Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Runewolf1973]

What Godnotgod is describing is something beyond the level of interaction and beyond change. That is a possibility and I do very much respect and I do like his perspective. All this interaction must come from somewhere or be generated in some way. I am willing to entertain the idea that is it all illusion generated by a higher reality, but I cannot prove or demonstrate any of that. When discussing this sort of thing with materialists, I will stick to the term interaction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

'...the sound and the fury, signifying nothing'

I am afraid, my dear runewolf, that you are quite taken in by maya, and don't realize it.

Admittedly so. I find maya more interesting than Pure Consciousness. I am very much taken in by the sciences, by the physical nature of things, by the interactive forces at play in the universe...by that "maya". I find it all quite fascinating. I do realize that. I have already made that greater realization you refer to as "Pure Consciousness/Being/Bliss", but I have come full circle. As the saying goes...

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

 

[Runewolf1973]

I asked: Who, or what, is it that is aware?

You said: Awareness Itself, and that is Pure Consciousness.

I said: So you yourself are none other than Pure Consciousness.

...since 'who or what', according to you, 'is awareness itself, which is pure consciousness'

I understand this and I know the Buddha was referencing maya when he referred to that which is impermanent. I agree. When I say interaction is everything, I am merely pointing out that interaction is everything we can see and identify scientifically. It IS that maya. No doubt there may be a higher reality, but it is beyond what we can observe scientifically or with our senses. Right now I am focusing on that observable.

 

[Desert Snake]

What Godnotgod is describing is something beyond the level of interaction and beyond change. That is a possibility and I do very much respect and I do like his perspective. All this interaction must come from somewhere or be generated in some way. I am willing to entertain the idea that is it all illusion generated by a higher reality, but I cannot prove or demonstrate any of that. When discussing this sort of thing with materialists, I will stick to the term interaction.

Fair enough.

 

[godnotgod]

I understand this and I know the Buddha was referencing maya when he referred to that which is impermanent. I agree. When I say interaction is everything, I am merely pointing out that interaction is everything we can see and identify scientifically. It IS that maya. No doubt there may be a higher reality, but it is beyond what we can observe scientifically or with our senses. Right now I am focusing on that observable.

But, you see, the seeming paradox is that what we see as maya is, in reality The Absolute. And so the Buddha stated this in this way:

'Buddha Mind is none other than Ordinary Mind'

In Zen we say:

'Chop wood; carry water.
How miraculous!'

IOW, the Ordinary and the Miraculous are one and the same.

..and lastly, as Vivekenanda has told us:

'The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

The 'higher reality' is found nowhere else but inside. This is the point the Buddha was making when he said that all sentient beings have Buddha nature, as contrasted to the historic Jesus, who was the sole recipient of the gifts of the Incarnation, at least as orthodox Christianity tells us. Mystical Christianity says that 'the kingdom of God is within you'; so everyone has it, and not just the historical Jesus.

So from the POV of conditioned awareness, which includes science, the world is real, interactive, and limited to what we can perceive via our senses and extensions of our senses. But from the POV of unconditioned awareness, it is not real. The only true Reality is The Changeless; Brahman; The Absolute. To say that everything is interaction and that it is the fundamental nature of the universe is to focus only on the foreground of existence, and to ignore the background. When you take the background into consideration, it becomes the fundamental nature of the universe, with the foreground (ie; the phenomenal world) simply being a manifestation of it. And so it is said that 'Everything comes out of Nothing'. In scientific terms, this amounts to all the universes emerging from the Unified Field, or Pure Consciousness. We can say Pure Consciousness because we now know that all mass created in the Quantum and Higgs fields is virtual mass, essentially rendering all 'material' reality as virtual reality. This is the new information that materialists are having a hard time with, and who tenaciously cling to the old materialist paradigm. But more and more scientists are seeing the light and letting this old paradigm go to embrace a new vision of the universe. This is part of what Deepak Chopra is describing as the next phase in man's evolution, pointing out that man's physical evolution is over. The new frontier is in Consciousness. That is why you are seeing so much upheaval in the world: the old guard refuses to give up its power, while at the same time the cat has been let out of the bag, and people are waking up all over the world to this new vision of the next step in their evolution. Those who refuse to let go of the materialist paradigm will die with it. After all, it's nothing more than a security device, as it provides a temporary relief from metaphysical anxiety, and we think there is, after all, something solid to rely on. But, as Zen tells us, the only relief from anxiety is when the Self settles naturally upon itself.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But, you see, the seeming paradox is that what we see as maya is, in reality The Absolute. And so the Buddha stated this in this way:

'Buddha Mind is none other than Ordinary Mind'

In Zen we say:

'Chop wood; carry water.
How miraculous!'

IOW, the Ordinary and the Miraculous are one and the same.

..and lastly, as Vivekenanda has told us:

'The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

The 'higher reality' is found nowhere else but inside. This is the point the Buddha was making when he said that all sentient beings have Buddha nature, as contrasted to the historic Jesus, who was the sole recipient of the gifts of the Incarnation, at least as orthodox Christianity tells us. Mystical Christianity says that 'the kingdom of God is within you'; so everyone has it, and not just the historical Jesus.

So from the POV of conditioned awareness, which includes science, the world is real, interactive, and limited to what we can perceive via our senses and extensions of our senses. But from the POV of unconditioned awareness, it is not real. The only true Reality is The Changeless; Brahman; The Absolute. To say that everything is interaction and that it is the fundamental nature of the universe is to focus only on the foreground of existence, and to ignore the background. When you take the background into consideration, it becomes the fundamental nature of the universe, with the foreground (ie; the phenomenal world) simply being a manifestation of it. And so it is said that 'Everything comes out of Nothing'. In scientific terms, this amounts to all the universes emerging from the Unified Field, or Pure Consciousness. We can say Pure Consciousness because we now know that all mass created in the Quantum and Higgs fields is virtual mass, essentially rendering all 'material' reality as virtual reality. This is the new information that materialists are having a hard time with, and who tenaciously cling to the old materialist paradigm. But more and more scientists are seeing the light and letting this old paradigm go to embrace a new vision of the universe. This is part of what Deepak Chopra is describing as the next phase in man's evolution, pointing out that man's physical evolution is over. The new frontier is in Consciousness. That is why you are seeing so much upheaval in the world: the old guard refuses to give up its power, while at the same time the cat has been let out of the bag, and people are waking up all over the world to this new vision of the next step in their evolution. Those who refuse to let go of the materialist paradigm will die with it. After all, it's nothing more than a security device, as it provides a temporary relief from metaphysical anxiety, and we think there is, after all, something solid to rely on. But, as Zen tells us, the only relief from anxiety is when the Self settles naturally upon itself.

Please refer to my post #1162. Sorry I edited it just before you posted this response.

 

[godnotgod]

Admittedly so. I find maya more interesting than Pure Consciousness. I am very much taken in by the sciences, by the physical nature of things, by the interactive forces at play in the universe...by that "maya". I find it all quite fascinating. I do realize that. I have already made that greater realization you refer to as "Pure Consciousness/Being/Bliss", but I have come full circle. As the saying goes...

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

Well, no. Coming full circle would be to awaken to your true nature, not to continue to engage in the illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well, no. Coming full circle would be to awaken to your true nature, not to continue to engage in the illusion.

What illusion? It is ALL reality.

...maya is, in reality The Absolute.

Precisely. There is ONLY reality. To continue with this nonsensical belief that maya is something with the power to separate us from that Absolute Reality, or that simply by engaging in our daily activities or interactions somehow separates us from that Absolute Reality is to not realize that Absolute Reality. Nothing can separate us from that Absolute. So it wouldn't matter if I were a materialist, a theoretical physicist, a Catholic priest, or even if I never heard of Buddhism or Hinduism in my life, there is no separation from that reality because ALL is real. Back to chopping wood...

 

[godnotgod]

What illusion? It is ALL reality.




Precisely. There is ONLY reality. To continue with this nonsensical belief that maya is something with the power to separate us from that Absolute Reality, or that simply by engaging in our daily activities or interactions somehow separates us from that Absolute Reality is to not realize that Absolute Reality. Nothing can separate us from that Absolute. So it wouldn't matter if I were a materialist, a theoretical physicist, a Catholic priest, or even if I never heard of Buddhism or Hinduism in my life, there is no separation from that reality because ALL is real. Back to chopping wood...

But there exists the illusions of Time, Space, and Causation, which in turn create the illusions of change, division and separation, and finiteness. And that is why the only true Reality is The Absolute; The Changeless. So while there is never a separation from The Changeless, there is also never anything that changes.

"Since it [The Absolute] 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 division 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...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 power of maya is such that it creates the illusion of separation just as if that separation were real. Hence the metaphysical suffering of the world, and why mysticism is the realization of union, and the end of suffering.

To say that the Universe is The Absolute is not to say that the Universe is real; it is to say that it is The Absolute which is playing itself as the Universe, as if the Universe were real, just as the character in a play is none other than the actor who portrays the character; just as the 'snake' is none other than the rope.

And so, to engage in the world as if it were real is to perpetuate the illusion of the world. This is why the enlightened man practices something called 'actionless activity'; he moves in the world, but is not attached to the world. Dust is a metaphor for the suffering of the world, and so Buddhists often refer to themselves as having 'no attachment to dust', resulting in renunciation of the world. Taoists have a similar practice called 'inaction'.

Samsara is the world and its suffering due to maya. Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, is reputed to have said:

'Renunciation is realizing that nostalgia for samsara is full of s**t.'

To truly come full circle would be to awaken from the dream-spell of maya and to realize union with The Absolute, because it is The Absolute that is the source of maya to begin with. But the illusion of separation is so powerful that we have forgotten that our true nature is The Absolute, rather than Identification with the world as reality.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But there exists the illusions of Time, Space, and Causation, which in turn create the illusions of change, division and separation, and finiteness. And that is why the only true Reality is The Absolute; The Changeless. So while there is never a separation from The Changeless, there is also never anything that changes.

"Since it [The Absolute] 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 division 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...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 power of maya is such that it creates the illusion of separation just as if that separation were real. Hence the metaphysical suffering of the world, and why mysticism is the realization of union, and the end of suffering.

To say that the Universe is The Absolute is not to say that the Universe is real; it is to say that it is The Absolute which is playing itself as the Universe, as if the Universe were real, just as the character in a play is none other than the actor who portrays the character; just as the 'snake' is none other than the rope.

And so, to engage in the world is to perpetuate the illusion of the world. This is why the enlightened man practices something called 'actionless activity'; he moves in the world, but is not attached to the world. Dust is a metaphor for the suffering of the world, and so Buddhists often refer to themselves as having 'no attachment to dust', resulting in renunciation of the world. Taoists have a similar practice called 'inaction'.

Samsara is the world and its suffering due to maya. Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, is reputed to have said:

'Renunciation is realizing that nostalgia for samsara is full of s**t.'

Don't worry about those illusions. Don't think in terms or right or wrong. Don't overly concern yourself with any of it. Just be and do whatever comes naturally.

 

[Shad]

You sure don't know how to read or listen, do you? You just keep going round and round in your little world of circular argument, either ignoring what I've said, or twisting it to suit your erroneus logic, which I have exposed via the genuine use of Logic. Once again, and for the last time:

"I am not confirming any bias I possess, but am confirming that the statement provided reflects the beliefs of others. That it does is fact. That the software which generated the statement in question had no intent of meaning behind it has zero bearing on the fact that the statement is true, and being true, has meaning because it is true, and not due to any intent. There is nothing to read into a statement that turns out to be true in and of itself."

You make a mistake that I am not reading what you say. I do, I have dismissed what you have said. There is a difference

You exposed that you do not know what confirmation bias is then defend said confirmation bias. That is not logic, it is illogical. Try again son. You keep repeating your confirmation bias over and over. It does not matter how many times you say it. Software had no purpose for the phrase, it was not trying to communicate anything to you. You filled in the blanks based on existing beliefs. Again read my links carefully and try again.

Now go to your room and remain there until further instructed. "F" in Logic for Dummies

Say that when you stop defending reading your confirmation bias in a phrase which has no intended meaning from the source of it which is software. You are reading intent into software as if it had a mind and wished to communicate an idea to you. It doesn't. Try again, son.

 

[Runewolf1973]

To truly come full circle would be to awaken from the dream-spell of maya and to realize union with The Absolute.....

To come full circle is to realize there was never anything to awaken from.

 

[godnotgod]

You make a mistake that I am not reading what you say. I do, I have dismissed what you have said. There is a difference

Look, when you can clearly demonstrate that you dismissed what I said because it is based on favoritism for Chopra rather than on the fact that the statement is true, then return here with your proof. Until then....

Go to your room, lock the door, and remain there until further instruction. We'll leave the light on and bring food on a regular basis. Nightie night.

 

[godnotgod]

To come full circle is to realize there was never anything to awaken from.

Then why are you still asleep, dreaming of interaction and change, and calling them reality?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Then why are you still asleep...?

Does the Absolute ever sleep? Perhaps the universe is like one great lucid dreamer...

 

[Shad]

You have zero basis for asserting that, as you have zero experience in the mystical experience. Religious doctrines and teachings are NOT the mystical experience.

Deepaks ideas are based on Hinduism and Buddhism. His "healing meditations" and "Quantum healing" are based on the combination of Hinduism and meditative medicine. Deepak supports Transcendental Meditation which is developed from Hinduism. He also supports forms of Ayurveda which is again from Hinduism. All of his ideas are based on Hinduism and Buddhism mixed with his lack of understanding of QM. Try again, son



[/quote]Pure conjecture. [/quote]

Nope as I point these out above.

Tens of thousands of satisfied devotees say otherwise, the result of a mass placebo effect, I suppose. Get real. Chopra is a success because he knows how to apply the spiritual principles he teaches others to his own life.

Ad populum argument. He could easily verify his claims in a controlled study but he does not. Beside people that experience a placebo effect without knowing of it prove nothing. Studies prove if claims stand up which he avoids since he is selling sophsitry wrapped in a placebo effect for the masses.

A completely ignorant statement, seen from your confirmation bias POV, your nose pressed up against the windowpane, never having experienced what you condemn as nonsense. There are many scientific studies validating higher states of consciousness of long term meditators and monks. One has now found that long term meditators grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-meditators, proof that consciousness grows the brain, and not the other way around.

Studies show that meditation has an effect on the body such as lowering blood pressure. Not one study has proven Deepak's so-called HC or people gaining knowledge they never had.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361002/
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2006/02/meditation-found-to-increase-brain-size/

Your so-called study does not say what you claim. You making **** up as you go just like Deepak. The study only proves meditation has an effect on the brain not that consciousness, in the way you use it, has a effect. You also read your confirmation bias into the study. Just like Deepak you cite something you do not understand, filter it through your belief system then make grand claims. Try again, son.

I have never argued such a point. You are twisting things again, reading things into things about Chopra and myself that are not there to fit your confirmation bias, all fueled by your clinging to Reason and Logic as a child sucks his security blankee.

No, your own sophistry and lack of understand what you are talking about makes you think this. In his book Quantum Healing he does just what I claimed he does.

"The mystic's view includes the Quantum view, and all other views. It is the view of The Big Picture; science is a view of higher magnification, and as such, is only a limited view."

Facts describing how the Quanum world behaves do not tell us what the nature of the Quantum world is. Chopra is telling us what the true nature of Reality actually is, which Quantum behavior is an aspect of. Scientific peer reviewers are limited to the use of the scientific method, which does not apply to insights into Reality via HC. "


"The tools of measurement are created via consciousness, are extensions of consciousness, and the results are interpreted by it as well. All you can show is that you understand the results that the tools provide, but you do not understand the nature of that which the tools are looking at. You have zero clue as to exactly what QM actually IS. The mystic knows what the nature of QM is, though he may not know the about the specific math or the physics. Chopra is speaking to us about the nature of Reality, not about its behavioral characteristics. As Alan Watts has said, 'the dead man gives us all the facts, but tells us nothing'."

All that is from 2 pages back. Although I am sure I will find out quackery from you the further back I go. Try again, son.

You're confused and full of yourself.

Nope. I am pointing out basic concepts within Deepak's sophistry that you are oblivious too along with his mistakes, which you are oblivious to. What is amusing is that you dismiss logic and reason, make grand claims then call me full of myself. Hilarious. Try again, son

The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open.

Nicholas of Cusa

Checkmate!

Useless sophistry does nothing to further your horrible arguments. Try again, son. You also just cited a theologian from a religion you and Deepak dismissed. Hilarious. Maybe read his work since it was about Christianity not your views. His views have had almost no impact on philosophy/

You also misquoted him. He actually wrote, "Thus have I found the place at which Thou canst be found unconcealed. It is surrounded by the coincidence of opposites. It is the wall of paradise, within which Thou dost dwell. Its gates are guarded by the supreme spirit of Reason (rationis). If this is not conquered, the way will not be open." Thou is the Christian God, entrance is by faith in Jesus. So you missed the entry point of the quote thus quote-mined and quoted out of context. You made the mistake in thinking this supported your view but the view only supports Christianity. Try again, son.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cusanus/

 

[Shad]

Look, when you can clearly demonstrate that you dismissed what I said because it is based on favoritism for Chopra rather than on the fact that the statement is true, then return here with your proof. Until then....

I dismissed it as you are spouting pure nonsense. You are defending confirmation bias which is to defend a failure in your own logical thinking. Again you read meaning based on your preexisting beliefs when there was zero intended message. It is no different that someone reading meaning into software stating "Dogs are like the spiritual growth from child to companion as it is for individual opening themselves to the greater consciousness of reality" Some that thinks this has meaning due to their preexsitng beliefs will read something into it. However I have no intended meaning as I just strung words together into a sentence.

Go to your room, lock the door, and remain there until further instruction. We'll leave the light on and bring food on a regular basis. Nightie night.

Try again son. Next time figure out that a failure in logic can not be defended.

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/fl/What-Is-a-Confirmation-Bias.htm
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

 

[Runewolf1973]

At least science provides the facts and the evidence without all the self-contradicting riddles. It points the way to humankind's greater understanding of our place in the universe. I'm done with the riddles and the mystical connotations. Pure Consciousness is an interesting concept, but it is pure speculation.

 

[godnotgod]

Useless sophistry does nothing to further your horrible arguments. Try again, son. You also just cited a theologian from a religion you and Deepak dismissed. Hilarious. Maybe read his work since it was about Christianity not your views. His views have had almost no impact on philosophy/

You also misquoted him. He actually wrote, "Thus have I found the place at which Thou canst be found unconcealed. It is surrounded by the coincidence of opposites. It is the wall of paradise, within which Thou dost dwell. Its gates are guarded by the supreme spirit of Reason (rationis). If this is not conquered, the way will not be open." Thou is the Christian God, entrance is by faith in Jesus. So you missed the entry point of the quote thus quote-mined and quoted out of context. You made the mistake in thinking this supported your view but the view only supports Christianity. Try again, son.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cusanus/

Your foolishness and ignorance multipliy. What you posted and what I posted both support the same argument: that Reason must be set aside in order for a spiritual transformation of consciousness to take place. The transformation is neither Hindu, Christian, Buddhist or otherwise; it is spiritual in nature. You seem to favor minutiae in place of content. Cusa was a mystical Christian, not an orthodox Christian. I guess I failed to provide a link to the site I quoted Cusa from. Here, 3rd sentence down:

http://www.headless.org/tradition/paradox.htm