-
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
dust1n
Zindīq
The guy purported to bend spoons. It tricked a lot of people.
Okay, your anecdotal evidence and claim the two people claimed to bend spoons is utterly useless to anyone. And all you did was take those two references directly from the "spoon bending" wiki.
And your noting that since people seem to be concentrating hard implies that some physic power must at play, when it could easily be trickery via nickel titanium:
[youtube]dtLmfTuBb7Q[/youtube]
Harmony Science Academy - NITINOL : "shape memory alloy" - YouTube
[youtube]fLGaF6cWl04[/youtube]
"Magic" Memory Metal - Nickel Titanium or 'Nitinol' Wire - YouTube
Besides that, the burden of making spoon bending something not laughable would fall upon you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLGaF6cWl04
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Out of curiosity: do you believe that if something does not exist, belief in and amazing stories about it must also not exist?George-ananda said:
Sorry to disappoint you, but of course I don't hold the above illogical belief.
I will elaborate on the obvious;
1)It could be lies, tricks, etc...But not necessarily
2)It could be honest peopled fooled....But not necessarily
3)It could be an event not understood by science.......But not necessarily
So in this particular case because of my opinion on the quantity and quality of reports I've heard; the fact that from my study of other phenomenon I am of the opinion that this universe is vastly more complicated than the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview suggests; I am of the opinion on this issue that 3) is most reasonable belief...that it is an event not understood by science.
My friend, I haven't forgotten that you owe me an answer on that TED thread of a few days ago.
What language was that by the way? Do you understand that language?
Of course magicians can trick people. But that does not mean all lay people bending spoons must be using tricks.
WHY are their stories useless. I have heard many stories. These two stories were cited because they are from respectable people instead of an unknown lay person.
And what is wrong with that? I needed something fairly short to paste in my post. All I intended to show was a couple examples.
What you say above is true but the key word is the 'could' in the last part of it. All these non-magicians COULD be using trickery but ARE THEY? From the quantity and quality of all the stories I've heard I don't believe it can be dismissed as ALL trickery.
Because consciousness is claimed to be involved, you can never reproduce the same exact test twice because no one understands all the group dynamics involved. The right conditions may only come together occasionally (such as multiple people with above average psychic abilities and other unknown variables).
My only interest is in what I personally believe is the most reasonable belief. I carry no burden of proof to others. I present arguments and they can decide for themselves.
There are many amazing stories, but thats what they are, stories. Have you ever wondered why all these people who claim they can bend a spoon with their mind have to touch the spoon with their hands in order to bend it with their mind? Or, like dust1n demonstrates, change the temperature of the spoon made from different metals by rubbing it or putting it into their pockets so the two layers can expand or contract at different rates resulting in bending.
If some of us could genuinely bend metal with our minds the world would be a different place and many of us mental benders would be employed, probably mostly by the pentagon. :sarcastic
No the above is not the case in lay person stories I've heard. The above things are the case when skeptics want to show how spoon-bending can be faked.
So are you saying that these lay people were intentionally using trickery? And all their story-tellings are just lies?
Here's one possible theory I consider. That spoon-bending is aided by the spiritual world to help people see that the universe and their mind is something more than the very logical physical/materialist viewpoint suggests. I don't see it having 'practical' applications and show-offs will have some epic fails.
dust1n
Zindīq
Norwegian, being in Norway.
Of course it doesn't, but until I see otherwise, I have no reason to believe there is an otherwise.
Because their stories could be... false.
Mission accomplished. Now, if I could see an example of spoon bending, I'd likely change my mind.
I do. Until I see otherwise, I'm just seeing two stories, which are true by virtue of being stories.
Yes, you can. EDIT: Oh, I see what you are saying. No need to produce the exact same test, just one with a control or a random sample.
The right conditions: Having no witnesses, or one who will just say that they saw it.
Then I suppose we are done here. Decision made, guess we are done.
Last edited:
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact
Of course I say the same thing about the skeptics close-minded belief in the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview.
At least Dust1n said something true; we're done here
Until we waste each others time again on some next thread
godnotgod
Thou art That
It's simply amazing to me to listen to you and how you express yourself in a kind of educated ignorance, especially in light of the fact that you persist in letting us all know how you've studied under certain masters for years and years (yawn), and how you continue to poke at your idea of how superficial I am and how little I know and all the other finger-wagging that issues forth from you. In spite of all your so-called education and mental acrobatics that goes on, there seems to be a few things either out of kilter or non-functional at all, which, in ordinary, everyday, country kinda talk: 'you just don't get it', and you don't because you rely too much on your intellect, and (most likely) give no credence to your intuitive mind, which is also the reason you cannot make any progress with your QiGong teacher, in spite of all those years of hard work, which, it appears, have amounted to nothing, in spite of your being a braggart about having your nose to the grindstone and blah blah blah, while I, the lazy one, according to you, spend all my time ripping off info from the internet. But to cut to the chase here, I find it incredible, that a man of your background, would even suggest the ridiculous idea that the words 'tat tvam asi' actually were spoken to me by the Source, in spite of all I have said about it. I really do think you are disconnected from Reality internally when you say things like this, which shows a complete lack of understanding about who and what you are, and, as a direct result, a complete lack of understanding about the world you live in, treating it (as many unfortunately do) as an object apart from themselves, to which (they think) they must apply the concepts of Reason, Logic, and Analysis in order to 'understand' it. I will now repeat, once again, for your benefit, which so far does not seem to be sinking in:
The understanding of the phrase 'tat tvam asi' comes BEFORE any words are formed ABOUT what it means. The spelling and/or translation is secondary to the meaning. This understanding comes from being in union with the Source. It is what allows the direct seeing into the nature of Reality, rather than the forming of concepts ABOUT the nature of Reality. 'Tas tvam asi' is a simple, direct reflection of the true nature of Reality. This simple truth can ONLY be seen and understood when the discriminating mind (like yours, which is always working), becomes quiet, so that the intuitive mind can then come into play. It is via this intuitive mind (ie; 'Big Mind') that one sees, rather than thinks about, things as they actually are. But, as Nicolas of Cusa puts it:
"The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."
Therefore, Legion, the door remains shut tight for you. You have much inner work to do, before that impregnable wall of Reason, Logic, and Analysis can be surmounted. Just remember one thing in playing this Master Game, being the hardest of all games to play, and that is that the door opens inwards, not outwards, so the harder you push, the more you try, the longer you persevere, the further away you will find yourself. And, oh yes, one other thing: this door is that of the feminine essence. Thought you'd like to know that.
BTW, you kept after me about the feminine essence, poking your fun, and you stated you'd read the Tao te Ching, but it is clear from your comments that you did not understand what you'd read, as it constantly alludes to the feminine essence in some of its chapters. Water, the dark principle, the Valley Spirit, etc, are all of the feminine essence. I suggest you go back and re-read.
Tat tvam asi
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
The Gita did not have any real significance to him until his meeting with Ghandi, not because of his study. It was after this encounter that he began his study. In the world of spiritual writings, none of it makes any sense until one has gained a deeper understanding of what is behind the words. Mere scholarship pales in comparison, becoming dry and brittle. This is precisely Yeshu's meaning when he says:
"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
Ghandi must have inspired him somehow. Ghandi is known to have carried the Sermon on the Mount with him and practiced it everyday.
As I said, he is spiritualist AND a scholar. I never, ever wrote off scholarship; I said that it is secondary to what the scholarship is about. You can become an expert in scholarship and translation of ancient MSS, but until you know, via internal direct experience, what is behind the words, you know nothing.
Again, there is a reason he is a spiritualist as well as a scholar. If he were only a scholar, he might disagree with me, but as a spiritualist, bet your bottom dollar that he will tell you it is what comes first, and that 'Reason, Logic, and Analysis' must be put into the context of spirituality for them to make any real sense. This is why your science and your view of QM is just left out there like a dangling participle with no real connection to Reality. You are not stating it within the correct context of that Reality, but rather as a dead, disconnected object of examination via Reason, Logic, and Analysis alone, while denying the true nature of Reality.
Easwaran is internally connected to the Source, and so his scholarship is being stated within the context of that Source; his scholarship is directed BY the Source which is the source of the Gita itself. (NO, not the source of the WORDS!...the source of the meaning of the words.)
It's just a simple matter of making the proper correction and placing the cart BEHIND the horse.
BTW, the significance and the meaning of the Gita are two very different things.
This discussion reminds me of a story I once heard:
After Sunday church services, the pastor liked to intermingle with the parishioners. Upon one encounter with a young woman and her newborn, he commented: "My, what a beautiful baby!", to which the mother replied: "Oh, this is nothing! Just wait 'til you see the PICTURES!" LOL.
We eat the menu instead of the meal.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Thus spaketh the man whose mind is locked onto those irresistible dancing hypnotic cave wall shadows otherwise known as 'science'. Everyone else is a liar or a charlatan or a snake oil salesman, and how does he know that? Why, because Holy Science dancing cave wall shadows TELL him so, and he BELIEVES it, even!
"Uh, sir, there's something you need to go topside to take a look at..."
"Not now! Can't you see I'm busy with my beloved dancing mathematical cave wall shadows? Why, just a few more calculations, and we'll have figured out the secrets of the entire universe, heh, heh, heh. (Then we science nuts can at last rule the world, heh, heh, heh...) Now stop your lying about something called 'Reality' If I can't prove its existence with my dancing math symbols, then it's just trash. "
"But, sir..... "
"Out! No more nonsense! ('Sun', my ahss! The very idea!) Bah! Humbug!"
IT'S ALL IN MY HEAD!
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, how do you rationalize the above, in which I am worshipping science, with the fact that I've studied more about religion than you have, more about the people you speak of than you have, more about the texts you speak of than you have, and in fact there really isn't anything you've ever brought up which isn't some internet fed subject. All you have ever spoken about, all you "to point", is nothing that a teenager can't obtain to cheat on a homework assignment via than websites and youtube clips? Why is that you talk about Mithras and and Vedic texts, but I've studied languages like those you claim to emulate? Why is it that if we compare how each of us has studied and practiced, you come up with the internet and I resemble the very people you "point to"? Perhaps its because "the source itself" isn't packaged quite as nicely as a Western spoon-fed commercialized "mystic" would like.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
You may have studied religion more than I and until you have become apoplectic, but you still know nothing. When will you understand that it has nothing to do with how long you've studied, or how many books you've read? Only when you receive the key to understanding from the source within will you see and understand what all those religions are about. Until then, you'll just be a spectator, with God as object, instead of a living presence within. If you really had an internal understanding of Reality, you would cease to emphasize how much you've studied about religion.
As for the internet, why can't you understand that I use it as a teaching aid for the majority of people here. Sometimes I do get more in depth about certain subjects, but the more specialized the information becomes, the narrower appeal it has. Most people have a superficial understanding of the spiritual world and how it works. They tend to 'understand' it in terms of their indoctrination and their identity, which the spiritual experience is transcendent of.
For now, I will only say that, in terms of scholarship and the accumulation of factual knowledge about the spiritual world, the actual process is one of subtraction, and not accumulation. The spiritual experience is one of seeing, not thinking. Scripture and religion are descriptions about the spiritual experience, so it comes first; then come scripture and religion. Then comes scholarship and study, but unless you are connected spiritually, such scholarship is second hand. One of the few people who was both connected and scholarly was Joseph Campbell, who spoke from the living source itself as the reference for what he knew in terms of scholarship.
re: MIthras: I get that the myth of Mithras and the myth of Jesus are the same myth. That is all I need to know. It is all anyone needs to know. It does'nt matter which came first.
Last edited:
τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ' οὗτος μὲν οἴεται τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οὄιμαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μή οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι
When you stop telling me to use as exemplars those who have studied, who value this study, who have degrees, and who advocate dedicated study as a necessary component of mystical understanding, from my "qigong" instructor to your most recent example of someone you value because they aren't a scholar who was a professor. You keep handing me names to show me that studying isn't the answer, but every name you give me is the name of someone who has dedicated years to academic pursuits. You haven't. You've dedicated a couple of months to youtube clips about quantum physics.
Perhaps. But I don't see in any of your examples of those who truly understand people who troll the internet for enlightenment.
I can. And I have gained knowledge and tried to share it using the internet. But you aren't talking about teaching. You're claiming access to the "Source itself", and all you have to offer is youtube clips and quote-mining from google searches. It's an insult to mystics who devote themselves to study and practice. I've known a few, although I admit I cannot be one or have not been able to follow them. But I respect them.
When I first joined here you were making claims about languages you couldn't read and texts you didn't know and all that has changed is that you've incorporated the sciences into the ways you don't mind butchering knowledge to claim mystical awareness I'd expect of a 13 year old who had watched too many Charmed episodes.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Proof, ladies and gentlemen, that Legion DOES know something after all, just as the HAL9000 can recite 'Daisy' from memory! Bravo! Impressive!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7WQ1tdxSqI
Next! (yawn)
Dedicated study is not a necessary component of mystical understanding. An overturning and turnabout of the rational mind is.
"Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Matt 18
Study and scholarship are ways of conditioning the mind to a certain way of looking at the world. It creates a mind of technique; a mind that passes judgment because it discriminates. Mystical understanding shatters that view. What Yeshu means by referring to 'becoming as little children' is that the view of children is pure and unconditioned. They just see what is. That is what the spiritual experience is about: to see things as they are; not as how books and learning tell you they are.
What do you mean 'perhaps'? All those years of hard work and scholarship, and you come only to a hiccup? If you know, you know. No 'perhaps'. We never troll the internet for Enlightenment. Heavens no! We simply crawl back into the womb where we are entertained for hours and hours by those wonderful dancing cave wall shadows which puff our egos up about how much we know about ancient texts, foreign languages, and QM, when in actuality, we know JackS***. (But therein lies the secret of secrets, folks!)
Legion, a mystic is one who looks inside with the goal of attaining union with the divine source, to realize the true meaning of 'tat tvam asi'. That is what all the 'study and practice' are about, but mainly the practice. Ask your mystic friends if that is true or not.
In the old Japanese Zen stories, there are references to those monks who never had a day of formal temple training, who lived in the forest, but who were respected as enlightened themselves.
Are you saying that I don't study and practice?
...and you use your knowledge and learning to (unwittingly) butcher Truth.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Here is the video you took your clip from. Pay attention to Chopra's oral response to the trick the man plays on him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rdjtFcHt3RA#t=280s
You should read more Plato:
I know that I know nothing. "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."
How would you know? What master trained you? What do you know of mysticism that you comes from something you didn't buy or find online? You mock my qigong instructor, but I trained for years in Japanese and Chinese traditional practices of meditation, martial arts, and medicine. You had google.
I've read Matthew in Greek. I've read the early Christian and Jewish literature that relates to it. You looked up Mithras on the internet and got sensationalist crap.
...complete alien to you. It takes time and effort, like all of the people (even Chopra) you've held up as examples. You just don't feel the need to follow their example because it's easier to make omniscient claims that can't be falsified thanks to Almighty Google.
द्रष्टा दृशिमात्रः शुद्धोऽपि प्रत्ययानुपश्यः ॥२०॥
दृग्दर्शनशक्त्योरेकात्मतेवास्मिता ॥६॥
...that hopefully you'll meet someday.