Tags
Cosmic Consciousness, William James and Andrew Cohen
Andrew Cohen’s spiritual life began at the age of 16 when he experienced a spiritual experience spontaneously during a conversation with his mother. He later described that during this experience he was “completely overwhelmed and intoxicated by Love and struck by a sense of awe and wonder that was impossible to describe.” From that revelation he “suddenly knew without any doubt that there was no such thing as death and that life itself had no beginning and no end… life was intimately connected and inseparable. It became clear that there was no such thing as individuality separate from that one Self that was all of life. The glory and majesty in the cosmic unity that was revealing itself to me was completely overwhelming”
After this experience the young Andrew Cohen asked everyone he could about the experience that had occurred to him and no one he found seemed to be able to help him. In his autobiography Cohen states that at the time of his spontaneous spiritual awakening as a teenager he was reading his first spiritual book, William James’ classic of comparative religious study “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” and it was only this book that gave him “some understanding” of his experience.
As I stated in my last post I don’t believe that James was the most directly influential force on the development of Andrew Cohen’s evolutionary philosophy, although I do think James might have had some influence on Cohen’s evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary philosophy is the explicit and implicit context of James’ work and the American character has certainly been predisposed to the idea of evolution for many reasons that we have explored here. Still, James’ Varieties of Religious Experience has minimal direct reference to evolution, so how might that book have influenced Andrew Cohen?
My desire to understand how the ideas of William James might have had shaped the development of Andrew Cohen’s Evolutionary Enlightenment has been partially fueling my own interest in American Philosophy for the past few years. I have come to believe that there are several critical influences that Cohen could have received directly from James at a vulnerable moment in his spiritual life. One of these was certainly an exposure to the idea that spiritual awakening is part of a cosmic process of evolution. In particular Andrew Cohen may have been exposed to the idea of “cosmic consciousness” through James’ book.
Cosmic Consciousness is a term that was coined by the Canadian Doctor Richard Maurice Bucke in his 1901 book entitled Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind. In that book Bucke proposes that experiences of this type represent the next stage in human consciousness. He contends that the occurrence of them is increasing with time showing that this new possibility is becoming closer at hand.
In his book, Bucke describes this state of consciousness as follows.
“The prime characteristic of cosmic consciousness is… a consciousness of the cosmos, that is, of the life and order of the universe…Along with the consciousness of the cosmos there occurs an intellectual enlightenment or illumination… To this is added a state of moral exaltation, an indescribable feeling of elevation, elation, and joyousness, and a quickening of the moral sense… With these come, what may be called a sense of immortality, a consciousness of eternal life, not a conviction that he shall have this, but the consciousness that he has it already.”
Bucke was an adventurous soul in more ways than one. As a young man he left the backwoods of Canada and spent 5 years living in and traveling through the wilderness of the American northwest. It became a death defying ordeal on several occasions and in the end resulted in the amputation of one of his feet completely and the other one partially due to frostbite.
Later after having finished his education to become a doctor Bucke claimed to have been brought to an experience of Cosmic Consciousness himself after reading poetry by the English Romantics and the American poet Walt Whitman. After that Bucke became what you could call a spiritual devotee of Whitman (although Whitman was reluctant about the role of spiritual teacher). He eventually met Whitman in person, spent a summer with the great poet and wrote Whitman’s biography.
Cohen’s description of his own experience certainly matches the description that Bucke provides and Cohen’s exposure to Bucke would have come through the reading of James at the time of his awakening. I wonder if reading James’ powerful book, full of rich and detailed descriptions of experiences of deep spiritual awakening, catalyzed Cohen’s experience as well as helped him to interpret it afterward.
The experience of reality as spirit or godness even if only it comes once is enough to change or atleast open one’s mind to another persepctive to one’s relationship to self and life.That is my experience as well. Certainly having had such experiences at a young age( from five onwards) I too had no one that could help me make sense of them beyond a strong inner belief in an “otherness” beyond the material world. Reading Wordsworth and Spinoza in my early teens started to make sense of these experiences. Being brought up as a non church going lutheran attending a weekly latvian school that had a hour long religious teaching from a mountain of a priest with huge hands, did the opposite- it turned me away from the god in the sky religious teachings ( this “god” was an angry god!)and religion period. So your connecting Andrew’s evolution as a teacher to his spiritual experience with his reading at the same time of James book on religious experiences is very interesting. The reading of books at what you describe as vulnerable periods of one’s life( youth) provided certainly a philosophocal perspective/context for my life that remains to today and has been nourished and developed by the teachings of Andrew.
So thank you Jeff- this blog has set off an really fascinating enquiry for me.
It is true that the “God is Love and I am That” direct experience, even once or a few times, creates an unforgettable perspective, a sort of connection-point in one’s Heart to Everything, for the rest of one’s life. In my own case, the link from that experience to everything I was learning in my early twenties about behavior science, biology and physics came into line with everything I had studied and learned from all of the great spiritual traditions, all at once, utterly unified. That experience of Cosmic Consciousness certainly provides a foundation for “Integral” in the deepest and most all-encompassing way, connecting the Known and the Unknown in and as the “I” with no separation of any kind.
I am curious to pursue this with you here. I agree with you entirely. Although I still have to refine my understanding of the role of human agency in oneness.
Jeff,
As I mentioned in a much earlier phase of your blog, I believe that the experience of “agency” has to do with one’s viewing angle. Looking at the body/mind as an “it” from the outside, it is clear that it, and it’s choices are as much a part of the entire Cosmos, subject to its laws, and as determined by interdependent causality, as anything else that we study and observe in “nature” from the outside. It seems obvious from that angle that It is the Actor. From the “I” angle, from the inside, the experience is of acting, deciding, doing, choosing, being a source — the feeling experience that I am the actor.
While I believe that in the end this sense of being a separate, uncaused source is an illusion and the seed of egoic separation, my glimpses of Cosmic Consciousness have revealed to me that both are true, paradoxically. When we know that “I am That” as the Whole, when we have that experience of Oneness, the “big joke” that sometimes literally causes uncontrollable laughter and great humor, freedom, and ecstasy, is that we act and choose but ALSO that the One acts and chooses through and as us. Autonomy and Communion simultaneously.
This, to me, is the intersection of natural science and spiritual insight, the place where it all comes together.
With that realization, there can be an identification with the Whole that enables our actions to be “for the sake of the Whole” in a truly integral, confident, powerful, free way. If “I am That” then my agency is also It’s Agency.
To maintain and live from that perspective seems to me to be the purpose of spiritual practice.
Carl, thank you for your strikingly clear and wholesome description of the experience of cosmic consciousness or spirit: ” ………a sort of connection-point in one’s Heart to Everything, for the rest of one’s life.”
Here in this absolute realm, I dont experience any existential doubt- You have re sparked in me what was in my earlier years an unending fascination with exploring and enquirying into the nature of Consciousness itself , which I have found over the last few years with Andrew Cohen, is the nature of My Self .
This is so enthralling especially when the purpose of the enquiry is to transform one’s relationship to the life one leads for the sake of that evolution of consciousness and not directly the personal self although I agree with you that as we are human beings at its current level of development the experience of experience itself has a personal sensory dimension to it.It appeasr that the issue is coming down to what is my realtionship to that experience and as my belief in self as consciousness grows stronger the sensory aspect of self become impersonal and as such less defining in my humaness. This is unknown and interesting territory for me.
Further , it is only in this absolute realm that agency/autonomy and communion become two sides of the same coin- in the human form expressing itself as a beautiful seamless emergence of the two evolutionary forces of spirit.- te new creativity.
Carl,
I am confused…sometimes that is an understatement…
At first you speak about the known and unknown as the “I” with no separation. A statement I totally agree with…the separation is the illusion. But then you say: “With that realization, there can be an identification with the Whole that enables our actions to be “for the sake of the Whole” in a truly integral, confident, powerful, free way. If “I am That” then my agency is also It’s Agency.”
Doesn’t believing that this action “for the sake of the Whole” continue to enable an idea of separation? And then lead us -our egos – into continuing the idea of there being an actor…an agent….when we, they, it and I, as Nisargadatta says, are not?
I am a firm believer in the idea of Integral thinking and acting and try earnestly to continue to understand the perspective from which my ego I acts as well as understanding the perspective of others. To that end, all I do is follow Sonny Terry’s advice and “Walk On”
Thanks for letting me share.
Dave
Carl, I also want to pursue the inner and outer perspectives of agency. It is a paradox of course to realize that looked at from the inside out there is some degree of freedom and from the outside in there is determinism. I want to slowly try to understand this paradox in some way that allows me to understand if there is freedom or not.
Dave,
I guess that my experiences of expanded non-dual awareness, if that is a workable label for them — brief as they have been — have been humorous and liberating because I had both the sense of being a body-mind acting in the world AND at the same time I recognized that there “is no other” in an immediate, non-intellectual way, as though I were “God.”
There were no limits, I felt and saw in a kind of vibrating way the trees or the people or anything else in my visual field as an energetic continuum with “me” and had an accompanying sense that any act must and would be an act of love, goodness, and somehow inherently for the benefit of everything.
Please understand that these have been only brief glimpses, but they seemed to correspond with what Realized people have reported through the ages, except that their experiences seemed to have been relatively stable compared with mine. So I was fortunate to have some context, based on spiritual study, to recognize what the glimpses were.
All I can say about “agency” is that in those moments I have felt that I was both “doing” and “being done” — that there was both the sense of choosing, and that somehow my own actions were actions of something infinitely bigger than any little “I” that could possibly be trapped into a body-mind. That’s the part that seems incredibly funny at the time, to even think that one could see one’s self as separate, a victim, at the mercy of anything, etc. — that is just laughable from that perspective.
Does that help any?
Carl,
Thanks, yes. I was just wanted to be sure I understood your perspective a bit more. As you indicate “workable labels” are hard to come by and once again the point is that whatever we call “it” or think “it” to be… “it” is not.
Thanks
Jeff,Carl, Lisbeth and the others whom I don’ know
I would like to come back slowly to this question of “who” is doing, who is “acting”. Maybe this will be discussed in the next blogs, but since you make some fantastic comments on this blog I take opportunity to discuss it here. I must confess that I never had such an experience of Communion with the Kosmos as you describe, or as Andrew had. [ I am not jealous, it will come in due Time !] The most sacred experience I had was at last year’s retreat with Andrew, but it was an experience of The Real more than one of Communion. Let’s say, I am not at the stage where Communion is Real to me, even through an experience. I am at the stage where I discover with amazement that the sense of Reality can be more or less intense and can go definitely beyond what my scientific upbringing has taught me.
In any case the question of agency, of “who is doing” is a fascinating one.
When I say “ I think”, I feel that it is a real, palpable fact, and in that sense I can revendicate this action as being “my ”doing.
When I say “ Though is processing through me”, or “I am being thought through by the Great Kosmic Process” well, part of me at least, starts to say “ come back on earth…”.
It we put the problem like this, then what is the solution? Is the “I think”‘ the Truth or “ I am thought through” the Truth or the both at the same time ?
This question is of ultimate importance for me recently; sometimes I feel I am ready to give my life to get an answer if there is one !
So friends, what do you say ?
[ let me read the next blogs maybe this is discussed there ?]
Dear Catherine,
I am sure others can respond to you much better than I can; I hope they still do even though there is already been said a lot about this. I am so happy you respond even though you are so busy with work, so I just tell you how I see it at the moment.
I think we agree that just being in the mind is a prison; more and more I experience how small that is, with conditioned thought, memory and intellectual findings. Meditation helps to be aware of a much bigger context, even though there are very few people able to think and act by themselves from this bigger context. But it is very easy to do when we are in a group: you must have experienced that during the last retreat. There is no doubt that there is a higher consciousness. The easiest explanation I still think is Erwin Laszlo’s Akashic Field, which contains knowledge of previous universes, or maybe something we do not know of (yet). I am studying a lot of philosophers to find out more about what is called ‘God’.
I still think it is ‘ me’ who is able to access that higher consciousness: I produce the words in my own language, I express the wisdom. It is not the ego: that is the part that always refers to me. The brain is a machine. I do not know if you ever had to stop smoking, drinking or loving; than you find out that the brain is not ‘me’ it is just a machine that reacts on chemicals in the body.
So it can also pick up higher consciousness. In my own experience I have seen that people with natural intelligence (not knowledge: that is often in the way. I experience myself that in the same field of discussion, very intelligent people are more diverse) can do more with this consciousness than others, just like they can do more with books they read etc. But also: I remember Cohen telling that a group of women, who had a very deep experience of higher consciousness together, where all changed after that experience: they had no specific qualities (intelligence). Still they where more autonomous, they talked with more authority etc. So I do not know about this point
When I think about: ‘thought is processing through me’. I think that through my will and conscious decision I can be able to connect to a higher consciousness, which I process with my own brain (enlightened people do not all teach the same, they definitely have there own way of teaching), and it is either by a teacher (different understanding when we are in the presence of Cohen), or by miracle (Tolle, Katie) or by training (meditation, enlightened discussions), that we can do that.
I have come to the conclusion that the “who” is the universe itself. Our human awareness is part of the universe and it was needed in order to create self-consciousness, but the who that is consciuos is the universe as the universe exists in and through me. I do indeed want to write more about this and I do think that the recent blog post I posted on John Dewey and his ideas of emergence definatately point us in that direction. There is only one thing happening, the universe is emerging through time. And since there is only one thing happening there is only one thing that ultimately could be conscious and that is the universe. At least that is what seems most logical to me right now.
The quotes Jeff supplies of A.Cohen (starting at “completely overwhelmed and intoxicated by Love…”) and by Burke on cosmic consciousness (starting at “The prime characteristic of cosmic consciousness…” are good examples of descriptions typical of the mystical literature. They would serve quite well as descriptions of my own mystical experiences, which doesn’t surprise me in the least as all mystical experiences share a “family resemblance”, because all human brains share a family resemblance.
These descriptions are excellent examples of what I call “interpretations” of the mystical experience, although they are actually “mis-interpretations”. The mystical experience is a phenomena produced in the human brain, which creates the “apparent” experience of union of the Self with an infinite consciousness or ultimate Reality. It always includes the absolute certainty that this Union is real. Both the “mystical Union” and the “certainty” are a misinterpretation, an illusion, a mistake, although it is a natural and extremely widespread misinterpretation of a mysterious, almost completely misunderstood phenomena.
As long as you cannot question your own certainty, you’re going to be stuck in this particular groove, a groove in which some of you have invested considerable time. It’s a delightful groove, but you’re not going to get anywhere with it, no matter how much time and energy you put into it. I know that none of you, at this stage of the game, can bring yourself to submit yourself to this radical self-questioning, if the content of your comments to date indicates anything.
I know the above comment sounds extremely arrogant and possibly smug. So be it. I write it out of compassion and sadness.
Chuck R:
I so completely agree with you. Can you provide supporting references from reliable sources?
Chuck, I wonder if you ever deeply questioned your ‘no’. I am already for years in a struggle between yes and no and I questioned very deeply. Point is that we do not know, even though there is more and more proof what comes from the brain, we still do not know what consciousness is for example. So, as you say, it is connected to our human experience. One of the experiences is looking in the eyes of a spiritual person and see a kind of love that is non-human, like for example I have seen in Dadi Janki. Or what do you think of someone like Amma, who is able to hug and bring love to thousands of people in a dáy! Or someone like Ghandi. I do not know the spiritual background of Nelson Mandela, but he will never go and tell others that spirituality is foolishness, because he embodies it. This brings me to the fact that love for humanity is spiritual, it is of a higher order than the human family is capable of. You said yourself a while ago that you write your posts because you want to ‘test your paradigm’. Look at Obama, what made him loves was the fact that there is something beyond human selfishness in him. It is the ability to care and love in a bigger sense that is connected to spiritual and most people who deny that, have a bad experience after which they suddenly interpret everything different. But a bad experience is most of the time being confronted with the choice between selfish and giving that up.
Brian:
I of course consider myself a “reliable source”, perhaps more reliable than most as I personally discovered how easily one can be completely wrong when it comes to mystical experiences. While there are loads of scientifically-oriented people who have become involved in “spiritual” matters/beliefs, and loads of true believing Christians who have “lost their religion,” I am, so far as I know, the only long-term practicing mystic who rejected mysticism for a scientific, empirical world-view.
[Toot. Toot. That’s the sound of me blowing my own trumpet.]
However: I recommend these books:
“Why God won’t go away – Brain Science & the Biology of Belief” Newberg, D’Aquili & Rause http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/0345440331
“Religion Explained” Pascal Boyer
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273447994&sr=1-1
“Language in thought & action” S.I. Hayakawa
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/dp/0156482401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273448092&sr=1-1
“Reality isn’t what it used to be” Walter Truett Anderson
http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Isnt-What-Ready-Wear/dp/0062500171/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273448053&sr=1-1
If you want to write me off-line, ask Jeff to give you my email address [JEFF – permission for Brian only] so we don’t clog up this blog with what I think would be off-topic chat.
Hi Imants, re: “The experience of reality as spirit or godness even if only it comes once is enough to change or atleast open one’s mind to another persepctive to one’s relationship to self and life.That is my experience as well.”
Would you say those were spiritual Awakening events, as I would? Can you comment on those events and what you took away from them?
Best regards, aloha, namaste!
nice book
Hi again Imants: some afterthoughts about the experience of reality
Is that maybe the Spiritual Awakening life-changing event you’re referring to?
It can be a one-time thing but if it doesn’t change your life, behavior and attitudes about living your life going forward, it seems it was just a sneeze or passing thing and didn’t have the effect of Awakening.
I don’t think we humans can achieve Enlightenment in a lifetime unless we are so advanced in spiritual consciousness that it’s the natural next step in our spiritual path. The most we can do, IMO, is to have an Awakening that is a Realization of spirituality’s message of commitment to doing the right thing as much as we are able and to promote peaceableness by example and in every opportunity presented to us to promulgate that mindset and behavior so that eventually universal enlightenment can be attained, or at least a tipping point where that is more the rule than the exception it seems to be at this point in humanity’s development.
May I ask, have you had The Awakening event or not?
बह त पहल भ ष व ज ञ न पर एक क त ब पढ़ थ उसम एक महत वप र ण ब त थ , ज हम श आस प स थ मगर य द नह रह , ल ख म द ख ई पड़ क “यद यप च तन और च तन प रत यय क ( ideal ) ह , पर त उन ह व यक त करन व ल भ ष भ त क ( material ) ह “”उच चतर ज नवर म आव ज़ स स क त द न क क छ सरल र प प य ज त ह म र ग य कई दर जन ध वन य प द करत ह , ज भय य आश क क , च ज़ क प क रन और भ जन क उपस थ त य अन पस थ त क स क त ह ड ल फ न ज स अत य त व कस त स तनप य य म कई स ध वन स क त ह पर त फ र भ य सच च अर थ म भ ष नह ह , ज नवर क स क त द न स व दन पर आध र त ह “भ ष क बह त स र म ल स द ध त क आपन समझ य , क छ ब न द ओ क छ ड़कर, म ल कत ह म झ महस स ह ई स द ध र थ न बह त महत वप र ण ब त रख , म पहल उर द म ह ल ख पढ़ करत थ , प ज ब म झ बचपन स आत थ , और उसक स ह त य भ रच बस ह , फ र जब तम ल और ब ग ल ज स भ ष ओ क स खन म लग त स द ध र थ क ब त ज स पर स थ त स मन आई, म ह द क “अ” ल खत ल खत ह कभ कभ ब गल क शब द बन द त थ , मगर अभ यस त ह न स पहल ह म झ य समस य द र ह गई, द र ह न क क रण भ स द ध र थ क कम न ट म ह , बस य ब त म न व व क न द क जगह ज क ष णम र त क एक क त ब और श यद च मस क क फट प र न एक क त ब म द ख , उस समय म ल कत क महत त व नह द य , मगर प रभ व त ह न क क रण इन द न क त ब न म र सह यत क और य भ कह ग आपक जव ब न म र श क क क फ हद तक द र क य ल ख महत वप र ण ह , म र ल ए बह त महत वप र ण Nishant kahisuk
आदरणीय अरविंद जी,आपकी जिज्ञासा की विस्तार-पूर्ति तो फिर कभी।अभी कुछ इशारे, आपकी चिंतन प्रक्रिया में हस्तक्षेप के लिए।"स्प्रिचुअल रियलिटी'' को जाहिर है आप आत्मा की संकल्पना से तो जोड़ नहीं ही रहे होंगे। मनुष्य की चेतना के बाहर और उससे स्वतंत्र वस्तुगत यथार्थ, इसी को आगे बढ़ाए तो मनुष्य की चेतना के अंदर पर वस्तुगत यथार्थता पर निर्भर, विचारों और संकल्पनाओं की समग्रता को आपके इच्छित शब्द आत्मिक यथार्थता से अभिव्यक्त किया जा सकता है।आपकी दूसरी जिज्ञासा, दर्शन की कुछ विशेष धाराओं के प्रभाव से उत्पन्न अभिव्यक्तियां हैं। यह आत्मगत प्रत्ययवाद और अज्ञेयवाद की तार्किक युक्तियां हैं, जिनका आपने यहां जिक्र किया है। आत्मगत प्रत्ययवाद ( Subjective Idealism ) केवल प्रदत्त विषयी की चेतना को मान्यता देता है और विषयी की इच्छा तथा चेतना से स्वतंत्र वस्तुगत यथार्थता के अस्तित्व से इंकार करता है। अज्ञेयवाद ( Agnosticism ) आपके द्वारा पेश की गई युक्तियों व तर्कों के आधार पर ही विश्व या वस्तुगतता के संज्ञान की संभावनाओं को पूर्णतः या अंशतः अस्वीकार करते हैं, इस पर आपने सही कहा कि यह हमारे यहां शंकराचार्य के मायावाद (ब्रह्मं सत्यं जगत मिथ्या) की परिणति को प्राप्त होता है।वस्तुगत यथार्थता के संवेदनात्मक प्रत्यक्षण को परखने और त्रुटियों के निस्तारण के कई तरीके होते हैं। ज्ञान की सत्यता या असत्यता को परखने के लिए, यानि उसे वस्तुगत यथार्थता के तद्अनुरूप सिद्ध करने के लिए केवल निष्क्रिय प्रेक्षण ही पर्याप्त नहीं होते हैं। इसके लिए चाहे सरलतम ही क्यों ना हो, प्रयोग करने की भी आवश्यकता होती है। तभी हम संवेदनों के भ्रम तथा वास्तविक स्थिति के बीच भेद करने में कामयाब हो सकते हैं।यह व्यवहार ही है जो अज्ञेयवाद का खंड़न कर देता है। आखिर लोग विभिन्न वस्तुओं और परिघटनाओं का संज्ञान प्राप्त करते हैं और समझबूझकर उनका पुनरुत्पादन भी करते हैं, नियमों को समझकर नई-नई परिघटनाओ की सम्भावनाओं और यथार्थता को रचते हैं। अगर वस्तुगतता का संवेदनीय प्रेक्षण इतना त्रुटिपूर्ण होता कि जैसा कि आपने कल्पना की है, तो मानवजाति का आज के विकसित हालात तक पहुंचना कैसे संभव हो सकता था?मनुष्य क्या, पशु जगत भी अपने प्रेक्षणों के जरिए अपनी जिजीविषा को नियमित कर लेता है। परंतु संज्ञान एक जटिल प्रक्रिया है और इसके दौरान उचित संशय पैदा हो सकते हैं, पर इनके निस्तारण के भी उपाय मनुष्य जाति ने अपने व्यवहार के जरिए खोज निकाले हैं।वस्तुगत यथार्थता के अलग-अलग विषयी या दृष्टा में अलग-अलग परावर्तन का कारण, उसके संज्ञान के तरीकों और विधियों की सीमाओं में होता है। वस्तुगत यथार्थता अपनी जगह उसी सत्यता के साथ बनी रहती है। जिस मनुष्य श्रेष्ठ को उसके व्यवस्थिकरण और नियमन के उद्देश्य से, उस तक यथार्थता के साथ पहुंचना हो पहुंच ले और परिवर्तन कर ले, या फिर अपनी आत्मिक यथार्थता के जगत में इन विचलनों की यथास्थिति से संतुष्ट रहकर ही जैसा है उसी के जरिए अपनी केवल उपस्थिति दर्ज़ कराता रहे।शुक्रिया।समय की आकांक्षा है कि इन्हीं संदर्भों में मानवजाति के अद्यतन ज्ञान को कभी यहां विस्तार से समेकित कर सके।समय