godnotgod
Thou art That
What makes you think we have ever been disconnected from that energy in the first place?
Perhaps it would be better to stop and take a look within.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Demystifying Quantum Physics
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
What makes you think we have ever been disconnected from that energy in the first place?
Perhaps it would be better to stop and take a look within.
Sculelos
Active Member
We are partially connected when we are born. Our life choices can enhance and strengthen our connection or weaken and ultimately destroy our connection forever.
godnotgod
Thou art That
If that were possible, then 'you' would simply cease to exist, in which case there would no longer be a distinction between you and what you are connected to. But that is already the case: the self you think is real, that can be connected or disconnected, that is the seeker, that is the finder, that is the doer, that lives, that dies, is fictional. It never existed to begin with, nor does it now exist.
Are you saying book burning is a good idea? Even more importantly, why should we burn the books, the very things that have preserved the knowledge you could obtain in full, rather than the bastardized excerpts, quotes, etc., that you get off of the web?
Everything about Plato, the Upanishads, and every other text written in languages you can't read along with historical context has been made available to you through scholarship.
That's why my "Qigong" instructor advocates study, research, and scholarship. It's why (although you don't know it) you have the translations of texts by "spiritual practitioners", because these result from a long history of commentary, translations, and transmitted texts not to mention interaction between East and West centuries ago such that we can trace "the Western-influenced neo-Vedanta of Indians such as Rammohan Roy, Mahatma Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan"and the way this influence played "a seminal role in the construction of contemporary notions of Hinduism as a universal world religion. This influence is so prevalent that today what most Religious Education courses mean by Hinduism is a colonially filtered and retrospective Vedanticization of Indian religion"
King, R. (2002). Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and" The Mystic East". Routledge.
For someone who sympathizes with book burning, your cut and paste use of the internet seems pretty hypocritical.
Like Einstein, Plato, Swami Vivekananda, and the Western philosophers whose influence on the interpretations of the Upanishads you use without realizing it.
And as for Deepak Chopra? Either he's just a sell-out looking for money, or he believes quantum physics describes a particular reality and that this scientific field (which he has been able to speak about only because scholars since Newton have devoted their lives to the study of reality) is a worthwhile one. Either way, he's a scholar.
with a degree in law and a former professor of English, and whose first sentence in the first chapter of his translation of the Bhagavad Gita is "Many years ago, when I was still a graduate student..." But let's not read too much into this, as he grew up in India an gained his understanding of the Gita there, right? Wrong.
"I must have heard the Gita recited thousands of times when I was growing up, but I dont suppose it had any special significance for me then. Not until I went to college and met Mahatma Gandhi did I begin to understand why nothing in the long, rich stretch of Indian culture has had a wider appeal, not only within India but outside as well. Today, after more than thirty years of devoted study, I would not hesitate to call it Indias most important gift to the world."
Yeah, he's no scholar. Just a guy who didn't understand the text he translated until college and 3 decades of study.
How many more times are you going to contrast esoteric knowledge with scholarship, such that you can write off the latter, until you realize that all the people you are claiming we should listen to are quite adamant about the need for study and for scholarship and are scholars?
Good. Then perhaps you can tell me why he wrote Timeless Wisdom, filled with translations from Greek, Arabic, and other languages he can't read (they aren't his translations, but those of scholars), and why he chose Daniel H. Lowenstein, MD to write the forward to his book The Mantram Handbook? Why did he devote years of study to be able to translate texts written in dead languages? Why did it take him until college and Ghandi (who studied in London and like so many before him incorporated Western esoteric philosophies into his own) to realize the appeal of the Gita? Why does he discuss the historical background of the text, including the scholarly consensus and his reasoning for thinking an earlier date?
Or, quite simply, why is it that everywhere we turn, you are pointing to someone who has studied for years and/or disagrees with your view on "reason, logic, and analysis"?
Last edited:
Sculelos
Active Member
Well, lets say the energy that is us will continue in in some other lifeless form if we are cut-off from the life giver this is spoken of as the second death. Yet others who draw close and are forever connected to the life-giver will be raised and live eternal.
Love is the only infinite power. If you have not love. Nothing else has meaning.
Thats all you can say about the charlatans mental spoon bending claim. This explains your way of thinking thoroughly but also disqualifies you from any reasonable discussion. As far as a response to your #516, just read Mr. Spinkles and Legion with a little more intellectual honesty and you will learn.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You asked for an honest answer and I provided one. My position is that I don't take a position either for or against believing or not-believing. You've already made up your mind and closed the door. So how can anyone have a 'reasonable' discussion with someone who's closed their mind? What is there to discuss? You don't know either, so why don't you go after Chopra and get an answer from him directly? He answers emails on his website. For me, the issue is a minor one, in light of the greater picture. If you don't believe his claim, fine. Just say so, but admit it is only a belief. I choose not to attach to beliefs whenever possible. OK?
Learn what? You're evading the issue and passing the buck because you don't have any answers.
I demonstrated, via argument, how the clip you posted is misleading. I am familiar with the entire video this clip was take from as I've watched it several times, and what you left out was Chopra's response afterwards.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Who is it that is connected or not connected? What/where is the self that lives and dies? Can you show me?
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Did I say book-burning was a good idea, or that I sympathize with it? I said that is what the Zen monk advised, but you have missed the point. By his suggestion, all he is saying is that the description of the spiritual experience is not the spiritual experience itself; that the description (the book; the scripture; the symbol, the word, etc.) is not the Reality it attempts to represent. Sounds simple enough, but we constantly and unwittingly, substitute the description of Reality for Reality itself, over and over again, through our conceptual mind. It is precisely for this reason that mystical practice emphasizes meditative practice, as a means of quieting down the conceptual, discriminating mind, so that the intuitive mind can then come into play, which is the mind of seeing, not thinking.
Sculelos
Active Member
You are one self and every person is one self. Unless of course you don't believe that you really exist :cover:. However if that's the case yer on your own... :areyoucra
godnotgod
Thou art That
Unless its on a website. Then for you its the Source Itself.
Last edited:
This thread is about Demystifying Quantum Physics and Mr Winkles did a great job doing just that. But lets not forget the old laws of physics also known as the laws of nature, which include Newton laws of motion. These laws still work very well and are used, for example by NASA, to calculate the trajectory of satellites and probes in space. They only break down at speeds close to the speed of light, and rockets, satellites and most other things, travel nowhere near that.
Also mentioned in this thread is Dr Deepak Chopra and his quantum everything theories, along with his mental spoon bending skills. When it comes to the laws of nature, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that we can suspend these laws (of physics) with our minds. Not even the prince of charlatanism can. Chopra invited some of us to come to New York to witness how he bends spoons with his mind, but when we assured him we would be there at anytime and at his convenience, he backed out. He even had to discontinue his original website because of how he handled this PR disaster.
Dr. Chopra NY Paranormal Challenge Accpeted! Agrees to Record the Event [Archive] - JREF Forum
Also mentioned in this thread is Dr Deepak Chopra and his quantum everything theories, along with his mental spoon bending skills. When it comes to the laws of nature, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that we can suspend these laws (of physics) with our minds. Not even the prince of charlatanism can. Chopra invited some of us to come to New York to witness how he bends spoons with his mind, but when we assured him we would be there at anytime and at his convenience, he backed out. He even had to discontinue his original website because of how he handled this PR disaster.
Dr. Chopra NY Paranormal Challenge Accpeted! Agrees to Record the Event [Archive] - JREF Forum
godnotgod
Thou art That
The internet can sometimes be a source of good information, approached with caution, of course, but there are some (we won't say who....shhhhhh!) whose ONLY source are those pesky dancing cave wall shadows:
"I am the Lord of Logic and Reason, thy Shadow, otherwise known as Fawlty Towers! Thou shalt have no other Shadows before me! Begone!":angel2:
Hello gng,
How do you know that you're not chasing shadows?
How can Zennists like us know whether or not we're just playing ego-jitsu?
That is, all humans have a natural impulse to seek positive self-esteem and sometimes this is achieved via superiority in debate, etc.
How can we claim to have higher insight than others while being confident that we haven't just traded-in one form of delusion for another? Is there some method or way of testing/justifying such interpretations outside of opinion?
"I am the Lord of Logic and Reason, thy Shadow, otherwise known as Fawlty Towers! Thou shalt have no other Shadows before me! Begone!":angel2:
How do you know that you're not chasing shadows?
How can Zennists like us know whether or not we're just playing ego-jitsu?
That is, all humans have a natural impulse to seek positive self-esteem and sometimes this is achieved via superiority in debate, etc.
How can we claim to have higher insight than others while being confident that we haven't just traded-in one form of delusion for another? Is there some method or way of testing/justifying such interpretations outside of opinion?
godnotgod
Thou art That
If no self exists, who is it that chases shadows? Who is it that knows, or not-knows? Is there, then, only shadow-chasing, without a shadow-chaser; only knowing, without a knower? And if that is really the case, then there is no one who has any higher insight than any other. Remember, all beings are already enlightened. It's just that many haven't realized it yet.
The question is not whether one is having a delusion or not, but whether a self exists that is subject to delusion. IOW, it's not MY delusion; it's not YOUR delusion: it's just delusion.
I have a feeling you misinterpreted my "Lord of Logic..." joke as a serious claim?
Uh...ego-jitsu?, LOL
Last edited:
I'm certainly not aware of any. However, there is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which the entirety of reality is created with our minds. Described poorly, we get descriptions of how consciousness literally shapes reality and (if we're lucky) that we don't control this process. In truth, if this interpretation is correct, it's not just that we don't control this process, but that the quantum universe is the only universe and the only way it is "recovered" (transitioned into the classical states we are used to) is through "beliefs" that can be thought of as associated with multiple minds in the same agent, or just minds, but most importantly that the reason this is supposed to resolve the measurement problem is because when any "minds" observe their beliefs interact and agree. Not only that, they must agree. There is no choice in the matter (quite literally, the matter will take the form of the agreed-minds' beliefs). It turns every agent and/or every mind into a measurement device, such that quantum systems don't "collapse" but that their is a universal basis which characterizes any and all beliefs for any and all minds such that the states of the classical world are created relative to the states of beliefs. It's basically the many-worlds interpretation only with many-minds and one world.
But even with a formal description complete with dirac notation and formidable equations it still sounds like fantasy. It certainly doesn't take much to "simplify" this interpretation of QM into something that suggests we can consciously shape reality. It's wrong, of course, even in the theory, but it's not hard to do.
Which is why the noble purpose behind this thread is vital (and why I shouldn't have derailed it repeatedly). Even the most straight-forward, least "mystical" description, that QM is irreducibly statistical, leaves open the idea that at the uttermost foundations, reality doesn't exist or similar nonsense. I don't pretend to know the nature of reality, and I grant that my more skeptical (or perhaps just the faith I have in empirical methods) might be wrong. But this isn't a matter of whether empiricism or some theory is right or wrong, it is whether a description about an existing field (quantum physics) is accurate. And that has little to do with epistemology and everything to do with mischaracterization (Chopra's case).
I'm sure he had an excellent reason that had nothing to do with an inability to turn physics into magic. He probably just ran out of spoons, and forks don't bend the right way.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Oh, any old coot can do THAT. But can you eat when hungry and sleep when tired? Now those are feats to reckon with.
So, you see, there is this Christian and a Buddhist discussing how Jesus walked on water, by the bank of a shallow river. The Christian says: "Here, let me show you how it's done.", whereupon he sheds shoes and socks, rolls up his pantlegs, and proceeds to walk out a distance on the water's surface. Upon returning, he proudly says: "There! Now THAT'S how it's DONE! Whaddya think of THAT, eh?", whereupon the Buddhist, without saying a word, sheds shoes and socks, rolls up pantlegs, and proceeds to wade across the river. Upon his return, he says: "Now THAT'S how it's REALLY done!"
I know how you guys just love to make fun of spoon bending. I'm going to stand up for it. I've heard too many credible stories from credible people talking sincerely. It doesn't obviously work all the time but seems to require some type of psychic chemistry.
Here's some tidbits from Wikipedia:
Author Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, etc.) described his successful experience with spoon bending in his 1988 book Travels:
I looked down. My spoon had begun to bend. I hadn't even realized. The metal was completely pliable, like soft plastic. It wasn't particularly hot, either, just slightly warm. ... I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn't a trick. I looked around the room and saw little children, eight or nine years old, bending large metal bars. They weren't trying to trick anybody.
— Michael Crichton, Travels, 1988, pages 319–320
Parapsychologist and author Dean Radin has reported that he was able to bend the bowl of a spoon over with unexplained ease of force with witnesses present at an informal PK experiment gathering in 2000.
I was much more skeptical about such claims until one day I personally folded the bowl of a large, heavy soup spoon in half with a gentle touch, and with half a dozen witnesses present. I later tested to see if I could do this again with a similar spoon using ordinary force. I couldn't budge the bowl without the assistance of two pairs of pliars and some serious leverage.
— Dean Radin, Entangled Minds, page 331
Maureen Caudill, a trainer associated with the Monroe Institute, claims this is significantly easier to achieve when performed in groups rather than alone
Despite the world being something we want to get our heads around......
Here's some tidbits from Wikipedia:
Author Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, etc.) described his successful experience with spoon bending in his 1988 book Travels:
I looked down. My spoon had begun to bend. I hadn't even realized. The metal was completely pliable, like soft plastic. It wasn't particularly hot, either, just slightly warm. ... I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn't a trick. I looked around the room and saw little children, eight or nine years old, bending large metal bars. They weren't trying to trick anybody.
— Michael Crichton, Travels, 1988, pages 319–320
Parapsychologist and author Dean Radin has reported that he was able to bend the bowl of a spoon over with unexplained ease of force with witnesses present at an informal PK experiment gathering in 2000.
I was much more skeptical about such claims until one day I personally folded the bowl of a large, heavy soup spoon in half with a gentle touch, and with half a dozen witnesses present. I later tested to see if I could do this again with a similar spoon using ordinary force. I couldn't budge the bowl without the assistance of two pairs of pliars and some serious leverage.
— Dean Radin, Entangled Minds, page 331
Maureen Caudill, a trainer associated with the Monroe Institute, claims this is significantly easier to achieve when performed in groups rather than alone
Despite the world being something we want to get our heads around......
Last edited: