Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Runewolf1973]

It is certainly a lot more convincing than the sort of stuff that Chopra preaches.

Logic and reason is not as profitable as mysticism I guess. Lol.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Logic and reason is not as profitable as mysticism I guess. Lol.

Interesting background here: http://www.britannica.com/science/unified-field-theory

It does mention "interaction", but I can't see any references to "Cosmic Consciousness", "Absolute Nothingness" or a "psychic energy field of love and soul consciousness".

 

[YmirGF]

You forgot to leave your baggage at the door before you went to see. Try again. Leave beliefs behind.

Since you were/are not present, it is not for you to say. I've even met you half way by saying that I can readily understand why people would think the way you do upon apprehending this odd aspect of reality, but you can't budge even an iota from your deeply entrenched, emotionally charged, position. Sad, really.
You cannot face the possibility that you are bringing your own baggage to the experience and simply experiencing your expectations. Imagination is far, FAR more powerful than many human animals understand.

Some see it; some don't. Those who don't will just stay on the path that much longer, which is OK too. No need to get all apoplectic about it. You might explode, son. Take a deep breath, relax, stop and set down your load, take a nice cool drink from the bubbling mountain spring to refresh yourself, and then read 'Zen and the Birds of Appetite', by Thomas Merton.

Imagine that: exploding mice.

I'm hardly apoplectic. You are simply flattering yourself within your own superiority complex. Expoding mice... you are such a charmer...

...and you'll have missed the whole point, as you continue to do here. Have a drink of cool mountain water. Then, when you do get to the top, you'll be able to actually SEE something.

Your lack of intellectual flexibility is noted, but not unexpected.

Are you deaf? THE TOPIC OF A CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE IS NOT REASON TO CALL FORTH COMPASSION. WHAT DO YOU WANT? CANDY?

Without compassion, your vision is dead. You venomous reactions are further proof of the stunted nature of your assumptions about reality and clearly shows how little you have actually learned. Call me stupid, but in your terms, a conscious universe should, theoretically, be awash in compassion and should again, theoretically, drip from every word you write. You words are cold and emotionless as you have kneecapped your own humanity in your pursuit of your deeply cherished dogmatic doctrine.

Your hot and heavy breathing is overshadowing your ability to think properly. None of what you posted is a doctrine. Try again.

Just because you cannot see it as such does not mean that it is not all part of an exceedingly dogmatic doctrine.

uh...'Absolute Reality'?...never used the phrase. You're making things up, as usual. A colorful imagination, to be sure, but fantasy, nonetheless.

So you really want me to go back to page one and start compiling? Hmmmm. That IS a lot of work.

You condemn via labels. Labels are not explanations as to why you think I am a fundie. I have no doctrine to foist, therefore cannot be a fundie. When will you be able to understand this? To begin, I don't know what you mean by 'new age quackery' fundamentalist. I am nothing of the sort, whatever it is. Now go fetch, and don't return until you come back with something of substance, instead of the usual superficial dribble that generally gushes forth from your mind. You hate Osho; you hate Chopra. YOU HATE! No wonder you think the way you do! And you want to talk about compassion? You know jack sh*t about compassion. You're still that Fake Bodhisattva you've always been, cheaply advertising himself as one. A disgrace posted for all to see.

OK, so you lack linguistic dexterity, which is odd given that you bend so many terms and expressions to conform with your rigid understanding. You don't really understand my usage of the term "Bodhisattva", do you? Not surprising, really. As I said previously, I'm not meaning "fundamentalist" in the ordinary sense. Nevertheless, your continued ranting does bear the hallmarks of a fundamentalist fanatic.

Ducks point to the moon too. Have you seen it yet? No? Then you had better go peel some potatoes.

*quack*

(translation: 'Look! THE MOON! NO, NOT MY FINGER!)

You continue to pretend that others have not seen this moon you are allegedly pointing at, simply because they disagree with you. The arrogance this is predicated on is that if we were really seeing what is there we would be agreeing with you.

Re: the thread being about a conscious universe. I'd have to say that my vision of reality is certainly closer to Riverwolf's than yours. I'm OK with people not agreeing with me and have broad, manly, shoulders. I do agree that consciousness is involved but certainly not in the way you are relentless foaming at the mouth about.

I'd say that I'm pointing to a moon of sorts but the truth is that there is no finger and there is no moon, but there is a rather large part of reality that we do and and will not ever fully understand even as our consciousness endlessly expands.

Reality is like a well oiled marble. The moment you think you have it grasped is the moment it slips from your grip.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not-knowing mind leads to the One Reality. Conceptual Mind leads to myriad opinions and ideas ABOUT the One Reality.

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
-Dao De Jing

 

[crossfire]

Not-knowing mind leads to the One Reality. Conceptual Mind leads to myriad opinions and ideas ABOUT the One Reality.

"One" is a concept that creates duality when you cling to (or name) it, or build your own nest in it. Don't build a nest--keep on going! Not-one, not-two. Not this, not that.

 

[godnotgod]

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
-Dao De Jing

Exactly!

 

[godnotgod]

"One" is a concept that creates duality when you cling to (or name) it, or build your own nest in it. Don't build a nest--keep on going! Not-one, not-two. Not this, not that.

Thanks for that. But 'One' as used here is not the same as 'one'. It simply means that which is indivisible.

 

[godnotgod]

Reality is like a well oiled marble. The moment you think you have it grasped is the moment it slips from your grip.

So why continue to grasp at it?

 

[godnotgod]

Just because you cannot see it as such does not mean that it is not all part of an exceedingly dogmatic doctrine.

Well, c'mon now. Put your money where your mouth is: show me the exact doctrine or doctrines you claim I am espousing. As far as I can see, pointing to the moon is not a doctrine; it is simply to point to the moon, but your response is as if the moon is a doctrine.