Chapters 5 - 11
Ingo Swann (8Aug05)


ALTHOUGH they portend coming Situations quite different from modernist ones, the scientific discoveries of various kinds of non-locality-quantum Stuffs that interpenetrate our local Matter realities probably, at first sight anyway, don't yet mean that much to us who everyday struggle amongst the local Matter vicissitudes involved.

However, the discovery of "cells that read minds" is probably a quite different Situation - because such "cells" are part and parcel of the vicissitudes of our local, everyday, Matter realities – in that the deciphering of another's hidden intentions and motives is now scientifically possible or at least theoretically feasible.
In other words, an important shift has suddenly taken place with respect to how super sensitivities as a whole (and telepathy in particular) are viewed.  In the modernist past, the super sensitivities were viewed, at best, as non-normal psychological phenomena for which there was thought to be no material explanation.

Now that "cells that read minds" have been discovered in the brain, the apparent lack of material explanation for telepathy has been filled in - rather ironically it seems, because the greatest modernist opponents of telepathy were the modernist sciences themselves.

One possible factor about all of this seems so far to have escaped what passes for frequently changing scientific realizations – in that cells that can read minds might have the capacity to "read" a lot more than just minds.


That parapsychologists in the past have gotten up words and terms in an attempt to differently categorize what appeared, to them, to be various kinds of super sensitive phenomena is no sign that the actual workings of super sensitivities MUST correspond to them.

For example, in the modern cultural West, a number of words and terms have conceptually evolved that supposedly identify this or that type of super sensitivity – such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, premonition, sixth sense, second sight, intuition, etc., as well as remote viewing, a term that this author helped to coin in 1971.

Such words and terms are useful at a superficial level, but they don't at all provide cognitive access to the deeper particulars of the functioning processes involved.

In terms of possible training of those deeper processes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if something is going to be trained, one does not get very far by trying to train any superficial concept of it.

One rather has to go to work and try to identify whatever deeper processes are involved, processes that are amenable to training via cognitive training, development, strengthening, and enhancement of them.

So, even if the terminological categorizing might serve some purpose in parapsychology labs experimenting within objective empirical methods, if one takes time to observe super sensitivity functioning in real life situations, an entirely different picture tends to emerge.


The question that emerges from the brief discussion above has to do with where, in real life, can one actually witness super sensitivities in efficient activity.

One of the definitions of EFFICIENT is given as "productive without waste."  One of the synonyms is EFFECTIVE, defined as "The quality of being efficient; producing a decided, or desired effect or result."

Two further observations might be appended to these real-life definitions:  (1) if super sensitivities do not produce information that is usable, practical, or verifiable, then there is little reason to consider them as much of anything; and (2) many may actually experience active super sensitivities, but produce distorted information down to and including gobbledygook that might be fascinating in terms of entertainment, but having little merit beyond that.

In this particular contest, it might be observed that super sensitivities turn into super POWERS only if they more so rather than less so demonstrate useful, organized, efficiency.


So, where do we find demonstrations of efficient super sensitivities?  During the last hundred or so years, there seems to be only one social real-life context within which efficient super sensitivities have achieved a modicum of social tolerance and reality.

This is the area now familiarly known as "psychic detectives" who help solve crimes when police detectives find themselves either between a rock and a hard place or up against a clueless brick wall.
Professional police detectives, working toward building an airtight case must of course totally depend on accumulating logic-reason evidence that will stand up in logic-reason courts of law.

As is well known, although they usually won't admit it, many police detectives themselves are in possession of modicums of intuition or gut-feelings.  But even so, they occasionally encounter clueless brick wall situations, after which they are up against whatever they ARE up against, such as crimes not solvable by logic-reason-detecting alone.

In general, any super sensitive sleuth worth their own water is expected to "see" through clueless brick walls and provide informational clues not apparent via mere logic-reason contexts, but which COULD become apparent if mere logic-reason knew where and how to look and test for them.

About the only thing a super sensitive sleuth can do is to provide information that, if ultimately proven efficient, can help resolve clueless situations.

There is, of course, a lengthy history of failure along these lines, but there is no real need to throw the baby out with the bath water – because the point here is that the baby does exist.
As this essay is being constructed, there are several quite remarkable contemporary super sensitive sleuths here and there, and which some few really stressed cops are no longer too reticent to consult.  (If interested in names of these contemporary super sensitive sleuths, do consult the Internet.)

However, in the general contexts of this essay, there are a number of reasons to review two deceased super sensitive sleuths.

Both of these are of Dutch fame.  Both were assiduously investigated by detractors and European parapsychologists – and, without much help by the investigators, both trained themselves well enough to efficiently deploy their remarkable super sensitivities.


Gerard Croiset (1909-1980), born in Enschede, Netherlands, was plagued as a child with all sorts of confusing super sensitivities.  As he grew up, he somehow managed to train himself and thus achieved some kind of efficient, heightened, volitional control over them.

At a rather early point in his life, he began working unobtrusively with the Chief Justice of Leeuwarden and with the Chief Justice of Haarlem, in tracing the activities of criminals or missing persons, thereby helping to solve many crimes via different aspects of his super sensitivities, thereafter becoming internationally known as a "super sleuth."

Croiset's super-sensitivities were intensively investigated by leading European and some American parapsychologists who established that the sensitivities were multiple and included various extraordinary forms of clairvoyance, telepathy, pre- and post-cognition, the "sixth sense," and psychometry roughly defined as "using extrasensory perception of a physical object to gain information about events or people once associated with it."

His "crimebusting" was utilized in close collaboration with police departments in many European nations and even in the USA.  Although some failures occurred, his overall verified success rate remained extremely high.

Since his remarkable sensitivities were present while very young, it has everywhere been assumed he was especially naturally born with them.

This assumption fitted with the then fashionable idea that certain specimens of our species are, via some special genetic combination, naturally born with such sensitivities, while all the rest are not – i.e., unless you are naturally born with them you will never have them.  (This point of view will be dissected ahead.)

(Those interested in Croiset might avail themselves of his biography, CROISET:  THE CLAIRVOYANT (1964) by Jack Harrison Pollack.)


However, the "naturally-born" hypothesis underwent stress just as Gerard Croiset's naturally-born fame was nearing its highest ascendancy.

Peter Hurkos (1911-1988) was also born in The Netherlands, in Dordrecht, and early worked as a laborer and merchant seaman, later becoming a member of the Dutch underground after Holland was occupied near the beginning of World War II.  During this period, he didn't have a clue about any kind of super-sensitivity.

However, in 1941, at the age of 30, while painting a house he fell thirty-six feet from a ladder and landed right on his head.

After more or less recovering from his injuries, he found himself in sudden possession of super sensitivities enabling him "to obtain information about people and objects" in telepathic and psychometric ways.

He thereafter underwent a period during which he had to work out  various confusions, and was finally able to bring at least some of his new sensitivities under heightened voluntary control.  About this same time period, he was captured by the Gestapo and imprisoned in Buchenwald, Germany where he remained in hard labor until that camp was liberated by U.S. and Canadian troops in 1945.  So he had plenty of time to test and train his newly found super sensitivities,

Regaining his freedom, his increasing super sensitivities were too distracting for him to follow a normal occupation.  So he took to appearing on the stage to demonstrate his newly self-discovered sensitivities, more or less obtaining the reputation of a mere trickster.  But he also began trying to help police in several countries solve many cases of murder, theft, and missing persons.

His verified success rates were slightly less than those of Croiset, but in any event Holland found itself possessed of TWO internationally known "super-sleuths" during the same time period of its history.

(For those interested, Hurkos wrote his own autobiography, entitled PSYCHIC:  THE STORY OF PETER HURKOS (1962).)


The foregoing brief sketches of Croiset and Hurkos are but two examples of many that are available.

The first reason for reprising these two sketches is to focus discussion of the long-standing assumption that one won't have such sensitivities unless one is born with them - end of story.

Within the contexts of this assumption, Croiset WAS born with them, since the super sensitivities were already naturally blipping on his radar as a child.

It could therefore be concluded that Croiset was especially naturally hardwired and thus equipped with them at birth.

In the case of Hurkos, however, the super sensitivities did not begin blipping on his radar until after he quite dramatically fell on his head and knocked himself out. 

Apologists for the "naturally-born" hypothesis thus explain that Hurkos was also naturally innately hardwired for such sensitivities, but didn't know it, because they had not turned on earlier in his life.

If such WAS the case, then who is to know whom is similarly innately hardwired, but doesn't know it?  Most of us, perhaps?

YES?  From this, it could be deduced, hypothetically anyway, that many, most, or all are hardwired for super sensitive capacities but don't know it.


To get into the second reason mentioned earlier, the term PREMONITION is defined as "a warning presentiment or anticipation of a forthcoming, usually dangerous event without rational or logical conscious perception or reasons for it."

One doesn't need to be a Croiset or Hurkos type to experience premonitions, because such have been experienced by "ordinary" individuals in all times, societies, and cultures, backwaters, battlefields, nature, streets, homes, etc. – and, it might be added, experienced in ways that the experiencers themselves cannot account for.


The efficiency value of any super sensitivity can be determined, only or mostly, by its practical results – and the practical results of premonitions, when they are heeded, are obvious.

For every ten famous specimens of the Croiset or Hurkos types, thousands or more of no particular fame spontaneously experience premonitions, this somewhat indicating the innate hardwiring for premonition sensitivity is far more indigenous to our species than heretofore acknowledged.

As already mentioned, PREMONITION is defined as "anticipation of an event without conscious reason; forewarning."

It is rather safe to say that premonitions of some kind occur, perhaps only infrequently, to just about everyone, and there is a vast anecdotal literature describing many such events, most of which are fascinating.

When a premonition occurs "without conscious reason," the implication is that somewhere in one's systems exists "something" that is obviously conscious of whatever is involved in the premonition.

Thus, premonitions are usually attributed to some perceptual aspect of the "subconscious" – which seems somehow to be aware of something that is going to happen in the immediate ordistant future that "conscious reason" is not foreseeing.

In this sense, it seems possible to suggest that the subconscious is equipped with innate hardwiring sufficiently enough to achieve such perceptions, whereas the hardwiring, if any, of conscious reason seems rather unequipped to do so.

Indeed, in at least some few specimens of our species, conscious reason seems singularly inadequate with respect to playing with a full deck of reasoning attributes.


There also exists a quite large, often dramatic and poignant, anecdotal literature having to do with spontaneous cases of mother-child telepathy during which mothers "sense" their child is in distress or danger, even if the child is at a great distance away.

Fathers sometimes experience such events.  But mothers seem in particular to be hardwired along these lines, and in their cases it seems that the barrier between sub-conscious and conscious perceptions is very permeable indeed.

In any event, they spontaneously and easily abandon their "conscious reason," and, if at all possible, make impulsive haste to aid and abet their children.

This particular literature is well worth reading, especially now that innately hardwired mirror (telepathic) neurons have been discovered actually to exist.


So, what have spontaneous premonitions and telepathic linkages have to do with teaching, learning, and training any of the super sensitivities?

To try to get into THIS, it is necessary to review the definitions of SPONTANEOUS, which, in its most important nuances, is altogether defined as "involuntarily originating, being produced, or becoming activated without conscious deliberation, without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment."


Everyone has, of course, heard of INSTINCT, but might not be too familiar with the term's formal definitions:  "A natural [innate] aptitude, impulse, or capacity; a complex and specific response by an organism to environmental stimuli that is hereditary and unalterable, does not involve reason, and has as its goal the removal of somatic tension."

The "goal" part referred to in this definition might more specifically be defined as "the preservation of the organism," in that threat of non-preservation probably would result in all kinds of "tension" in addition to somatic examples of it.

IMPULSE is principally defined as "a wave of excitation transmitted to the tissues and, especially, nerve fibers and muscles that results in physiological activity; a sudden spontaneous inclination or incitement to some usually unpremeditated action."

What is not mentioned in definitions of this term is that such "excitation and spontaneity" is largely the function of the motor and pre-motor cortexes.  Mull this over as we proceed.

With respect to the synonym AUTOMATIC, we will examine the definition of AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM, given as:  "the part of the vertebrate nervous system that supplies with nerves (innervates) the smooth and cardiac muscle and glandular tissues and governs involuntary action."

In this sense, the innervating autonomic nervous system is automatic, and, as well, can be referred to as a MECHANISM – defined as "a process or technique for achieving a result or goal."


If spontaneous super sensitivities don't arise because of or out of the perceptual conscious reason, then there are two systems 

There has to be another perceptual system because of, and out of,

which the super sensitivities spontaneously arise and in ways that conscious reason neither perceives nor can account for.

So the autonomic nervous system does its own things – sometimes much to the alarm of whatever is passing for reason.

All of this having been said, it is now time to pose a very seminal question:  Can the autonomic nervous system be trained – that same system that sometimes spontaneously produces hints and clues of naturally hardwired super sensitivities.


SO!  We have modicums of highly efficient super sensitive sleuths who have actually helped resolve crimes, and whose successes are increasingly being substantiated by law officials, and some examples of which are increasingly being documented on TV.

We also have voluminous spontaneous incidents of  efficient and amazing premonitions, mostly documented after the fact, because few pay attention to premonitions until after they have been fulfilled.  (The best source on this so far is the 1971 book PREMONITIONS:  A LEAP INTO THE FUTURE, by Herbert B. Greenhouse.)

We also have a large incidence of transient, spontaneous super sensitivity events erupting in the populations in general.

Last, but not least, we also have animal superpowers that of late are acquiring not only popular, but also scientific attention.  (See, for example, the article entitled "Animal Superpowers" in the December 24, 2005 – January 6, 2006 issue of NEW SCIENTIST.)  Just about everyone knows that animals sense-perceive energies and stuff that humans usually don't unless they have a modicum of clairvoyance.  In the case of animal superpowers, scientists are now busy trying to locate the relevant genetic hardwiring.  They will eventually (if they haven't already) get around to trying to locate such hardwiring in US, in THEMSELVES, etc.


Developing, enhancing, training something presupposes that the something already exists in rudimentary form.

RUDIMENT is defined as "raw, beginning; a beginning raw fundamental principle or element that can be enhanced, developed, or trained into a skill."

Before it became possible to map the entire genome (i.e., inherent-innate genetic structure) of a species, the existence of rudiments had to be guessed at, or tested by observation and experience.

During the last twenty or so years, it has become possible to identify the existence of such rudiments at the genetic level, even though they may have not been activated, turned on, energized, awakened, and thenceforth developed into some kind of lesser or greater skill-like efficiency.

It is also now understood quite well in the genetic research fields that Genetic Systems are usually quite busy turning off and turning on this or that rudiment, although the Why of this remains something of a mystery.

It is also somewhat well known that genetic systems INNATELY possess rudiments that are not used, but which anyway are passed along through their progeny.

Some now speculate that the human species has an overabundance of rudiments that are not used.  Hence, these are not awakened, energized, developed, etc., but are anyway downloaded into successive generations.

So we have now tripped across that word INNATE – a depth diving term that goes hand-in-hand with the essential existence of raw rudiments.


The term INNATE is defined as "naturally existing in or belonging to an individual from birth; inherent within; belonging to the essential nature of something."

These are perfectly good definitions.  But before going on it should be pointed up that the term INNATE seems somewhat to have gone out of fashion, and is being replaced by the concept of HARDWIRED.

This is now a concept associated with computers whose hard drive capacities are, well, hardwired to perform those functions they do or can do – and if they are not hardwired, then they cannot perform such functions.
Bending this analogy a little, it could be said that a computer's hardwiring exists in and belongs to it from birth; its hardwiring is inherent within it, and belongs to the computer's essential nature.

However, computers operate on electricity, and so somewhere is a switch which, in its "on" position, is hardwired to permit the flow of the necessary "juice," or, in its "off" position, cuts the flow.

When a computer is switched off, its hardwired capacities are still inherent within its designed essential nature, and will perform those inherent functions when the contraption is again turned on and juiced up.

It could be said, roughly speaking anyway, that in its juiced-up state, the computer is once more "sensitive" to its inherently designed capacities AND the designed programs inserted into them.

It takes just one little glitch in all of this – well, everyone knows what THAT means.


SENSITIVE is defined as "subject to excitations by external agents; highly responsive or susceptible; capable of sensing and indicating gross and minute differences; also, the capacity of an organism to respond to stimulation by external and internal agents or sources." 

As most realize, the human species and all of its individual specimens possess and experience many different kinds of sensitivities, so many in fact that no real attempt has ever been undertaken to itemize them.

These copious sensitivities have been thought of as consisting of two principal categories – physical sensitivities, and super-sensitivity capacities, designated here as such, in that they transcend the capacity limits of the physical sensitivities, and which, in some demonstrated cases, seem to have no really discernable limits at all.


It is generally accepted that the human organism is innately. i.e., "naturally," hardwired with respect to the physical sensitivities, largely because of their broadly shared functions in all specimens of our species.

But demonstrated emergences of this or that super sensitivity have always been thought of as erratic among individuals, and, as such, do not demonstrate broadly shared hardwired species functions.

So the super sensitivities have not been considered as innately hardwired in anyone, much less throughout the entire species.

 Nevertheless, the super sensitivities have been "accounted for" in numerous ways, the principal one consisting of the erroneous idea that certain human specimens are somehow specially born with them, while the majority of those born are somehow deficit of them.

This idea does not really coincide with the widespread fluctuating manifestations of the super sensitivities, even though it seems "logical" enough – at least to those who are not too familiar with the actual history of what is involved.


The recently discovered existence of mirror (telepathic) neurons in premotor cortices implies they are innate, and thus have rudimentary potentials whether they are cognitively activated or not – potentials having to do with discerning motives and intentions of others.

This must come as quite a shock to our present civilization in which people resent having their conversations overheard, or their telephones tapped.  How does one get a search warrant with respect to mirror neuron tapping of another's motives and intentions - a warrant forbidding the use of one's own mirror neurons.  Can you imagine?

In any event, mirror neurons genetically exist, and so it must be assumed they are super sensitive rudiments innate and universal to our species, and in all of its specimens whether cognitively inactive, or spontaneously active in the absence of conscious understanding of what's happening and why.

Spontaneous activity of various super sensitivities, or the existence of such, within our species has been reported perhaps from Day One.  So even if they only occasionally activate does not at all mean that their rudiments don't permanently exist in some inactive form.

For extensive lists of what these innate "universals" are, do consult the Internet, and/or especially the entry for a List, compiled by Donald E. Brown, of "Human Universals" in THE MIT ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE COGNITIVE SCIENCES, Wilson & Keil, 1999.  This List is also found as the Appendix of Steven Pinker's magnificent book entitled THE BLANK SLATE:  THE MODERN DENIAL OF HUMAN NATURE (2002).


To remind, and hopefully for increasing clarity, the term UNIVERSAL is defined as "Including or covering a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; present or occurring everywhere; reference to everyone without exception in the class, category, or genus considered."

INNATE is again defined as "Inherent; existing in or belonging to an individual from birth, or inherent throughout a genus; originating naturally rather than from learned experience."
To sort out a possible confusion here, UNIVERSAL more or less means that everyone DOES it; INNATE means that everyone HAS it whether they consciously know it or not, and if they don't innately have it then they can never do anything with it.


Now to momentarily return to the List of innate universals referred to above, it is therein pointed up that the innate items included in it consist primarily of "surface" universals of behavior and overt language noted by ethnographers, but that the List does not include "deeper universals of mental structure that are revealed by theory and experiments."
Are we therefore to think that the activities of our species consist only of "surface" universals that are unaccompanied by "deeper universals of mental structure."

Well, some of such deep-diving activities are quite well known and widely accepted – such as INSTINCT and premonitions, future-seeing episode phenomena, and INTUITIONS, none of which are included in the list.

Telepathy, the most socially hated super sensitivity, didn't make the List, either, and of course clairvoyance is at such a deep-diving depth that "mental structures" apparently need special depth-cognitive equipment that might enable even partial notice of that type of super sensitivity.


There are two grousing points being made here:
(1) Temporary intellectualisms come and go, and thus are characterized by impermanency;

(2) Even so, the innate capacities of instinct, intuitions, and etc., are interpreted THROUGH and BY such impermanent intellectualisms, many of which would rather that such capacities did not exist at all (for specific reasons that have earlier been discussed.)
There is also a third grousing point.  As mentioned, super sensitivities spontaneously emerge all of the time among specimens of our species, this an historical FACT supported by all sorts of unambiguous robust evidence – a FACT that many intellectualisms chose to ignore.

Explaining the HOW & WHY of things is, of course, a favorite preoccupation of various kinds of intellectualisms, and so if the how-why of something can't compatibly be explained within the reality boxes of given intellectualisms, then the "something" and its how-why is not thought of very favorably, its facts not withstanding.


So, are super sensitivities innate?  If super sensitivities are innate in our species, then one has to consider why they manifest only occasionally and then mostly spontaneously.

There are numerous possible answers to this question, most of which rotate around either doubt about their innateness or denial of it altogether.

However, if the super sensitivities are innate, then historical evidence for them must exist in worldwide past cultures of lesser or greater antiquity.
Depth diving into past cultures of lesser or greater antiquity is a quite cumbersome activity, not as easy a matter as most historians make it sound.

As many have commented elsewhere, one of the difficulties involved is that historians usually only interpret past cultures via the assumed realities of their own times – and there is a general tendency to edit, distort, or omit past historical topics that are inconvenient to the contexts of their own principles, intellectualisms, and so forth.

But there is another difficulty, one seldom pointed up.  If one takes the time to examine the English language, about 93 percent of it refers to external material objects, states, or facts, and so it is deplorably deficient in references of any other kind.  Thus, states or facts that are not all that objective more or less have to be discussed within English that has a minimum of terms for them.

However, most languages of greater antiquity are at least somewhat rich with concepts and terms that specifically refer to states and facts that are not based in gross material objectivity.  For example and among others, Hawaiian Huna, early Chinese, Tibetan, and numerous Nordic and Amerindian ones, from which certain terms now and again leak into English usage.

Predominantly, however, these foreign references are quite hard to deeply incorporate – because modern English, in its overall philosophic-reality sense, does not itself possess relevant depth-contexts for them.


Since this essay focuses on possible training of super sensitivities, we would like to know if they have ever been identified as such in, let us say, antiquity, and if some kind of training has ever been associated with them.

Indeed, if rudiments of super sensitivities are innate and more or less universal, we would expect them to have been identified a long time ago.  They have been, of course, since many languages formatted terms for them.

For reasons that will be self-explained ahead, this author has elected to discuss certain aspects of the Sanskrit language, a project he admits was, to say the least of it, quite challenging.


BEFORE discussing Sanskrit materials, however, it is necessary to digress a bit into the Situation indicated just above.  If we have a word for something, it is then thought of as identifying whatever the word refers to – after which we think we know what we are talking about.

If the words refer to objective things, such as things ranging from sub-quantum particles up to and including the visible matter cosmos, then such words are probably efficient enough for their purposes.

However, if the words refer to non-objective "things" having no exact or definite physicality, then their probable efficiency tends to decrease, sometimes considerably so, although we still tend to think we know what we are talking about – because we HAVE words for what is involved.

Furthermore, words in this latter category are NOT actually based on objective things, but on intellectualizing concepts or theories which, in and of themselves, need words so as to be able to talk about them – as if we again know what we are talking about.
Concepts and theories are merely based on what is thought to be understood about whatever is involved.  But such understandings can be quite wobbly, and they tend to come and go when new understandings emerge – and which might be replaced by other new understandings, ad infinitum.


Human experiencing of super sensitivities needs word-concepts in order to identify what has been experienced, and then to talk about such to others, hoping the others know what is being talked about.

In English, there are at least eighty-five or more words that refer to some kind of super sensitivity experiencing.

Such words, like all other words, have come into existence AFTER the fact of the experiencing, and the definitions of which have been contributed via intellectualizing concepts and theories based on whatever kind, type, or quality of understanding was at hand – all of this via intellects that might be slightly comatose in the first place.


This problematical situation doesn't stop with what has been discussed above – because intellects that are not too comatose sometimes seem to realize that non-objective kinds of experiencing do need, if not exact words, some kind of suitable words, even if slightly ambiguous ones.

Thus, in addition to ambiguous terms supposedly identifying this or that super sensitive experience, other ambiguous terms such as "mind," "intelligence," "subconscious," "subjectivity," "the unconscious," "altered states," and even "Consciousness" itself (if and when that item is used in its largest  "cosmic" scope).


So, here is a rough description of the Situation we end up with by considering the above brief discussions.

Super sensitivities are experienced.

AFTER the fact of being experienced, words are gotten up for them.

Concepts and theories are then generated that seem compatible with the words.

The concepts/theories hold water only as long as they do, and then new ones are originated, etc.

Since neither the super sensitivity experiences nor the resulting concepts/theories for them can be explained by depending on objective realities, they are perforce included in other concepts-plus-theories that likewise cannot be explained, as least in some total sense, in objective realities – such as subjectivity, the mind, the subconscious, altered states, etc.

These particular word items and their contexts are supposed, or posited, to exist.  After which word items denoting experiencing NOT directly derived from objective contexts can be bundled into what is supposed or is posited to exist – for no other reason than having a basis for discussing them at in least quasi-objective ways.

As it more or less turns out, if the actual dynamics of super sensitivity experiencing cannot be explained via any relationship to objective experiencing, they also remain unexplained in the contexts of mind, subjectivity, the subconscious, altered states, etc. – as well as in the contexts of Consciousness which, itself, so far remains unexplained at least in the scientific sense.


So to briefly, and deliberately, to repeat:

Super sensitivity experiencing takes place if and when it does;

After the fact of the experiencing words are gotten up so as to be able to refer to the experiencing as such;

Since words are of little use if not accompanied by concept-definitions, these are then attached to the WORDS, but NOT to the experiencing itself.

The words are thus ONLY after-the-fact, superficial intellectualizing formats;

Whereas the experiencing takes place, at least in spontaneous super sensitivities events, before the intellectualizing words are gotten up, or before one can intellectually look them up in a dictionary.

It is appropriate here to mention that different languages have words for the same experiential phenomena, but in the other languages the definitions can differ quite a lot.  When then transliterated into English words, the English definitions are utilized, but the English definitions may be far from the mark as expressed in the original other-language word.

Additionally, Sanskrit, for example, has certain terms for which there are no equivalent words, or concepts, in English.  Over-energetic translators then search English for the next-best English term, but which almost nothing to do with the actual definitions of the Sanskrit one.

Got it?


THUS, if and when events come about that inspire interest in possible training of super sensitivities, WHAT is it that can be trained?

The intellectualizing words?

The intellectualized concept-definitions associated with them?

Intellectual variations of the concept-definitions (of which there have been many)?

The existing sum of intellectually accumulated knowledge about the super sensitivities?  (Well, knowledge is not accumulated in the absence of words-plus-concept-definitions.  If one does not comprehend this, let them try to accumulate knowledge without words to speak-tell or read-learn about what the knowledge consists of.  And, by the way, the English and Western existing sum of accumulated knowledge about the super sensitivities is not very big to begin with, much less having achieved high degrees of refinement.)

The suggested bottom line here has to do with what comes first – in respect of which it could be posited that experiencing comes first, followed by intellectualizing word-concept-knowledge that may or not activate or even reinforce the experiencing.


It could be obvious by now that nothing can be trained in the absence of some kind of potential activity for it – activity that results in experiencing of the activity.

Since all sort of spontaneous super sensitivity events do innately occur throughout the human species (even to those many intellectually ill-prepared for them), it should be supposed that human sensing systems, known or unknown, are equipped with the necessary rudiments, rudiments that may or may not have become activated.

Has THIS situation been noticed before?  Yes, it has.


THE LANGUAGE of modern science excludes terms that refer to super sensitivities, as does the "language" of mathematics that so far has not incorporated mathematical probabilities for them.

But outside of these two exceptions, most other human languages (including English per se and some thousands of others) do incorporate some terms for and concepts about super sensitivities.

After all, words are needed for what peoples experience and become aware of – this somewhat based on the simple fact that if there is no experience-awareness of something, then no words are needed for it.

It is difficult to search through languages because the terms in question usually have been garbled via translation or transliteration into English – and sometimes, as in the case of Huna and American Indian languages, deliberately mistranslated or not translated at all.

Additionally, English often altogether lacks modern equivalents for contexts specified in other more ancient languages, so even transliteration into English is usually only approximate at best.


To help get into what follows, Sanskrit is said to belong to the Indic group of the Indo-Iranian subfamily of the Indo-European family of languages.  Sanskrit is known to have been in existence at about 1500 B.C., most certainly with much earlier antecedents.  Just what these antecedents actually were seems to be a matter of debate – with the possibility that no one really knows for sure where that Sanskrit was formatted, and when it was.

However, by about 1500 B.C. and later, Sanskrit seems especially used, in its classical form, as both a liturgical and as a standard court language, and therefore might have been inaccessible to subservient masses.

Sanskrit is commonly acknowledged by scholars to be "characterized by elegant and amazing perceptiveness."  It is very rich with terms for states of Consciousness and for super sensitivities over and above its "gross material" words.
For reference, this author has largely depended on:  (1) the second edition (1976) of Judith M. Tyberg's book THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODS:  SANSKRIT KEYS TO INDIA'S WISDOM; (2) Arthur Anthony MacDonell's A PRACTICAL SANSKRIT DICTIONARY (2001); (3) discussion of Sanskrit terms with Sanskrit-fluent owners and employees of this author's local magazine and tobacco shop; and (4) various Internet Sanskrit resources. (Please note that in the following examinations of certain Sanskrit terms, we will march slowly and gently as possible.)


In our modern English, TEACHER is simply defined as "one that teaches; especially, one whose occupation is to instruct."

So far, so good, right?   Well, there is a sometimes not so subtle complication involved having to do with what IS and IS NOT to be taught – in that most social groupings, large or small, have their own centralizing ideas of what is and is not to be taught-learned.
There are three general and quite identifiable results of this:
(1) Teachers transfer to their students only the information they are supposed to, while learners receive that information the best they can;
(2) Information that conflicts with what is taught and learned is discouraged and not taught;
(3) Innate potential capacities that might conflict with what is to be taught-learned are likewise discouraged, not taught, and not developed into actuality.

The principal result of (3) above is that no one really knows what or how many innate capacities actually dwell within the potentials of our species, such as hardwired capacities that exist in this or that state of latency with no real effort to trigger or develop them into actuality.

Furthermore, the modernist Western concept of teach-learn attempts to be based on reason, logic, facts, and supposed facts.  This mix is usually all bound into what is assumed, at any given time, to be a seamless "educational" package of information, that, in most cases conforms to whatever is serving as social principles and standards.


In modern English, the Sanskrit term GURU is defined as "a venerable teacher, usually a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide."  Thus, in English a Guru is basically thought of as a teacher.

However, in her book discussing various aspects of Sanskrit, Judith M. Tyberg does effort a larger description of GURU, to wit:

"One who has the capacity to pass on his realizations to those who seek him for wisdom."  Also:  "There may be the outer Guru, or Guide, who removes ignorance by the radiant light of his divine wisdom; or the inner Guru or Self (Atman) who is the Guide working through the intuitive part of Man."

There are some subtle complexities in this description of GURU that may not be noticed all that easily.

For example, "removing ignorance" is not quite the same as replacing or curing it by absorbing information packages via the teach-learn process that occasionally might result in installing a bit more ignorance than actual learning.

In any event, in Sanskrit, there are at least two different Guru functions, the first of which is to transfer information and realizations to students, but the second of which is to invoke wisdom by working through the intuitive part of Man.

Although this "invoke" part doesn't appear in Tyberg's descriptions of Guru, a little depth diving into the origin of the term is helpful.

The Sanskrit root word upon which GURU is formatted is GRI meaning "to invoke, to praise."

Now, don't just skate across this "to invoke" part, in that INVOKE is, in most languages, including English, principally defined as "to call forth."

Please try to bear in mind that calling forth something is somewhat different from the sometimes weary and unfruitful process of merely transferring an information package to a student-learner. 

So, in this sense, the second basic guru-function seems to consist of calling forth something in the student-learner – i.e., awakening, unfolding, and activating it, etc.

In this sense, it is possible to think that if something does not exist in the student-learner, it cannot be called forth.

If such exists, but is not somehow called forth, then it continues to exist in some kind of NOT-called-forth state or condition.

Here, then, is a significant distinction between (1) what seems to be the more profound guru-function, and (2) the Western modern teacher who merely transfers information packages, the learning of which, if such does take place, might not call forth much of anything else.


One of the specified guru-functions is "to remove ignorance."

In English, the term IGNORANCE is more defined by its synonyms than by its actual definition – synonyms such as ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED, all of these terms referring to "not having knowledge" – i.e., destitute of the sorts of intellectualized knowledge that can be transferred from teacher to learner.

However, the actual, and major, definition of IGNORANCE is simply given as "unawareness."

So.  With respect to the Guru-functions, "removing ignorance" could refer to "removing unawareness" – this being a function that is obviously achieved, and probably only achieved, by INCREASING awareness by awakening and activating innate hardwiring latently existing in the student.


Judith Tyberg indicates that a Guru "removes ignorance by the radiant light of his divine wisdom."

The DIVINE part of this concept remains problematical – until one consults a competent dictionary, wherein it can be found that the first definition is given as "to discover by intuition" – i.e., by calling forth, invoking, or activating the intuition in students.

Thus, Tyberg's effort to describe GURU could be somewhat rephrased as:  One who has the capacity to pass on his intuitive realizations to those who seek him for guided intuitive awakening toward achieving wisdom.

To repeat:  There may be the outer Guru that merely teaches information packages; or the inner Guru-Guide who removes unawareness via the radiant light of his intuitive wisdom by working through or with the intuitive part of Man, i.e., of human specimens in general.

This author has not been able to discover exactly how this is achieved – except to think that the "intuitive part" of individuals of our species is innately be hardwired but often unactivated – but which but can be lit up, so to speak, by the Guru-Guide who removes unawareness of such hardwiring.  Got it?

In the above sketch, there are good grounds for thinking that "radiant light" might be replaced by "radiant energies" of some kind – such as, perhaps, telepathic osmosis, telepathic transfers of intuitive information, etc., etc.

In English, two of the first definitions of LIGHT are given as "something that makes vision possible; also inner light."

Of course, something depends on what is meant by "vision," and what "inner light" might actually consist of, especially if such "radiates."


Just ahead, we will have to begin depth-diving into a few other  complex Sanskrit terms, principally to establish that some of the super sensitivities we have words for today actually had identifiable and better developed Sanskrit concepts in the distant past. 

This implies that such super sensitivities were with our species during Sanskrit times, and probably much earlier.

But first, there is the matter of a particular term that needs a little sorting out so as to help return us to its original and literal definition in the Sanskrit language.

The nature and contexts of the Sanskrit term YOGA are much discussed and debated within our modernist cultures.  But nevertheless in English dictionaries the principal definitions are given as:
(1) A Hindu theistic philosophy teaching the suppression of all activity of body, mind, and will in order that self may realize its distinction from them and attain liberation; and
(2) A system of exercises for attaining bodily or mental control and well-being.

This author won't comment on these two somewhat decorated definitions, except to note that the term ATTAIN might be remembered, and that definitions (2) and (1) seem diametric opposites.

In any event, it seems that the literal definition of YOGA in Sanskrit basically refers to "skill in action," which seems quite close to one of the important nuances of our English term TRAINING – one of it's major definition being given as "to make prepared for a test of skill."

As will be discussed ahead, "a test of skill," if positively demonstrated, equates to an ATTAINMENT, a term referring to whatever is "come or arrived at by motion, growth, or effort."


SIDDHI is sometimes translated into English as referring to "Occult powers."  But this translation is more or less reckless because the term "occult" has been much demonized, often not in very good taste or style, and with a seeming lack of higher cognitive intellect.

So it is necessary to remind that OCCULT is originally taken into English from the Latin OCCULTARE meaning "The state of being hidden from view or lost to notice; hidden or concealed from sight," i.e., hidden, or outside the scope and limits of the five physical senses, and outside the limits of objective logic.

Please especially notice the "lost to notice" part of these definitions.


Before going on, it is the better part of valor to do a little depth diving into two particular English words – ATTAIN and ATTAINMENT.

ATTAIN – "Achieve, accomplish; to come or arrive at by motion, growth, or effort."

ATTAINMENT – "The act of attaining; the condition of being attained; something attained; accomplishment."

The basic definition of the Sanskrit root word SIDH is "attain," while that of SIDDHI is "attainment" via processes almost exactly in the sense of the above English definitions, i.e., by motion, growth, or effort, accompanied, of course, by obviously specializing forms of learning and TRAINING.

However, there are two special stipulations involved here:  That SIDDHI attainments refer (1) to attaining cognitive access to substantive qualities outside of, or beyond, the scope and limits of the five physical senses; and also (2) outside of, or beyond, objective material conditions and activities themselves.


One's "mental structures" might quiver at this prospect.  So it is worth reminding that our depth diving efforts here are simply limited to discovering if any given ancient language did possess words and terms at least somewhat equivalent to our modern English terms denoting various types of super sensitivities.

This is an effort to establish that such super sensitivities have an antiquity that is suggestive of their being innate and present in our species, and therefore must be based in some kind of long-existing innate capacities.


The principle extant source describing the Siddhis is The YOGA SUTRAS OF PATANGALI, a volume that dates back to about the second century B.C.  It is generally agreed that Patangali did not originate the Sutras, but rather compiled and systematized them from different sources, some of which might have been 5,000 years old or more.

SUTRA literally means "thread."  But the Sanskrit connotation is accepted as referring to something like the slimmest or barest line of meaning or thought which a Guru can expand upon so as to awaken or stimulate, well, let's just put it, innate states or planes of consciousness that are in need of awakening and recovery.

Patangali's Sutras are 195 in number, divided into numerous sections that address different topics of yogic growth and development, but he devotes a large fifty-four Sutras to the Siddhis alone – this suggesting that he attached substantial importance to them.

The Sutras have been translated into English many times, but there is that small matter earlier referred to – that English is mostly focused on objective material contexts and is therefore deficient in concepts relevant to inner and non-physical planes of consciousness and their associated realities.

Thus, the various translations do differ, and perhaps the best thing is to study and compare several of them.


Since this translation problem does exist, there is long-standing difficulty in determining how many Siddhis Patangali is enumerating.

In her book already referred to, Judith Tyberg lists only eight of them.  For our purposes in this essay, we will briefly depth-dive only four or five because we have approximate English terms and concepts for them.

TRIKALA-JNANI SIDDHI.  The least complicated way of defining this Siddhi is given as "Attainment of knowledge-knowing of past, present, and future via diving deeply into an object, phenomenon, or idea."  This Attainment is achieved by activating "deeper mental structures" rather than depending only on intellectual thinking resulting from reason, logic, and whatever is passing as rational.

Taken literally, TRI = three; KALA = escaping or transcending time; JNANI = knowledge-information thus achieved by doing so.

This Siddhi is achieved by the practices of:

DHARANA = concentration; the binding of deep conscious awareness to one place, object, or idea until all aspects are revealed.

DHYANA = a type of (non-objective?) meditation or contemplation.

SAMADHI = balanced state; to hold together completely; being one with - so as to attain unity of deep perceptions.

When these three tripartite "practices" are developed and combined together, the whole activates or attains a siddhi-like state or plane of direct inner perceiving (perceptual) consciousness referred to as SAMYAMA, which transcends the plane of consciousness directly focused on gross physical matter only.

So?  Did you get all of that?  If not, don't worry too much, because the whole of this Siddhi is much debated - not so much in its Sanskrit contexts, but with trying to translate those contexts into English which does not (yet) have similar concepts or equivalent terms.


Before moving robustly onward, in his book THE YOGA SUTRAS OF PATANGALI (2001 version), Sri Swami Satchidananda indicates that the modern science of physics has performed a type of SAMYAMA on Matter and its atoms by investigating deeper and deeper into their constituencies – and have thus recently discovered that matter atoms are merely clusters of energies that are not completely or exactly material in their nature.

Some of these new discoveries have been discussed earlier, and will again be referred to ahead.


In any event, the Trikala-Jnani Siddhi deals with perceiving past, present, and future, this a Siddhi attained by activating deep-diving perceptions the potentials that obviously exist - otherwise they could neither be deep-dived into nor activated.

So it seems that the existence of such time transcending potentials and associated super sensitivities had already been identified some three to five thousand plus years ago - and were taken seriously enough in those ancient times to inspire a rather elegant and extraordinary research and developmental training of them.

But there is one question that goes unmentioned in Sanskrit texts having to do with how and why such deep diving perceptions were noticed in the first place.

Well, if it is possible to think that such deep-diving stuff is innate in our species, it is then possible to think that such stuff could spontaneously activate under certain circumstances – and do so just about everywhere in all cultures.

And that could explain why most languages (except that of modern scientism) develop words that identify them.


English contains one particular unscientific word that is assigned to a particular type of spontaneous manifestation that is completely in keeping with the Siddhi discussed above.

PREMONITION first appears in English at about 1456, defined as "The action of premonishing or forewarning; a forewarning of subsequent events; a forewarning."

During the later 1800s, however, a new definition was added:  "Anticipation of an event without conscious reason."

Now, "anticipation without conscious reason" must occur spontaneously via ways and means that conscious reason alone cannot, or usually does not, have ways and means of accounting for.

If and when a premonition is "fulfilled," so to speak, and since it cannot be attributed to "conscious reason," then the implication is that deeper perceptual structures are somehow aware of what is being spontaneously forewarned against – while, it MUST be emphasized, conscious reason is out to lunch, especially if conscious reason supposes that a given present time cannot be transcended in past or future way.

Other English terms associated with premonition are INSTINCT and INTUITION that also spontaneously transcend the limited scopes of conscious reason.

So, hypothetically speaking at least, spontaneous premonitions, instincts, and intuitions are possible innate beginnings of Siddhi development accompanied by some kinds of training – and such is reported everywhere and throughout all time.  So, as is now the discovered case with mirror telepathic neurons, deep hardwiring equipment must be latently universal, innate, or indwelling within our species.


Sutra 3.37 identifies a composite or collective kind of Siddhi, the activities of which awaken via Samyama, i.e., "spontaneous intuition" that functions without conscious reasoning.

In English, this Siddhi collective is expressed as "superphysical hearing, higher touch, seeing, higher tasting, and higher smelling," also collectively now referred to in English as Extra Sensory Perception (ESP).

In English, these superphysical activities are referred to as clairaudience, psychometry of various kinds, clairvoyance, and second sight or the sixth sense, while higher taste and higher smelling have no English references.

Sutra 3.49 elaborates a little more about this by indicating that applying Samyama (spontaneous intuition) to the general power and qualities of perception, the intuitional senses actively re-attain to the ability to swiftly function without the aid of the physical sense organs.

So, what we refer to as ESP had achieved specific Sanskrit terms at least three to five thousands years ago, but the organized discovery of which in the modernist West took place just a little as a hundred years ago.

The acronym ESP dates only from the 1930s, although spontaneous ESP-like events have long taken place in all cultures, sometimes explained, if at all, as some kind of innate INSTINCT – which, by the way, IS accepted as both innate and universal.


Sutra 3.26 refers to attaining to the Samyama intuitional super sensitive Siddhis whereby "knowledge of the subtle, of the hidden, and of remote distances is obtained." 

Super sensitive perception of the subtle and the hidden are usually grouped together in English as clairvoyance, but the "remote" stuff began (in later 1870s English) began to be referred to as "traveling clairvoyance," and later, during the 1970s, as "remote viewing."

The Sanskrit term for "remote" is VIPRAKRISHTA.


In Section Three of Patangali's book, Sutra 19 is devoted to a particular type of Siddhi, various aspects of which are attained by Samyama:

The Sanskrit is given as PRATYAYASYA PARACITTA JNANAM.  This more or less translates as "Knowledge of others' mental images is obtained." 

PARACITTA = others' mental images;

JNANAM = knowledge (of).

The exact meaning of PRATYAYASYA seems a little difficult as expressed in English, since the term is generally translated as "By Samyama on the distinguishing signs of others' bodies."

It is difficult to sort this out, except to note that Samyama involves deep intuitive acquisition of knowledge independently of the usual five physical senses, while SIGNS of others' bodies can more or less be achieved by the five physical senses.

In this sense, one doesn't quite understand the connection between (1) intuitive Samyama and (2) signs of others' bodies.  Thus, (1) and (2) seem contradictory – UNLESS some kind of telepathy is involved.

In English, SIGN is applied in two ways:  (1) to any indication perceived by the physical senses or by reason; (2) to any signal that transmits or conveys information beyond the range of direct physical perception or recognition – and probably eluding "the reason" altogether.

The second definition here could be applied to telepathy - IF individuals are producing "signals" that transmit or convey information.

Samyama, as direct intuition transcending "the physical senses and (usually) the reason", would not be too much needed to identify signs, but would be needed with respect to signals of other's mental images and the contents of their deeper mental structures.

This, of course, presumes that mental images and deeper mental structures produce signals, or, shall it be said, vibrations that emanate whatever they do.

Now, there is a long history behind the phrase "I can just see what others are thinking" – this from physical body cues, or from an intuitional type of perception first identified during the late 1800s as THROUGHT TRANSFERENCE and later in the early 1900s as, yes, perhaps you already got it!  TELEPATHY via interacting mirror neuron activity – the remarkable SCIENTIFIC discovery discussed earlier. 


There is MORE to be discussed about all of the above, but in order to connect up the Siddhis with TRAINING, it is now necessary to enlarge a tiny bit on the second of the two Guru functions also pointed up earlier.

In Patanjali's discussions of the Siddhis (and elsewhere in the Sanskrit literature), it is indicated that four conditions must be present (more or less, anyway) in order to activate the Siddhi Attainments.

Very briefly put, (1) there must be interest in activating them, then (2) the intuitive function of a Guru Guide is needed as a Guide, then (3) development and stabilization of what is in process of being activated, and, finally, (4) a philosophy that incorporates the actual intuitive realities that are involved.


The principle English definition of GUIDE is given as "one who leads, shows, or directs another in his way."  This definition almost certainly applies to the second function of a Guru Guide with special focus on attaining the Siddhi Attainments.

Now, it must firmly be stated that if there is no fundamental, raw rudimentary basis upon which an attainment can be built, so to speak, then it is really quite difficult to see how an Attainment can be attained.

Equally speaking, if there is no interest in attaining something, then it probably won't be attained, even though the raw potentials for it are latently existing.  This is the case with just about all human activities, the activating and development of which depend on interest in them.

If interest in whatever does manifest, then most are at first dependent on others to show, lead, or direct that interest in some kind of structured way.

With respect to the Siddhi Attainments, interest may erupt spontaneously, or, if not, it can be "awaked" by a Guru Guide who already has experienced such awakening and been properly tutored with respect to how and why the awakening can be enhanced so as to attain structured and efficient performance.

In English, this is usually referred to as DEVELOPMENT, the first definition of which is "to set forth or make clear by degrees or in detail."

One can think of this as "education" via the teach-learn context.  But it can also be thought of as training IF a raw potential is involved and capable of growth and unfolding from its raw state to a refined, perfected, efficient Skill-Attainment.

Finally, some kind of philosophical MODEL must be provided that profoundly strengthens cognitive awareness structures necessary for the actual growth, development, and actuality of Siddhi Attainments.

So, now THE question arises!  WHAT philosophical model would we be talking about that is relative to attaining the Attainments?

In Sanskrit, this philosophical model is quite complex.  But it contains one particular element that is quite surprising – the element that can roughly be referred to as "interpenetrating realities."


AT FIRST SIGHT, what now follows in this somewhat challenging section might not seem relevant to the topic of super sensitivity training.  But there remain the questions of what, why, and how such training might be possible.

So, in order to get into this, it might be repeated, once again, that the modernist philosophic and scientific arenas abjured the existence of super sensitivities on the grounds that they didn't really exist because there was no material explanation of them.

Thus, the idea of training them was irrelevant.  As a first Situational result, no modernist efforts were undertaken to build a philosophic or scientific model that incorporated them.  As a second result, if super sensitivities do exist, then they must be thought of as capacities of consciousness, the fuller attributes of which admittedly remain unknown.

Yet, 3,000 or more years ago, such a model had been constructed, and copious evidence of it remains today in the Sanskrit language.


In English, the term MODEL has several definitions.  The two being utilized here are given as:  (1) a system of postulates, data, and inferences presented as a mathematical description of an entity or a state of affairs; and (2) a description or analogy used to help visualize or conceptualize something that cannot be directly or objectively perceived."

The basic modernist Western model of "reality" was that Matter was the Only Reality.  Thus, all phenomena had to fit with and within that model.

So, in order to prepare for what is to come, it is first necessary to examine our English term MATTER – that same objective Stuff that has, during our modernism times, been assumed to constitute the Only Reality in the universe.

Taken from the Latin MATERIA, our term MATTER was in English at about 1340 with the early definition of "The substance, or substances collectively, out of which a physical object is made or of which it consists."

This definition was added to at about 1420:  "Physical or corporeal substance in general, of which the chemical elements and their components are the separate kinds, contradistinguished from immaterial and incorporeal substance (spirit, soul, mind) and from qualities, actions, and conditions."

Modern English definitions, including scientific ones, have not moved much beyond these early ones.  For example, most dictionaries define MATTER as "physical substance,' end of story, and one has to enter higher education in order to become acquainted with modernist scientific details of it.

Back in the 1300-1400s, however, thinkers were not yet acquainted with such modernist details, and MATTER was thought to consist of four elements – Earth, Water, Fire, and Air – plus a fifth element referred to as Quintessence.

QUINTESSENCE was in English at about 1430, defined in the Oxford dictionary as "the ‘fifth essence' of ancient and medieval philosophy, supposed to be the substance of which the heavenly bodies were composed, and to be actually latent in all things; the essential part of any substance."

The "supposed to be" phrase of this definition came about much later when modernist Materialism began (c. 1845) influencing mainstream philosophic and scientific thought with the Only Reality thing.

However, as scientific things stand this concept is being reintroduced because since the 1980s, when physicists began "weighing the universe, they discovered that there is too little visible matter to account for the observable behavior of galaxies, clusters and superclusters, etc., and that most of the missing mass is hidden.

As discussed earlier, that "missing" mass was eventually referred to as dark matter, dark energy, etc.  (For those up to a longer discussion of this, see QUINTESSENCE:  THE MYSTERY OF MISSING MASS IN THE UNIVERSE (revised edition of "The Fifth Essence") (2001) by Lawrence Krauss, Chairman of Physics at Case Western Reserve University.)

(Please also note that this same Situation is also anciently found discussed, in Sanskrit, in the Hymn of Creation, the RIG VEDA.)


To try to get into Sanskrit equivalents of our concepts of "matter," it seems appropriate to simply suggest that we cannot do so.

In other words, we cannot reverse engineer our English terms back into Sanskrit contexts, and then propose to think that we understand the Sanskrit contexts.

To be sure, Sanskrit has its bulky share of terms that refer to matter, material things and situations, and to objective perceptions of it.  But whereas modernist concepts are rather firmly rooted in matter-as-the-only-reality thing, ancient Sanskrit realities are not rooted in anything of the kind. 

So the brief discussions that now follow might stretch cognitive capacities and overload at least some brain synapses.  In other words, get ready for a headache.  But do remember we are still hot on the trail of the super sensitivities.


In Sanskrit, there are numerous and diverse words that apply to what we think of as "matter," or as "material existence" – and, in modernist Materialism's terms, as the "Only Reality."

Now, we shall proceed very slowly, so take your time.

The larger majority of these Sanskrit "matter" terms are based on the root word BUHR having the general meaning of "earth, matter, material existence and experience, and Man's earth-world."

One of the several terms derived from this root word is BHUR-LOKA – defined as the "World of material becoming," and which is the lowest, most "gross" World of seven (and possibly more) LOKAS into which the "Universe is divided."

The term LOKA represents the "universal heavens, the Vast places of Light and becoming in them."

BUHR-LOKA therefore refers to "Becoming, arising, proceeding, or being produced from or within earth [matter] as a substance," and which is considered as the lowest, most gross form of all possible existences.


The next "becoming" situation, slightly above BHUR-LOKA, is BHUVAR-LOKA, the "world of vitalistic manifestation-of-embodied life existence and becoming within emotion, passions, affectations of which desire is the pivot."

This is the vital or nervous "plane" just above our material earth "plane" through which "gods" come to commune with Man, but it is a confused wideness, and its paths are many, intricate and entangled.  It is the mid-point "plane," or mid-world between Bhurloka and Svarloka.

Here, it becomes slightly obvious that what we refer to as (possibly confused?) "consciousness" seems to be the "pivot" that is being talked about.


Above this mid-point, or mid-world mess, is SVAR-LOKA, the "world" of light, pure (unentangled) thought and feeling, and becoming, within a pure psychic state" or "plane".   Svarloka is described as becoming within the "clarity of high mental existence," but one wonders if the English term "mental" is all that much applicable here.

Although this author has not found it mentioned in the Sanskrit sources he has at hand, one also wonders if attaining Svarloka is a necessary precursor in order to awaken and attain efficient Siddhis, i.e., efficient super sensitivities that are not entangled with the Bhuvarloka mess.

Indeed, it would seem that if rudimentary Siddhis awaken, but remain entangled with the Bhuvarloka mess, then one attains little more than an entangled Siddhi mess.  Some examples of such messes are available, but we are trying to remain constructive here.


Above the clarities of Svarloka is the "plane" of MAHAR-LOKA, described as the "world of vastness – beyond mind."  This seems at least to suggest "consciousness" unentangled with mind, and thus becoming and operating, so to speak, in the Unobstructed Vast."

The Sanskrit root term MAHAS equals the English term VASTNESS.  Other than that, English has few other supporting contexts – except, possibly, the innate vastness of consciousness itself.

There are three other, and even higher, Lokas, which will not be discussed here because of extreme language difficulties.  It should also be mentioned that all of the above depends on which Guru-Yogin is involved, of which Judith Tyberg discusses a rather great number in her precious book.  You see, various Guru-Yogins seem predisposed to argue about what's what with all of this. 


The basic point being made in dragging (ever so briefly and perhaps inadequately) through the foregoing is that one of the most basic themes throughout the Sanskrit language has to do with "becoming, arising" within something, including numerous incorporeal states "above" the matter-earth-corporeal thing.

In contrast, the Matter-Is-The-Only-Reality thing clearly indicates that Matter is the only thing to become or arise in.  End of story!

Additionally, the Sanskrit language is dripping with, as it might be put, scads of incorporeal terms that are not translatable into English because English has no comparable terms or contexts – excepting, of course, some of the Attainment Siddhis, but which terms are only relevant in parapsychology, etc., and forbidden in modernist versions of philosophy, science, and today's quantum physics.


Now for the really, really hard part which focuses on Sanskrit treatment of States of Existence in addition to, or above the Matter-Only thing.

In English, these "higher" States are referred to as identifiable PLANES, and all of which COULD have some kind of different separateness in the contexts of objective realities where things are different and separate.

Why the English term PLANE should have been selected is something of a mystery – until it is discovered that, among its many other definitions, one of them refers to "A level of existence, consciousness, or development."

You see, a great portion of the Sanskrit language is devoted to words having relevance to levels of existence, levels of consciousness, and levels of development within the fundamental context of "arising-becoming" within them.

Which is to point up that a PLANE (in the particular Sanskrit context) is not individual to or with the individual, but rather exist as extra-material realities in their own right – and within which the individual can, with training (at least with an appropriate Guru-Guide) can undertake arising and becoming.


Basically speaking, in Sanskrit a PLANE refers to various hierarchical ranges of existence that "blend" with, into, and INTERPENETRATE all other planes.  (So, finally, there is THAT word – in Sanskrit no less."

The physical matter world grades off and "upwards" into a "higher," more subtle ones, which in turn grades off into another more subtle, which in turn grades of into yet another higher, more subtle one, and etc., etc., etc., while the sum, or whole, of these grades interpenetrate, including interpenetration of the physical world.

In modernist materialistic mainstreams, there could not conceivably be a model for this kind of thing, and so it was thought of as a lot of hooey and occult nonsense.

However, a similar, if not exact, model for this is now in hand with the recent discoveries of dark, subtle, and exotic energies that interpenetrate, as well as interpenetrating multiple dimensions that are theorized as interpenetrated by same, including our matter-only reality – and including parallel universes.

So Stuff exists and interpenetrates – something the Sanskrit ancients were somehow aware of sufficiently enough so as to identify and create words AND a model for the apparently extensive "planes" of the interpenetrating Stuff.

It can now finally be pointed up that if Stuff interpenetrates, then it interpenetrates with whatever it interpenetrates.  If, for example, so-called dark energies and multiple dimensions interpenetrate our Matter universe, then this interpenetrating includes not only physical bodies, nervous systems, and brains – but innate consciousness capacities, too.

So, in a certain sense, the recent Situations of interpenetrating discoveries are at least akin to similar interpenetrating Situations discussed in Sanskrit 3,000 or more years ago.


In English, INTERPENETRATE is defined as:  "to penetrate between, within, or throughout; permeate; to penetrate mutually."

In English, PERVADE is defined as:  "to become diffused throughout every part of; to go through, or mutually go through."

In English, PERMEATE is defined as:  "to penetrate so as to diffuse through or throughout; to spread or diffuse through."


So, how did English come to have this precise definition?  This a definition that harks back to Sanskrit times at least 3,000 years ago or more.

Well, it seems that this particular definition was, in its first instance, associated with the geometry of OPTICS, otherwise known as the scientific study of light, which got underway at about 1570, and which was combined with the 1811 discovery of polarization, often referred to as bi-polarization.

Now, under the scientific concept (c. 1865) of "Combinations and special collocations," PLANE-POLARIZATION was originally defined as "of light, so polarized that all the ethereal vibrations take place on one plane."

ETHERIAL vibrations?!!!  Well, for goodness sakes.

ETHER has several English definitions, one of which is given as "A medium that in the undulatory theory of light permeates all space and transmits transverse waves."

ETHERIAL is also basically defined as "Immaterial, impalpable; marked by unusual delicacy and refinement."


IT IS GENERALLY understood that the physical senses detect information only within ranges of their objective, material physical limits.  It is then understood that the detected information is transferred via the nervous systems to the brain – after which conscious awareness of what has been detected becomes involved one way or another.  Thus, the transfer of information via the physical senses is more or less scientifically understood

However, the super sensitivity transfer of information is not likewise scientifically understood for at least two reasons:  (1) the super sensitivities that detect information have not been scientifically detected; and (2) the information the super sensitivities detect not only notoriously transcends various objective aspects of matter, energy, space, and time, but also often "transcends" conscious awareness of whatever information is involved.

It is thus to be expected that confusions about the nature of the super sensitivities and their transfers of information should come about, and especially so for the following reasons – i.e., Science has not succeeded in attaining either a complete model or a science of consciousness, and it seems that Science has missed at least half the brain in the first place.


The modernist scientific failure to achieve such a model is quite embarrassing, so it is not generally emphasized or brought to public attention.  It was very daring of Roger Penrose (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford) to intimately discuss the details of this embarrassing failure in his book entitled SHADOWS OF THE MIND:  A SEARCH FOR THE MISSING SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS (1969).

The details rendered in this book are somewhat challenging and will not be reviewed here, but it is recommended for those brave enough to struggle through it.

A review of science missing at least half the brain is found in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (April, 2004) under the heading HAS SCIENCE MISSED HALF THE BRAIN - which title should read "Science HAS missed Half The Brain."  This is a fascinating read.  A brief explanation:  It seems that for every one cell neuron in the brain, there are nine Glial cells that were once thought merely as providing neurons with "nourishment."

Now it is being recognized that Glial cells "may be nearly as critical to thinking and learning as neurons are" i.e., NINE times more critical.

Exactly how Glial cells might be "critical" is not discussed all that much in the article, but they seem to involve implications to "thinking and learning," all be it what kind of such is not discussed in any detail.

Even so, "thinking and learning" (and training, too) involve some kind of INFORMATION and INFORMATION TRANSFERS – this being a particular aspect of super sensitivity activity that seems to have "gone missing" so far, along with the missing science of consciousness and missing than half the brain, too.

So here is yet another Situation that briefly needs to be dissected.


Early psychical and later parapsychology researchers set up a paradigm, or a basic model, within which various types of super sensitivity evidence were looked at as "phenomena" that could

separately and objectively be categorized under given verbal identifiers – such as telepathy, premonition, clairvoyance, psychometry, precognition, ESP, etc.

By using such largely arbitrary verbal categories, one could intellectually know what one was talking about.  Over time, this categorizing verbal model became so automatic that it was, and still is, difficult to suggest that it contained at least one important intellectual flaw.

The term PHENOMENON has several definitions, but the one being used in this context is given as "a rare or significant fact or event; an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal occurrence."

The subtle difficulty here is that such facts, events, or occurrences can be perceived only AFTER they have manifested, and if one perceives something only after it has happened then all one can perceive is that it happened – and one will be left much in the dark about the source, cause, about the why and how, it happened.

The term EPIPHENOMENON is defined as "a secondary phenomenon accompanied by another and caused by it."

The prefix EPI denotes "upon, near to, over, outer, before, anterior, after, besides, related to, coming before in time, preceding."

Therefore and in general,  "epiphenomenon" refers to something that precedes something else, which caused and accompanies that something else, and which remains before AND after, as well as upon, near, over, beside, and related to that something else.

A bit boggling, isn't it, certainly with respect to the objective senses that perceive physical-material things as they SEEM, at any given point in TIME.

In any event, when super sensitivity activities are viewed only within the contexts of the objective-intellectual senses, those activities can be perceived (AFTER the fact of perceiving them) ONLY as exceptional, unusual, or abnormal occurrences resulting in a rare or significant fact or event.  That is, IF the information contents of such turn out as a demonstrable, verifiable reality.


TRANSFER is defined as "to convey or move from one person, place, or situation to another."

The Situation with respect to super sensitivities is that information is transferred from a situation OUTSIDE of sensing systems into a situation INSIDE the sensing systems, after which the sensing systems forward the information to something that can understand it as information – this particular "something" quite possibly being Consciousness, for which a science is missing.

No matter how super sensitivities are intellectually identified by words and concepts that enable placement in different kinds of categories, all of them share one factor in common. They transfer information from an outside situation into an inside one.

Telepathy transfers information.

Clairvoyance transfers information

Second Sight transfers information.

Precognition and premonitions transfer information.

Intuition transfers information.

Instinct transfers information.

The Sixth Sense transfers information.

Postcognition transfers information

Remote Viewing transfers information. Etc., Etc., Etc.

All of these (perhaps more yet undiscovered) transfer information, but then there are two problems yet involved:  the problem of the something that understands whatever information has been transferred, and the problem of from where it has been transferred.


As discussed earlier, it is increasingly being thought that whatever the universe consists of, it principally consists of information through and throughout – and whatever forms are within it are built upon the information they consist of.  This universal state of affairs is being referred to as The Information Universe.

This is clearly mind-boggling, but there it is, and detractors of this must argue with the scientific cutting edges examining this state of universe affairs.

If this is the case, then information exists whether or not there exist information detecting systems for it.

Information detecting systems will think, quite obviously so, that the universe consists only of what they detect – since what is not detected will have no detectable reality.

So a double sort of confusing question arises as to what the information universe actually consists of that is or is not being detected by various kinds of information detecting systems.

As so far established by cutting edges of various sciences, the information universe consists of atomic matter and energies, and of Stuff so far labeled as dark matter, of dark energy, of subtle and exotic energies, of multiple dimensions, of parallel universes, of holographic potentials, of entropic Stuff having no specific form, of local and non-local situations, of time loops, etc – and whatever other Stuff remains undetected so far.

As so far understood, dark matter may or may not interpenetrate atomic matter, but all of the rest could, might, or do.

Within all of this Stuff, the percentage of atomic matter/energy Stuff has now bottomed out as having the lowly status of only about 4 percent to 7 percent of the actual constitution of the Universe.

All of this is well and good - if a bit dizzying and confounding to certain types of reluctant reason and logic.

But there is an observation that could be made about all of this, one that is perhaps somewhat overdue.

This is that human Consciousness does not, even on average, ACT like it is totally confined within and to the 4-7 percent of matter.

In some cases, perhaps admittedly rare, it doesn't act like it is confined within anything at all – THIS having a certain similarity to the activities of super sensitivities.

Additionally, even though the five physical objective senses might seem as if they are confined to perceiving only physical objectivity, there is increasing scientific evidence that such is not ALL they detect even within their own categories as conventionalized in the past.

Each topic that has been discussed in this small section suggests particular future situations that are likely to be applied toward comprehending the actual nature of super sensitivities of Consciousness – sensitivities that clearly interpenetrate with information ranging from the mundane to, so to speak, the Cosmic – whatever the Cosmic is inclusive of.

It might actually be thought, in the sense of the Information Universe, anyway, that information interpenetrates everything.


Now, it is scientifically held that Matter incorporates the "laws" that result in matter being matter.  It is also held that the Matter Universe doesn't disobey these "laws."  Indeed, if matter disobeyed its own laws, then what would happen?  If, so, matter would become something other than matter, and who knows where we would be?

Is this not at least somewhat logical?

As discussed earlier, it is thought that Stuff such as dark, subtle, and exotic energies and multiple dimensions interpenetrate everything, including our Matter, and if such interpenetrating Stuff followed the "laws" of Matter, then such Stuff would become Matter, too.

So it seems that such different Stuffs do not follow Matter "laws," making it possible to think that such Stuffs might have their own "laws" quite different from Matter "laws."

Furthermore, our Matter Universe is both built upon and is consistent with the Information it embodies.

Thus arises the question as to what kinds of Information these other interpenetrating Stuffs are built upon is consistent with the Information "laws" they embody?

In our Matter "reality," matter is identified as objects – from

galaxies down to and including subatomic and subquantum particles.

Space is measured by the distance between objects.

Energy is identified by whatever energy is input and output from, between, and into the objects and the space between them.

Time is measured by motions of objects relevant to each other.

The recently discovered Stuff that interpenetrates our local matter, energy, space, and time cannot be consistent with the law-like information that makes up any of these Matter phenomena – because if such Stuffs were consistent with the law-like information of Matter, the Stuffs could not interpenetrate and probably would tend toward becoming Matter.

Insofar as this author has been able to discover, there seems to be no great scientific revelation as to whether the different kinds of recently discovered interpenetrating Stuff contains, embodies, or carries their own kinds of Information – or how such Information is within the contexts of their interpenetrating.

However, in that the interpenetrating Stuffs interpenetrate the substance, information, and "laws" of our Matter realities, it might be presumed that the interpenetrating Stuffs have their own "laws" that transcend those of Matter and all of its substantive constituents.


Advancing Information Theory postulates that all Information in the interpenetrating Information Universe is everywhere available – even if detectors appropriate for detecting it are NOT available – or, put another way, even if appropriate sensing systems are not available.  If information is not sensed-detected, then no one is the wiser that it exists in the Information Universe.

So it is possible, say, for given bio-consciousness organisms to have sense-detectors for certain kinds of information, but not for other kinds of it, after which the perceived "realities" of such organisms will correspond only to what is sensed-detected.

It must then follow that if the human species is innately possessed only of Matter sensing-detecting systems, perceived "realities" will then be confined to and correspond with Matter and its various phenomena, the "laws" of which do not transcend anything.


But the Situational problem involved with all of this is that the human species is apparently possessed of sensing-detecting systems other than the Matter detecting ones – sensing-detecting systems that interact with Information that transcends the limits of the Objective- Matter-Only "realities."

As already briefly discussed, in Sanskrit these transcending sensing-detecting systems are generically discussed as the "Intuitional Part of Man."  This "Part" can and does interact with the infinitely interpenetrating "Intuitional Plane" in which all Information is available all of the time.

Among others, ancient Greek, Latin, Chinese, and (somewhat) Egyptian also had nomenclature equivalents for "Intuitional Plane," as do several American Indian languages.

However, these ancient nomenclature equivalents will not be reiterated here – because they are yet too scientifically sensitive, which is to say, too upsetting to basic scientific thought yet reeling from implications of the now discovered interpenetrating Stuffs.

In the discussions just above, it might not be noticeable that we have glided past a quite important Situational question – discussions of which will be undertaken just ahead.