Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Runewolf1973]

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'

I understand your point. It is kinda like the whole Panspermia thing. Instead of figuring out where life actually came from they just say it must have come from somewhere else which does not answer the original question. If that something "came from" nothing would still indicate an interaction. The way I see it, interaction IS the act of "becoming". It is the power to Be something. Interaction is Being. Non-interaction is not-being.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is a form of interaction.

interaction with what?

 

[godnotgod]

The way I see it, interaction IS the act of "becoming". It is the power to Be something. Interaction is Being. Non-interaction is not-being.

All an illusion, my friend...all an illusion.

"Look at this world: Beings, afflicted with thick ignorance, are unreleased from passion for what has come to be. All levels of becoming, anywhere, in any way, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change. Seeing this—as it has come to be— with right discernment, one abandons craving for becoming, without delighting in non-becoming. From the total ending of craving comes dispassion & cessation without remainder: Unbinding. For the monk unbound, through lack of clinging/sustenance, there is no further becoming. He has conquered Mara, won the battle, having gone beyond becomings"— Such. — Ud 3:10

The importance of becoming is evident from the role it plays in the four noble truths, particularly in the second: Suffering and stress are caused by any form of craving that leads to becoming. Thus the end of suffering must involve the end of becoming.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/paradoxofbecoming.pdf

Becoming is the process of entering into the state of Identification, the third level of conscious awareness, in which one thinks oneself awake. Not-becoming is the state of The Unborn, the cessation of suffering. The person in the state of Identification is a fictional character.

 

[Shad]

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.

Nope, go read the link to confirmation and cultural bias'. You fit the bill. Your existing cultural belief system is read into quote. Thanks for proving you have a bias but are obvious to it even when openly supporting it. It matters it was from a computer as you 1. Thought it was from Deepak, 2. Proceeded to read whatever meaning you wanted into it once you thought it was from Deepak. You responded to a fictitious quote with your bias. You have an error in your logic thus reasoning. Try again, son.

"A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases."

"Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations)."

 

[Runewolf1973]

All an illusion, my friend...all an illusion.

"Look at this world: Beings, afflicted with thick ignorance, are unreleased from passion for what has come to be. All levels of becoming, anywhere, in any way, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change. Seeing this—as it has come to be— with right discernment, one abandons craving for becoming, without delighting in non-becoming. From the total ending of craving comes dispassion & cessation without remainder: Unbinding. For the monk unbound, through lack of clinging/sustenance, there is no further becoming. He has conquered Mara, won the battle, having gone beyond becomings"— Such. — Ud 3:10

The importance of becoming is evident from the role it plays in the four noble truths, particularly in the second: Suffering and stress are caused by any form of craving that leads to becoming. Thus the end of suffering must involve the end of becoming.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/paradoxofbecoming.pdf

Becoming is the process of entering into the state of Identification, the third level of conscious awareness, in which one thinks oneself awake. Not-becoming is the state of The Unborn, the cessation of suffering. The person in the state of Identification is a fictional character.

If you have already reached that realization, then why are you still interacting with me? Why do you persist?

 

[godnotgod]

Nope, go read the link to confirmation and cultural bias'. You fit the bill. Your existing cultural belief system is read into quote. Thanks for proving you have a bias but are obvious to it even when openly supporting it. It matters it was from a computer as you 1. Thought it was from Deepak, 2. Proceeded to read whatever meaning you wanted into it once you thought it was from Deepak. You responded to a fictitious quote with your bias. You have an error in your logic thus reasoning. Try again, son.

"A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases."

"Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations)."

I understand what you're saying here, but confirmation bias first requires a belief or hypothesis to side with. HC, as I keep telling you, is not a belief. It is only YOUR belief that it is. I know better than you, because I have had the experience of HC, while you are still looking at it from the POV of your conceptual framework. HC is outside of conceptual frameworks. That is why it can be called HC. It is free of the taint of opinion, belief, doctrine, etc. Now, having said all that, when I read the bit about the tea, with nothing else around it, I saw that it coincided perfectly with the philosophy of the tea ceremony in Japan, which, as I told you, is an extension of the spiritual culture in Japan. It's as simple as that. You want to add a lot of excess baggage to the issue that suits your 'position' that HC is a belief, when, in fact, you don't actually know what you're talking about. Sorry.

edit: As I understand it, the computer generated statements were a mix of Chopra's statements. It just so happened that the computer hit upon one (there may be others) that actually do make sense from a HC POV. The one you chose was a BINGO! Hilarious is right. Mystics, having had enough spiritual experiences, know when to recognize what rings true and what does not. In this case the computer's choices reflected bits of Chopra's insights ending up making perfect sense, unbeknownst to you and the other idiots trying to make a fool of Chopra.

 

[Shad]

I understand what you're saying here, but confirmation bias first requires a belief or hypothesis to side with. HC, as I keep telling you, is not a belief. It is only YOUR belief that it is.

Irrelevant as to what you wish to call it. Since your view lacks evidence it is a belief and one of faith. Also the quote was not about HC but you reading what you wanted into a computer generated quote. Red herring thus your point is worthless.

I know better than you, because I have had the experience of HC, while you are still looking at it from the POV of your conceptual framework. HC is outside of conceptual frameworks. That is why it can be called HC. It is free of the taint of opinion, belief, doctrine, etc. Now, having said all that, when I read the bit about the tea, with nothing else around it, I saw that it coincided perfectly with the philosophy of the tea ceremony in Japan, which, as I told you, is an extension of the spiritual culture in Japan. It's as simple as that. You want to add a lot of excess baggage to the issue that suits your 'position' that HC is a belief, when, in fact, you don't actually know what you're talking about. Sorry.

There goes that inflated sense of ego based on religious appeals of telling its followers that they are some how are more intelligent or knowledgeable since they are willing to accept claims and placebo effects at face value.

The frame work applies regardless of what you think. If HC is not bound by reason it is irrational. If HC is not bound by logic it is illogical. If HC has no evidence it is a position of faith.

You also just repeated your confirmation bias as if it was valid. however since you have no idea what a fallacy is your just admitted to your fallacious reasoning but are ignorant and oblivious of the implications of just such a statement.

 

[godnotgod]

If you have already reached that realization, then why are you still interacting with me? Why do you persist?

Because I thoroughly enjoy the discussion of spiritual matters. I see a lot of intelligent people on these forums, esp. people like Ben and Anatu. They exhibit a love of knowledge that I admire.

 

[godnotgod]

Irrelevant as to what you wish to call it. Since your view lacks evidence it is a belief and one of faith. Also the quote was not about HC but you reading what you wanted into a computer generated quote. Red herring thus your point is worthless.

To the contrary, yours is worthless, as you still fail to understand that the the computer picked phrases are from Chopra and are randomly put them together in a way that makes sense from a spiritual POV, overturning the apple cart of those who thought they were making a point, including you. Your silly example has backfired on you, and now you think you are boy scientist who can apply scientific criteria to the issue, but you just keep putting foot in mouth. You don't know what you're talking about, period. Otherwise, tell me about how you have tested HC by sitting on your meditation mat and what your inner experiences have shown you. You can't because you haven't, and continue to blurt out opinion after opinion from the comfort of your armchair. The bottom line is that you refuse to go topside to take a look at the report of a Sun outside your cave of Reason, relying instead on those dancing cave wall shadows you call 'reality'.

The frame work applies regardless of what you think. If HC is not bound by reason it is irrational. If HC is not bound by logic it is illogical. If HC has no evidence it is a position of faith.

Your method is that of black vs white, the workings of the dualistic mind. You can see no other way. If it is not this, then, of course, it must be that. How quaint. How illogical and irrational.

I repeat: HC is beyond all frameworks as it is UNCONDITIONED CONSCIOUSNESS. Get it? Being uncondtioned consciousness, it is neither rational nor irrational; logical nor illogical. It is outside of those parameters. But you can't understand that, because your mind is in a conditioned, reactive state, and you see no other way.

You can't make a fool of Chopra simply because he is no fool. He is, in fact, a genius, whose knowledge is way over your simplistic black and white view. You haven't the slightest understanding of Eastern wisdom, dismissing it as woo with your western ideas of a superior knowledge you call reason and science, simply because you don't know any better. The first step people like you must take, if you are going to make any real progress, is to first be humbled. We all must experience humility at some time. What is it they say? 'The bigger they are, the harder....'..something like that.

 

[Shad]

To the contrary, yours is worthless, as you still fail to understand that the the computer picked phrases are from Chopra and are randomly put them together in a way that makes sense from a spiritual POV, overturning the apple cart of those who thought they were making a point, including you. Your silly example has backfired on you, and now you think you are boy scientist who can apply scientific criteria to the issue, but you just keep putting foot in mouth. You don't know what you're talking about, period. Otherwise, tell me about how you have tested HC by sitting on your meditation mat and what your inner experiences have shown you. You can't because you haven't, and continue to blurt out opinion after opinion from the comfort of your armchair. The bottom line is that you refuse to go topside to take a look at the report of a Sun outside your cave of Reason, relying instead on those dancing cave wall shadows you call 'reality'.

Nope. You are the one that places HC beyond reason and logic thus evidence. So HC is not a fact but a belief from a position of faith by definition and your own argument.

You fail to realize the site was a made to mock Deepak not support him.It shows Deepak sheep couldn't figure out the difference between something from software and something from Deepak. Let me quote the site's own information again. You not only validated this claim, you thought it was from Deepak thus show you are a Deepak sheep at the same time. My argument didn't backfire as you keep confirming it over and over as you have done so above. Keep talking bout your HC shadows and avoid reason. Plato was spot on in identifying people such as yourself in your cave.

The bottom line is that you have zero evidence for your claims. Deepak is a known fraud. He is a known neuroscientist. He paddles a scam which you are invested in while you find deep meaning in talking to yourself and your placebo effect. Self-reflection isn't very complex and does not lead to any form of higher consciousness.


"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."

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Your method is that of black vs white, the workings of the dualistic mind. You can see no other way. If it is not this, then, of course, it must be that. How quaint. How illogical and irrational.

Wrong as dualistic minds are a form of spirituality of mind and body as separate not a form of black and white thinking. You confuse my rejection of a view which has no evidence in support as black and white thinking. More so it is rational to reject that which has no evidence. So you provide evidence that you, again, do not understand logic nor reason by the very definitions of the words. Again you flip-flop in your use of reason and logic. By your own argument HC is beyond by reason thus it is not illogical not irrational to dismiss that which is not rational or logical. It's the very definition of these words. then you admit HC is now beyond reason and logic since you declared my dismissal of the view as illogical and irrational. However this can only happen if reason and logic can be applied to HC. I love the double-standard you put forward when it suits your argument and when it does not. Even when it is within the same post. Hilarious

I repeat: HC is beyond all frameworks as it is UNCONDITIONED CONSCIOUSNESS. Get it? Being uncondtioned consciousness, it is neither rational nor irrational; logical nor illogical. It is outside of those parameters. But you can't understand that, because your mind is in a conditioned, reactive state, and you see no other way.

Sophistry. You confuse my rejection of your claims with not understanding your claims. There is a difference, figure it out. You also contradicts your last point.

You can't make a fool of Chopra simply because he is no fool. He is, in fact, a genius, whose knowledge is way over your black and white head. You haven't the slightest understanding of Eastern wisdom, dismissing it as woo with your western ideas of a superior knowledge you call reason and science, simply because you don't know any better. The first step people like you must take, if you are going to make any real progress, is to first be humbled. We all must experience humility at some time. What is it they say? 'The bigger they are, the harder....'..something like that.

I can not make Deepak into a fool as he already is one.

Reason and logic are not solely the products of the West but also the East. Reason and logic are developed and refined in every major culture. It is a process which humans all over the world developed and continue to do so. You confuse your Eastern mysticism with all Eastern philosophy. Take a few university level course in logic and philosophy for a proper education. Your view of the East/West dynamic is typical of those that were never exposed to philosophy in a formal setting

 

[Runewolf1973]

interaction with what?

Time and again I have seen you refer to and post videos and articles from particle physicist Dr. John Hagelin. You seem to be fond of his work. Are you aware of the term "self-interacting" which he uses quite frequently to describe his ideas regarding consciousness and the Unified Field? Here is a quote...

"From its purely self-interacting dynamics, the unified field creates from within itself all the particles and forces that compose the universe, and all the diversified streams of natural law governing the nuclear, atomic, molecular, and macroscopic levels."

This is precisely what I mean when I refer to interaction on that much deeper level. It is the universe interacting with itself. Self-interaction. I have also seen the term "self-interaction" used by some Vedic teachers to describe that Ultimate Reality or Pure Consciousness. I still find myself questioning any particle physicist who uses the term "consciousness" to describe the nature of a Unified Field, but I can accept and agree with the idea of "self interaction". Interaction is fundamental. Perhaps that Ultimate Reality or Unified Field IS self-interacting. That's what I was trying to get at anyways, I just never thought to put the word "self" in front of "interaction", but it makes sense that way.

Here are a few quotes from Deepak Chopra himself...

"The world is a self interaction in an infinite, unbounded consciousness that is experiencing itself."

"The world appearance is self interaction in awareness."

"All perception is self interaction."

Therefore, as per your question... It can be said that consciousness is the universe interacting with itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Time and again I have seen you refer to and post videos and articles from particle physicist Dr. John Hagelin. You seem to be fond of his work. Are you aware of the term "self-interacting" which he uses quite frequently to describe his ideas regarding consciousness and the Unified Field? Here is a quote...

"From its purely self-interacting dynamics, the unified field creates from within itself all the particles and forces that compose the universe, and all the diversified streams of natural law governing the nuclear, atomic, molecular, and macroscopic levels."

This is precisely what I mean when I refer to interaction on that much deeper level. It is the universe interacting with itself. Self-interaction. I have also seen the term "self-interaction" used by some Vedic teachers to describe that Ultimate Reality or Pure Consciousness. I still find myself questioning any particle physicist who uses the term "consciousness" to describe the nature of a Unified Field, but I can accept and agree with the idea of "self interaction". Interaction is fundamental. Perhaps that Ultimate Reality or Unified Field IS self-interacting. That's what I was trying to get at anyways, I just never thought to put the word "self" in front of "interaction", but it makes sense that way.

Here are a few quotes from Deepak Chopra himself...

"The world is a self interaction in an infinite, unbounded consciousness that is experiencing itself."

"The world appearance is self interaction in awareness."

"All perception is self interaction."

Therefore, as per your question... It can be said that consciousness is the universe interacting with itself.

Of course. As I said, from the POV of conditioned awareness, this world is real and active; but from the POV of Higher Consciousness, it is not. Mystics who talk about this world to others must use their language and understanding as a handle when only referring to the world. But notice what Chopra actually says. In each of his statements, he refers to self-interaction and the world as events in perception, awareness, or consciousness.

Chopra also says:

'Time does not exist as an absolute, but only eternity. What we call linear time is a reflection of how we perceive change. If we could perceive the changeless, time would cease to exist as we know it. We can learn to start metabolizing non-change, eternity, the absolute. By doing that, we will be ready to create the physiology of immortality.'

And if time were to cease to exist, there can be no change; no change, no interaction. But the reality is that time is only a concept; it does not actually exist, and so neither does change. Only The Changeless is real.

As for Hagelin's comment, the unified field creates the universe, but the mass of the particles of the universe are virtual in nature. But if you listen to his videos, he is also saying that the unified field is pure consciousness. IOW, it is non-material, and being non-material, whatever 'interactions' take place, such as the Big Bang, are events in consciousness, and not real material events of particles interacting with one another. The problem in seeing the world in interaction is that the level of the illusion is of a higher calibre than that of the ordinary illusion. It is perceived as having touch, smell, taste, sound, visibility, and so appears 'real' and 'interacting', just as dream-objects appear as such. But dream-objects vanish upon awakeing, whereas the objects in this 'material' world do not, making the illusion far more convincing.

 

[godnotgod]

Nope. You are the one that places HC beyond reason and logic thus evidence. So HC is not a fact but a belief from a position of faith by definition and your own argument.

Wrong. It is not a fact, belief, nor faith about something; it is that very something.

.. the site was a made to mock Deepak not support him.

Yep. That's what I said.

. My argument didn't backfire as you keep confirming it..

Making tea is part of the spiritual culture of Japan. The quote you provided actually said that, and I confirmed it. Where it came from is irrelevant, unless you want to argue that making tea is NOT part of a spiritual culture.

Self-reflection isn't very complex and does not lead to any form of higher consciousness.

There is no guarantee that it will, and you are a shining example.

"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."

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Again, monkey minds such as those who are trying to make a fool of Chopra cannot distinguish between the two. They really think they've got something here, and so do you.

Wrong as dualistic minds are a form of spirituality of mind and body as separate not a form of black and white thinking. You confuse my rejection of a view which has no evidence in support as black and white thinking. More so it is rational to reject that which has no evidence. So you provide evidence that you, again, do not understand logic nor reason by the very definitions of the words. Again you flip-flop in your use of reason and logic. By your own argument HC is beyond by reason thus it is not illogical not irrational to dismiss that which is not rational or logical. It's the very definition of these words. then you admit HC is now beyond reason and logic since you declared my dismissal of the view as illogical and irrational. However this can only happen if reason and logic can be applied to HC. I love the double-standard you put forward when it suits your argument and when it does not. Even when it is within the same post. Hilarious

No, the dualistic mentality sees the relative values as in opposition to one another, as two, whereas the enlightened see them as complimentary, as one. You only see rational as opposed to irrational. You cannot envision something beyond this dualistic thinking.

Sophistry. You confuse my rejection of your claims with not understanding your claims. There is a difference, figure it out. You also contradicts your last point.

What I've figured out is that you don't understand the very tools of thinking you so espouse. Your awareness is in a conditioned state, but you don't realize it. You've been indoctrinated to see things in a particular way, and if something does not meet those criteria, you have an automatic knee-jerk rejection of it, dictated by your entrenched system of thought hardwired into your brain. HC is free of all that baggage. It is beyond the dictates of Reason, and the irrational is defined by the rational. HC is not defined by either. Sorry you are having trouble understanding this simple thing.

Reason and logic are not solely the products of the West but also the East. Reason and logic are developed and refined in every major culture. It is a process which humans all over the world developed and continue to do so. You confuse your Eastern mysticism with all Eastern philosophy. Take a few university level course in logic and philosophy for a proper education. Your view of the East/West dynamic is typical of those that were never exposed to philosophy in a formal setting

I have been.

But I did not say Eastern philosophy or mysticism; I said Eastern wisdom, which is always transcendent of Reason.

Easterners are as subject to delusion as much as Westerners, and the attempt to interpret the world in terms of Reason and Logic fail in both instances. Eastern wisdom came about as a consequence of such failure, a failure resulting in metaphysical anxiety, an anxiety which in turn cannot be addressed via Reason and Logic. That was the primary focus of the Buddha, who solved the dilemma via a spiritual awakening, ie Higher Consciousness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Of course. As I said, from the POV of conditioned awareness, this world is real and active; but from the POV of Higher Consciousness, it is not. Mystics who talk about this world to others must use their language and understanding as a handle when only referring to the world. But notice what Chopra actually says. In each of his statements, he refers to self-interaction and the world as events in perception, awareness, or consciousness.

Chopra also says:

'Time does not exist as an absolute, but only eternity. What we call linear time is a reflection of how we perceive change. If we could perceive the changeless, time would cease to exist as we know it. We can learn to start metabolizing non-change, eternity, the absolute. By doing that, we will be ready to create the physiology of immortality.'

And if time were to cease to exist, there can be no change; no change, no interaction. But the reality is that time is only a concept; it does not actually exist, and so neither does change. Only The Changeless is real.

As for Hagelin's comment, the unified field creates the universe, but the mass of the particles of the universe are virtual in nature. But if you listen to his videos, he is also saying that the unified field is pure consciousness. IOW, it is non-material, and being non-material, whatever 'interactions' take place, such as the Big Bang, are events in consciousness, and not real material events of particles interacting with one another. The problem in seeing the world in interaction is that the level of the illusion is of a higher calibre than that of the ordinary illusion. It is perceived as having touch, smell, taste, sound, visibility, and so appears 'real' and 'interacting', just as dream-objects appear as such. But dream-objects vanish upon awakeing, whereas the objects in this 'material' world do not, making the illusion far more convincing.

How are the higher caliber illusions generated out of pure nothingness? Why are there these "illusions" to begin with? What purpose do they serve in the grand scheme of things?

 

[godnotgod]

How are the higher caliber illusions generated out of pure nothingness? Why are there these "illusions" to begin with? What purpose do they serve in the grand scheme of things?

The Absolute dreams this world and then wants to become involved in it's play. But in order to do so, it must thoroughly forget it is The Absolute so that it can play all the parts of the Universe fully. IOW, it must lose itself in Identification and play the cosmic game of Hide and Seek with itself.

When we dream, we are uninhibited in the dream role action, and have completely forgotten it is a dream and that there is an awakened existence beyond the dream.

 

[Shad]

Wrong. It is not a fact, belief, nor faith about something; it is that very something.

If it is something then it is a fact. If it is not a fact then it is a belief or non-existent. Nice try is your sophistry

Yep. That's what I said.

Yet you read deep meaning into that mocking then defending that deep meaning. Hilarious.

Making tea is part of the spiritual culture of Japan. The quote you provided actually said that, and I confirmed it. Where it came from is irrelevant, unless you want to argue that making tea is NOT part of a spiritual culture.

Defend it with confirmation bias no less which was the point. You read what you wanted to into the quote thinking it was from Deepak. Hilarious.

There is no guarantee that it will, and you are a shining example.

There is no fact it does and you are evidence of that. Higher consciousness should make one more capable while you are anything but capable.

Again, monkey minds such as those who are trying to make a fool of Chopra cannot distinguish between the two. They really think they've got something here, and so do you.

So says the fool that read deep meaning into a software quote when he thought it was from Deepak following typical fallacious reasoning with confirmation bias. Hilarious, you made an error in logic then defend it. This is evidence of how illogical you are.

http://landman-psychology.com/ConfirmationBias.pdf

Deepak has zero evidence. He knows zero about QM yet this does not stop him from making grand claims. After all fools pay him a lot of money for his empty claims as you have done.

No, the dualistic mentality sees the relative values as in opposition to one another, as two, whereas the enlightened see them as complimentary, as one. You only see rational as opposed to irrational. You cannot envision something beyond this dualistic thinking.

Useless sophistry backed by nothing but wishful thinking. You have opened your mind so much that you are gullible to any claim. Nevermind that you used reason when it suited you but then retreated back to your sophistry when said reason turned against your silly irrational beliefs. There goes that inflated sense of self-worth. Son, if you are enlightened with your fallacious reasoning I want no part of it. It shows the word has little value anymore if people such as yourself toss it around as if you were enlightened.

What I've figured out is that you don't understand the very tools of thinking you so espouse. Your awareness is in a conditioned state, but you don't realize it. You've been indoctrinated to see things in a particular way, and if something does not meet those criteria, you have an automatic knee-jerk rejection of it, dictated by your entrenched system of thought hardwired into your brain. HC is free of all that baggage. It is beyond the dictates of Reason, and the irrational is defined by the rational. HC is not defined by either. Sorry you are having trouble understanding this simple thing.

This is hilarious coming from the same person reading confirmation bias into a software quote. Useless sophistry again No son, irrational is defined by that which is not rational which you admit HC is. Again you demonstrated your sophistry and poor sophistry at that.

I have been.

But I did not say Eastern philosophy or mysticism; I said Eastern wisdom, which is always transcendent of Reason.

Doubtful as you wouldn't make a basic mistake in assuming reason and logic are products of Western philosophy which you made a comparison of. Also you would know Eastern wisdom is synonymous with Eastern philosophy.

Easterners are as subject to delusion as much as Westerners, and the attempt to interpret the world in terms of Reason and Logic fail in both instances. Eastern wisdom came about as a consequence of such failure, a failure resulting in metaphysical anxiety, an anxiety which in turn cannot be addressed via Reason and Logic. That was the primary focus of the Buddha, who solved the dilemma via a spiritual awakening, ie Higher Consciousness.

Which is eastern mysticism which is part of Eastern philosophy which you just denied referencing. Again demonstrating my doubt is well founded and you spout sophistry from no basis beside pop-culture books. Budda created a philosophy, you would know this if you had actually taken the classes you claim. Buddhism in its basic form is still veiled in superstitious claptrap

 

[godnotgod]

If it is something then it is a fact. If it is not a fact then it is a belief or non-existent. Nice try is your sophistry

It is something far beyond mere fact or belief, and yet it is right under your nose. But you are so filled with your own opinions and ideas you cannot see it.

Yet you read deep meaning into that mocking then defending that deep meaning. Hilarious.

What is hilarious is the monkey mind thinking it to be 'deep meaning'. Oooooooh!

Defend it with confirmation bias no less which was the point. You read what you wanted to into the quote thinking it was from Deepak. Hilarious.

Well, DUH! It WAS from Deepak!

There is no fact it does and you are evidence of that. Higher consciousness should make one more capable while you are anything but capable.

It is you who is incapable of seeing beyond the rational mind as you are filled with its baggage that keeps your mind enslaved and locked onto those dancing cave wall shadows, refusing to come out to see the glorious Sun.

Deepak has zero evidence. He knows zero about QM yet this does not stop him from making grand claims. After all fools pay him a lot of money for his empty claims as you have done.

I have paid him zilch.

He knows more about the nature of QM than do the Quantum physicists, and certainly more than you.

Useless sophistry backed by nothing but wishful thinking. You have opened your mind so much that you are gullible to any claim. Nevermind that you used reason when it suited you but then retreated back to your sophistry when said reason turned against your silly irrational beliefs. There goes that inflated sense of self-worth. Son, if you are enlightened with your fallacious reasoning I want no part of it. It shows the word has little value anymore if people such as yourself toss it around as if you were enlightened.

You only say all that because you are ignorant of how the enlightened mind sees the dual world. I happen to know that what I've said is the case. The unenlightened, such as yourself, see the world in dual terms, black vs white, which you continue to demonstrate by your insistence that if something is not rationally based, then it must be irrational. The enlightened see the relative values as one, and are transcendent of them, such as in:

This is hilarious coming from the same person reading confirmation bias into a software quote. Useless sophistry again No son, irrational is defined by that which is not rational which you admit HC is. Again you demonstrated your sophistry and poor sophistry at that.

You are mistaken. The irrational can only be understood as such via the rational, and vice versa. That is why they are considered to be relative one to the other. They are inseparable.

I never read a software quote; I read a string of Chopra's words, which I confirmed as true via my own knowledge of Eastern wisdom, and which I demonstrated to be the case via example.

I see you've descended into cheap condescension as a tactic. Doesn't work with me. Hip to your trix. Besides, I'm smarter than you, but not in the way you think, though you think you've got me over a barrel.

Doubtful as you wouldn't make a basic mistake in assuming reason and logic are products of Western philosophy which you made a comparison of. Also you would know Eastern wisdom is synonymous with Eastern philosophy.

You again are mistaken: not synonymous. All Eastern wisdom is the outcome of the mystical experience, which has nothing to do with philosophy. Mystics are not philosophers.

Which is eastern mysticism which is part of Eastern philosophy which you just denied referencing. Again demonstrating my doubt is well founded and you spout sophistry from no basis beside pop-culture books. Budda created a philosophy, you would know this if you had actually taken the classes you claim. Buddhism in its basic form is still veiled in superstitious claptrap

Buddha created a way of practice to end suffering. It is called the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths. All of his teachings come from direct insight into the nature of Reality. His were not philosophical ramblings. The orthodox teachings and schools followed his initial spiritual transformation. That is always the case for any original teacher and his teachings.

Show me the superstition in Buddhism.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The Absolute dreams this world and then wants to become involved in it's play. But in order to do so, it must thoroughly forget it is The Absolute so that it can play all the parts of the Universe fully. IOW, it must lose itself in Identification and play the cosmic game of Hide and Seek with itself.

When we dream, we are uninhibited in the dream role action, and have completely forgotten it is a dream and that there is an awakened existence beyond the dream.

I would like to know specifically how the Absolute "dreams" this world. How does that dreaming occur or come about? BTW, dream is another verb and that is an action word. There are chemical and electrical interactions and changes in the brain which generate the lower level illusions in our dreams, but if according to Higher Reality there is non-action, what is resulting in those higher level illusions? How can there be play/Maya if there is nothing or no action creating the play/Maya?

 

[Shad]

It is something far beyond mere fact or belief, and yet it is right under your nose. But you are so filled with your own opinions and ideas you cannot see it.

Not really, it has not evidence thus is not a fact. It is not a thing thus not an object. It is a belief

What is hilarious is the monkey mind thinking it to be 'deep meaning'. Oooooooh!

You read meaning into a software quote. That is the definition of confirmation bias and show you filter everything through this scope. Keep in mind you first thought it was from Deepak in your own post. You still defend reading what you wanted into it. that is hilarious. It's like reading meaning into china cookies after dinner.

Well, DUH! It WAS from Deepak!

It wasn't from him thought. It was from software which created the ordering of words from a large collection of words. Deepak never said it. Again you demonstrate you do not read anything I post. for the 3rd time I will quote the site again since you have reading comprehension issue. Notice it say list of words not list of quotes. Try again son.

"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."

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

It is you who is incapable of seeing beyond the rational mind as you are filled with its baggage that keeps your mind enslaved and locked onto those dancing cave wall shadows, refusing to come out to see the glorious Sun.

You point still fails as the Sun was something Plato said you can reason about. HC you said you can not. Your analogy fails

I have paid him zilch.

He knows more about the nature of QM than do the Quantum physicists, and certainly more than you.

This is hilarious. Deepak who has no degree in physics knows more about QM than the physics working on it. Actually he knows less than me as I do not confuse a tool of observation for consciousness as he does with the slit experiment.



{quote]You only say all that because you are ignorant of how the enlightened mind sees the dual world. I happen to know that what I've said is the case. The unenlightened, such as yourself, see the world in dual terms, black vs white, which you continue to demonstrate by your insistence that if something is not rationally based, then it must be irrational. The enlightened see the relative values as one, and are transcendent of them, such as in: [/quote]

*Yawn* You work in a world in which any claim without evidence, reason or logic behind it is acceptable. That is called gullible.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gullible

You are mistaken. The irrational can only be understood as such via the rational, and vice versa. That is why they are considered to be relative one to the other. They are inseparable.

Irrational is not a thought process but a flaw in one. Try again son

I never read a software quote; I read a string of Chopra's words, which I confirmed as true via my own knowledge of Eastern wisdom, and which I demonstrated to be the case via example.

Actually you did, read your own posts again. you confirmed a software quote via confirmation bias. Hilarious.

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

I see you've descended into cheap condescension as a tactic. Doesn't work with me. Hip to your trix. Besides, I'm smarter than you, but not in the way you think, though you think you've got me over a barrel.

Pot meet kettle. Hilarious.

If you were smarter than me you would have read the links I posted rather then jumping to confirmation bias driven responses. Hilarious. You would also know Easter Philosophy helped develop reason and logic instead of assuming it was a product of the West. You placebo is giving you a false sense of self worth. Hilarious.

You again are mistaken: not synonymous. All Eastern wisdom is the outcome of the mystical experience, which has nothing to do with philosophy. Mystics are not philosophers.

You do realize that Western Philosophy also is based on mysticism? I guess you must of missed that class. More so the development of logic and reasoning in both become separate from the religious driven mysticism. Even modern and post-modern Western philosophers still talk about mysticism. Mysticism and Logic by Russel, Shape of Ancient Thought by McEvilley, Panini's work on the axiom system The issue is your confuse religious mysticism with all mysticism. You also assume all forms of mysticism are equal or even worth taking note of. You also support the caricature of Eastern thought is solely based on mysticism thus contains no reason nor logic. It is a common mistake with students at horrible schools or *cough* people that have not taken a philo 101 course.

Buddha created a way of practice to end suffering. It is called the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths. All of his teachings come from direct insight into the nature of Reality. His were not philosophical ramblings. The orthodox teachings and schools followed his initial spiritual transformation. That is always the case for any original teacher and his teachings.

Which still had the claptrap of Karma and Reincarnation has a sort of cosmic justice scale. Sure one can find something of value here and there but lets not pretend the superstitious claptrap is not there. Of course people attempt to remove or underplay these silly superstition but it still remain a core of the philosophy.

Show me the superstition in Buddhism.

See above

 

[godnotgod]

It wasn't from him thought. It was from software which created the ordering of words from a large collection of words. Deepak never said it.

You stated earlier that they were words spoken originally by Chopra, out of which were generated randomly by a computer. So they were spoken by him. The computer did not create those words.