Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Runewolf1973]

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'.

There is no "dividedness in space" or anywhere else for that matter since everything interacts with everything else as a unity. Changeless, if it is any sort of reality, is not a reality that I am interested in. It is not consciousness or bliss, rather it would be a state of complete non-interaction and devoid of energy. We might eventually reach that state if the heat death of the universe were to ever occur. Until then, everything will continue interacting in some way and that is reality. I mean no disrespect, but unfortunately your version of reality is based entirely on dogma. My version of reality is based on logic and reason and it is supported by known scientific facts. Bold proclamations and dogma do not interest me. Science interests me.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no "dividedness in space" or anywhere else for that matter since everything interacts with everything else as a unity. Changeless, if it is any sort of reality, is not a reality that I am interested in. It is not consciousness or bliss, rather it would be a state of complete non-interaction and devoid of energy. We might eventually reach that state if the heat death of the universe were to ever occur. Until then, everything will continue interacting in some way and that is reality. I mean no disrespect, but unfortunately your version of reality is based entirely on dogma. My version of reality is based on logic and reason and it is supported by known scientific facts. Bold proclamations and dogma do not interest me. Science interests me.

Science is just fine, but 'known scientific facts', contrary to what you think, do not tell us what Reality is, just as factual knowledge gained via dismantling the piano cannot give us the music. In fact, factual knowledge about the music does not give us the music. In order to get the music, you must listen. LIkewise, in order to get to the true nature of Reality, you must learn to see, rather than conceptualize. It has been an ongoing pattern in science that new 'facts' only lead to more paradox. Today, modern man is more perplexed than ever about who he is and what the universe actually is, in spite of his vast wealth of facts and data. That is because nature does not conform to mere facts and concepts. Facts are only about the characteristics and behavior of nature, but fail to tell us exactly what nature actually is. But if facts are what you are after, fine. If you want to understand what the true nature of the Universe and of yourself is, then science is not the correct tool.

You say that 'my version' of reality is dogma, but that is not true. It is based on my own experience and insight, corroborated by others independently of each other throughout history. Dogma is the hardening of doctrine, but where is the doctrine I have espoused? Reality itself has no doctrine, and it's apprehension must also be doctrineless. Religion, of course, approaches reality via doctrine and dogma, but even science is guilty. It assumes that the universe is physical and real in nature, and builds upon those assumptions. Quantum Mechanics now tells us otherwise, doesn't it?

I'm glad that science is providing you the security and comfort you seek by feeding your brain more and more facts. Religion does the same via belief, as it temporarily relieves men of metaphysical anxiety. But you must realize that both facts and beliefs are dead things, as they are based on memory, and memory is merely the traces of the dead past. The mystical view, OTOH, is based on what is, here and now, and the realization of the mystical experience is the merging of the observer with the observed, reflecting perfectly the fact that there is, in reality, no such separate observer and observed. Deepak Chopra tells us that this experience is where

"the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality".

That is not dogma or doctrine; it is the direct apprehension and experience of Reality itself, without Reason, Logic, Analysis, Concept, Fact, Data, or Mind in the way of the experience.

So as long as you see the Universe in terms of Time, Space, and Causation, you will continue to see change as things interacting with each other; but when you drop those conceptual filters, you will see the Universe as it actually is: The Absolute; The Changeless, just as one finally sees the 'snake' for what it is: the rope. You simply fail to realize just how conditioned your view actually is, but that is the nature of conditioning, and science is an extremely conditioned and tightly controlled view of Reality. The only way to get to the right view of Reality is to open the mind completely so that one's view is completely unconditioned, and simply sees things as they actually are, instead of how the thinking mind tells us they are.

Good luck to you in your journey, and thanks for the discusssion.

"

 

[godnotgod]

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

Doesn't matter if it was from Chopra or a computer. As it stands, it makes sense from a spiritual point of view. So it is your premise that is fallacious, because the computer generated statement is actually true.

Go ahead. Try again.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Science is just fine, but 'known scientific facts', contrary to what you think, do not tell us what Reality is, just as factual knowledge gained via dismantling the piano cannot give us the music. In fact, factual knowledge about the music does not give us the music. In order to get the music, you must listen. LIkewise, in order to get to the true nature of Reality, you must learn to see, rather than conceptualize. It has been an ongoing pattern in science that new 'facts' only lead to more paradox. Today, modern man is more perplexed than ever about who he is and what the universe actually is, in spite of his vast wealth of facts and data. That is because nature does not conform to mere facts and concepts. Facts are only about the characteristics and behavior of nature, but fail to tell us exactly what nature actually is. But if facts are what you are after, fine. If you want to understand what the true nature of the Universe and of yourself is, then science is not the correct tool.

You say that 'my version' of reality is dogma, but that is not true. It is based on my own experience and insight, corroborated by others independently of each other throughout history. Dogma is the hardening of doctrine, but where is the doctrine I have espoused? Reality itself has no doctrine, and it's apprehension must also be doctrineless. Religion, of course, approaches reality via doctrine and dogma, but even science is guilty. It assumes that the universe is physical and real in nature, and builds upon those assumptions. Quantum Mechanics now tells us otherwise, doesn't it?

I'm glad that science is providing you the security and comfort you seek by feeding your brain more and more facts. Religion does the same via belief, as it temporarily relieves men of metaphysical anxiety. But you must realize that both facts and beliefs are dead things, as they are based on memory, and memory is merely the traces of the dead past. The mystical view, OTOH, is based on what is, here and now, and the realization of the mystical experience is the merging of the observer with the observed, reflecting perfectly the fact that there is, in reality, no such separate observer and observed. Deepak Chopra tells us that this experience is where

"the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality".

That is not dogma or doctrine; it is the direct apprehension and experience of Reality itself, without Reason, Logic, Analysis, Concept, Fact, Data, or Mind in the way of the experience.

So as long as you see the Universe in terms of Time, Space, and Causation, you will continue to see change as things interacting with each other; but when you drop those conceptual filters, you will see the Universe as it actually is: The Absolute; The Changeless, just as one finally sees the 'snake' for what it is: the rope. You simply fail to realize just how conditioned your view actually is, but that is the nature of conditioning, and science is an extremely conditioned and tightly controlled view of Reality. The only way to get to the right view of Reality is to open the mind completely so that one's view is completely unconditioned, and simply sees things as they actually are, instead of how the thinking mind tells us they are.

Good luck to you in your journey, and thanks for the discusssion.

"

If you drop all those filters, you should theoretically see or experience nothing, no consciousness, no bliss, no reality, because there would be nothing to see or experience or even realize that reality with. I would call that non-reality. On the other hand, if you have seen, or experienced, or realized something, it is only because that in itself was an interaction. That which was "realized" necessarily interacted in some way with you to allow the reality to be known.


I also thank you for the discussion, and good luck to you as well.

 

[godnotgod]

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?

Your logic is misleading you. You cannot interpret that which is limitless via that which is limited. The limited view of science at best, can only point to the limitless, the Infinte. Science wants to measure, categorize, and predict the behavior of nature, but it cannot measure the immeasurable. That is what you are attempting to do. The Infinite is indefinable.

Pure Consciousness, sat-chit-ananda, exists outside of Time, Space, and Causation. It is responsible for the maya that is zero-point energy and what you call interaction. IOW, Pure Consciousness is BEFORE all things. It is Absolute Nothingness, out of which emerges Everything, but Everything is just a dream of The Absolute.

 

[godnotgod]

If you drop all those filters, you should theoretically see or experience nothing....

Have you ever experienced absolutely Nothing? The freedom is exhilarating and liberating. No dogma, doctrine, belief, fact or no-fact, no good or bad, wrong or right: just pure, unadulterated liberation. That is the true experience of Higher Consciousness. Why? Because at last you will see and experience that which was right under your very nose all along: Absolute Joy.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Your logic is misleading you. You cannot interpret that which is limitless via that which is limited. The limited view of science at best, can only point to the limitless, the Infinte. Science wants to measure, categorize, and predict the behavior of nature, but it cannot measure the immeasurable. That is what you are attempting to do. The Infinite is indefinable.

Pure Consciousness, sat-chit-ananda, exists outside of Time, Space, and Causation. It is responsible for the maya that is zero-point energy and what you call interaction. IOW, Pure Consciousness is BEFORE all things. It is Absolute Nothingness, out of which emerges Everything, but Everything is just a dream of The Absolute.

You cannot experience or realize absolute nothingness because that is non-existence. Nothingness is responsible for exactly that...nothing, not even those "illusions". Nothing comes out of nothing, no joy, no liberation, nothing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I see now... It is like with most any spiritual belief. There is always some higher, exalted reward to be obtained in following a certain way or path. Some want to reach heaven, others want enlightenment. I don't care about either. I'm not lookng to gain or to make any great realizations. I simply do as the universe does...I interact as One with the universe and will continue to do so in one form or another.

 

[godnotgod]

You cannot experience or realize absolute nothingness because that is non-existence. Nothingness is responsible for exactly that...nothing, not even those "illusions". Nothing comes out of nothing, no joy, no liberation, nothing.

That is what you conceptualize with your thinking mind, but you are mistaking existence for Being. If nothing comes out of Nothing, where do you suppose Everything comes from? Careful....

 

[godnotgod]

I see now... It is like with most any spiritual belief. There is always some higher, exaulted reward to be obtained in following a certain way or path. Some want to reach heaven, others want enlightenment. I don't care about either. I'm not lookng to gain or to make any great realizations. I simply do as the universe does...I interact as One with the universe and will continue to do so in one form or another.

Again, you are mistaken. Nothing ever 'becomes' enlightened; you already are enlightened. But you are correct in your assessment of seeking; what is being sought after is already the case. But you don't do anything, though you think you do. The universe is doing you, but you still think there is a separate 'I' in relation to the Universe. There is no such 'I'. You are IT, playing the game of Hide and Seek, pretending you're not IT, pretending to 'interact' with IT. You won't fully understand that until you awaken. Until then, you will continue to think you are a separate ego acting upon the world. Where is this 'self' and 'other', locked in interactive embrace?

 

[Runewolf1973]

That is what you conceptualize with your thinking mind, but you are mistaking existence for Being. If nothing comes out of Nothing, where do you suppose Everything comes from? Careful....

Everything must come from something. Even those "illusions" as you call them come from something or are the result of something. That is interaction. I suppose there is a Unified Field, but it is only speculation.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Again, you are mistaken. Nothing ever 'becomes' enlightened; you already are enlightened. But you are correct in your assessment of seeking; what is being sought after is already the case. But you don't do anything, though you think you do. The universe is doing you, but you still think there is a separate 'I' in relation to the Universe. There is no such 'I'. You are IT, playing the game of Hide and Seek, pretending you're not IT, pretending to 'interact' with IT. You won't fully understand that until you awaken. Until then, you will continue to think you are a separate ego acting upon the world. Where is this 'self' and 'other', locked in interactive embrace?

The universe is One unit (you are IT) acting as though it were many, but acting (interacting) nevertheless.

 

[godnotgod]

Everything must come from something. Even those "illusions" as you call them come from something or are the result of something. That is interaction. I suppose there is a Unified Field, but it is only speculation.

The idea of 'coming from', 'interaction', 'becoming', etc. are all workings of the mind.

If, as you say, 'everything must come from something', then tell me where the original 'something' came from. Now you are invoking the Law of Infinite Regression. Both Science and Religion have been trying to 'figure out' this dilemma since Day One, and are still trying, although religion has conveniently driven a square peg into a round hole to end the question. Try again.

 

[godnotgod]

The universe is One unit (you are IT) acting as though it were many, but acting (interacting) nevertheless.

It cannot be both. 'acting as if' is pretension. It is illusion. It is not really action of any kind, just as virtual mass is not real mass.

A dream in which you are interacting with a tiger is not really interacting. It is just a dream, just as this reality is just a dream.

 

[godnotgod]

Everything must come from something. Even those "illusions" as you call them come from something or are the result of something. That is interaction. I suppose there is a Unified Field, but it is only speculation.

Watch the video yet?

 

[Runewolf1973]

The idea of 'coming from', 'interaction', 'becoming', etc. are all workings of the mind.

If, as you say, 'everything must come from something', then tell me where the original 'something' came from. Now you are invoking the Law of Infinite Regression. Both Science and Religion have been trying to 'figure out' this dilemma since Day One, and are still trying, although religion has conveniently driven a square peg into a round hole to end the question. Try again.

I am confident science will find that original something one day, but until then we can only speculate.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It cannot be both. 'acting as if' is pretension. It is illusion. It is not really action of any kind, just as virtual mass is not real mass.

A dream in which you are interacting with a tiger is not really interacting. It is just a dream, just as this reality is just a dream.

It may be an illusion, but seeing something there if there was in fact nothing is called a hallucination, not an illusion. Dreaming requires brain activity.

 

[godnotgod]

I am confident science will find that original something one day, but until then we can only speculate.

OMG! If science does indeed find this 'original something', the scientific question to ask at that point will of course be:

'now where the hell did THIS come from?!'

And then someone smart finally answers:

'Well, it obviously came from.....er...Nothing!'

'Yes, I see...I see'

 

[godnotgod]

It may be an illusion, but seeing something there if there was in fact nothing is called a hallucination, not an illusion. Dreaming requires brain activity.

And brain activity and dreaming both require consciousness.

It's not that you see something there as object; it's that the seeing itself is a state of unconditioned consciousness, not seeing anything in particular. There is no observer of the observed in Higher Consciousness. Seeing = realization = Enlightenment

 

[Runewolf1973]

And brain activity and dreaming both require consciousness.

Consciousness is a form of interaction.