Across spiritual traditions and historical periods, one insight keeps resurfacing in new language: consciousness is not a byproduct of the universe; it is the source of it. In contrast to the mainstream belief of materialistic science, this understanding points us to an alternate worldview; one where the essential nature of the universe is not physical matter but rather one where consciousness serves as the “ground of all being”. What we experience as the material world comes from this underlying intelligent field of Consciousness.
In his recent (2024) book Consciousness Is All There Is, neuroscientist and Vedic scholar Dr. Tony Nader presents a clear and elegant model of how consciousness gives rise to experience. He explains that manifestation involves three inseparable aspects: the observer (subject), the process of observing, and the observed (object). These are not separate things but differentiated expressions of one consciousness knowing itself.
As a New Thought minister, I was intrigued by Nader’s subject matter as it resonates with a key part of New Thought teaching – that everything is “Mind” or “Consciousness”. A common misconception, when people hear those words, is to interpret them to mean that (as described in New Thought or in Nader’s book) the physical world is simply an “illusion”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As I read Nader’s book, how his explanation of creation via the Consciousness Paradigm aligns with New Thought, particularly the model taught in Science of Mind. What follows are some thoughts on how the creative process as articulated over a century ago by New Thought philosopher Thomas Troward and later developed into a practical spiritual system by Ernest Holmes, founder of Science of Mind, relates to the Vedic ideas as outlined by Nader.
I believe this exploration to be quite fascinating and a potential source of spiritual insights for us all.
One Reality, Three Aspects
Dr. Nader’s central premise is simple and radical: Consciousness alone exists, and everything that appears arises from consciousness itself. This belief goes back to ancient non-dual concepts originating in India. Nader’s original study of them was based on his famous teacher, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of “Transcendental Meditation”.
As Nader writes, “What scientists do not know is how our abstract, nonphysical consciousness and subjective conscious experiences could possibly emerge from matter, or if, indeed, they do.” Based upon the ancient Indian metaphysical principles, Nader offers in his book a detailed description of how instead consciousness gives rise to the material world. As a shorthand, he refers to it as the Consciousness Paradigm.
In this view, the observer, the act or process of observing, and the world that appears are all movements within a single, unified field of awareness. Subject and object arise together, not as separate substances, but as roles Consciousness plays to experience itself.
Consciousness plays these three roles in all levels of existence, from the “highest” or “largest” level of “Absolute Being” down to the “lowest” or “smallest” relative level of manifest experience (atoms, molecules, etc.). What is “created” is appropriate to that level of existence.
Essential to each of us is the role we play as a human being serving simultaneously as a “subject” (via our internal thoughts) as they move through an observing process leading to the “object” we perceive in the world. What sounds like a sequence of steps in human perception (subject, process, object) is described in the Consciousness Paradigm as a simultaneous occurrence that brings the perceived object into being.
Now it is beyond the scope of this article to fully explain this paradigm, so if you want the details, I highly recommend Nader’s book. What I do wish to explore is the relationship between this model and New Thought.
To begin that comparison, Holmes offers definitions that are surprisingly aligned with this triadic understanding (from his small book entitled New Thought Dictionary):
“Spirit Life essence which permeates all persons and all things. The Thing within everything which makes it what it is. God, the Living Spirit Almighty.”
“Mind Mind in a conscious state has the same meaning as Spirit. Mind as law means the subjective reaction of thought or the Law of Mind in action.”
“Mind, all-inclusive Cause, medium and effect, law, consciousness, power, action and reaction-all are included in Mind.”
Here are two key things that I want you to note from these definitions:
One: Holmes uses many terms for the “oneness” that is behind this universe. These include God or Spirit or “The Thing Itself” or “The All” and so on. The capital M “Mind” of “Science of Mind” in its “conscious state” is also one of those terms for this oneness. Hence everything contains “Mind” which equates to Nader’s view that Consciousness is all there is.
Two: Holmes in defining “Mind, all-inclusive” desires to point out to us that when we fully examine the “Mind” that is in everything, even though it is a “oneness” it serves three roles as “cause, medium and effect”. Hence, in our most inclusive way of examining this “Mind” that permeates the universe, it is the consciousness that makes the choice, the power that acts on the choice and the effect that is experienced in the material universe. Therefore, Mind serves for Holmes as the same subject-process-object as Nader describes.
Let’s look at that a bit deeper.
The Observer and the Objective Mind
In New Thought terminology, Holmes and Troward called the conscious, choosing aspect of Mind the objective mind. This is the part of us that reasons, evaluates, decides, and directs attention. It is where intention is formed and meaning is assigned.
Troward described it thusly:
“The subjective mind is only able to reason deductively and not inductively, while the objective mind can do both. … As a consequence of this it follows that the subjective mind is entirely under the control of the objective mind.”
(The Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science)
This closely parallels what Dr. Nader calls the subject—the observer. It is awareness localized as a point of view. Whenever we choose what we will believe, focus on, or give significance to, we are functioning as the observer within consciousness.
Holmes emphasized that this choosing function is not creative by itself, but it is essential. The objective mind selects the idea; what happens next depends on a deeper level.
NOTE: It can feel counterintuitive that New Thought’s ‘objective mind’ corresponds to the ‘subject’ in Nader’s paradigm. This reflects a difference in vocabulary rather than a contradiction. We might consider that Troward and Holmes are outlining a “metaphysical” model when describing the powers of objective mind while Nader’s use of the term “subject” relates more to psychology’s distinction between our inner “subjective” awareness and the outer “objective” world.
The Creative Process and the Subjective Mind
The most important point of connection between these systems appears in what happens after an idea is chosen.
Dr. Nader refers to the process of observing—the dynamics by which consciousness transforms intention into experience. This process is lawful, orderly, and precise. Consciousness does not randomly create; it unfolds according to its own inherent intelligence.
Holmes and Troward called this same function the subjective mind. They were careful to say that it does not reason or decide. Instead, it accepts impressions and acts upon them faithfully.
Again, from Holmes’ New Thought Dictionary:
“Subjective Mind as mechanical law Thought, falling into a subjective state, enters into a mechanical field of cause and effect.”
And Troward emphasized its creative abilities:
“Now these are facts fully established by hundreds of experiments conducted by a variety of investigators in different parts of the world, and from them we may draw two inferences of the highest importance: one, that the subjective mind is in itself absolutely impersonal, and the other that it is the builder of the body, or in other words it is the creative power in the individual.”
(The Edinburgh Lectures)
In modern language, we might say this is the level at which meaning becomes pattern, and pattern becomes form. It is not personal willpower that creates results, but alignment with this deeper creative process.
The World We Experience
In all three frameworks, the object—the world we experience—is the result, not the cause. Conditions are effects. They are expressions of how consciousness has been using itself.
This does not mean we “control” life in a simplistic way, nor does it imply blame when things are difficult. Rather, it invites a more compassionate and participatory understanding of life. Experience becomes feedback, not judgment. Understanding the creative process of Consciousness or Mind brings a freedom from what we often experience as bondage to the ‘conditions of our life.’
Holmes gets at that point in this extended quote from his book A New Design for Living:
“Regardless of how much conditions may seem to bear down upon us, how impregnable they may appear to be, how impossible it may seem to change them, we must always keep foremost in our minds that they are only effects, results of unseen causes and the action of Law. The starting point, then, for our experience of a greater freedom, a greater good, is the emancipation of our own thought. And as we start to free our thought we realize that in such degree as we work with the laws of Spirit, they will serve us. Even bondage itself, any sort of bondage, is but a false use we make of freedom.”
“The conditions about us are real, solid, tangible facts. We do not deny their reality. We acknowledge them all for what they appear to be to us. If we did not we would be putting blinders over our eyes, denying the validity of our senses and refusing to accept the logical process of reasoning of our minds. The world is real enough. We face it, we don’t need to avoid it or kid ourselves about it. We accept it for what it is. But we don’t have to stop there. Most people do. And there they sit, with a sense of complete helplessness and of the fruitlessness of struggle. This we are not going to do any longer. We are beginning to know better. We know that there is a thought of some kind, an unseen spiritual cause, that is and must be behind every effect, every appearance, every condition, good or bad. The condition will change as the thought or cause is changed.”
Why This Matters Now
For many people today, traditional religious language no longer resonates. Yet the hunger for meaning, coherence, and belonging remains. A consciousness-based understanding of reality offers a middle way—spiritual without dogma, profound without superstition.
At the same time, for those grounded in New Thought, this broader perspective reconnects familiar principles with contemporary conversations in science, philosophy, and non-dual spirituality. It reminds us that Science of Mind is not an artifact of the past, but part of a living stream of wisdom.
The shared message is both humbling and empowering:
We are not separate from the creative intelligence of the universe—we are where it becomes aware of itself.
When we live with greater awareness of this relationship, life tends to become more intentional, more compassionate, and more meaningful.
A Living Bridge
Seen together, Dr. Tony Nader, Thomas Troward, and Ernest Holmes are not competing voices, but complementary ones. Each, in his own era and language, points to the same underlying truth:
Consciousness creates by knowing itself—and we are participants in that knowing.
That insight is not only metaphysical. It is deeply practical. It shapes how we think, how we choose, and how we meet the world each day.
I hope you found this exploration useful.
Blessings,
Mark Gilbert