Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

Well I have a different view then. The only point at whicj



Whether there is a sort of illusion there or not, the One still "acts" as if it were something. Like you said yourself, it acts as if it were the many. Therefore there is still an action or activity going on there. I call that interaction. There is always interaction. If there were not, there wouldn't even be that dream or those "illusions" as you call them, but there are illusions and there are dreams and so there must be interaction.

A dream is an illusory experience. Whatever occurs in the dream is not real. So where is there any 'interaction'?

When I said that The One acts as if it is The Many, I meant that it projects itself as such. The projection is purely illusory, and all that occurs within the projection is illusory as well. Nothing has changed. Only your mind is moving.

 

[Runewolf1973]

A dream is an illusory experience. Whatever occurs in the dream is not real. So where is there any 'interaction'?

When I said that The One acts as if it is The Many, I meant that it projects itself as such. The projection is purely illusory, and all that occurs within the projection is illusory as well. Nothing has changed. Only your mind is moving.

Sorry, the first sentence was a misprint.

Illusory does not necessarily mean something which is not real or does not exist, it can also indicate something which only appears to be something else and that is what I believe the early mystics meant, not what you are saying. Emptiness is not nothingness, there is always something...something present, something going on, something happening even though it may not exactly be what it seems. A solid object of matter can be seen as illusory because fundamentally it is not as solid as it seems. Furthermore, a projection can still be seen as an action or an interaction. In order to project something, there requires some form of action. In order for my brain to create the illusion of a tiger in my dreams, there requires some interaction in my brain. The tiger is not what it seems, sure, but there is some form of interaction present nonetheless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

From Wikipedia:

"The term illusion refers to a specific form of sensory distortion. Unlike a hallucination, which is a distortion in the absence of a stimulus, an illusion describes a misinterpretation of a true sensation. For example, hearing voices regardless of the environment would be a hallucination, whereas hearing voices in the sound of running water (or other auditory source) would be an illusion."

Therefore, "illusion" does not mean that material forms don't exist or are not real, it simply means that those material forms are not the solid matter they appear to be.

Or perhaps you meant to say that we are all hallucinating?

Perhaps it is with good reason they chose to call it The Grand Illusion and not The Grand Hallucination.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, the first sentence was a misprint.

Illusory does not necessarily mean something which is not real or does not exist, it can also indicate something which only appears to be something else and that is what I believe the early mystics meant, not what you are saying. Emptiness is not nothingness, there is always something...something present, something going on, something happening even though it may not exactly be what it seems. A solid object of matter can be seen as illusory because fundamentally it is not as solid as it seems. Furthermore, a projection can still be seen as an action or an interaction. In order to project something, there requires some form of action. In order for my brain to create the illusion of a tiger in my dreams, there requires some interaction in my brain. The tiger is not what it seems, sure, but there is some form of interaction present nonetheless.

If something appears to be something else, but is not something else, something else does not exist. Something appearing to be something else that further appears to be interacting is called pretension. The Absolute is pretending to be the Universe, playing all the parts simultaneously in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek with itself. Maya is the illusion, and lila is the play.

Precisely because there is Nothing, there can be Everything. Everything comes out of Nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

Therefore, "illusion" does not mean that material forms don't exist or are not real, it simply means that those material forms are not the solid matter they appear to be.

That description would be the Quantum view that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature; ie; that it appears to be solid but is not.

The other view is primarily a Buddhistic one, in which it is said that:

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

meaning that nothing has an abiding self-nature since all 'things' are interconnected to everything else. It only appears that separate form-objects exist.

I think it is safe to call such mistakes in perception illusions. The mistake occurs because of mental conditioning, the classic example being the rope momentarily seen as a snake in poor lighting. The same can be said of The Absolute (ie the rope), which we see as The Universe (ie the snake). But the awakened mind sees the Universe for what it really is: The Absolute, and so:

'The [seemingly changing] Universe is [in reality] The [Changeless] Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivekenanda

[bracketed insertions are mine]

 

[Runewolf1973]

If something appears to be something else, but is not something else, something else does not exist. Something appearing to be something else that further appears to be interacting is called pretension. The Absolute is pretending to be the Universe, playing all the parts simultaneously in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek with itself. Maya is the illusion, and lila is the play.

Precisely because there is Nothing, there can be Everything. Everything comes out of Nothing.

The word "pretend" is a verb which is an action word. The word "play" is also a verb. Furthermore to say "comes out of" indicates an action or interaction.

The rope being mistaken for a snake in dim lighting is an illusion, that is true, but you are treating it as though both the snake or the rope never existed at all. That is not what what the example is trying to teach. It is simply teaching us that the things we see or perceive are not what they seem, not that they never existed in some form. They are not hallucinations, they are illusions created by a greater reality. The snake and the rope are both real things that we can relate to or recall seeing before, but the snake is simply not what it seems to be, it is in fact a rope.

 

[Shad]

Your logic does not follow: just because the description of Higher Consciousness does not conform to your system of knowledge does not logically mean it is a belief.

No it conforms to what a belief means. Not my problem you ignore what the word means.

It may be another form of knowledge outside that of factual knowledge. What is it about HC that makes you say it is a belief?

Thus you can not confirm it is knowledge, illusion, delusion or a belief. Since the former is out of the question in confirming a belief fits the 3 later parameters

The primary issue in the debate is whether the universe is conscious or not. Dawkins tries to make the point that things IN the universe can be conscious, but the universe itself cannot be. But he forgets that the universe is not a vessel that contains 'things', but that it is those very things which comprise the universe itself.

Yes, and?

Which quote are you referring to? I have only quoted things Chopra has actually said. You're making things up in your head regarding 'software generated quotes'.

Nope. The quote about tea was from a randomly generated quote from the link below. You read meaning into a quote not made by Deepak but by software. You assumed it was from Deepak since you did not check the link at all. Then due to your confirmation bias read what you wanted into it as something deep and meaningful. Hilarious.

"I understand immediately and perfectly what Chopra is saying about making tea. Sorry you miss this very beautiful point. Pity."

"Sophistry. "Making tea is the continuity of spiritual belonging"

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/"

And which things does Chopra say that makes you think he is 'talking big'? All I see is that he is cutting to the chase and making distilled statements about Reality, statements which require you to pay attention and use your higher intellect. Otherwise, the discursive mind is always getting in the way with its baggage of conceptual thought, and trying to superimpose its ideas onto Reality, and sadly missing the point.

Since he does not have a single shred of evidence and only pawns his sophistry off on people that know nothing about science and are gullible, like yourself. Like above you can not and will not take a moment to see if a statement is from Deepak or not. You are invested in his sophistry so have no ability to see your own bias and Deepak's sophistry. You accept anything if it confirms your belief, even if it was from software...

Empty unsupported statements can be dismissed without issue. Talk to me about intellect when you can tell the different between a software quote and a real one. Deepak's sophistry has triggered the Dunning-Kruger effect in which Deepak props up an illusion of his followers being intelligent when in fact they can barely be qualified above a functional human.

"If you believe in my sophistry this means you are really intelligent."

Which is common from many religions claiming truth but unable to prove nor support their claims. It is also a bandwagon fallacy since it members will pat themselves on each other's backs as if they have discovered something requiring intelligence above everyone else on the planet.

 

[godnotgod]

Nope. The quote about tea was from a randomly generated quote from the link below. You read meaning into a quote not made by Deepak but by software. You assumed it was from Deepak since you did not check the link at all. Then due to your confirmation bias read what you wanted into it as something deep and meaningful. Hilarious.

ha ha...it just so happens that in this case, it is true, as the Japanese tea ceremony (along with the fine arts and martial arts) is an extension of the culture of spirituality. I read it at face value.

Here's another for you:

'The spirituality in Zen is not to think about God while peeling the potatoes; it is simply to peel the potatoes'

 

[godnotgod]

The word "pretend" is a verb which is an action word. The word "play" is also a verb. Furthermore to say "comes out of" indicates an action or interaction.

The rope being mistaken for a snake in dim lighting is an illusion, that is true, but you are treating it as though both the snake or the rope never existed at all. That is not what what the example is trying to teach. It is simply teaching us that the things we see or perceive are not what they seem, not that they never existed in some form. They are not hallucinations, they are illusions created by a greater reality. The snake and the rope are both real things that we can relate to or recall seeing before, but the snake is simply not what it seems to be, it is in fact a rope.

There is no snake; there never was. Rope is a metaphor for The Absolute; snake is a metaphor for the universe. just as there is no snake, there is no universe. The metaphor is limited, however, by the fact that in the case of the snake, it vanishes, while the universe does not. That is because the illusion of the universe is of a higher calibre than that of the imagined snake.

On the level of rope/snake, the rope is real while the snake is illusory. On the level of The Absolute/Universe, The Absolute is the only true Reality, while the Universe is purely illusory.

If your true identity is that of The Absolute, instead of just 'little old me', then your consciousness is also that of The Absolute which is 'creating' this world. But there is no such creation; there is only a manifestation via of a dream, and a dream, as you know, is just an illusion, as everything in the dream is also illusion. Only upon awakening from the dream is it realized that illusion was the case. Nothing has changed. Any 'interaction' is illusion. The Absolute cannot interact with itself simply because as Absolute, there exists no relative 'other' to interact with.

'Pretend', 'play', 'comes out of', all 'occur' within the dream.

The Big Bang was an event in consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

No it conforms to what a belief means.

Erroneous logic. Reason is just a system of knowledge. If HC is outside of Reason, it does not conform to its rules, one of which tells you that Reason is the ONLY valid system of knowledge, and if something does not conform to its dictates, it is belief. IOW, 'belief' is defined by the system of knowledge called 'Reason', which disallows any other system of knowledge as valid.

I am recalling the dogma the Church used in asserting that the Earth was flat.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The Big Bang was an event in consciousness.

Tell that to Richard Dawkins. You see, my interpretation of all this blends perfectly with known scientific facts...as it should. The universe is interactive and it is also illusory in that it is not what it seems. Yes there is a higher reality of sorts, perhaps a Unified Field, but it doesn't make everything else any less real. There are illusions in nature, true, but they are not the same as non-existant hallucinations. If the Absolute is all there is and it is the only One true reality, then even those "illusions" and those interactions are a genuine part of that reality.

Anyways, that is just my interpretation and my way. Your way might be right and I might be wrong, but remember this little tidbit of wisdom from Shakespeare...

" The foolish man doth thinks himself wise. The wise man knows himself to be the fool."

 

[godnotgod]

If it is verified then it is subject to reason and logic as verification is grounded in both.

Once again, if it is outside the realm of Reason, it cannot be verified by Reason. It is verified via direct, inner experience, without thought, and therefore, without the use of Reason.

Except the majority of humans do not verify HC. Again using reason and logic when you claim HC is beyond both. Also this is called objective correlation which can be done in a controlled study. Cherry picking again

The metaphor is limited, because it describes a common experience, while that of HC is uncommon. My reference to the majority of humans verifying coldness is equally applicable to HC, because HC is accessible to all sentient beings. The problem is that most humans operate under the powerful influence of conditioned awareness, and so their awareness of HC is limited.

The taught methods to access HC are doctrine and dogma as both are instructions of religion. Thus it fits HC. Doctrine and dogma are not experiences either.

You're confusing religious beliefs with spiritual experience. HC is a spiritual experience beyond all methodologies, even though methodology is employed as a pathway to the experience. For example, posture, breathing, and concentration in the meditation process are conducive to the spiritual experience, but are not the spiritual experience itself. This is reflected in Zen teaching, for example, by saying: "Zen is a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself"

I can dismiss your claim for having no objective credibility, no verified studies. It is just sophistry from the gullible and those that make money from them like Deepak. I can also do this as well. You must experience aliens by opening yourself to the intergalactic trans-medition telepathic link blah blah blah sophistry. Yet both have no evidence for HC or aliens.

You can use your system of conditioned awareness to dismiss anything you like, just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave dismiss the reality of The Sun. The only evidence available to them for verification is the direct seeing of The Sun itself.

Cherry picking again. Now HC is not bound by logic and reason yet in the above comments it was. Nonsensical woo sophistry is just what you typed above.

You're confused. I can use Reason to intellectualize ABOUT HC, but it is never a part of the EXPERIENCE of HC. It's that simple.

Deepak has zero papers proving his work. Hagelin's ideas have been dismissed as new age quackery. Penrose's work has been refuted. Goswami has no published a single paper in support of his ideas. Capra's ideas are not published. Get on the boat and figure out the difference between well researched proposes backed by studies and new age woo published for the masses. You have consumed the new age books and confuse these as credible.

Unfortunately, the boat of Materialist Paradigm is slowly sinking as the masses slowly awaken to Reality.

Capra, who wrote 'The Tao of Physics', not published? See here:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Fritjof-Capra.htm

You have opened your mind ot the point that your brain has fallen out. Which is typical of people that consume sophistry by peddlers that can not support their ideas within the very field they based their claims on.

Chopra constantly uses scientific and medical evidence to support his claims. But he also draws from a rich spiritual tradition and direct experience. I verify his statements via my own direct experience as true, and in line with the teachings of masters throughout the ages.

Hagelin's ideas have no credibility. Who he quotes is irrelevant. Also argument from authority since all your name dropping is against the consensus of their peers.

Of course. The adherents to the materialist paradigm do not allow any other view as valid but their own, and use its 'authority' to dismiss them as sophistry, when they have no experience with those views themselves. It's a cabal.

If reason is a tool then HC is bound by it.

What a joke! You don't even understand your own tools.

Your logic does not follow! Mystics do not dismiss Reason and Logic, and use them to point to the experience of HC, even though HC is not bound by them. Do you even see how that is possible?

If you followed the link you would of realized it was a random quote generator not a quote of Deepak.

That is totally irrelevant. The fact is that, in the example you posted, it just so happens to make perfect sense, but the critics failed to realize that because they are too lazy to make the efforts to realize the spiritual experience themselves, instead complacently sit back in their armchair of Reason and criticize something they know nothing about.

"It has been said by some that the thoughts and tweets of Deepak Chopra are indistinguishable from a set of profound sounding words put together in a random order, particularly the tweets tagged with "#cosmisconciousness". This site aims to test that claim! Each "quote" is generated from a list of words that can be found in Deepak Chopra's Twitter stream randomly stuck together in a sentence."

What a joke! It only goes to show that monkey minds are at work, thinking they've got something, because they hear 'profound sounding words'.

"Oooh, look! Chopra is saying the same nonsense as this computer generated gobbledegook! Duh!"

No, he is NOT saying the same thing, but you would'nt know the difference, and that's because Chopra is a genius, and you are not.

 

[godnotgod]

Tell that to Richard Dawkins. You see, my interpretation of all this blends perfectly with known scientific facts...as it should.

So does what I am saying, but facts and data in themselves are not Reality; they are characteristics about Reality.

The universe is interactive and it is also illusory in that it is not what it seems.

Tell THAT to Dawkins, LOL.

Yes there is a higher reality of sorts, perhaps a Unified Field, but it doesn't make everything else any less real.

It makes them seem real, and that is what you are responding to, and what science responds to. Science operates on the assumption that what it is dealing with is real. But now, Quantum Mechanics has found that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, but no one will actually believe that because their minds are conditioned by the old materialist paradigm. We barely believe Einstein.

There are illusions in nature, true, but they are not the same as non-existant hallucinations.

I understand the difference between an illusion and a hallucination: I am NOT referring to hallucination!

If the Absolute is all there is and it is the only One true reality, then even those "illusions" and those interactions are a genuine part of that reality.

Yes, genuine illusions, but illusions nonetheless.

THINK: If the Absolute is all there is, then nothing else is real. Your dreams are a part of your reality as a conscious being, but they are nonetheless illusory. Having said that, the paradox here is that the world is none other than The Absolute itself, masquerading AS the world, just as a great actor masquerades AS the character he is playing, and so we can say that the character being portrayed is, in fact, the actor behind the mask. But when the curtain falls, and the play is over, there is no such character. He is an invention, a concoction, a fiction.

Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many.
Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide.
The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms.
(Rig Veda~ 1200 B.C.)

 

[Runewolf1973]

So does what I am saying, but facts and data in themselves are not Reality; they are characteristics about Reality.



Tell THAT to Dawkins, LOL.



It makes them seem real, and that is what you are responding to, and what science responds to. Science operates on the assumption that what it is dealing with is real. But now, Quantum Mechanics has found that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, but no one will actually believe that because their minds are conditioned by the old materialist paradigm. We barely believe Einstein.



I understand the difference between an illusion and a hallucination: I am NOT referring to hallucination!



Yes, genuine illusions, but illusions nonetheless.

THINK: If the Absolute is all there is, then nothing else is real. Your dreams are a part of your reality as a conscious being, but they are nonetheless illusory. Having said that, the paradox here is that the world is none other than The Absolute itself, masquerading AS the world, just as a great actor masquerades AS the character he is playing, and so we can say that the character being portrayed is, in fact, the actor behind the mask. But when the curtain falls, and the play is over, there is no such character. He is an invention, a concoction, a fiction.

Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many.
Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide.
The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms.
(Rig Veda~ 1200 B.C.)

Your way is not the only way. Thus far you have yet to say anything truly original or inspiring. You stand on the shoulders of others meanwhile claiming there is no other. You keep using words like cause, pretend, masquerade, manifest, actor, play, etc...etc... All those words describe an activity or an interaction. It seems you just cannot explain your position without also interacting in some way or referencing some sort of activity. To even have this conversation with me requires an interaction, but you deny there is any interaction going on. I disagree. Interaction IS everything and I will stand by that position until someone can prove otherwise. You can disagree all you want, but thus far you have provided NO evidence and I am certain Richard Dawkins would agree with me on that.

 

[godnotgod]

Your way is not the only way. Thus far you have yet to say anything truly original or inspiring. You stand on the shoulders of others meanwhile claiming there is no other. You keep using words like cause, pretend, masquerade, manifest, actor, play, etc...etc... All those words describe an activity or an interaction. It seems you just cannot explain your position without also interacting in some way or referencing some sort of activity. To even have this conversation with me requires an interaction, but you deny there is any interaction going on. I disagree. Interaction IS everything and I will stand by that position until someone can prove otherwise. You can disagree all you want, but thus far you have provided NO evidence and I am certain Richard Dawkins would agree with me on that.

I'm sure you'll make adorable bed partners.

What I have been describing is not 'my way'; it is not my personal view. But yes, there is only one way.

Can you tell me who, or what, is it that is 'interacting'?

 

[godnotgod]

... cause, pretend, masquerade, manifest, actor, play, etc...etc... All those words describe an activity or an interaction. It seems you just cannot explain your position without also interacting in some way or referencing some sort of activity. To even have this conversation with me requires an interaction, but you deny there is any interaction going on. I disagree. Interaction IS everything ....

You seem to agree that there is Something that is The Changeless, and that The Changeless is the only Reality. If that is the case, then all else must be illusory. If you are seeing things correctly, you see only The Changeless. But if you are seeing incorrectly, you are seeing change.

"Since it [The Changeless] is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

The key word here is 'mistake'. That which is not in Time or Space, and is not subject to Causation cannot change, and therefore, cannot interact. It can only appear to interact, and that is what we see as the 'changing' Universe, ie; the 'snake'.

 

[Shad]

Once again, if it is outside the realm of Reason, it cannot be verified by Reason. It is verified via direct, inner experience, without thought, and therefore, without the use of Reason.

Thus you can not confirm anything about it. If it is a delusion, a hallucination, your imagination, etc. Once again flip-flopping since you didn't hesitate to cite people in support of the idea including people making arugments based on evidence and reason. cherry picking and selection bias again

The metaphor is limited, because it describes a common experience, while that of HC is uncommon. My reference to the majority of humans verifying coldness is equally applicable to HC, because HC is accessible to all sentient beings. The problem is that most humans operate under the powerful influence of conditioned awareness, and so their awareness of HC is limited.

Then such an experience can be verified in a controlled study. It has not as of yet nor will be as keeping HC in pop-culture keeps it going while in science it would die a quick death.

You're confusing religious beliefs with spiritual experience. HC is a spiritual experience beyond all methodologies, even though methodology is employed as a pathway to the experience. For example, posture, breathing, and concentration in the meditation process are conducive to the spiritual experience, but are not the spiritual experience itself. This is reflected in Zen teaching, for example, by saying:

"Zen is a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself" [/qiote]

Nope. We all hold beliefs. Those which are verified and justified are more acceptable then a belief with none. You hold a spiritual belief which has a legacy in a religion.

You can use your system of conditioned awareness to dismiss anything you like, just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave dismiss the reality of The Sun. The only evidence available to them for verification is the direct seeing of The Sun itself.

Try again son. Plato's idea showed that people can reason about the sun. However since you declared HC is above reason you are in error in using the analogy no matter how hard you try. You are still in the cave talking to Deepak about your experience of HC shadows.

You're confused. I can use Reason to intellectualize ABOUT HC, but it is never a part of the EXPERIENCE of HC. It's that simple.

Thus reason is applied to HC. Flip-flopping again. Cherry picking again.



[qupte]Unfortunately, the boat of Materialist Paradigm is slowly sinking as the masses slowly awaken to Reality.

Capra, who wrote 'The Tao of Physics', not published? See here:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Fritjof-Capra.htm

His ideas have no support in any scientific field. Also you quote is not a study but an article by a site that already accepts the idea. His books have been rejected by his peers and found wanting. So cite whatever work from quacks you want while making grand claims supported by nothing.

Chopra constantly uses scientific and medical evidence to support his claims. But he also draws from a rich spiritual tradition and direct experience. I verify his statements via my own direct experience as true, and in line with the teachings of masters throughout the ages.

He claims to but none of his claims pass peer-review, if he bothered to submit his work which he does not. So sophistry backed by sophistry is not convincing. Nor is the opinion of someone that has already accepted sophistry worth any value.

Of course. The adherents to the materialist paradigm do not allow any other view as valid but their own, and use its 'authority' to dismiss them as sophistry, when they have no experience with those views themselves. It's a cabal.

People that accept sophistry, and can not figure out sophistry when they see it like you have done, have opinions of no value.

What a joke! You don't even understand your own tools.

Your logic does not follow! Mystics do not dismiss Reason and Logic, and use them to point to the experience of HC, even though HC is not bound by them. Do you even see how that is possible?

Nope, it is your constant flip flopping betweenwhen reason is applied and when not that is in error. If reason can be used for HC in anyway then it is bound by reason. You do not get to declare it is not when reason turns against your silly belief.

That is totally irrelevant. The fact is that, in the example you posted, it just so happens to make perfect sense, but the critics failed to realize that because they are too lazy to make the efforts to realize the spiritual experience themselves, instead complacently sit back in their armchair of Reason and criticize something they know nothing about.

Deepak is too lazy, rather he is too smart to show his ideas are wrong, to submit his work to review. Hence he sells pop-culture books to the masses since the masses are ignorant of science and are gullible. Here is the thing, son. You demand science confirm to Deepak's silly ideas and whims However this is not how it works, he must submit to science and its methods. Not my problem you are ignorant of science. Deepak could easily show his work is correct within a controlled study but he does not.

What a joke! It only goes to show that monkey minds are at work, thinking they've got something, because they hear 'profound sounding words'.

There goes your inflated ego and overestimation of your intelligence common to religion's making claims without proof then declaring that if others are not as gullible and ignorant as their followers as fools.

"Oooh, look! Chopra is saying the same nonsense as this computer generated gobbledegook! Duh!"

No, he is NOT saying the same thing, but you would'nt know the difference, and that's because Chopra is a genius, and you are not.

Actually it was to show that Deepak's quack phrases and words have no greater meaning then software randomly generating quotes. A software program you thought was a quote from Deepak. You are gullible and proved it along with your confirmation bias when you read deep meaning in to a software quote. Thus Deepak's sophistry works since people are willing to read what they want into anything he says. More so they read what they want into a quote when they think it is from Deepak.

Deepak is a con artist, nothing more. He is no genius.

 

[Shad]

Erroneous logic. Reason is just a system of knowledge. If HC is outside of Reason, it does not conform to its rules, one of which tells you that Reason is the ONLY valid system of knowledge, and if something does not conform to its dictates, it is belief. IOW, 'belief' is defined by the system of knowledge called 'Reason', which disallows any other system of knowledge as valid.

I am recalling the dogma the Church used in asserting that the Earth was flat.

Flip-flopping again. If reason can be applied in anyway to HC, which you admit it can, it is bound by reason. You are repeating dogma when reason turns in your hand against your silly views and arguments in which you hold double-standards

 

[Shad]

ha ha...it just so happens that in this case, it is true, as the Japanese tea ceremony (along with the fine arts and martial arts) is an extension of the culture of spirituality. I read it at face value.

Here's another for you:

'The spirituality in Zen is not to think about God while peeling the potatoes; it is simply to peel the potatoes'

You thought the quote was from Deepak when the link right below it proved otherwise. You think read what you wanted into it based on your "spirituality" and culture. This is called confirmation bias. Which you unwittingly just admitted to since you can not figure out a valid and sound argument from one that is fallacious. Hilarious.

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/fl/What-Is-a-Confirmation-Bias.htm

 

[Runewolf1973]

What I have been describing is not 'my way'; it is not my personal view. But yes, there is only one way.

Can you tell me who, or what, is it that is 'interacting'?

Everything is interacting. It is a proven fact. A state of non-interaction or changeless would amount to something beyond that zero point field where energy would cease to be energy. In what way is that consciousness or bliss?