Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

You trolled the internet and got a meaning you liked.

I trust this man's useage and translation of 'Tat tvam asi', just as one example far, far more than I do yours, Legion. Eknath Easwaran has translated the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and the Dhammapada.


The Chandogya Upanishad

You Are That
[Tat tvam asi]


This is the teaching of Uddalaka to Shvetaketu, his son:

As by knowing one lump of clay, dear one,
We come to know all things made out of clay –
That they differ only in name and form,
While the stuff of which all are made is clay;

As by knowing one gold nugget, dear one,
We come to know all things made out of gold –
That they differ only in name and form,
While the stuff of which all are made is gold;

As by knowing one tool of iron, dear one,
We come to know all things made out of iron –
That they differ only in name and form,
While the stuff of which all are made is iron –

So through spiritual wisdom, dear one,
We come to know that all of life is one.

In the beginning was only Being,
One without a second.
Out of himself he brought forth the cosmos
And entered into everything in it.
There is nothing that does not come from him.
Of everything he is the inmost Self.
He is the truth; he is the Self supreme.
You are that, Shvetaketu; you are that.

When a person is absorbed in dreamless sleep
He is one with the Self, though he knows it not.
We say he sleeps, but he sleeps in the Self.
As a tethered bird grows tired of flying
About in vain to find a place of rest
And settles down at last on its own perch,
So the mind, tired of wandering about
Hither and thither, settles down at last
In the Self, dear one, to whom it is bound.
All creatures, dear one, have their source in him.
He is their home; he is their strength.
There is nothing that does not come from him.
Of everything he is the inmost Self.
He is the truth; he is the Self supreme.
You are that, Shvetaketu; you are that.

As bees suck nectar from many a flower
And make their honey one, so that no drop
Can say, “I am from this flower or that,”
All creatures, though one, know not they are that One.
There is nothing that does not come from him.
Of everything he is the inmost Self.
He is the truth; he is the Self supreme.
You are that, Shvetaketu; you are that.

As the rivers flowing east and west
Merge in the sea and become one with it,
Forgetting they were ever separate streams,
So do all creatures lose their separateness
When they merge at last into pure Being.
There is nothing that does not come from him.
Of everything he is the inmost Self.
He is the truth; he is the Self supreme.
You are that, Shvetaketu; you are that!



From the Chandogya Upanishad, chapter 6. The refrain “You are That” (in Sanskrit, Tat tvam asi) is one of the “great utterances” that encapsulate the teachings of the Upanishads. Translated by Eknath Easwaran in The Upanishads (Petaluma, California: Nilgiri Press, 1987).

The Chandogya Upanishad: You Are That | Blue Mountain Center of Meditation & Nilgiri Press
*****

You said you'd be glad to study with the person that I did, and I don't doubt you (nor do I doubt that you'd learn much that I didn't). However, you haven't.

You, like Sprinkles, are twisting things....again! That is not what I said, Legion. I said that IF I were YOU, I would do anything to be his student.

I've met mystics, shamans, and masters, and studied under a small few. I've learned languages so that I can read that which philosophers and mystics wrote over the past ~3,000 years. And I've met with those who have surpassed me easily when it comes to things like meditation or any number of practices which originate from places like China, Japan, and India.

You aren't one. You are just someone with internet access. A different incarnation of a "fluffy bunny wiccan", or a student from a McDojo. I've read so many of your posts and yet all I have seen are popular books, youtube clips, and website links. What makes you a mystic? Imitating what you think this means? The fact that you (like so many fundamentalists everywhere) have access to the "real source"?

Arrogance matched only by its ignorance.

I don't pretend to know that my understanding is superior to any other. And I respect anybody who spends years of time working hard to obtain understanding. But anybody can quote-mine the internet. There are a lot of 13 year olds out there who have, after "long study", gained the knowledge you have.

So, Legion...if I am just a two-bit phony, why do you persist on attacking my finger, instead of commenting on what it points to? My person must be more significantly important to you than what I am actually saying. It is a cheap trick to attack Chopra on the grounds that he is wealthy, and, of course, his wealth must come from sellilng snake oil, and it is a cheap trick to attack me on the grounds that some of what I offer up comes from the internet, therefore it must be erroneous, and I must be a fake. What is fake here is someone who is a pedant and hides behind the color of scholarly authority to pretend those things somehow means he knows something when he has not yet awakened, and also to claim he knows what degree of knowledge I possess. Now THAT'S arrogance!

 

[Skeptisch]

You, like Sprinkles, are twisting things....again!

Your arrogance is perfectly matched by its ignorance. Why don’t you join Chopra’s remote cutlery bending clan. You’ll be a perfect fit!

 

[godnotgod]

You already said the internet told you so...

You are misconstruing what I said, as if to say I am doing the same thing Bible fundies do. That was not my meaning.


...

what you offer is dogmatic fundamentalism, and you're the first mystic I've met who fits that description (one I wouldn't have thought possible).

Now look here, Legion: in order to be either dogmatic or a fundamentalist, one must have a doctrine to be dogmatic or fundamentalist about. I have never stated any such doctrine on these forum pages that I insist anyone form a belief in. All I have ever said was for anyone who questions or doubts, to go see for themselves, and even if there are many others here who disagree with that, they will still verify that statement.

For example, 'Tat tvam asi' is a statement which anyone can go to see for themselves whether it is true or not. It is not a doctrine which is to be blindly believed in.

 

[godnotgod]

Your arrogance is perfectly matched by its ignorance. Why don’t you join Chopra’s remote cutlery bending clan. You’ll be a perfect fit!

And if Chopra's claim is such a bother for you, why don't YOU go and hound him to his grave to make him prove it?

Now you have made a charge without substance. It is easy to toss rocks from hiding, and then run away. Do you have the testicular fortitude it takes to step forth here into the light and defend such charges?

You have not yet responded to Post #516, but choose instead to come here, drop your load, shoot barbs, and run away. Do you have anything of real substance to say? I doubt you do.

Counting...1......2.....3.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Eknath Easwaran has translated the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and the Dhammapada.

Olivelle, P. (1998). Unfaithful transmitters. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 26(2), 173-187.
Olivelle, P. (1999). Sanskrit commentators and the transmission of texts: Haradatta on apastamba dharmasutra. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 27(6), 551-574

But I'm sure you know all about the debates going on about textual transmission, translations, and commentaries, and the fact that there are serious interpretation differences between different traditions doesn't bother you any more than the grammatical issues because you have the Source (Google) itself. And you relate the phrase ‘Tat tvam asi’ with Indra's ‘ayam aham asmıti’ how?

This is the teaching of Uddalaka to Shvetaketu, his son:

Thanks for the copied and pasted text, but I have S. Radhakrishnan's The Principal Upanishads complete with text, translation, and commentary/notes. The notes include commentary from multiple sources and multiple interpretations, such as "What I am that is he; what he is, that am I" to Rangaramanuja's interpretation "That means God having the entire universe as his body, thou means God having the individual soul as his body. The principle of God is common to both".

I don't really need your Google Source.

So, Legion...if I am just a two-bit phony, why do you persist on attacking my finger, instead of commenting on what it points to?

I have:

Neither of you have demystified anything here, as the both of you are still enslaved by those dancing cave wall shadows cast by Reason, Logic, and Analysis

Here you refer to Plato's cave, the philosopher who's contributions to logic, reason, and analysis were so great that Alfred North Whitehead declared European philosophical tradition is "a series of footnotes to Plato", and whose dialogues were fundamentally the use of logic and reason to reach understanding, but as apparently his message was lost on you (if you actually read Plato; with you its hard to tell given you knowledge of Einstein's beliefs consists of quote-mining the internet and refusing to read what he wrote).

But you've completely misconstrued the allegory, in which those who do not use reason, logic, and analysis are stuck in the cave.

I've pointed out how wrong you were with Einstein.
I've pointed out the errors with your understanding of history


In fact, there isn't much you've said that points to anything other than arrogant claims based on an ability to use the internet.

You point to google.

What is fake here is someone who is a pedant and hides behind the color of scholarly authority to pretend those things somehow means he knows something when he has not yet awakened, and also to claim he knows what degree of knowledge I possess. Now THAT'S arrogance!

I see. So it's not arrogant to characterize all religions are wrong, define what "the mystic" does and is, and tell scientists they don't understand science, all the while responding to challenges by claiming access to this Source itself, but it is arrogant to make a claim and back it up with a self-righteous pretention that would embarrass gods.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are misconstruing what I said, as if to say I am doing the same thing Bible fundies do. That was not my meaning.

You are. You're talking about histories you don't know about, making claims about languages you can't read, talking about research you've never read and sciences you don't understand, and every single defense that wasn't simply deference to the Source itself has crumbled.

Just go ask your QuGong instructor. I know he'll set you straight.

Here is an excerpt from "A Modern Definition of Qi" by Dr. Yang (emphases added):

"It was not until the last few decades, when the Chinese people were more acquainted with electromagnetic science, that they began to recognize that this energy circulating in the body, which they called Qi, might be the same thing as what today's science calls 'bioelectricity.'

We must look at what modern Western science has discovered about bioelectromagnetic energy. Many bioelectricity related reports have been published, and frequently the results are closely related to what is experienced in Chinese Qigong training and medical science. For example, during the electrophysiological research of the 1960's, several investigators discovered that bones are piezoelectric; that is, when they are stressed, mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy in the form of electric current. This might explain one of the practices of Marrow Washing Qigong in which the stress on the bones and muscles is increased in certain ways to increase the Qi circulation"

He talks about acupuncture and acupressure in terms of both traditional Chinese medicine and neurotransmitters.

He's one of the foremost authorities of Chinese martial arts in the world, has two science degrees (one a doctorate), and has spent years training others and studying (even translating) ancient Chinese texts.

You go onto the internet and quote something you can't read and defend you interpretation with something along the lines of "but the internet said so!"

And what did you do? First, you stopped with all the taunts about what my Qi Gong instructor would say (being confronted with what he actually says):

As for all the above you posted about Dr. Yang, it makes not one bit of difference:

Second, your basis for your evaluation was to go straight to the internet:

Qigong breathing - Qigong chinese health: qi gong #1 site

Surprise, surprise. I've seen similar defenses when it comes to an interpretation of biblical passages. I've seen creationists use similar tactics. But I have to admit, I've never seen someone who is so wrapped up in their conception (and convinced of its accuracy) regarding "Eastern wisdom" that they will ignore what one of the world's leading authorities on traditional Chinese practices and medicine because of the internet. But the, you're also the first fundamentalist "mystic" I've come across, so I guess I should expect something new.

 

[godnotgod]

Second, your basis for your evaluation was to go straight to the internet:


Surprise, surprise. I've seen similar defenses when it comes to an interpretation of biblical passages. I've seen creationists use similar tactics. But I have to admit, I've never seen someone who is so wrapped up in their conception (and convinced of its accuracy) regarding "Eastern wisdom" that they will ignore what one of the world's leading authorities on traditional Chinese practices and medicine because of the internet. But the, you're also the first fundamentalist "mystic" I've come across, so I guess I should expect something new.

The whole point was merely to point out the fact, via an official QiGong site, and because I am not a practitioner, that this discipline is not only about health, stamina, etc, but can also be a pathway, via the breath, to Higher Consciousness. But you've taken and run with it like a wild banshee, adding all sorts of ego-refuse to it to make it fit your false conception of me.

 

[godnotgod]

You are. You talking about histories you don't know about, making claims about languages you can't read, talking about research you've never read and sciences you don't understand, and every single defense that wasn't simply deference to the Source itself has crumbled.
.

The only claim I've made is that I understand the meaning of 'tat tvam asi', not from any ancient texts, but from the source within, which is the same source from which the Upanishads emerged.

You continue to eat the menu instead of the meal while attacking the finger that points to the moon.

 

[godnotgod]

Here you refer to Plato's cave, the philosopher who's contributions to logic, reason, and analysis were so great that Alfred North Whitehead declared European philosophical tradition is "a series of footnotes to Plato", and whose dialogues were fundamentally the use of logic and reason to reach understanding, but as apparently his message was lost on you (if you actually read Plato; with you its hard to tell given you knowledge of Einstein's beliefs consists of quote-mining the internet and refusing to read what he wrote).

But you've completely misconstrued the allegory, in which those who do not use reason, logic, and analysis are stuck in the cave.

Except for the fact that they ARE using Reason, Logic, and Analysis, which is why they are stuck in the cave. They 'Reason' that the images cast on the cave walls are real. If we adopt YOUR take on it, the prisoners would eventually be able to figure out that something is wrong, but they don't, because they can't, and that is because they don't have the correct reference, which is the light of the Sun. It takes the escape of one of them to go topside and SEE, without Reason, what the situation ACTUALLY is, rather than what the conditioned mind TELLS them it is.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The only claim I've made is that I understand the meaning of 'tat tvam asi', not from any ancient texts, but from the source within, which is the same source from which the Upanishads emerged.

Unless you are claiming you suddenly received from the Source of Reality Itself the phrase tat tvam asi, then you came across it somewhere in textual or graphical form. Just like you did all your information, from the junk you posted on QM to the ******** you regurgitated about Mithras. You have no clue what went into the formation of Hinduism or its texts, because all you have is mostly webpages.

You don't even have the experience training and practicing that I do, under actual masters. All you can do is make unsubstantiated claims about things you barely comprehend.

The whole point was merely to point out the fact, via an official QiGong site, and because I am not a practitioner, that this discipline is not only about health, stamina, etc, but can also be a pathway, via the breath, to Higher Consciousness. But you've taken and run with it like a wild banshee, adding all sorts of ego-refuse to it to make it fit your false conception of me.

There's no such thing as an "official Qigong Site", unless your a "mystic" who has nothing much other than websites to judge anything, because you couldn't be bothered to dedicate years of your life to studying and practicing and decided to take the fast-food route to pseudo-spirituality.

Except for the fact that they ARE using Reason, Logic, and Analysis, which is why they are stuck in the cave.

You just showed how completely and utterly you haven't any idea what Plato's works are about. I doubt you've read them, but even if you read some translation it is obvious you haven't any idea what you are talking about. And if you want to go through Greek literature line by line (I'll translate for you or let you provide a translation you use) I have no problem with that.

The longer you keep claiming to understand things you don't know anything about, the more it is evident that, unlike actual people who might describe themselves as mystics, you are the Westernized fast-food version of something far more than you grasp and something you abuse with every arrogant bastardized version of the works of actual practitioners and dedicated individuals.

 

[godnotgod]

Olivelle, P. (1998). Unfaithful transmitters. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 26(2), 173-187.[/COLOR]
Olivelle, P. (1999). Sanskrit commentators and the transmission of texts: Haradatta on apastamba dharmasutra. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 27(6), 551-574

But I'm sure you know all about the debates going on about textual transmission, translations, and commentaries, and the fact that there are serious interpretation differences between different traditions doesn't bother you any more than the grammatical issues because you have the Source (Google) itself. And you relate the phrase Tat tvam asi with Indra's ayam aham asmıti how?

Thanks for the copied and pasted text, but I have S. Radhakrishnan's The Principal Upanishads complete with text, translation, and commentary/notes. The notes include commentary from multiple sources and multiple interpretations, such as "What I am that is he; what he is, that am I" to Rangaramanuja's interpretation "That means God having the entire universe as his body, thou means God having the individual soul as his body. The principle of God is common to both".

This reminds me of my very first visit to the San Francisco Zen Center. The monk's lecture opens with:

"If any of you have in your libraries the books by DT Suzuki, BURN THEM!,

Suzuki being the Japanese scholar who brought Zen teachings to the West through his books.

Suzuki was a SCHOLAR.

Olivelle is a SCHOLAR.

Radhakrishnan was a SCHOLAR and PHILOSOPHER.

They are thinkers about writings about the nature of Reality.

Eknath Easwaran is a spiritual practitioner in direct communion with the nature of Reality.

I trust Easwaran more than I do you, Olivelle, or Radhakrishnan put together.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I trust Easwaran more than I do you, Olivelle, or Radhakrishnan put together.

That's because you have to trust someone. You can't evaluate any of it on your own or even understand it. You can't even read it. All you can do is google it.

 

[Skeptisch]

And if Chopra's claim is such a bother for you, why don't YOU go and hound him to his grave to make him prove it?

Now you have made a charge without substance. It is easy to toss rocks from hiding, and then run away. Do you have the testicular fortitude it takes to step forth here into the light and defend such charges?

You have not yet responded to Post #516, but choose instead to come here, drop your load, shoot barbs, and run away. Do you have anything of real substance to say? I doubt you do.

Counting...1......2.....3.....

We seem to be wired so differently that an exchange or argument will never solve much. I have a deep seated need for scientific evidence in order to establish what is really true, while you come to your convictions without such a need.

Remember this from #482?
But the woo woo master Deepak Chopra claims he can bend a spoon with his mind and hopefully even you have a problem with that one, do you?

Do you care to tell us if you believe Chopra’s claim?

 

[Sculelos]

We seem to be wired so differently that an exchange or argument will never solve much. I have a deep seated need for scientific evidence in order to establish what is really true, while you come to your convictions without such a need.

Remember this from #482?
But the woo woo master Deepak Chopra claims he can bend a spoon with his mind and hopefully even you have a problem with that one, do you?

Do you care to tell us if you believe Chopra’s claim?

You and I then are the same in our search of evidence. My deep search for truth led me to places I never imagined I'd be. Led me to studying quantum physics and indeed understanding them. And also I understand now that quantum physics is the actual study of real physics. Newtonian physics is a cheap counterfeit of quantum physics.

 

[godnotgod]

That's because you have to trust someone. You can't evaluate any of it on your own or even understand it. You can't even read it. All you can do is google it.

That is a most idiotic, and might I add, fundamentalist, position to adopt, especially, or perhaps more, because of, the fact that you are locked into an extreme view, something the Buddha warned about, by Reason, Logic, and Analysis. It's got you cornered and the only way out is to break free and go topside to get a glimpse of the Sun.

I would'nt have posted it if I did not first understand it myself. And I understand it via the same source the author understands it. And that is because the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere, except, I might add, where silly geese gather, hypnotized by those dancing cave wall shadows, and who continue to eat the menu instead of the meal.:slap:

And now, back to our regularly-scheduled program: "Deprogramming Glassy-Eyed Scientists Hypnotized and Mystified by Quantum Mechanics", which proves, BTW, exactly how (almost) perfectly rendered maya can be.

 

[godnotgod]

I have a deep seated need for scientific evidence in order to establish what is really true....

Ha..ha...ha...'deep-seated'? That's ridiculous! You did'nt come into this world with any such 'need'. It's something you acquired via your social indoctrination. Besides, what makes you think science is the tool to establish what is 'really true'? Certainly, it provides facts, but facts alone do not represent reality. You need to assess them within the context of a larger view. You are putting the cart ahead of the horse, but do not realize it.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying NOT to pursue science; just don't expect it to give you things it is incapable of.

Perhaps you meant a 'deep seated' need for fulfillment.

Remember this from #482?
But the woo woo master Deepak Chopra claims he can bend a spoon with his mind and hopefully even you have a problem with that one, do you?

Do you care to tell us if you believe Chopra’s claim?

I neither believe, nor not-believe.

Now respond to post #516.

 

[godnotgod]

You and I then are the same in our search of evidence. My deep search for truth led me to places I never imagined I'd be. Led me to studying quantum physics and indeed understanding them. And also I understand now that quantum physics is the actual study of real physics. Newtonian physics is a cheap counterfeit of quantum physics.

'That which you are seeking is causing you to seek'
Cheri Huber

 

[Sculelos]

'That which you are seeking is causing you to seek'
Cheri Huber

"If you seek you shall find, if you search with all your heart."
Jesus

 

[godnotgod]

"If you seek you shall find, if you search with all your heart."
Jesus

Or maybe IT finds you, when you only think you are the finder.

 

[Sculelos]

Or maybe IT finds you, when you only think you are the finder.

We love, because we first were loved. We find because we first were first found. We seek because we have lost our way. We seek because we are trying to connect to the energy that made us.

Life is a journey in the dark with nothing but a torch and the belief that something is at the end of the road. Either we keep walking forward, or we give up hope, lay down and wait to die.