Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

I am the one with the egotistical issues, but you have no problem speaking for all mystics, characterizing all religions, describing all of science and scientists, and all in terms of how they are wrong?

They are as long as they think they are going to arrive at an understanding of the universe the way they are going about it, and that is the idea I get from statements made from the scientists over and over. That is the idea constantly in the back of their minds. From the get-go, science makes the universe an object of study apart from the observer, making real understanding impossible. I am grateful, in part, for all of the things available to me via technology and science, but I would'nt give two cents to science if it proposes to provide me with an 'understanding' of reality via factual knowledge, in lieu of the first-hand experience of a living, conscious universe. Otherwise, you may as well try to capture the wind in a box. Science wants to encapsulate the universe in conceptual thought, in formula, in prediction, in model, etc., while the religionist wants to encapsulate God in form, in things, in idols, in doctrines. Both are missing the mark by a long shot.

Originally, Christianity was a mystical practice; Yeshu himself was a mystic. But just because the word 'mystic' may have originated there, says nothing about what the word is actually about. The actual experience goes back way beyond Christianity, into the East. Unfortunate that modern orthodox Christianity has lost touch with it mystic roots, and even abhors hearing the word.

With both science and religion, the universe and God are objects apart from the observer or the devotee. With mysticism, universe and God are no longer objects.

 

[darkendless]

They are as long as they think they are going to arrive at an understanding of the universe the way they are going about it, and that is the idea I get from statements made from the scientists over and over. That is the idea constantly in the back of their minds. From the get-go, science makes the universe an object of study apart from the observer, making real understanding impossible. I am grateful, in part, for all of the things available to me via technology and science, but I would'nt give two cents to science if it proposes to provide me with an 'understanding' of reality via the first-hand experience of a living, conscious universe.

I love how mystics always claim to have it all figured out as if we are primates bashing rocks together.

This intellectual superiority makes it very difficult to have a proper discussion with most of them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They are as long as they think they are going to arrive at an understanding of the universe the way they are going about it, and that is the idea I get from statements made from the scientists over and over.

1) I didn't just say that you were saying something about all sciences and scientists. I said that you were speaking for all mystics, characterizing all religions, and not only describing how every religious person who isn't a mystic practices and understands their religion, but also that they are wrong.
2) Again, you have accused me of being egotistical (among many other things), yet you feel you that you not only understand the sciences better than scientists, but that you (and all who fit whatever definition/concept you have of who is and isn't a mystic) have a superior understanding of reality than anybody else? You have no qualms about characterizing every single religion, every single scientific field, and every single person who either believes in a religion or is a scientists (or both) not only in terms of what their experiences are, but why they are wrong?

I have to admit. I never thought I'd come across a fundamentalist mystic.

That is the idea constantly in the back of their minds. From the get-go, science makes the universe an object of study apart from the observer, making real understanding impossible.

From the actual get-go, as in how modern science developed, the idea was to understand God's works.

But what does it matter when we have you, who understands reality, scientists, religions, etc., so completely you are god-like in your ability to describe the experiences, practices, faiths, and beliefs of just about everyone on the planet (and the universe itself). Because you have the "source itself".

Two went to pray O rather say
One went to brag, the other to pray:
One stands up close and treads on high,
Where the other dares not send his eye.
One nearer to God’s altar trod
The other to the altar’s God.

(I forget the author's name)

 

[godnotgod]

posted by godnotgod:
Beyond that, a mystic can decide to gain factual knowledge of QM via scientific study

What scientific study have you undertaken?

Majored in Marine Invertebrate Zoology for several years, but what I did has nothing to do with what I said.

Not at all. Because Muslims, Christians, and members of various other religions views make the same claims. We have creationists who understand evolution better than scientists. I have a number of pamphlets on passages in the quran which, according to the authors of the pamphlets, demonstrate that Islam has understood for centuries what modern science is just now beginnning to grasp.

So what? The problem is that they 'understand' their science only in terms of their belief systems. I have read some of the Muslim literature re: science and the Quran, and am not impressed. If you see merit there, you must be pretty naive.

There is at least one thing that every pamphlet, website, person, blog, etc., saying such things have in common: they don't bother with whether or not the ways in which their beliefs "encompass science" has anything to do with the sciences.

It is very easy to encompass all of science when you can define what science is and tell scientists that they don't understand their fields. "It's turtles all the way down."

What I meant when I said that mysticism can encompass science, is that it does so as science intends the information to be understood. That is no problem for the mystic. But the religionist can only accept science if it is in accord with their beliefs and doctrines.

I think you will find that your description of religion as not being "experiential" is offensive to literally billions of people who experience their religion and renew their faith through rituals, prayers, contemplation/meditation, etc.

Yes, and they would be offended because they are personally attached to their belief systems, which creates a distorted view of reality, just as you have been offended because you are personally attached to your area of study.

 

[godnotgod]

But what does it matter when we have you, who understands reality, scientists, religions, etc., so completely you are god-like in your ability to describe the experiences, practices, faiths, and beliefs of just about everyone on the planet (and the universe itself). Because you have the "source itself".

Everyone has the source available to them at all times. It is Nothing Special. But the fact that you interpret what I've said as signifying being god-like and Something Special in the egotistical sense, is an indication of how little you understand, though you seem to possess a great deal of knowledge. Unfortunately, most of mankind is in pursuit of goals other than what the source provides, those goals (actually addictions) being primarily Power, Security, and Sensation, in varying degrees of combination. These addictions are glittering lures, but are really empty calories. Their pursuit for the attainment of some reward (ie; knowledge; salvation; prestige; etc.) and the noise surrounding them obscure the true source found within.

 

[godnotgod]

I love how mystics always claim to have it all figured out as if we are primates bashing rocks together.

This intellectual superiority makes it very difficult to have a proper discussion with most of them.

Your view is quite off key. Any realized mystic will tell you there is nothing to figure out. That is what the scientist is trying to do. All I can tell you is that, if you see yourself as a primate bashing rocks together, my suggestion to you is to keep bashing rocks together, for "a fool in his folly shall become wise". At that moment you will become a mystic.

Mystics don't rely on the intellect, but on intuition. But the intellect is transformed by the intuitive mind, so that what one thinks one sees, is not what actually is. Mystics would feel at one with all of humanity, not seeing themselves as superior in any way. Why? Because they see everyone as already being enlightened; as being the divine nature itself.

Here is a little clue for you to help you get out of the 'superiority/inferiority' bag you're in:

"When an ordinary man gains wisdom, he becomes a sage; when a sage gains understanding, he becomes an ordinary man"

Hope this helps....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Originally, Christianity was a mystical practice; Yeshu himself was a mystic.

I see. So your "source itself" is privy not only to reality, the nature and understanding of the sciences and scientists, and the nature of religious experience, but also of understanding an individual who lived 2,000 years ago. It's not just science that's basically useless when it comes to understanding, it's academia itself.

Of course, this individual you call Yeshu? Where did you hear about him? It can't be from the bible, because if you read the bible to understand Yeshu than you'd need academics who could translate it for you. Actually, as even Old English (this kind: þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,/hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon) post-dates any text written within a few centuries of this Yeshu's lifetime, unless you can read Greek, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Syriac, or other long dead languages, the only possible way you could ever read anything or hear anything about Yeshu is through academia. Yet I know you have quoted texts about this individual, and about documents concerning this individual.

You rely on a history of textual criticism, IE linguistics, comparative linguistics, philology, biblical studies, and much more in order to read what you have about Jesus, but you are capable of understanding whatever translatsions and so forth you've read better than the people who made it possible for you to even hear the name?

But just because the word 'mystic' may have originated there, says nothing about what the word is actually about.

It didn't originate with Jesus or with the gospels. It comes from Greek cultic practice, then Hellenistic cultic practice, and later is introduced through latin as a word describing the practices of certain individuals or the individuals themselves.

The actual experience goes back way beyond Christianity, into the East.

Do you know what the Japanese word for ninpo is? Ninpo. What about the Japanese word for samurai? Samurai. What about the Japanese word for burger? Burger. Same with internet. Sure, pronunciation differs, but the point is that certain words are not ever translated. We use Chinese and Japanese words to describe everything from food to swords. We use Sanskrit as the basis for words like buddha, Chinese for tao/dao, Japanese for zen, etc.

But mystic? Although it goes back to Greek, it doesn't mean anything like it's modern use until at least the 4th century (and in Latin), and probably later. Yet, unlike words such as buddhist, imam, daoism, confucianism, etcs., the words "mysticism", "mystic", "mystical", are neither derived from borrowed from any Eastern language. It was Westerners who used this word to describe Easterners.

Why, if the practice is Eastern, and predates Christianity, do we not have a word an Eastern language? Or even Sanskrit? Why are Eastern practices in places as diverse as India and Okinawa described using an English word?

Unfortunate that modern orthodox Christianity has lost touch with it mystic roots, and even abhors hearing the word.

A Western world from western practice ascribed to Eastern traditions in the 18th century.

What are the words for "mystic" in Eastern languages?

 

[godnotgod]

I see. So your "source itself" is privy not only to reality, the nature and understanding of the sciences and scientists, and the nature of religious experience, but also of understanding an individual who lived 2,000 years ago. It's not just science that's basically useless when it comes to understanding, it's academia itself.

Of course, this individual you call Yeshu? Where did you hear about him? It can't be from the bible, because if you read the bible to understand Yeshu than you'd need academics who could translate it for you. Actually, as even Old English (this kind: þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,/hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon) post-dates any text written within a few centuries of this Yeshu's lifetime, unless you can read Greek, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Syriac, or other long dead languages, the only possible way you could ever read anything or hear anything about Yeshu is through academia. Yet I know you have quoted texts about this individual, and about documents concerning this individual.

You rely on a history of textual criticism, IE linguistics, comparative linguistics, philology, biblical studies, and much more in order to read what you have about Jesus, but you are capable of understanding whatever translatsions and so forth you've read better than the people who made it possible for you to even hear the name?



It didn't originate with Jesus or with the gospels. It comes from Greek cultic practice, then Hellenistic cultic practice, and later is introduced through latin as a word describing the practices of certain individuals or the individuals themselves.



Do you know what the Japanese word for ninpo is? Ninpo. What about the Japanese word for samurai? Samurai. What about the Japanese word for burger? Burger. Same with internet. Sure, pronunciation differs, but the point is that certain words are not ever translated. We use Chinese and Japanese words to describe everything from food to swords. We use Sanskrit as the basis for words like buddha, Chinese for tao/dao, Japanese for zen, etc.

But mystic? Although it goes back to Greek, it doesn't mean anything like it's modern use until at least the 4th century (and in Latin), and probably later. Yet, unlike words such as buddhist, imam, daoism, confucianism, etcs., the words "mysticism", "mystic", "mystical", are neither derived from borrowed from any Eastern language. It was Westerners who used this word to describe Easterners.

Why, if the practice is Eastern, and predates Christianity, do we not have a word an Eastern language? Or even Sanskrit? Why are Eastern practices in places as diverse as India and Okinawa described using an English word?




A Western world from western practice ascribed to Eastern traditions in the 18th century.

What are the words for "mystic" in Eastern languages?

All academics and descriptions about mysticism derived from the spiritually transformative experience we call mysticism. The mystical experience comes first; the academia follows. Yoga and Tantra are ancient forms of mystical practices, in place long before the Greeks coined the term.

Why do you think the mystics either regard the scriptures as secondary sources of knowledge, or end up burning them entirely?

There is Yeshu the historical figure, but that is of no concern; the real meat is the essence of Yeshu, which is outside of history, outside of time, and is only to be found within, here, now:

"Before Abraham was, I am"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Majored in Marine Invertebrate Zoology for several years, but what I did has nothing to do with what I said.

.Beyond that, a mystic can decide to gain factual knowledge of QM via scientific study

My apologies. I meant what scientific study of QM have you undertaken.

So what? The problem is that they 'understand' their science only in terms of their belief systems.

You, on the other hand, understand science through...?

I have read some of the Muslim literature re: science and the Quran, and am not impressed. If you see merit there, you must be pretty naive.

I don't see any merit (at least not with respect to any sciences; the merit is in trying to understand someone else's worldview). But you wondered why it is that mysticism can encompass science, and not the reverse, and that is the reason. It's easy to make science compatible with any religious beliefs, to encompass any spiritual practice, and so on, simply by defining science such that it does. And then being so arrogant that you dismiss the how other faiths do the same the as you did above.

What I meant when I said that mysticism can encompass science, is that it does so as science intends the information to be understood.

. The trouble is that scientists do not actually understand what QM is.

Heh..heh..heh...Ironic that mystics, who, according to physicists, know nothing about QM and should stay away, are practically in perfect agreement with each other about how it relates to consciousness, get the finger-wagging from the scientists, who claim only they are the ones who understand it, yet are the ones who find themselves in disagreement over what it is.

Deepak Chopra states that the problem with science is that it separates the observer from the observed, the observer being inseparable from the universe itself. From the point of view of science, this is necessary in order to eliminate personal bias, but from the point of view of Higher Consciousness, that is only true when the personal consciousness involved is that of Identification.

So, although scientists don't understand quantum mechanics, and although you deliberately and quite obviously contrast how inferior the sciences are relative to mysticism, and athough you have actually stated that scientists disagree, somehow "mysticism can encompass science [in] that it does so as science intends the information to be understood". Clearly, scientists do not, as you have said this. So how exactly is "mysticism" encompassing science through what science intends? And how is this different from any other religious, spiritual, or just plain ideological method of "encompassing" science? What is this science that scientists don't understand but the mystic understands the information as this science intends?

That is no problem for the mystic. But the religionist can only accept science if it is in accord with their beliefs and doctrines.

So while a religious person can only accept science in certain ways based on their beliefs, the mystic accepts science because it coheres with their beliefs. They wouldn't, for example, state that

. The trouble is that scientists do not actually understand what QM is.

After all, that would be to dismiss, not accept, "science".

Yes, and they would be offended because they are personally attached to their belief systems, which creates a distorted view of reality, just as you have been offended because you are personally attached to your area of study.

I am not in the least offended because I am attached to any area of study. What offends me, among other things, is intellectual dishonesty. By that I mean a conscious or unconscious distortion, misrepresentation, or inaccurate presentation of facts, evidence, sources, and one's understanding. I know there are those who know more than I, and I know that the reason I have learned a great deal is simply because that's how I've decided to spend my time, money, and energy. It's not a matter of intelligence, it's not a matter of "specialized knowledge", and it's far from being what I'd like.

I do not like most of who I am, and I do not think much of my abilities to do anything or with anything (and one of the only things I am good at is not something I take much pride in even though I have been practicing it far longer than I have studied anything). But I take some pride in knowing that I do not pretend to know things I do not. I take some pride in my dedication to trying to learn things, and even more when I am able to admit I do not know or that I am wrong. What offends me, then, is the hypocritical critic, the one who insults others for their egos and their false knowledge and inability to understand, and all on the basis of their god-like omniscience.

 

[atanu]

Alright. I'd like to get in on this action.

First, can someone bring me up to speed on whether or not we have a common working definition of "mysticism" for the purposes of figuring out how to "demystify" physics?

I usually understand this as exoteric versus esoteric. And, following Upanishads, I believe that thinking/believing that only one of these two is knowledge is dark hell.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All academics and descriptions about mysticism derived from the spiritually transformative experience we call mysticism.

And this experience characterizes mystical practice throughout history, which you know because...?

The mystical experience comes first; the academia follows. Yoga and Tantra are ancient forms of mystical practices, in place long before the Greeks coined the term.

Do you know where the words tantra and yoga come from and how they came to mean what they do now? There is a volume in the series Tantric Studies titled The Roots of Tantra. The first paper (by Padoux), notes "the fact remains that Tantrism is, to a large extent, 'a category of discourse in the West,' and not, strictly speaking, an Indian one." The word behind the English tantra is, of course, in Indian/Vedic/Sanskrit texts, but (as noted in the link I found for you) it has rather little to do with how the term is understood today. The way it is understood today has to a great deal with Western ethnocentric biases of the 18th and 19th centuries, and certain "new age" movements which are sometimes referred to as "cultural appropriations", or by less kind terms (ranging from outright Western racist colonialist ethnocentric consumer driven bias, to "westernization").

And as for the Greeks, they're practice has nothing in common with anything you've ever described.

Why do you think the mystics either regard the scriptures as secondary sources of knowledge, or end up burning them entirely?

As I have no idea which mystics you are referring to, I can only say that as far as the various groups categorized as "gnostics" are concerned, or the Jewish mystics, or the Neoplatonists, or the Christian mystics, you are wrong. Scriptures were of central importanst to both Jewish and Christian mystics, and as for this "book burning" it is accurate only in the sense that the books were burned, but not by "gnostics". They were burned along with many other "heretical texts" by orthodox Christians.

There is Yeshu the historical figure, but that is of no concern; the real meat is the essence of Yeshu, which is outside of history, outside of time, and is only to be found within, here, now:

"Before Abraham was, I am"

This essense that you have access to because many people spent a lot of time providing you with a translation using their inferior access to knowledge. This figure who exists "outside of time" is described for you in a language you can read by people who studied history and the history of languages (along with historical languages and historical texts), but you can say it exists outside of history because you didn't do any of the historical study necessary so that you can quote from the New Testament.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mysticism is merely the gateway to Higher Consciousness, or Cosmic Consciousness. It is more accurate to talk about the connection between Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics. Ordinary consciousness, which includes science, is not aware of this connection for various reasons

Both Chopra and Goswami have the spiritual insight to see all the way through that there is no difference between the so-called 'material' world and the world of consciousness. That is why they can so readily see how things talked about in science are already interconnected to the world of consciousness even before they have been 'discovered', because it is all One World from the get-go.

The trouble is that scientists do not actually understand what QM is. Mystics may or may not bother with scientific research, but science was not in place prior to reality. The mystic goes directly to the source. Beyond that, a mystic can decide to gain factual knowledge of QM via scientific study, but that is secondary to his first point of departure, which is reality. How are you going to evaluate reality with science, when reality is what both science and mysticism are about? No. It is science which needs to be evaluated in terms of reality. Science has it backwards. Does it not occur odd to you that mysticism can encompass science, while science cannot encompass mysticism? BTW, I should point out that religious believers have a difficult time incorporating science, while mystics do not, with the caveat that they must explain what science says in terms of the vision they have as mystics. The mystical experience is beyond belief-based systems. It is experiential, not conceptual, as science and religion both are. The primary issue mystics have with science is that scientists think somehow that the accumulation of factual knowledge and its analysis will lead them to the understanding of reality, when they are really trying to 'understand' the universe in mechanistic terms.

This thread is on QM and certain claims about it, particularly those made by people like Chopra. You do not hesitate to point out how inferior science is to what you consider to be mysticism, how inferior any form of knowledge is compared to you understanding of mysticism, what science is and what scientists think, all the while from the omniscience of truth gleened from the "source itself".

After being told that I don't understand enough of what I do because you have some higher source with which you can judge all religions, all religious practices, all scientists and sciences, and so on, I don't think it is possible to demystify QM without first establishing how much your view represents "mysticism".

In particular, how much your view represents not mysticism, but a Westernized pop-culture consumer driven "new age" marketed, pre-packaged version that makes claims about cultures and religious beliefs, especially those which are Eastern, based on 2 centuries of prejudice, stereotypes, cultural appropriation, and religious tourism.

However, I don't want you to rely on my views, but rather I will refer you to those whose texts and peoples you trivialize. Meera Nanda, a native born Indian academic and author of Prophets Facing Backwards sees your attitude towards Eastern understanding as not just misinformed, but dangerous. As for Chopra:

"neo-Hinduism is the brand of Hinduism taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Deepak Chopra, and their clones in the countless yoga-meditation-vegetarian ashrams that dot the landscape of North America and Western European countries." (p. 46)

and as for the "use- or rather, abuse- of quantum mechanics as Vedānta-in-disguise", she writes of the "enormous volume of quantum mystical literature [that] has grown around the presumed convergence between quantum physics and Eastern religions. Spurred by by mystically inclined physicists like Fritjof Capra, Gary Zukav and many other, Indian Vedāntists have had a field day claiming that Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty proves the primacy of consciousness over matter and the interconnectedness of the human mind iwth consciousness in the rest of the universe." She mentions the "bestselling books of Deepak Chopra, one-time colleague of Mahesh Yogi, who promises 'quantum healing' by creating 'happy molecules' through 'happy thoughts'...many of the numerous swamis who discourse on quantum mysticism are barely literate in any science, let alone quantum physics". (pp. 107-108).

Varadaraja V. Raman's comments are also quite relevent:

"Western postmodernist writers, some of whom are practitioners of science, have been contributing to this situation. They have successfully propagated the thesis that all truths are relative. This means that scientific truths do not occupy a privileged position in the arena of human knowledge...Suffice it to say that it has played an important role in devaluing modern science in the estimation of many people everywhere. The science and Enlightenment that originated in the West have turned topsy-turvy its own culture and transformed its own millennia-long traditions in unrecognizable ways. They have been doing this in other cultural settings as well. What is not recognized in this tradition-destroying global onslaught is that it is not colonialist governments that have been changing the minds of the people, but the reasoned knowledge, information, and emancipating values that are part science and Enlightenment.The feel-good call to reject modern science because it had its origins in the West has been persuasively expounded by some thoughtful scholars in India. But they have not succeeded in diminishing the practice of science within India where research and inventions continue. Nor have such musings slowed down the pace of modern science education and progressive social values in colleges and universities in India. Thanks to these, the country is emerging as a leader to be reckoned with in the comity of nations." (from "Hinduism and Science: Some Reflections" Journal of Religion & Science).

As for this age-old "tantra" you refer to, not only is it quite unclear what tantra was before Western appropriation, it is very clear that it has become Capitalist spirituality. See e.g.,
Urban, H. B. (2000). The cult of ecstasy: Tantrism, the new age, and the spiritual logic of late capitalism. History of Religions, 39(3), 268-304.

Even better is Boer, H. A. (2003). The Work of Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra‐Two Holistic Health/New Age Gurus: A Critique of the Holistic Health/New Age Movements. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17(2), 233-250.

"Weil and Chopra exemplify par excellence the increasing entrepreneurialization of the holistic health movement. Chopra's enterprises reportedly bring in about $15 million a year." Boer also notes Carrol's comment on the disconnect between Chopra's charge of "$25,000 per lecture performance" and his "spiritual advice" all the while "warning against the ill effects of materialism. His audiences are apparently not troubled by his living in a $2.5 million house in La Jolla, California, where he parks his green Jaguar". Even better, many of these lectures are given in California (his "home base" so to speak), where he is not licensed to practice medicine.

In fact, many of the critiques of "new age" gurus like Chopra aren't Westerners, but natives of India or other Eastern cultures that do not appreciate the commercialized versions of their heritage which both trivialize it and reduce emerging sciences in Eastern cultures to "alternative" neo-esoteric Western eclecticism just so people who don't understand science and don't study history can make sweeping epistemological claims without having to worry about actually learning much. People like Chopra are to Indian science what Gimbutas was to feminist archaeology: a way for important work to be ignored or written off as pseudoscience because people like Chopra care more about making millions thanks to a gullible Westerners who eat up commercialized mysticism like fast-food religions.

Not only that, but you there are actual mystics who don't just spout whatever nonsense is sold to them by the capitalist version of spirituality. They aren't all Eastern, and they aren't all the same. There is not one mystic tradition, but many, and to claim that the fast-food version of Eastern religious and philosophical thought is representative of anything other than capitalism (and occasionally nationalism thanks to British colonialism) enables one to judge not only how wrong scientists are, but to speak for mystics who have written papers, books, pleas, and so on asking that their traditions not be reduced to some Chopra-esque neo-mysticism because they would prefer not to have people who don't know what they are talking about describe their traditions or create a market to inhibit scientific progress which they view as vitally important.

If you want to lecture others about how your personal understanding of mysticism enables you to understand all religious and scientific practices and how they fail, you could at least have the decency not to talk connect your understanding to various cultural traditions you know almost nothing about.

 

[godnotgod]

In particular, how much your view represents not mysticism, but a Westernized pop-culture consumer driven "new age" marketed, pre-packaged version that makes claims about cultures and religious beliefs, especially those which are Eastern, based on 2 centuries of prejudice, stereotypes, cultural appropriation, and religious tourism.

However, I don't want you to rely on my views, but rather I will refer you to those whose texts and peoples you trivialize. Meera Nanda, a native born Indian academic and author of Prophets Facing Backwards sees your attitude towards Eastern understanding as not just misinformed, but dangerous. As for Chopra:

"neo-Hinduism is the brand of Hinduism taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Deepak Chopra, and their clones in the countless yoga-meditation-vegetarian ashrams that dot the landscape of North America and Western European countries." (p. 46)

and as for the "use- or rather, abuse- of quantum mechanics as Vedānta-in-disguise", she writes of the "enormous volume of quantum mystical literature [that] has grown around the presumed convergence between quantum physics and Eastern religions. Spurred by by mystically inclined physicists like Fritjof Capra, Gary Zukav and many other, Indian Vedāntists have had a field day claiming that Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty proves the primacy of consciousness over matter and the interconnectedness of the human mind iwth consciousness in the rest of the universe." She mentions the "bestselling books of Deepak Chopra, one-time colleague of Mahesh Yogi, who promises 'quantum healing' by creating 'happy molecules' through 'happy thoughts'...many of the numerous swamis who discourse on quantum mysticism are barely literate in any science, let alone quantum physics". (pp. 107-108).

Ha Ha Ha Ha....what a joke this post is!:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh: And to think it comes from someone who props himself up in the manner that you do, as an informed scholar. In short, it proves once again how you have your nose pressed up against the window pane, looking from the outside, in.

Firstly, this Meera Nanda character you reference. What the @#*X#@ does SHE know about the mystical experience? Now I see TWO people with their noses pressed up against the window pane! LOL!

A brief bio from Wikipedia:


Meera Nanda is an Indian writer, historian and philosopher of science. She is a John Templeton Foundation Fellow in Religion and Science (2005–2007), with a Ph.D. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and an initial training in biology. In January 2009, she was made a Fellow at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute for Advanced Study, in the Jawaharlal Nehru University for research in Science, Post-Modernism and Culture. She has authored several works on religion, most notably Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India (2004), and her 2009 book The God Market which examines how India is experiencing a rising tide of popular Hinduism, including Government of India financing of Hinduism despite the nation's secular characteristic. The book was also reviewed by William Dalrymple in Outlook Magazine. Criticisms have been leveled against Nanda by Swaminathan Venkataraman of the Hindu American Foundation in response to claims made by Nanda that Yoga has no link to Hinduism, such as her views being colored by her alleged hatred for Swami Vivekanada, and that Nanda fears "the emergence of an articulate, credible, and professional Hindu voice that is bringing authentic, apolitical Hindu perspectives into the public sphere". Historian of science N.S. Rajaram rebutted her charge that he had claimed that Swami Vivekananda had anticipated the findings of quantum physics and challenged her to cite a source. (The Hindu, May 29, 2004.) But the charge was picked up by other anti-Hindu critics, notably Alan Sokal in their polemical writings.

This woman is not a mystic. She is an 'academic' (not really!). She writes about something she has no experience of (just like you). This is worse than DT Suzuki's books about Zen Buddhism. (I here recall my very first visit to the San Francisco Zen Center. The lecture opens with: "If any of you have in your libraries the books by DT Suzuki, BURN THEM!") At least his books are honest and scholarly, if not written from the enlightened mind. I think it funny that the person you claim is trivializing a culture's texts and people turns out to be your very own mouthpiece. Nanda, quite simply, does not understand what is going on in the world. She fails to understand what all the upheaval she warns against actually means, just as you and others here do not have a clue as to what the mystic's interpretation of QM means. These new views she and you criticize are not affronts to what has gone before, but expanded awareness of those teachings and discoveries, but always within the context of the true nature of Reality.

These types, such as Nanda, are akin to the current orthodox Christian condemnations (from the pulpit, even!) of such practices/ideas as Zen, Yoga, Evolution, Wicca, New Age, Taoism, Chinese Good Luck Gods, etc., as demonic and dangerous! Oooooh! Heaven forbid! It is especially interesting to note that most of the ideas condemned by the Patriarchally-oriented Church are those which are feminine-based, providing spiritual nourishment to hungry souls.

If you are going to prop someone else up as an authority to represent your point of view, at least choose someone who has had first hand experience with the subject they criticize, or, better yet, go see for yourself. Maybe you need to give a lesson or two with your old Qi Gong instructor another shot. Then again, it will not be you who decides if you are to return, but he, although you will think it is you who has made the decision.

I am surprised that a person of your calibre would utiliize such an obviously stupid and ignorant person such as Meera Nanda to make your point. Oh, well, even the best of us can have glaring blind spots! (and/or use their credentials to support their own ulterior 'axe-grinding' motives).

Cheers!

 

[godnotgod]

Meera Nanda Proudly Struts Her Ignorance

Meera Nanda Proudly Struts her Ignorance

 

[godnotgod]

And this experience characterizes mystical practice throughout history, which you know because...?

...that which I was seeking was causing me to seek.

 

[godnotgod]

This essense that you have access to because many people spent a lot of time providing you with a translation using their inferior access to knowledge. This figure who exists "outside of time" is described for you in a language you can read by people who studied history and the history of languages (along with historical languages and historical texts), but you can say it exists outside of history because you didn't do any of the historical study necessary so that you can quote from the New Testament.

You are eating the menu instead of the meal, Legion.

The essence is found within. It is beyond history, beyond language, beyond forms, beyond descriptions, beyond second-hand scriptural accounts. As Yeshu instructed:

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
John 5:39 NKJV

You see, all academics, all language, all descriptions point back to the living essence within. In Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's words:

"The description is not the described"

re: "...you can say it exists outside of history because you didn't do any of the historical study necessary so that you can quote from the New Testament."

No, Legion. You don't know what you're saying, so stop here. I can say it exists outside of history because it is Unborn, Ungrown, Changeless, and Deathless, and therefore, Eternal. It is the Absolute which does not come and go as this world, like a cloud, comes and goes. This eternal essence is found only in this living, Present Moment, whose truth is found in this statement from Yeshu:

"Before Abraham was, I am"

Once again, that which is the Indestructible Sunyata, the Eternal, the Absolute, has always been, beyond Time, Space, and Causation.

 

[YmirGF]

I am surprised that a person of your calibre would utiliize such an obviously stupid and ignorant person such as Meera Nanda to make your point. Oh, well, even the best of us can have glaring blind spots! (and/or use their credentials to support their own ulterior 'axe-grinding' motives).

And this is coming from a person who thinks Deepak Chopra and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Ver. 2.0 are authoritative sources.

 

[godnotgod]

And this is coming from a person who thinks Deepak Chopra and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Ver. 2.0 are authoritative sources.

I don't think they are; I KNOW they are.

Having said that does not mean I am a follower of either. I say what I do because what they say synchs with my own experience and insight. It is not about THEM; it is about the ground of being everyone shares, in which "the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere". Chopra and Osho are just the messengers. They point to the moon, but you attack their pointing fingers instead of paying attention to what is being pointed to.

Never mind your objection that Chopra makes millions from his books or that Osho had 52 Rolls Royces (count'em). How you interpret these is mere conjecture. Just tell me what they SAY that you find distasteful.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Firstly, this Meera Nanda character you reference. What the @#*X#@ does SHE know about the mystical experience?

A lot more than you. But that's not saying much. You reference Eastern practices that the were around long before the Greek mystics, yoga and tantra. What do you know of these? You talk about the mysticism of Yeshu being outside of history, all thanks to the historians who studied for many years so that you could say that. You seem to relish ignorance. Out of that post you can cling to merely one name? Not the hypocritical claims of Chopak's "immaterialism" vs. his multi-million dollar scheme? And how long have you been aware of Chopak's work (keep in mind that I know the answer to this)?

Your "mystical" experience gives you the omniscience to judge all religions and all sciences, all because of your long study of...translated texts and youtube videos?

Now I see TWO people with their noses pressed up against the window pane! LOL!

A brief bio from Wikipedia:

Congratulations on you ability to find webpages (it's as if the "source itself" is the internet).

Criticisms have been leveled against Nanda by Swaminathan Venkataraman of the Hindu American Foundation in response to claims made by Nanda that Yoga has no link to Hinduism,

And your knowledge of yoga and Vedic texts enables you understand why that is false because...? Do you know where the word "Hinduism" comes from? And I'm sure you've read Kaṭhopaniṣad, and therefore you are quite aware of the context in which we first find the word "yoga". And you are of course familiar with the role H. P. Blavatsky, Brahmo Samaj (and those behind it, from Rammohan Roy to Sen and finally Swami Vivekananda himself), and Western esotericism had on neo-Vedānta. And it is this knowledge than enables you to understand the connection between modern Yoga and the sutras ascribed to Patañjali. So perhaps you can explain why the actual "classical" texts, the Maitrī Upaniṣad, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, and the Mahābhāratam, all talk about yoga in ways that not only differ quite a bit, but have almost nothing to do with modern yoga, and why Nanda is therefore incorrect? Of course, if you could do that, why would you go to Wikipedia?

such as her views being colored by her alleged hatred for Swami Vivekanada

...who as a child was introduced to western philosophers and their works (Hume, Kant, Spinoza, etc.), who was a member of the Calcutta Freemason Lodge, and who was the student of Keshubchandra Sen. Keshubchandra Sen, of course, was the student of Debendranath Tagore, and he was the student of Rammohan Roy. Do you know who first criticized the roots of Swami Vivekanda's Hinduism? Indians. Why? For starters, Rommohan's modernization and blending of Eastern tradition with Western religion and Western intellectualism, such as his book The Precepts of Jesus: The Guide to Peace and Happiness, and Debendranath Tagore rejection of the Vedic texts. Swami Vivekanda was one link in a chain of Indian intellectuals who began by rejecting much of Eastern traditions and incorporating Western.

This woman is not a mystic.

I know. And of course Wikipedia says so. Try looking up Swami Vivekananda on Wikipedia, or any of the other names I gave (all have alternate spellings but I'm sure that if Wikipedia doesn't do the trick, google will.

I didn't quote her or others because of their experience with mysticism. I quoted them because they were born and raised in India, and perhaps know a bit more about Indian culture and its history than you do. I also cited her and Raman because they were not only born and raised in the Eastern cultures you claim to know so much about, but also because they do not appreciate those like Chopra who make millions by marketing, branding, and selling a pseudo-science wrapped in "mystic" garb.

And I couldn't care less whether Swami Vivekananda incorporated Western traditions, or that his teachers and their teachers did, as I don't care about defining mysticism as necessarily ancient Eastern beliefs or defining it at all. I do, like Nanda, care about 200+ years of Western intellectuals defining what is and isn't Hinduism and another tradition at least as long of Westerners fascinated by "the mystic Orient" so that we have a market for those like Chopra to exploit in order to demonstrate how physics is not just compatible with "mysticism" but demonstrates how Eastern mystical practices were aware of quantum physics long before Einstein. I care because
1) It misleads people when it comes to understanding the sciences and
2) I don't particularly care for god-like claims of omniscience that can't possibly be falsified because you define what is and isn't true regardless of whatever evidence there is or how little you know.

I find your claim to not only represent all mystics, but also claim that your particular "mystic" practice enables you to speak authoritatively on how every religious belief of ever religion is at best flawed, because you can define science and religion so completely that, with your perfect knowledge of reality, you can tell everyone how wrong these things are.

Nanda, quite simply, does not understand what is going on in the world.

But you do.

These types, such as Nanda, are akin to the current orthodox Christian condemnations (from the pulpit, even!) of such practices/ideas as Zen, Yoga, Evolution, Wicca, New Age, Taoism, Chinese Good Luck Gods, etc., as demonic and dangerous!

No, she's like those from South American cultures who really don't like Western tourists exploiting their traditions and especially don't like the fake Shamans that market ayahuasca to ignorant Westerners. Have you heard the term "fluffy bunny wicca"?

Maybe you need to give a lesson or two with your old Qi Gong instructor another shot.

Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming is not a Qigong instructor anymore than he is a kung fu instructor. He is a master of several styles and traditions of Chinese martial arts and medicine. But I don't need any lessons with him to know that he'd find you to be just one more person who fundamentally misunderstands what they claim to know.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't think they are; I KNOW they are.

More accurately, godnotgod, you think you know. Let's just be honest.

Having said that does not mean I am a follower of either. I say what I do because what they say synchs with my own experience and insight.

Frankly, I wouldn't brag about that. I think I'd rather be tarred, feathered and dragged through the county square to the tunes of ABBA, than claim any commonality with those two - but that's just me.

It is not about THEM; it is about the ground of being everyone shares, in which "the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere". Chopra and Osho are just the messengers. They point to the moon, but you attack their pointing fingers instead of paying attention to what is being pointed to.

Not so, friend. I doubt they truly understand what they are alleging to. It does sell well though as this pablum resonates with some folks, for some reason.

Never mind your objection that Chopra makes millions from his books or that Osho had 52 Rolls Royces (count'em). How you interpret these is mere conjecture. Just tell me what they SAY that you find distasteful.

As for Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Ver 2.0, I live about 400 miles from his settlement in the state of Oregon. I remember the whole sordid affair VERY clearly way back in the early 80's.

The Oregon commune collapsed in 1985 when Rajneesh revealed that the commune leadership had committed a number of serious crimes, including a bioterror attack (food contamination) on the citizens of The Dalles. He was arrested shortly afterwards and charged with immigration violations. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was deported from the United States in accordance with a plea bargain. Twenty-one countries denied him entry, causing Rajneesh to travel the world before returning to Poona, where he died in 1990.

<Source>

Frankly, with a track record like his, I am uninterested in anything he may have said or written. I refuse to accept that a so-called enlightened being could possibly be so naive as to be taken in by his closest followers. Evidently they were extolling his real message, as they understood it.

Frankly, I don't have the time to waste on Chopra.