew up in. SUBJECT CLEARING STEP 5—Studying the Subject provides you with some basic instructions for subject clearing. From this link you can check out the whole course on Subject Clearing.

Meditation is looking and not thinking. In meditation you simply observe the mind. You do not ransack the mind through thinking. You just face whatever comes up. You do not avoid, suppress, deny or resist. Unless you confront, you are not going to make spiritual progress. Meditation is not just sitting in a lotus position. Meditating is perceiving correctly by being there and doing nothing else. If you are not simply being there then your social conditioning is making you do something.

[To be continued…]


Durant 1926: Epilogue (Francis Bacon)

Reference: The Story of Philosophy

This paper presents Chapter III, Section 6 from the book THE STORY OF PHILOSOPHY by WILL DURANT. The contents are from the 1933 reprint of this book by TIME INCORPORATED by arrangement with Simon and Schuster, Inc.

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the present understanding.  Feedback on these comments is appreciated.

The heading below is linked to the original materials.


VI. Epilogue  

“Men in great place are thrice servants; servants to the sovereign or state, servants of fame, and servants of business, so as they have no freedom, neither in their persons nor in their action, nor in their time. … The rising unto place is laborious, and by pains men come to greater pains; and it is sometimes base, and by indignities men come to dignities. The standing is slippery, and the regress is either a downfall or at least an eclipse.” What a wistful summary of Bacon’s epilogue! 

Francis Bacon was a man of his time.

“A man’s shortcomings,” said Goethe, “are taken from his epoch; his virtues and greatness belong to himself.” This seems a little unfair to the Zeitgeist, but it is exceptionally just in the case of Bacon. Abbott, after a painstaking study of the morals prevalent at Elizabeth’s court, concludes that all the leading figures, male and female, were disciples of Machiavelli. Roger Ascham described in doggerel the four cardinal virtues in demand at the court of the Queen: 

Cog, lie, flatter and face,
Four ways in Court to win men grace. 
If thou be thrall to none of these, 
Away, good Piers! Home, John Cheese!

In those times, man were beholden to their status.

It was one of the customs of those lively days for judges to take “presents” from persons trying cases in their courts. Bacon was not above the age in this matter; and his tendency to keep his expenditure several years in advance of his income forbade him the luxury of scruples. It might have passed unnoticed, except that he had made enemies in Essex’ case, and by his readiness to sabre foes with his speech. A friend had warned him that “it is too common in every man’s mouth in Court that … as your tongue hath been a razor to some, so shall theirs be to you.” But he left the warnings unnoticed. He seemed to be in good favor with the King; he had been made Baron Verulam of Verulam in 1618, and Viscount St. Albans in 1621; and for three years he had been Chancellor.

Bacon was extravagant and accepted bribes to support his lifestyle. He was caustic and had made enemies.

Then suddenly the blow came. In 1621 a disappointed suitor charged him with taking money for the despatch of a suit; it was no unusual matter, but Bacon knew at once that if his enemies wished to press it they could force his fall. He retired to his home, and waited developments. When he learned that all his foes were clamoring for his dismissal, he sent in his “confession and humble submission” to the King. James, yielding to pressure from the now victorious Parliament against which Bacon had too persistently defended him, sent him to the Tower. But Bacon was released after two. days; and the heavy fine which had been laid upon him was remitted by the King. His pride was not quite broken. “I was the justest judge that was in England these fifty years,” he said; “but it was the justest judgment that was in Parliament these two hundred years.”

Bacon was finally dismissed under the pressure of his enemies for something not so unusual.

He spent the five years that remained to him in the obscurity and peace of his home, harassed by an unwonted poverty, but solaced by the active pursuit of philosophy. In these five years he wrote his greatest Latin work, De Augmentis Scientiarum, published an enlarged edition of the Essays, a fragment called Sylva Sylvarum, and a History of Henry VII. He mourned that he had not sooner abandoned politics and given all his time to literature and science. To the very last moment he was occupied with work, and died, so to speak, on the field of battle. In his essay “Of Death” he had voiced a wish to die ”in an earnest pursuit, which is like one wounded in hot blood, who for the time scarce feels the hurt.” Like Caesar, he was granted his choice. 

Bacon lived the last five years of his life in poverty but happy in the pursuit of philosophy till his last breath.

In March, 1626, while riding from London to Highgate, and turn.ing over in his mind the question how far flesh might be preserved from putrefaction by being covered with snow, he resolved to put the matter to a test at once. Stopping off at a cottage, he bought a fowl, killed it, and stuffed it with snow. While he was doing this he was seized with chills and weakness; and finding himself too ill to ride back to town, he gave directions that he should be taken to the nearby home of Lord Arundel, where he took to bed. He did not yet resign life; he wrote cheerfully that “the experiment … succeeded excellently well.” But it was his last. The fitful fever of his varied life had quite consumed him; he was all burnt out now, too weak to fight the disease that crept up slowly to his heart. He died on the ninth of April, 1626, at the age of sixty-five. 

He had written in his will these proud and characteristic words: “1 bequeath my soul to God. … My body to be buried obscurely. My name to the next ages and to foreign nations.” The ages and the nations have accepted him. 


Durant 1926: Criticism (Francis Bacon)

Reference: The Story of Philosophy 

This paper presents Chapter III, Section 5 from the book THE STORY OF PHILOSOPHY by WILL DURANT. The contents are from the 1933 reprint of this book by TIME INCORPORATED by arrangement with Simon and Schuster, Inc.

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the present understanding.  Feedback on these comments is appreciated.

The heading below is linked to the original materials.


V. Criticism 

And now how shall we appraise this philosophy of Francis Bacon’s?

Is there anything new in it? Macaulay thinks that induction as described by Bacon is a very old-fashioned affair, over which there is no need of raising any commotion, much less a monument. “Induction has been practiced from morning till night by every human being since the world began. The man who infers that mince pies disagreed with him because he was ill when he ate them, well when he ate them not, most ill when he ate most and least ill when he ate least, has employed, unconsciously but sufficiently, all the tables of the Novum Organum.” But John Smith hardly handles his “‘table of more or less” so accurately, and more probably will continue his mince-pies despite the seismic disturbances of his lower strata. And even were John Smith so wise, it would not shear Bacon of his merit; for what does logic do but formulate the experience and methods of the wise?—what does any discipline do but try by rules to turn the art of a few into a science teachable to all? 

Bacon gave a precise definition to the method of induction in logic and made it more applicable. 

But is the formulation Bacon’s own? Is not the Socratic method inductive? Is not Aristotle’s biology inductive? Did not Roger Bacon practice as well as preach the inductive method which Francis Bacon merely preached? Did not Galileo formulate better the procedure that science has actually used? True of Roger Bacon, less true of Galileo, less true yet of Aristotle, least true of Socrates. Galileo outlined the aim rather than the method of science, holding up before its followers the goal of mathematical and quantitative formulation of all experience and relationships; Aristotle practiced induction when there was nothing else for him to do, and where the material did not lend itself to his penchant for the deduction of specific conclusions from magnificently general assumptions; and Socrates did not so much practice induction—the gathering of data—as analysis—the definition and discrimination of words and ideas. 

Induction has been practiced and preached by other philosophers but not in such inspiring terms as Bacon did.

Bacon makes no claim to parthenogenetic originality; like Shakespeare he takes with a lordly hand, and with the same excuse, that he adorns whatever he touches. Every man has his sources, as every organism has its food; what is his is the way in which he digests them and turns them into flesh and blood. As Rawley puts it, Bacon “contemned no man’s observations, but would light his torch at every man’s candle.” But Bacon acknowledges these debts: he refers to “that useful method of Hippocrates,”—so sending us at once to the real source of inductive logic among the Greeks; and “Plato,” he writes (where less accurately we write “Socrates”), “giveth good example of inquiry by induction and view of particulars; though in such a wandering manner as is of no force or fruit.” He would have disdained to dispute his obligations to these predecessors; and we should disdain to exaggerate them. 

Bacon does acknowledge Hippocrates as the source of inductive logic.

But then again, is the Baconian method correct? Is it the method most fruitfully used in modern science? No: generally, science has used, with best result, not the accumulation of data (“natural history”) and their manipulation by the complicated tables of the Novum Organum, but the simpler method of hypothesis, deduction and experiment. So Darwin, reading Malthus’ Essay on Population, conceived the idea of applying to all organisms the Malthusian hypothesis that population tends to increase faster than the means of subsistence; deduced from this hypothesis the probable conclusion that the pressure of population on the food-supply results in a struggle for existence in which the fittest survive, and by which in each generation every species is changed into closer adaptation to its environment; and finally (having by hypothesis and deduction limited his problem and his field of observation) turned to “the unwithered face of nature” and made for twenty years a patient inductive examination of the facts. Again, Einstein conceived, or took from Newton, the hypothesis that light travels in curved, not straight lines; deduced from it the conclusion that a star appearing to be (on the straight~line theory) in a certain position in the heaven, is really a little to one side of that position; and he invited experiment and observation to test the conclusion. Obviously the function of hypothesis and imagination is greater than Bacon supposed; and the procedure of science is more direct and circumscribed than in the Baconian scheme. Bacon himself anticipated the superannuation of his method; the actual practice of science would discover better modes of investigation than could be worked out in the interludes of statesmanship. “These things require some ages for the ripening of them.” 

Science actually uses the method of hypothesis, deduction and experiment, which is simpler than the Baconian scheme.

Even a lover of the Baconian spirit must concede, too, that the great Chancellor, while laying down the law for science, failed to keep abreast of the science of his time. He rejected Copernicus and ignored Kepler and Tycho Brahe; he depreciated Gilbert and seemed unaware of Harvey. In truth, he loved discourse better than research; or perhaps he had no time for toilsome investigations. Such work as he did in philosophy and science was left in fragments and chaos at his death; full of repetitions, contradictions, aspirations, and introductions. Ars longa, vita brevis—art is long and time is fleeting: this is the tragedy of every great soul. 

Bacon was really not very aware of the scientific research of his time.

To assign to so overworked a man, whose reconstruction of philosophy had to be crowded into the crevices of a harassed and a burdened political career, the vast and complicated creations of Shakespeare, is to waste the time of students with the parlor controversies of idle theorists. Shakespeare lacks just that which distinguishes the lordly Chancellor—erudition and philosophy. Shakespeare has an impressive smattering of many sciences, and a mastery of none; in all of them he speaks with the eloquence of an amateur. He accepts astrology: “This huge state … whereon the stars in secret influence comment.” He is forever making mistakes which the learned Bacon could not possibly have made: his Hector quotes Aristotle and his Coriolanus alludes to Cato; he supposes the Lupercalia to be a hill; and he understands Caesar about as profoundly as Caesar is understood by H. G. Wells. He makes countless references to his early life and his matrimonial tribulations. He perpetrates vulgarities, obscenities and puns natural enough in the gentle roisterer who could not quite out-live the Stratford rioter and the butcher’s son, but hardly to be expected in the cold and calm philosopher. Carlyle calls Shakespeare the greatest of intellects; but he was rather the greatest of imaginations, and the keenest eye. He is an inescapable psychologist, but he is not a philosopher: he has no structure of thought unified by a purpose for his own life and for mankind. He is immersed in love and its problems, and thinks of philosophy, through Montaigne’s phrases, only when his heart is broken. Otherwise he accepts the world blithely enough; he is not consumed with the reconstructive vision that ennobled Plato, or Nietzsche, or Bacon. 

But Bacon single-handedly reconstructed the whole field of philosophy. He was very different from Shakespeare.

Now the greatness and the weakness of Bacon lay precisely in his passion for unity, his desire to spread the wings of his coordinating genius over a hundred sciences. He aspired to be like Plato, “a man of sublime genius, who took a view of everything as from a lofty rock.” He broke down under the weight-of the tasks he had laid upon himself; he failed forgivably because he undertook so much. He could not enter the promised land of science, but as Cowley’s epitaph expressed it, he could at least stand upon its border and point out its fair features in the distance.

If Bacon appears to have failed it was because he undertook so much. He could at least stand upon the border of science and point out its fair features in the distance.

His achievement was not the less great because it was indirect. His philosophical works, though little read now, “moved the intellects which moved the world.” He made himself the eloquent voice of the optimism and resolution of the Renaissance. Never was any man so great a stimulus to other thinkers. King James, it is true, refused to accept his suggestion for the support of science, and said of the Novum Orgaum, that “it was like the peace of God, which passeth all understanding.” But better men, in 1662, founding that Royal Society which was to become the greatest association of scientists in the world, named Bacon as their model and inspiration; they hoped that this organization of English research would lead the way toward that Europe-wide association which the Advancement of Learning had taught them to desire. And when the great minds of the French Enlightenment undertook that masterpiece of intellectual enterprise, the Encyclopedie, they dedicated it to Francis Bacon. “If,” said Diderot in the Prospectus, “we have come of it successfully, we shall owe most to the Chancellor Bacon, who threw out the plan of a universal dictionary of sciences and arts, at a time when, so to say, neither arts nor sciences existed. That extraordinary genius, when it was impossible to write a history of what was known, wrote one of what it was necessary to learn.” D’Alembert called Bacon “the greatest, the most universal, and the most eloquent of philosophers.” The Convention published the works of Bacon at the expense of the state. The whole tenor and career of British thought have followed the philosophy of Bacon. His tendency to conceive the world in Democritean mechanical terms gave to his secretary, Hobbes, the starting-point for a thorough-going materialism; his inductive method gave to Locke the idea of an empirical psychology, bound by observation and freed from theology and metaphysics; and his emphasis on “commodities” ‘and “fruits” found formulation in Bentham’s identification of the useful and the good. 

Bacon’s philosophical works, though little read now, “moved the intellects which moved the world.” 

Wherever the spirit of control has overcome the spirit of resignation, Bacon’s influence has been felt. He is the voice of all those Europeans who have changed a continent from a forest into a treasure-land of art and science, and have made their little peninsula the center of the world. “Men are not animals erect,” said Bacon, “but immortal gods.” “The Creator has given us souls equal to all the world, and yet satiable not even with a world.” Everything is possible to man. Time is young; give us some little centuries, and we shall control and remake all things. We shall perhaps at last learn the noblest lesson of all, that man must not fight man, but must make war only on the obstacles that nature offers to the triumph of man. “It will not be amiss,” writes Bacon, in one of his finest passages, “to distinguish the three kinds, and as it were grades, of ambition in mankind. The first is of those who desire to extend their power in their native country; which kind is vulgar and degenerate. The second is of those who labor to extend the power of their country and its dominion among men; this certainly has more dignity, but not less covetousness. But if a man endeavor to establish and extend the power and dominion of the human race itself over the universe, his ambition is without doubt both a more wholesome thing and a nobler than the other two.” It was Bacon’s fate to be torn to pieces by these hostile ambitions struggling for his soul. 

Bacon is the voice of all those Europeans who have changed a continent from a forest into a treasure-land of art and science, and have made their little peninsula the center of the world. 


Durant 1926: The Utopia of Science (Francis Bacon)

Reference: The Story of Philosophy

This paper presents Chapter III, Section 4 (Part 3) from the book THE STORY OF PHILOSOPHY by WILL DURANT. The contents are from the 1933 reprint of this book by TIME INCORPORATED by arrangement with Simon and Schuster, Inc.

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the present understanding.  Feedback on these comments is appreciated.

The heading below is linked to the original materials.


IV.3 The Utopia of Science

To perfect science so, and then to perfect social order by putting science in control, would itself be utopia enough. Such is the world described for us in Bacon’s brief fragment and last work, The New Atlantis, published two years before his death. Wells thinks it Bacon’s “greatest service. to science” to have drawn for us, even so sketchily, the picture of a society in which at last science has its proper place as the master of things; it was a royal act of imagination by which for three centuries one goal has been held in view by the great army of warriors in the battle of knowledge and invention against ignorance and poverty. Here in these few pages we have the essence and the “form” of Francis Bacon, the law of his being and his life, the secret and continuous aspiration of his soul. 

Bacon’s utopia was to perfect science so, and then to perfect social order by putting science in control.

Plato in the Timaeus had told of the old legend of Atlantis, the sunken continent in the Western seas. Bacon and others identified the new America of Columbus and Cabot with this old Atlantis; the great continent had not sunk after all, but only men’s courage to navigate the sea. Since this old Atlantis was now known, and seemed inhabited by a race vigorous enough, but not quite like the brilliant Utopians of Bacon’s fancy, he conceived of a new Atlantis, an isle in that distant Pacific which only Drake and Magellan had traversed, an isle distant enough from Europe and from knowledge to give generous scope to the Utopian imagination. 

Bacon though of America as the place where his utopia could be fulfilled.

The story begins in the most artfully artless way, like the great tales of Defoe and Swift. “We sailed from Peru (where we had continued for the space of one whole year), for China and Japan by the South Sea.” Came a great calm, in which the ships for weeks lay quietly on the boundless ocean like specks upon a mirror, while, the provisions of the adventurers ebbed away. And then resistless winds drove the vessels pitilessly north and north and north, out of the island-dotted south into an endless wilderness of sea. The rations were reduced, and reduced again, and again reduced; and disease took hold of the crew. At last, when they had resigned themselves to death, they saw, almost unbelieving, a fair island looming up under the sky. On the shore, as their vessel neared it, they saw not savages, but men simply and yet ‘beautifully clothed, clean, and manifestly of developed intelligence. They were permitted to land, but were told that the island government allowed no strangers to remain. Nevertheless, since some of the’ crew were sick, they might all stay till these were well again. 

The story starts with a long sea voyage, when the desperately lost crew suddenly comes upon this fair island inhabited by intelligent people.

During the weeks of convalescence the wanderers unraveled, day by day, the mystery of the New Atlantis; “There reigned in this island about nineteen hundred years ago,” one of the inhabitants tells them, “a King whose memory above all others we most adore. … His name was Solamona, and we esteem him as the Law-giver of our nation. This King had a large heart . … and was wholly bent to make his kingdom and people happy.” “Among the excellent acts of that King one above all hath the preeminence. It was the creation and institution of the Order, or Society, which is called Solomon’s House; the noblest foundation, as we think, that was ever upon the earth; and the lantherne of this kingdom.” 

Nineteen hundred years ago, an institution of the Order, or Society, called Solomon’s House was created.

There follows a description of Solomon’s House, too complicated for a quoted abstract, but eloquent enough to (draw from the hostile Macaulay the judgment that “there is not to be found in any human composition a passage more eminently distinguished by profound and serene wisdom.” Solomon’s House takes the place, in the New Atlantis, of the Houses of Parliament in London; it is the home of the island government. But there are no politicians there, no insolent “elected persons,” no “national palaver,” as Carlyle would say; no parties, caucuses, primaries, conventions, campaigns, buttons, lithographs, editorials, speeches, lies, and elections; the idea of filling public office by such dramatic methods seems never to have entered the heads of these Atlantans. But the road to the heights of scientific repute is open to all, and only those who have traveled the road sit in the councils of the state. It is a government of the people and for the people by the selected best of the people; a government by technicians, architects, astronomers, geologists, biologists, physicians, chemists, economists, sociologists, psychologists and philosophers. Complicated enough; but think of a government without politicians! 

Solomon’s House is the home of the island government; but there are no elected politicians there. only those who have traveled the road to the heights of scientific repute sit in the councils of the state. 

Indeed there is little government at all in the New Atlantis; these governors are engaged rather in controlling nature than in ruling man. “The End of Our Foundation is the Knowledge of Causes and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible.” This is the key-sentence of the book, and of Francis Bacon. We find the governors engaged in such undignified tasks as studying the stars, arranging to utilize for industry the power of falling water, developing gases for the cure of various ailments, experimenting on animals for surgical knowledge, growing new varieties of plants and animals by cross-breeding, etc. “We imitate the flights of birds; we have some degree of flying in the air. We have ships and boats for going under water.” There is foreign trade, but of an unusual sort; the island produces what it consumes, and consumes what it produces; it does not go to war for foreign markets. “We maintain a trade, not of gold, silver, or jewels, nor for silks, nor for spices, nor for any other commodity or matter; but only for God’s first creature, which was light; to have light of the growth of all parts of the world.” These “Merchants of Light” are members of Solomon’s House who are sent abroad every twelve years to live among foreign peoples of every quarter of the civilized globe; to learn their language and study their sciences and industries and literatures; and to return, at the end of the twelve years, to report their findings to the leaders of Solomon’s House; while their places abroad are taken by a new group of scientific explorers. In this way the best of all the world comes soon to the New Atlantis.

The goal of the government is defined by this key sentence: “The End of Our Foundation is the Knowledge of Causes and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible.”

Brief as the picture is, we see in it again the outline of every philosopher’s utopia—a people guided in peace and modest plenty by their wisest men. The dream of every thinker is to replace the politician by the scientist; why does it remain only a dream after so many incarnations? Is it because the thinker is too dreamily intellectual to go out into the arena of affairs and build his concept into reality? Is it because the hard ambition of the narrowly acquisitive soul is forever destined to overcome the gentle and scrupulous aspirations of philosophers and saints? Or is it that science is not yet grown to maturity and conscious power?—that only in our day do physicists and chemists and technicians begin tosee that the rising role of science in industry and war gives them a pivotal position in social strategy, and points to the time when their organized strength will persuade the world to call them to leadership? Perhaps science has not yet merited the mastery of the world; and perhaps in a little while it will. 

We see in this picture again the outline of every philosopher’s utopia—a people guided in peace and modest plenty by their wisest men.



Hinduism is an organization of spiritual thought that started with the Vedic period and has continued till today. The Vedic period (c. 1500 -500 BCE) was a period of rapid development of thought with little organization. This is the period during which Krishna, very likely, existed as a yogi and had such a great impact that his name became synonymous with Hinduism.

At the end of the Vedic period (500 BCE) there was organization of spiritual thought in the form of Jnana Yoga. Jnana Yoga separated all ritualism, and focused primarily on meditation. It clarified the concept of self, and the goal of meditation became accessing and becoming aware of the unassimilated impressions on one’s Chitta. This awareness brings up unknown sensations, emotions and thoughts that have been buried for a long time. This is followed by the process of assimilation, during which many realizations occur. This phase of spiritual organization became synonymous with Buddha. However, Jnana Yoga just happens to be very cerebral and was successfully followed by relatively few people.

During the next phase of the organization (400-200 BCE) Patanjali and Ved Vyas expanded Jnana to Karma Yoga of detached action. Karma Yoga required giving up the fixation on worldly affairs. There was a fine line here. One engaged in the worldly affairs to the degree that the actions were in line with the natural laws. One’s disposition suited one to follow a certain class of activity in the society. It was mandatory for the person to perform his assigned duty to the best of his ability. This allowed the person to focus on developing his abilities in a detached manner. Karma Yoga is the main subject of the Bhagavad Gita (BG). It has less focus on the mind and more on detached action. In writing BG, Vyasa used the legendary character of Krishna to popularize Karma Yoga. BG introduces Jnana Yoga briefly in Chapter 2, with the concept of Atman, and then focuses on Karma Yoga as a preliminary step to Jnana Yoga. However, Karma Yoga ended up alienating people from their emotions. Like Jnana Yoga, it was successfully followed by relatively few people.

In the centuries following the Bhagavad Gita, the emotional dimension of spiritual thought was explored. This led to Bhakti Yoga. Unlike Jnana and Karma, Bhakti was able to win the hearts and minds of people in large numbers. This makes Bhakti Yoga a fascinating subject.

NOTE: Discrimination, resolute intellect and devotion is present in all yoga; but in Jnana Yoga there is predominance of discrimination, in Karma Yoga there is predominance of resolute intellect, and in Bhakti Yoga there is predominance of devotion.