Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

NOT CREDIBLE

Its is rhetoric nothing more.

Oh, so shallow!

You would need documentation and imprimatur to validate your existence. Without that crutch, you would'nt know Jack s**t!

In psychological terms, we call that 'other-directed', as compared to 'inner-directed'.

'Your papers, please!'

 

[godnotgod]

There is no backwards or forwards way of looking at something which is non-dual. I never indicated there was a split or a duality. Is a coin dual? The interaction that I speak of is the middlegound. Hold both of your hands out to your sides. There are two hands, one on the right and one on the left, but only one person in the middle (you) holding them out. That person (you) is like that middleground, the point where one hand meets the other as a single unit. That middleground is the point of interaction and that is where oneness lies. Just because my way does not agree with your scriptures doesn’t mean that my way is wrong. Interaction is everything, everything interacts.

Oneness exists before any interaction. What you think is interaction does not bring Oneness into being. Again, you have it backwards. Sorry. You are being fooled by the play of maya.

 

[godnotgod]

Look up the word credible yet

Great definition of what is not credible.

What Adyashanti is talking about is a state of consciousness outside that of Reason, so what is considered rationally credible does not apply. I know you fail to understand that, but that is the limitation of your understanding, which is that only what is inside the box of Reason, Logic, and Analysis can be credible.

 

[godnotgod]

Tri

Your side, my side, and a very thin line in the middle known as the truth.

What a load!

 

[godnotgod]

Whatever that middle is as far as this universe is concerned is what science is trying to figure out. I speculate there is an interactive force or unified field in the middle of all this mumbo jumbo that will explain everything. There is without a doubt a logical, non-supernatural explanation for everything.

Just think: you could launch a new religion based on that doctrine alone.

The problem with science is that it doesn't yet realize that there is nothing to figure out. The method of science is dissection and clinical analysis, and then reconstruction of the 'parts' in order to come to some ephiphanic moment in which it imagines (in it's pointed little head) that it can then say:

"Ah-HA!...so THAT'S what it's all about!"

BULL!

All science can hope to do is to end up with a universe that is a dead artefact.

The Universe is not a mechanical device! Nor can it be an object of observation. The observer is fully integrated into the Universe.

 

[outhouse]

What Adyashanti is talking about is a state of consciousness outside that of Reason

Oh you mean imagination?

If it is outside reason, then it is unreasonable. Unreasonable means imagination in this context.

YOU DO understand this is a science thread, and reason is required????

 

[godnotgod]

Oh you mean imagination?

If it is outside reason, then it is unreasonable. Unreasonable means imagination in this context.

YOU DO understand this is a science thread, and reason is required????

No, I do NOT understand it as any such thing! It is a 'Science and Religion' thread.

I recently had this conversation with someone here recently.

To say that something is unreasonable means it is still being defined via the standards of Reason. The topic of Adyashanti's discussion does not conform to those standards; IOW, it is neither irrational or unreasonable as opposite to rational or Reason; it is simply non-rational. It comes from a source of knowledge not that of Reason. Is that conceivable to you at all?

Imagination requires thought, which is an outcome of mind. Higher Consciousness is about seeing things as they actually are, not thinking about what the mind imagines them to be, and therefore cannot create imaginary things.

Now, if anything is driven by imagination, it is science!

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oneness exists before any interaction. What you think is interaction does not bring Oneness into being. Again, you have it backwards. Sorry. You are being fooled by the play of maya.

You fail to understand what I mean by the word interaction. That "inter" part IS that oneness. That "action" part is the duality/illusion. We all inter-are, the universe inter-is, everything inter-acts. Oneness, inter-action, or inter-isness....it matters not what you call it, it is all one and the same. The duality is only how you percieve it. I see no duality, no such "thing".

 

[Runewolf1973]

Perhaps Thich Nhat Hanh could explain what I mean better...

http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/blog/2013/01/25/thich-nhat-hanh-interrelationship-2/


Perhaps it is time to forget the scripture and listen to what the universe is telling you.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps Thich Nhat Hanh could explain what I mean better...

http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/blog/2013/01/25/thich-nhat-hanh-interrelationship-2/


Perhaps it is time to forget the scripture and listen to what the universe is telling you.

Well, now you've come full circle back to the issue at hand as it relates to the Chopra-Dawkins debate: is the Universe conscious? You seem to imply that by suggesting that I 'listen to what the unverse is telling you'. Is that a confirmation of universal consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

You fail to understand what I mean by the word interaction. That "inter" part IS that oneness. That "action" part is the duality/illusion. We all inter-are, the universe inter-is, everything inter-acts. Oneness, inter-action, or inter-isness....it matters not what you call it, it is all one and the same. The duality is only how you percieve it. I see no duality, no such "thing".

The interaction is only how you perceive it. That's the problem. When you go beyond perceptual reality into Ultimate Reality, all you will see is The Changeless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well, now you've come full circle back to the issue at hand as it relates to the Chopra-Dawkins debate: is the Universe conscious? You seem to imply that by suggesting that I 'listen to what the unverse is telling you'. Is that a confirmation of universal consciousness?

No, the universe is not conscious, but it has a story to tell nevertheless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The interaction is only how you perceive it. That's the problem. When you go beyond perceptual reality into Ultimate Reality, all you will see is The Changeless.

Yet again you fail to understand me and you fail to see because you are being limited by what your scriptures tell you you should see. Forget the scripture, it is holding you back. Look beyond and there will be an inter-action that is both timeless, changeless and absolute. I was never much for scripture or the teachings of masters. They help by getting you to a certain level, but after you reach that level it is necessary to drop all of it, forget the teachings and "see" for your yourself. Obviously you are still stuck on those teachings.

 

[godnotgod]

Yet again you fail to understand me and you fail to see because you are being limited by what your scriptures tell you you should see. Forget the scripture, it is holding you back. Look beyond and there will be an inter-action that is both timeless, changeless and absolute. I was never much for scripture or the teachings of masters. They help by getting you to a certain level, but after you reach that level it is necessary to drop all of it, forget the teachings and "see" for your yourself. Obviously you are still stuck on those teachings.

Not sure which scriptures you're referring to, but I use them from time to time to point to an idea I am trying to convey. Ultimately, the vision must come from us, the scriptures only being a secondary source, so in that sense, you are correct. That being said, I disagree that you are seeing some sort of activity. What you call 'interaction' is an illusion. And what Thich Nhat Hanh refers to as 'inter-are' is not interaction; it is about being, which does not exhibit action. The only thing that is interacting is your mind.

1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'no, the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'wrong! both wind and flag are moving!'
passerby: 'all wrong! your minds are moving!'

 

[godnotgod]

No, the universe is not conscious, but it has a story to tell nevertheless.

Show me where your consciousness leaves off and the unconscious universe begins.

 

[outhouse]

The topic of Adyashanti's discussion does not conform to

Anything credible. HE IS NOT CREDIBLE.

Look up what credible is, and the opposite is ady

Show me where your consciousness leaves off and the unconscious universe begins.

To DATE consciousness only exist within the brain.

Anything else is imagination and fantasy.

 

[godnotgod]

Anything credible. HE IS NOT CREDIBLE.

Look up what credible is, and the opposite is ady




To DATE consciousness only exist within the brain.

Anything else is imagination and fantasy.

What gives you that idea?
you ignored my answer, taking it out of context once again:

Higher Consciousness is outside of the sphere of what is considered credible via Reason, Logic, and Analysis. It is a different kind of knowledge. It is not factual knowledge. Understand this so far?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Not sure which scriptures you're referring to, but I use them from time to time to point to an idea I am trying to convey. Ultimately, the vision must come from us, the scriptures only being a secondary source, so in that sense, you are correct. That being said, I disagree that you are seeing some sort of activity. What you call 'interaction' is an illusion. And what Thich Nhat Hanh refers to as 'inter-are' is not interaction; it is about being, which does not exhibit action. The only thing that is interacting is your mind.

1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'no, the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'wrong! both wind and flag are moving!'
passerby: 'all wrong! your minds are moving!'

"Action" is the illusion. "Inter" is the oneness. If we must disagree then we disagree, that is fine with me.

 

[godnotgod]

"Action" is the illusion. "Inter" is the oneness. If we must disagree then we disagree, that is fine with me.

So you agree that there is no actual activity going on, correct?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Aristotle has nothing to do with it.

If you wish to make any kind of allegorical argument involving Plato's cave then he has everything to do with it.