Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Rick O'Shez]

The changeless background is consciousness

Hmm. So your consciousness is constant and never changes? Really?

And how does that square with your assertion that there are different levels of consciousness, which means that consciousness is not continuously the same?

Anyway, you now seem to be saying that consciousness is "The Changeless". What's confusing me is your assertion back in post #1464 that the Changeless is the ultimate goal of the spiritual quest, which presumably means that consciousness is the ultimate goal? But what does that mean? In post #1464 you further muddied the waters by quoting a religious text which said that "Hence Brahman alone can be the changeless substantive for the transient universe."

You are continually muddling ideas from different sources, often at random, and continually moving the goalposts. If you can't focus on one idea and see it through there is no basis for meaningful discussion.

So let's stick with consciousness. Can you provide any coherent arguments to demonstrate that consciousness is universal, infinite and unlimited?

 

[YmirGF]

How do you know it is change?

Because it is always morphing, oscillating and pulsating? It certainly isn't static and unchanging, LOL.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Nothingness or changeless does not explain how or why there is this "play", "drama", or these so-called "illusions" of change in the first place. Obviously there is change, because otherwise our very own perceptions of reality would not change. Our consciousness or interactive states would not change. For me to accept a changeless reality would require a change in my way of thinking. Changeless and nothingness is not a reality.

 

[YmirGF]

Changeless and nothingness is not a reality.

It is more a case of the stagnation of dead end thinking.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps, Dawkins shouldn't have facepalms in front of Chopra.

Perhaps, Dawkins should have slapped Chopra's face a few time, and tell Chopra to "Snap out of it! You're in la-la land again. Wake up!"

Gee. I wondered what Chopra is smoking?

The good stuff, of course!

Some interesting musings about the nature of consciousness, but he doesn't demonstrate that it is universal, infinite or unlimited. I noticed he managed to sidestep the pivotal observation by an audience member that awareness is limited by the senses.

He did that on purpose, of course, because he's obviously trying to deceive people, just like Chopra is doing. He's obviously just spouting New Age mumbo jumbo. Probably smoking pot morning til midnight, 24/7.

Too bad you missed the message about universal consciousness. Probably because yours is so stuffed up with Buddhish crap. Your comments are tell-tale to the fact that you aren't paying attention.

 

[godnotgod]

Because it is always morphing, oscillating and pulsating? It certainly isn't static and unchanging, LOL.

That's not what the question was.

I asked: how do you know it is changing? Morphing, oscillating, and pulsating are kinds of change. How do you know these things are occurring?

What do you mean by 'unchanging'?

 

[godnotgod]

Hmm. So your consciousness is constant and never changes? Really?

No. It's not MY consciousness.

And how does that square with your assertion that there are different levels of consciousness, which means that consciousness is not continuously the same?

Your understanding is flawed.

There are degrees of conscious awareness, but only one consciousness. A metaphor might be a darkened room. If someone cracks the door just a bit and shines a lantern, you will see some things, but your vision will be limited. Opening the door a bit more and bringing the lantern closer will reveal more detail, until finally, the room is filled with light, but there is always only one light. You might think of the door as the mind which sculpts the light. It is mind that changes, not consciousness. But mind itself is a self-created principle: it does not actually exist. That is precisely why meditation is designed to still the mind. Once stilled, it is seen that there is no-mind to still. There remains only Pure Consciousness, and it is universal, because there is no longer a self-view .

Anyway, you now seem to be saying that consciousness is "The Changeless". What's confusing me is your assertion back in post #1464 that the Changeless is the ultimate goal of the spiritual quest, which presumably means that consciousness is the ultimate goal? But what does that mean? In post #1464 you further muddied the waters by quoting a religious text which said that "Hence Brahman alone can be the changeless substantive for the transient universe."

There is no contradiction here. Universal Consciousness is the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute, Brahman, The Changeless, all being the goal of the spiritual quest, because everything is settled completely in The Absolute. As Patanjali says in the Yoga Sutra: 'Yoga (ie; divine union), is the cessation of the activities of the mind'. What the ultimate goal means is Absolute Joy that has no end, and no opposite. Ordinary life on the third level of consciousness is a see-saw existence between relative joy and relative suffering. It is the experience of life in duality, which is maya.

What lies underneath the effervescent world we see in seemingly constant flux is the changeless substantive called Brahman, which is the only true Reality. The transient universe comes and goes, but Brahman is Unborn, Ungrown, Changeless; That which does not come and go.

It is said in Zen: 'All this world is filled with coming and going; show me the path where there is no coming and there is no going'

What is that path, Spiny?

You are continually muddling ideas from different sources, often at random, and continually moving the goalposts. If you can't focus on one idea and see it through there is no basis for meaningful discussion.

There is only One Reality.

One Light, though the Lamps be Many.

If you were paying attention to the video you referenced, you would have gotten that there is only one space, even though we compartmentalize it into what seems like different spaces. All spiritual disciplines point to the same Reality, but use different ways of pointing to it. That is exactly why Yeshua said: 'You search the scriptures for eternal life, but it is me that the scriptures are about'. The One Reality is not about the different pointing fingers, but about what the fingers point to. All this time,
Spiny, you knee jerk attack my pointing finger, and fail to get the message. So does Ymgirf, because both of you don't stop to take the time to see, instead of just react, and then you react to my person, rather than to the content of the post, which is precisely what you and others here are doing to Chopra.

So let's stick with consciousness. Can you provide any coherent arguments to demonstrate that consciousness is universal, infinite and unlimited?

Watch the video again until you get it.

 

[godnotgod]

Nothingness or changeless does not explain how or why there is this "play", "drama", or these so-called "illusions" of change in the first place. Obviously there is change, because otherwise our very own perceptions of reality would not change. Our consciousness or interactive states would not change. For me to accept a changeless reality would require a change in my way of thinking. Changeless and nothingness is not a reality.

That which seemingly is changing is not real* to begin with, so how can there be change? And if there is no change, then the only true Reality is The Changeless. Think hard: the only source of Everything can only be Nothingness. Everything cannot have come out of Something, because Something is included in Everything.

The problem you're having is that your mind constantly wants to grasp onto some concept in a failed attempt to 'explain' Reality, which cannot be encapsulate in that manner, and so remains elusive and paradoxical. All of the grasping activities of the mind must settle in order for seeing to occur. Nothingness cannot be encapsulated by the limited, grasping mind. There must not be a change in your way of thinking; thinking (ie; monkey mind) itself must come to a complete halt. Only then can Big Mind come into play.

*Play is illusion. The Universe, which you see as changing all the time, is nothing more than play. Because it IS play, it does not exist in reality. Think of the metaphor of the rope and the snake. The rope is a metaphor for The Absolute and the snake for The Universe. The 'snake' in none other than The Absolute itself, seen as the snake, which is in the rope:


"This phenomenon of Brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `maya' means. It does two things: It hides Brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you.

Brahman remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by Brahman. While Brahman remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Brahman as the only substratum, whereas Brahman is not supported by anything. It is It's own support. [edited]

The snake appears on the rope; the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning that, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: "Where is the snake?", the answer is: "it is in the rope."

To the question; "Is the snake there?", the answer is: "there is no snake; the snake was never in the rope."

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/true-nature-of-the-universe-what-is-maya.83861/

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you were paying attention to the video you referenced, you would have gotten that there is only one space, even though we compartmentalize it into what seems like different spaces. Watch the video again until you get it.

I watched the video carefully and he doesn't demonstrate that consciousness is universal, infinite and unlimited. As I said. So can you demonstrate it or explain it in a convincing way?

It doesn't sound like you can. Again you're just side-stepping a direct question by throwing around another load of pretentious proper nouns, and again you're claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

 

[godnotgod]

"We live in illusion and the appearance of things
There is a reality. We are that reality
When you understand this, you see that you are nothing,
and being nothing, you are everything. That is all"

Kalu Rinpoche
​

 

[godnotgod]

I watched the video carefully and he doesn't demonstrate that consciousness is universal, infinite and unlimited. So can you demonstrate it or explain it in a convincing way? It doesn't sound like you can..

He does demonstrate the universality of consciousness, but you're not seeing what he's pointing out.

Think about what you are asking. You ask from the position that consciousness is not universal. Why is that?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He does demonstrate the universality of consciousness, but you're not seeing what he's pointing out.

He doesn't even explain what he means by "universal", and neither have you for that matter. One minute you say it just means "not individual", the next minute you're claiming that the universe is conscious or something, it's all a horrible muddle.

And how can consciousness be unlimited or infinite given that our senses are limited? He sidestepped the question, are you going to as well?

So here are 2 specific questions, let's see if can you answer them clearly in plain English without going off at tangents and without a load of ill-defined new-age jargon:

1. What exactly do you mean by consciousness being "universal"?
2. How can consciousness be unlimited or infinite given that our senses are limited?

 

[godnotgod]

He doesn't even explain what he means by "universal", and neither have you for that matter. One minute you say it just means "not individual", the next minute you're claiming that the universe is conscious or something, it's all a horrible muddle.

And how can consciousness be unlimited or infinite given that our senses are limited? He sidestepped the question, are you going to as well?

So here are 2 specific questions, let's see if can you answer them clearly in plain English without going off at tangents and without a load of ill-defined new-age jargon:

1. What exactly do you mean by consciousness being "universal"?
2. How can consciousness be unlimited or infinite given that our senses are limited?

It is not limited by the senses.

You're looking for a black and white explanation that can be encapsulated by the thinking mind. It can't. Consciousness is an immediate experience in the here and now, and is self-evident.

The five colors blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavors dull the taste.
Racing and hunting madden the mind.
Precious things lead one astray.

Therefore the sage is guided by what he feels* and not by what he sees.
He lets go of that and chooses this.

Tao te Ching, Ch 12

*intuitive mind

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is not limited by the senses.

Yes it is. For example our visual consciousness extends only as far as the eye can see. So how can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?

It's a straightforward question, can you give a straightforward answer?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I

It is not limited by the senses.

You're looking for a black and white explanation that can be encapsulated by the thinking mind. It can't. Consciousness is an immediate experience in the here and now, and is self-evident.

The five colors blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavors dull the taste.
Racing and hunting madden the mind.
Precious things lead one astray.

Therefore the sage is guided by what he feels* and not by what he sees.
He lets go of that and chooses this.

Tao te Ching, Ch 12

*intuitive mind

So you can't answer my question. Thought so.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes it is. For example our visual consciousness extends only as far as the eye can see. So how can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?

It's a straightforward question, can you give a straightforward answer?

Consciousness is before seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching, and even before thinking. It is not mind.

Before thinking, consciousness is not focused on any particular thing. Like you said: 'it's just consciousness', without an agent of consciousness, or an object onto which consciousness is fixed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Before thinking, consciousness is not focused on any particular thing. Like you said: 'it's just consciousness', without an agent of consciousness, or an object onto which consciousness is fixed.

OK, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

[godnotgod]

So you can't answer my question. Thought so.

So you can't answer my question. Thought so.

That there are separate spaces is an illusion, as he illustrated.

That there is divided consciousness is an illusion, as he illustrated.

Can't you see what is being said?

 

[godnotgod]

OK, but that doesn't answer my question.

Not sure what you're after, then.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That there is divided consciousness is an illusion, as he illustrated.

He didn't though. Space is not the same as consciousness, it's a poor analogy. Infinite space doesn't imply infinite consciousness.