Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Runewolf1973]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

That's correct. Everything is actually nothing, since it's mass is totally virtual in nature, as demonstrated by Quantum Mechanics. That means that 'reality', and all its 'interactions', are also virtual in nature. And so we can say 'Everything comes out of Nothing'.

Please refer to the above link.... Virtual in physics does not equate to nothingness. Virtual particles are real particles with real interactive properties.

As far as everything coming out of nothingness, that "coming out of" is an interaction just like the brief appearance of those virtual particles. I believe the Unified Field may be the fundamental background from whence those virtual particles (distortions) appear, but that background is not conscious.

 

[godnotgod]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
Virtual in physics does not equate to nothingness. Virtual particles are real particles with real interactive properties.

Then defining them as 'virtual' has no meaning, because 'virtual' particles are none other than 'real' particles.

Actually, what I was saying was that fluctuationis in the Quantum and Higgs Fields create the mass of the atom, so that mass is virtual, thereby rendering all of physcial reality as virtual as well.

As far as everything coming out of nothingness, that "coming out of" is an interaction just like the brief appearance of those virtual particles. I believe the Unified Field may be the fundamental background from whence those virtual particles (distortions) appear, but that background is not consciousness.

John Hagelin says otherwise:

 

[Runewolf1973]

Then defining them as 'virtual' has no meaning, because 'virtual' particles are none other than 'real' particles.

Actually, what I was saying was that fluctuationis in the Quantum and Higgs Fields create the mass of the atom, so that mass is virtual, thereby rendering all of physcial reality as virtual as well.



John Hagelin says otherwise:

No doubt that what we call matter only appears to be solid. It is those strong, interactive forces which make matter seem solid.


IMHO, physicists lose credibility when they use flakey terms like "pure consciousness" to describe the underlying, fundamental properties or constituents of the universe.

 

[godnotgod]

No doubt that what we call matter only appears to be solid. It is those strong, interactive forces which make matter seem solid.

So we seem to agree that the material universe is created by non-material forces, and if that is so, then the non-material is actually the fundamental nature of the universe.

IMHO, physicists lose credibility when they use flakey terms like "pure consciousness" to describe the underlying, fundamental properties or constituents of the universe.

Hagelin talked about that in the video, and how he has been exonerated to a large degree in the physics community itself. Any physicist who takes the step into the area of consciousness knows the risk he is taking, but some take it regardless, and there have been more than a handful of very prominent physicists who have.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So we seem to agree that the material universe is created by non-material forces, and if that is so, then the non-material is actually the fundamental nature of the universe.

If those virtual particles can briefly pop into existence, then there must be a sort of non-existence, or a non-material field or background they are popping out of. I personally wouldn't call it consciousness though, but that's just me. I have my own ideas as to what constitutes "consciousness". I do respect your views though and I am grateful to have shared this conversation with you.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I have a shamanic perspective and world view, so what consitutes reality for me is a little different. Is there an Ultimate Reality? Sure, no doubt there is some underlying, deeper reality (Unified Field), but to a shaman there are many different layers to reality. The physical/material world still remains very much an important layer of reality. Every layer is equally "real" in its own way. Even the "dream" layer is important and "real" in its own way to a shaman. There is something useful to learn from each of those different layers or realities, so we do not ignore any of them in favor of just one. I do realize that Oneness which is the Ocean, but I do not ignore those waves. A shaman in a way "rides" those waves and interacts with them as he journeys through those different layers of reality, yet all the while in full realization of that ever-present Ocean.

 

[Shad]

That Reason must be vanquished for divine union to be achieved is not Christian dogma; it is a description of the mystical experience. Dogma is part of the orthodox Christian belief system. But because you are an armchair philosopher, you don't know the difference.

Actually it is. Read the Bible

No, that is not in the review I linked. Something is wrong with the link, so use the one below.

No the link worked. I read the review.

However, what I am specifically referring to, the transcendence of the thinking mind, is outside of Time and Space, so what was true then is also true now.

You were quote-mining and ignored the part of the review that didn't support your view

I am not responding to a nobody from amazon.com; I am responding to the content of the review. And I didn't post it because it is impressive, but because it is true: Cusa was a mystic.

The review is still from a nobody. Being a mystic in one religion does not mean they support your form of mysticism.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually it is. Read the Bible

The Bible includes fragments of Yeshu's original mystical teachings even though most were destroyed by Rome and others overwritten by Paul with those of Mithraic doctrines.

You were quote-mining and ignored the part of the review that didn't support your view
The review is still from a nobody. Being a mystic in one religion does not mean they support your form of mysticism.

Cusa states that Reason must be vanquished; check
Cusa states that the goal is divine union: check

You don't have to have public recognition to know what your'e talking about. In fact, one of the features of the mystic experience is to seek anonymity.

 

[Shad]

The Bible includes fragments of Yeshu's original mystical teachings even though most were destroyed by Rome and others overwritten by Paul with those of Mithraic doctrines.

Empty claims.

Cusa states that Reason must be vanquished; check
Cusa states that the goal is divine union: check

You don't have to have public recognition to know what your'e talking about. In fact, one of the features of the mystic experience is to seek anonymity.

Reason for dismissal different: check
Methods for goals different: check
Talking about different topics (religion), divine union with God vs HC: check
You quoting-mining for effect: check
You're failure in thinking another mystic's sophistry is convincing to me: check
Try again son: check

 

[godnotgod]

You're failure in thinking another mystic's sophistry is convincing to me: check

It's OK if you failed to understand his meaning. That's understandable in light of the fact that your take is intellectual rather than experiential.

You don't understand Chopra.
You dont't understand Cusa.
You don't even understand a nobody.
You don't understand period.

Bye now.

 

[godnotgod]

Empty claims.

Do you understand the difference between a statement that points to the mystical experience as compared to one that is merely based on doctrinal belief?

 

[Shad]

Do you understand the difference between a statement that points to the mystical experience as compared to one that is merely based on doctrinal belief?

Do you understand that mysticism is not the same for all people, all views as it is a general term not a unified specific one. Considering Nicholas was talking from a Christian point of view and you are not makes these statements completely different, for different reasons and different purposes. You are quote-mining in a vain attempt at supporting Chopra but you never read any of Nicholas's work thus are obvious to the major differences

It's OK if you failed to understand his meaning. That's understandable in light of the fact that your take is intellectual rather than experiential.

You don't understand Chopra.

No one does except for his sheep that eat up his sophistry. He has never provided evidence of his claim within any scientific field.

You dont't understand Cusa.

Wrong as I was a Christian. I know exactly what he is talking about

You don't even understand a nobody.
You don't understand period.

Wrong.

 

[godnotgod]

Do you understand that mysticism is not the same for all people, all views as it is a general term not a unified specific one. Considering Nicholas was talking from a Christian point of view and you are not makes these statements completely different, for different reasons and different purposes. You are quote-mining in a vain attempt at supporting Chopra but you never read any of Nicholas's work thus are obvious to the major differences

There are differences in doctrine, but the quote I used is transcendent of doctrine. Why? Because even doctrine is a product of Reason, though a very controlled type of Reason. But what Cusa is actually saying is that Reason must be vanquished before divine union can be achieved. That is exactly what I am saying as well. Cusa was expounding a mystical idea, not an orthodox doctrine. An orthodox Christian does not go as far as a mystic Christian does.

godnotgod said: ↑

It's OK if you failed to understand his meaning. That's understandable in light of the fact that your take is intellectual rather than experiential.

You don't understand Chopra.

No one does except for his sheep that eat up his sophistry. He has never provided evidence of his claim within any scientific field.

He constantly uses evidence from biology, chemistry, physics, neurology, evolution, etc to support what his claims are. Hello. Are you listening, or just hearing what you want to hear?

You dont't understand Cusa.

Wrong as I was a Christian. I know exactly what he is talking about

Do you? Have you had a transcendent spiritual experience beyond Reason? Do you realize that such an experience has little if anything to do with being a Christian?


You don't even understand a nobody.
You don't understand period.

Wrong.

If you truly did understand, you would know exactly what I am referring to. But because you are still within the sphere of the intellect and Reason, there is no way you can understand. All you can really do is to see the mystical experience from the POV of the conceptual mind, which is that of non-experience. The conceptual mind attempts to encapsulate that which cannot be encapsulated, which is exactly why "the proud spirit of Reason must be vanquished".

 

[godnotgod]

I have a shamanic perspective and world view, so what consitutes reality for me is a little different. Is there an Ultimate Reality? Sure, no doubt there is some underlying, deeper reality (Unified Field), but to a shaman there are many different layers to reality. The physical/material world still remains very much an important layer of reality. Every layer is equally "real" in its own way. Even the "dream" layer is important and "real" in its own way to a shaman. There is something useful to learn from each of those different layers or realities, so we do not ignore any of them in favor of just one. I do realize that Oneness which is the Ocean, but I do not ignore those waves. A shaman in a way "rides" those waves and interacts with them as he journeys through those different layers of reality, yet all the while in full realization of that ever-present Ocean.

The shamanic perspective is a particular view; Ultimate Reality is no particular view. It is Unborn and Ungrown. It is prior to, and the basis for, the formation of all views, just as the undifferentiated background is the basis for figure and form. While it is a perfect reflection of Reality itself, it retains nothing, just as a perfect mirror reflects perfectly what it sees, yet retains no images. In this respect, Ultimate Reality is empty and without history; without memory. It only exists in this eternal Present Moment. There is no dead past or non-existent future. Here, there is no realizer of Ultimate Reality; there is only Ultimate Reality itself, because, as Chopra has told us, the spiritual experience is one in which

'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality'.

​

 

[Runewolf1973]

The shamanic perspective is a particular view; Ultimate Reality is no particular view. It is Unborn and Ungrown. It is prior to, and the basis for, the formation of all views, just as the undifferentiated background is the basis for figure and form. While it is a perfect reflection of Reality itself, it retains nothing, just as a perfect mirror reflects perfectly what it sees, yet retains no images. In this respect, Ultimate Reality is empty and without history; without memory. It only exists in this eternal Present Moment. There is no dead past or non-existent future. Here, there is no realizer of Ultimate Reality; there is only Ultimate Reality itself, because, as Chopra has told us, the spiritual experience is one in which

'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality'.

​

What a bland and flavorless cake that Ultimate Reality is...

 

[godnotgod]

What a bland and flavorless cake that Ultimate Reality is...

Heh..heh...were it not for it being bland and flavorless, there would be no excitement or flavor to experience. Ultimate Reality is the silent, invisible, undifferentiated background to everything you see, hear, taste, touch and otherwise experience as phenomena. So pause for a moment in your 'interactions' and give it a toast, even though it is beyond praise or blame.

 

[Shad]

There are differences in doctrine, but the quote I used is transcendent of doctrine. Why? Because even doctrine is a product of Reason, though a very controlled type of Reason. But what Cusa is actually saying is that Reason must be vanquished before divine union can be achieved. That is exactly what I am saying as well. Cusa was expounding a mystical idea, not an orthodox doctrine. An orthodox Christian does not go as far as a mystic Christian does.

Doctrine need not be rational at since faith is to believe in something without evidence, irrational. One irrational idea creates another. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant all have traditions based on mysticism. Again you are talking about a subject you know nothing about beyond your one quote

godnotgod said: ↑

It's OK if you failed to understand his meaning. That's understandable in light of the fact that your take is intellectual rather than experiential.

You don't understand Chopra


He constantly uses evidence from biology, chemistry, physics, neurology, evolution, etc to support what his claims are. Hello. Are you listening, or just hearing what you want to hear?

No he doesn't. He uses technical terms from those fields which he does not understand in order to convince those that invest in his ideas, which also know nothing about the terms he uses

You dont't understand Cusa.

Do you? Have you had a transcendent spiritual experience beyond Reason? Do you realize that such an experience has little if anything to do with being a Christian?

He was talking about a Christian point of view. Any Christian would recognize exactly what he is talking about just by reading his 3 books which are linked into the same topic.

Hilarious, Nicholas, was specifically talking about Christianity not your HC. You didn't read his work but quote-mine as you think it helps your case, it doesn't. Everything is filter by and under Christianity. His views of Christianity's superiority is all over his work

You don't even understand a nobody.
You don't understand period.

Say the one that never read Nicholas' work

If you truly did understand, you would know exactly what I am referring to. But because you are still within the sphere of the intellect and Reason, there is no way you can understand. All you can really do is to see the mystical experience from the POV of the conceptual mind, which is that of non-experience. The conceptual mind attempts to encapsulate that which cannot be encapsulated, which is exactly why "the proud spirit of Reason must be vanquished".

I understand, I just dismiss it as the nonsense it is. You had an experience which you can not put to logic nor reason. However you use both to assume that your experience is something special rather than a trick of your mind. So you dismiss both but retreat to both when required

 

[godnotgod]

Doctrine need not be rational at since faith is to believe in something without evidence, irrational. One irrational idea creates another.

Yes, of course, but that is only because what is irrational is thought to be rational. In both cases, 'Reason' is the tool being utilized. While the doctrine believed in may indeed be irrational, Reason is always used to propose it. Since the mystical experience is beyond both Belief and Reason, it cannot be used to explain it, but only to lead up to it; to point to it. Both Reason and Belief are based on thought; the mystical experience is based on direct experience, without thought.

Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant all have traditions based on mysticism. Again you are talking about a subject you know nothing about beyond your one quote

Well, duh, of course orthodoxy is based on mysticism. The spiritual experience always comes first, but the problem with orthodoxy is that it attempts to encapsulate and freeze the experience into an 'officialized' authoritative teaching that can be 'explained' by twisted 'Reason'.

No he doesn't. He uses technical terms from those fields which he does not understand in order to convince those that invest in his ideas, which also know nothing about the terms he uses

He doesn't just use technical terms; he explains exactly how he is using them. He constantly corroborates with other scientists in many fields, even writing books with them. All he is really doing is placing scientific knowledge within the context of a greater understanding of Reality itself, and I wholeheartedly agree with this approach, not because I am hypnotized by any rhetoric, but because I see the same thing he is referring to as true, and what is seen has been consistent throughout history by many other mystics independently of each other. Discoveries in science are not going to change the way the Universe works; it is only going to change old paradigms about how it works, the materialist paradigm being one of them, which has slowly been crumbling.

He was talking about a Christian point of view. Any Christian would recognize exactly what he is talking about just by reading his 3 books which are linked into the same topic.

Transcending Reason to achieve divine union is not exclusively a Christian POV. It is a universally consistent experience. Most believing Christians don't have a clue about the mystical experience. Belief is good enough for them. Essentially what has occurred is that orthodox Christians fail to understand the spiritual significance of their own religious symbolism. They have the husk and the doctrine but not the essence. It is the essence that the mystic Christian, or any other mystic, is focused upon.

You don't get to understanding by reading books; you get there via direct experience. I asked if you have had such an experience, and you refer to books. 'Christianity' is a description of the experience, but is not the experience itself. That experience is beyond any description, whether it be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheistic, Scientific, or otherwise. This is why you are confused; you have never had the experience, and are seeing what others, such as Chopra, say about it through the distorted lens of your descriptive mind.

Hilarious, Nicholas was specifically talking about Christianity not your HC. You didn't read his work but quote-mine as you think it helps your case, it doesn't. Everything is filter by and under Christianity. His views of Christianity's superiority is all over his work

Transcending Reason to achieve divine union is not an exclusive Christian experience. What leads up to its threshold may be Christian, but the experience itself is not.

I understand, I just dismiss it as the nonsense it is. You had an experience which you can not put to logic nor reason. However you use both to assume that your experience is something special rather than a trick of your mind. So you dismiss both but retreat to both when required

I use Reason as a handle to communicate with those whose arguments are based on Reason, but then only as a tool to point to an experience that is both beyond Reason and which cannot be explained by Reason. Understand? But you are correct: the experience cannot be put to logic or reason; that is the nature of the experience.

Your comments are revealing. I never said that the experience is 'special'. If anything, it is Nothing Special, because it always brings us back to the here and now, to the ordinary of this world, as a means to see things as they are. What is a trick of the mind is how logic and reason have conditioned the human mind to see the world in a particular way. This conditioning has become so commonplace, and its inception incurred right at birth, that we fail to see it as altered consciousness. The conditioning itself is a kind of hypnotic trance, creating a paradigm, which the conditioning itself puts forth as being true, reinforced as it is by Reason and Logic. The mind can only be tricked when it has been conditioned. HC is an experience of the unconditioned mind, now set free via the spiritual experience.

Do you understand what I am saying by 'unconditioned mind'?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Heh..heh...were it not for it being bland and flavorless, there would be no excitement or flavor to experience. Ultimate Reality is the silent, invisible, undifferentiated background to everything you see, hear, taste, touch and otherwise experience as phenomena. So pause for a moment in your 'interactions' and give it a toast, even though it is beyond praise or blame.

How is absolute nothingness any sort of reality? What is "real" about nothingness?

 

[godnotgod]

How is absolute nothingness any sort of reality? What is "real" about nothingness?

Without the background of Absolute Nothingness, there would be no Universe. The Universe comes out of it, and returns to it. It is the Universe that is the illusion, and The Absolute that is real, because it does not change. Why should it? It's The Absolute, and that means there is nothing It needs to do to attain anything other than what it already is: Absolute Perfection. And that is why it is The Changeless. Only that which seems to change; to become; to interact to attain something other than what is, is imperfect and illusory. It's just a game The Absolute is playing with itself, first projecting itself as The Universe, and then playing all its parts simultaneously, pretending to be those very things, all the while deliberately hiding from itself. It really is quite compelling, and you and I are part of both the HIde/Seek as well as The Awakening to what is.