Has anyone heard of Mahendra Travedi before, or read this essay by Wilber? 


Here's a link to Trivedi's website, from which this is an excerpt:


Mahendra Kumar Trivedi was born with an exceptional ability to change living and non-living matter with Energy Transmissions or "blessings" (focused intentional consciousness, called The Trivedi Effect™). Through collaborations with researchers in six countries from numerous scientific fields, Trivedi has amassed a broad set of data substantiating this ability in a scientifically demonstrable and measurable manner. The results of these collaborations are beyond anything predicted by the science and technology of today:

  • Agriculture - grow crops with no use of chemical fertilizers or pesticides while providing
    • Increased nutritional value (300% increase in bio-photons)
    • Increased yields (up to 500%)
    • Increased immunity (up to 300%)

  • Genetics
    • Change the DNA in plants (up to 69%) and in microbes (up to 79%)
    • Change the genus and species in harmful bacteria

  • Microbiology
    • Reduce viral loads for HIV, Hepatitis B and C and Cytomegalovirus (up to 99.81%)
    • Reduce antibiotic sensitivity of harmful bacteria (significantly)
    • Convert cancer cells into non-cancerous cells

  • Material science
    • Alter mass and size of atom, energy within and between the atoms
    • Alter specific heat, boiling and melting points
    • Interchange mass and energy (more than 400%)

It is the goal of Trivedi Foundation to create additional rigorous scientific collaborations to further corroborate, reproduce and follow up on the many remarkable results of the Trivedi Effect™ on seeds, plants, soils, bacteria, fungi, viruses, metals, ceramics and polymers. Through continued collaboration with the international scientific community, we will broaden our base of understanding of the previously demonstrated effects and create groundbreaking new paradigms of the nature of human consciousness and its relationship to the material universe.

Trivedi Foundation also seeks to further the research previously done on Trivedi's distinct physiology and it's relationship to his unique abilities.

Views: 8365

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

this discussion reminds me of the applied kinesiology thread on the old site....let's also not forget that there are claims of 70 year old yogi's haven never eaten food or drink; buddha boys with paranormal abilities in the forest; the maitreya paranormally amazing all of us; not to mention claims of countless yogi's with countless siddhi's; ghost detectives with technical gear to flesh them out! and this is just the eastern traditions! what about the fantastical claims in judaism, islam, and christianity? should we not take those claims seriously also? jinn, angels, demons, nephilim, glossolilia, prophecy......it seems to me that personal bias plays a big part in these matters as far as what one considers valid and what one considers absurd............as much as we all appreciate the scientific method here i'm afraid it's probably not up to the task of sorting these issues out unless these sort of claims get worldwide peer review. i'd be more impressed on this one if a dozen russian atheist scientists validated these claims.....cops shouldn't be able to investigate wrongdoings by members of their forces either! independent public inquiries have much better odds of being impartial..........
I honestly don't know enough about this to be critical in either direction so I stay open, but I must say there does seem to be quite a few people who are extremely critical toward Wilber on this. I even tracked down Julian Walker while doing some web searches on this topic. This small comment of his made me laugh quite hard "clearly seizures, illness and meds have an effect on the brain. sad, sending love..". Here is that page which offers a fair few more thoughts on this... and yes they are mostly critical. Has Ken Wilber jumped the shark?

There does seem to be a lot of talk about Wilber jumping on the band wagon with nutty gurus. I think the Rev made a good distinction earlier in pointing out how someone can be highly evolved in one area (line/Stream) while not being as evolved in others. I think that is an important point as that may be the strength behind some of Wilber's judgments. Any who..
To clarify that last point... highly evolved in a certain area (line/stream) while having a dense shadow.
i've long said that we live on a rock in the middle of bloody nowhere with no clear and obvious reason for why we are here at all and in light of that fact i'm personally ok with what anyone wants to believe as long as they don't stick their mean red meme in my face! hell, david icke thinks we're living in an episode of 'v' and with the goings on in toronto at the g20 summit it gosh darn looks like it at times:) but imo., the issue here is the claim of science and i doubt that these claims have been put through the rigor of scientific method. it's sad also though that mainstream scientists won't look at these( or specific) claims for fear of losing credibility. i think it be better if they threw caution to the wind if even just to falsify the spectacular......
I especially appreciated Julian's first, more detailed comments mainly because they echo many of my own concerns: the naive acceptance of absolute enlightenment based on consciousness as primary to the universe tied to a metaphysics of transcendent spirit, all of which feed into his own delusions of grandeur. Good job Julian.
A few notes on Trivedi (and Wilber):

1. For me it is strictly beside all significant points whether Trivedi's claims are true or false, these considerations are of about octonary importance because to focus on them seems to spoil the full entertainment value of the total picture. In and of themselves The Blessings of Trivedi seem to be (at least from this distance) a quaint and pretty little dance but things sparkle up considerably when E. Jung rides heroically in with his admirable mid-west country-kid's puritan outlook. I applaud his performance, of course.

2. In this same light Frances's statement, "I think it's good to be skeptical, and it's also good to be skeptical of
skepticism." is excellent advice. But a further step in that same direction offers some good possibilities: the presence of skepticism of course implies the presence of belief as antithesis. My experience with this dichotomy as plain, content free functions of consciousness indicate that each have their own distinct sub-cognitive emotional and sensory qualities. To hold the two in the absolute highest regard and crucify one's psyche on that particular dialectic is to energize something like C. Jung's transcendent function so as to rise into a third position--the healthy, highly entertaining and creative abyss of ambiguity. Some Taoists have called it "Living in Darkness." I recommend this state because, as one can see from E. Jung's posts above, both his beliefs (as in his advocacy of puritan-based economics) and his overt skepticism push in stops on expression and free-wheeling experience. Now I realize that the resultant truncated existence is preferable for some, as George Jones used to sing "I need four walls around me to keep me from blowing away." But for others there is still hope.

3. What I found strange about the Wilber essay was his determination that Trivedi's blessings were proof of a newly evolved aspect and ability of humanity when humanity has been playing with subtle energies since before recorded history. The roots of shamanism go back that far and shamanism is nothing if not the play of psi. I find it typical of Wilber to cherry pick a phenomenon or idea, re-frame its context with AQAL's taxonomic vocabulary and use it as proof for the validity of his structuralist system; however I have never read an example of this trait before that was so blatant. In one paragraph he mentions the "Magical" and "Mythical" Ages of humanity's development but in the rest of the piece he does not see that Trivedi's casting of spells is perfectly magical and mythical. At first I could not get my mind around that obvious disconnect, but now see that health issues could play a part though I have no idea of the status of Wilber's health
the naive acceptance of absolute enlightenment based on consciousness as primary to the universe tied to a metaphysics of transcendent spirit ,

Wow theurj! And here I didn't think you understood Integral theory, lol. (I'm only joking with you thurj, don't get upset. :)

Seriously though, what if we were able to start seeing the connections between "metaphysical" phenomenon, and science. Then it wouldn't be so metaphysical, huh? What if we thought of "spirit" as energy or consciousness, and recognized that there might be a non-local connection mediatated through a "field" or field-type effects or recognized that there might be non-local phenomenon. There might exist a connection between a conscious type field, or througth the zero-point field (I know you guys have had discussions around these issues. )

There are more and more scientists who are accepting or at least getting to know a new emerging paradigm in the sciences. For people who would like to know more (Andrew and Seth), check out The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomenon by Dean Radin, Ph.D, a senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), and also The Field by award-winning science writer Lynne McTaggart. You can also check out Global Shift: How a New Worldview is transforming humanity by Edmund J. Bourne, Ph. D to get the gist of these developments. (Don't take anybody else's word for it, read them yourselves) Make up your own mind...or leave it open-minded.

I too don't think that this energy is "anything new" ...simply that our access to tap into it might be greater. Healers work through this field, the effects don't come from them at all.

I do think Wilber has prematurely jumped the gun on endorsing. Trivendi, wanting to claim it, or at least tie it into Integral, but that doesn't discount other cases of non-local phenomenon, and yes, it's cropped up a considerable backlash...but criticalness itself along with juvenile tactics of "making fun of" really don't adhere to any standard of rational objectivity. Nor does actuality depend on popularity. Skepticism can be useful in that it can provide a more vigourous testing of this phenomenon...but all too often it is simply counteradvocatchy in disguise, even when there is evidence pointing against their beliefs.

I think that even honest people can be duped by bad gurus (noticably the ones who promote "crazy wisdom" or "tantric" sex techniques for their followers) or can develop false beliefs. The New Age crowd typically throws in everything in their belief systems, not making any distinctions, so it's usually the ones with the most errors... but that doesn't mean it might have thrown in one or two good ideas right.

I too. like andrew, am "personally ok with what anyone wants to believe as long as they don't stick their mean red meme in my face!"

...but the point is....Spirituality doesn't depend on "powers" or "siddhas" ...spirituality depends on expanding our own consciousness, and our own worldview, and our own center of compassion...but we can also make discernments...as well as bringing a recognition that there exists something worthwhile in our own lives to pursue and appreciate.

P.S. Christophe, I loved your video, lol.

,theurj said:
I especially appreciated Julian's first, more detailed comments mainly because they echo many of my own concerns: the naive acceptance of absolute enlightenment based on consciousness as primary to the universe tied to a metaphysics of transcendent spirit, all of which feed into his own delusions of grandeur. Good job Julian.
Cool new icon photo, Steven.

I haven't read through this entertaining thread thoroughly yet, but I'd like to add to the colorfulness my current thoughts.

There are a whole bunch of questions which could be asked after reading Ken's words. Some of those questions seem to be being asked here, and different questions, in the Seattle Integral Yahoo forum. Those questions include:

1. Are such phenomena possible/real?
2. Can they be confirmed by the kind of science being employed here?
3. Does this guy have unusual abilities wrt these phenomena?

(Those questions seem to be the focus here.)

4. Who is this guy, what are our first-hand and second-hand experiences of him?
5. Does our opinion based on our experiences match what Ken seemed to be saying about him?
6. If no match, why not?

(Those questions seem to be the focus at SI, with presumed/shared answers of Yes, Maybe, and Yes to the first three questions above.)

I'll paste below my own summary of answers to the first two of those questions.

And then in the SI discussion, further even more interesting questions have just been raised:

7. Was Ken really saying about this guy what he SEEMED to be saying?

One might cite the Wyatt Earp blogs as precedent. Ken just MIGHT have been his usual sophisticated sneaky self, posting something which is unusually easy to interpret in a blanket way (as "obvious") depending on one's stage, which gives the reader an opporunity, in dialogue with others, to discover their "automatic" interpretation, compare it to others' interpretations, and perhaps, if unusually honest, to get some clue about what stage they were operating from when they made their interpretations!!

And then of course THAT question raises further questions such as:
8. Why did he do that?
9. What is his own TRUE view?
10. What have I learned about myself (and others) from this experience? How is my awareness now expanded -- or not!!??

So at the very least, I suggest all of us posters be explicit about which question we are addressing. Things might get clearer and more useful, thereby.

Here are my answers at SI which address only Questions 4 and 5:

Please note that "the other forum" mentioned in THAT post is THIS Forum, IPS-Ning. And M. along with a response from V. had just posed the possibility that Ken was deliberately offering us an experiment in self-awareness, as per the previous Wyatt Earp blogs.

Just so, M. and V. I've been waiting for more zoomed-out perspectives to show up.

It wouldn't be the first time Ken has presented a multi-leveled Rorschach-inkblot, would it? I recall the Wyatt Earp blogs.... And, yes, isn't everything in life an inkblot test?? Isn't that what the post-modern insight is? (Not saying you weren't saying MORE than that, M., I think you were.)

So here's a summary of what I see in the inkblot, without going into the really upper reaches of what I might say. I paid attention to this guy because of what Ken seemed to be saying, not that I bought Ken's apparent view, but because to me it warranted my spending the time and effort to investigate and form my own conclusions. Plus the potential payoff seemed worth the effort.

Howsomeever, I gathered enough of what I consider "data" so far to conclude: Other than the "higher" energies which Trivedi catalyzed my experience of, and which continue to be experienced as a benefit for me, my interest in this guy has receded to a level equal to that of -- maybe not billions of others, but certainly thousands of others who share one characteristic: a well-developed section of a Line, and the rest of the "profile" quite low, with a shadow that sucks. Whether it's mostly cultural (and therefore more amenable to change) or more individual psychopathological, this guy's shadow really sucks, and carries some energetic frequencies which might be regarded as problematical.

He might be -- probably is, seems to be -- a relatively pure and powerful transmitter of higher energies, but I heard nothing non-generic about what he might "teach" anyone, and he's a great example of how NOT to relate well to people.

As such, in my world he unfortunately joins a very large crowd of other so-called "spiritual teachers" or "gurus" who share all those characteristics.

Almost like severely autistic folks with phenomenal particular abilities, or idiot-savants (there must be a more politically correct term......)

This isn't a judgment, truth, or fact, it's my current opinion formulated after I got enough data to IMO warrant my landing somewhere, rather than "living in the question." The question is never closed, but.....

And just OTOH, for those who know how to use the tool, and have the inner willingness to use every opportunity for personal growth/expansion, even his shadow (like all shadows) can, does, serve as a tool to catalyze transformation. I've now seen that happen.....

In one other place I have seen Trivedi discussed by folks interested in Integral, they seem to be largely still caught in the Orange debate, "Are these phenomena "real"?-- whereas in this discussion mostly -- it seems to me -- we've been focusing on a different question: What is the quality of this Trivedi person, who are we lookin' at? Do we agree with what Ken's assessment seems to be?

For myself, the answer I've arrived at is "Sadly to say, this guy is just another one-trick spiritual pony." Or, perhaps better viewed, a useful tool if one knows how to and has the willingness to use the tool properly/appropriately/beneficially.

I haven't seen us discussing KEN's position much in this forum, beyond the first few posts, and there I don't have much to go on, but what you said, M., rang a bell of possibility, and when I remembered the Wyatt Earp stuff, the probability increased.

So now -- for me, given that my own conclusion seems to differ from what Ken's conclusion seems to be -- THAT's a much more interesting topic to ponder and share about: What the heck WAS Ken "really" saying? And why did he say what he said the way he said it?

Bring it on!!


and I added a bit more data in another post:

Sorry, I forgot to mention one bit of OTOH data:

I saw one person I respect very highly walk out of the individual session with the causal-state "Bliss-face" on. So not everyone got treated like P., did, I guess. That "Bliss-face" on someone I respect counts as a large data item, for me. I interpret it to mean that that kind of experience was possible for some, got catalyzed for some. And not others......

I also saw that face on a couple of other folks I didn't know, as they emerged from their individual sessions.


hi om! don't take this the wrong way but it seems that your suggesting that kenny has been a wee bit bored lately and was looking to stir up some controversy once again. do you really think so? if that's the case it would seem to imply that ken doesn't have much regard for his reputation! in a recent video he was suggesting that spirituality as he views it needs to be taken seriously by the mainstream and that his view of spirituality may be the only salvation for man and civilization. this recent episode doesn't seem all that congruent with that ethic! fwiw., i'd really have to question his judgement if what your suggesting turns out to be true........trivedi aside for the moment, kenny, what the hell are you up to...........or are you a tad bit too attached to your metaphysical commitments................
anyone who knows me knows that i lean towards panpsychism and panentheism through upper left experience but i make no claims and offer my opinion as that with a dash of no credibility on the side........
btw., and this goes to julian's perspective on consciousness: from my experience consciousness at the cellular and atomic levels( the micro) and consciousness at the macro ( the universe as a whole) is not like the consciousness that we experience as mammals. for one, my sense of it is that it's some kind of impersonal automatic functioning governed by universal laws that we're probably not aware of yet.........but i could be wrong:)
Sorry you interpreted what I said that way, andrew
it seems that your suggesting that kenny has been a wee bit bored lately and was looking to stir up some controversy once again.

I was not suggesting that at all.

What I meant was closer to what I said:
Ken just MIGHT have been his usual sophisticated sneaky self, posting something which is unusually easy to interpret in a blanket way (as "obvious") depending on one's stage, which gives the reader an opporunity, in dialogue with others, to discover their "automatic" interpretation, compare it to others' interpretations, and perhaps, if unusually honest, to get some clue about what stage they were operating from when they made their interpretations!!
here's a link to trivedi speaking:


half way through he mentions edgar cayce and atlantean civilization.....................well, we are coming up to 2012! where's pinchbeck when you need him? oh yeah, he's doing a big 2012 symposium at simon fraser university and my guess is one of the themes will be the new energy shift........what the friggin' bleep!

Reply to Discussion


What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2024   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service