Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Rick O'Shez]

Not sure what you're after, then.

As I said, a straightforward answer to the question: "How can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?"

The question is in response to your assertion that consciousness is "not limited by the senses". ( post #1533 ).

So can you give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question?

 

[YmirGF]

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'?

I know because that is what I see/perceive/intuit. As far as "unchanging", what on earth would you think I am meaning? I mean, clearly, that it is constantly changing. Further, I can understand how some might think it is unchanging or not going though any kind of changes simply because they are not paying attention or are not very keen observers or perhaps their foundation class ideas about reality cloud their view. For example, though it might sound odd, one word I would use to describe the view is scintillating and the constituent components are clearly in an excited state.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For example, though it might sound odd, one word I would use to describe the view is scintillating and the constituent components are clearly in an excited state.

I live near the sea and watch it regularly. Perpetual change is obvious there.

 

[Runewolf1973]

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/

Not to worry, that will all change. It always does.

 

[godnotgod]

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

That wasn't exactly the analogy, though. The analogy was about individual enclosed spaces as analogous to individualized consciousness. Upon looking, it was realized that there are no such enclosed spaces separate from one another. It is one continuous space.

 

[godnotgod]

I live near the sea and watch it regularly. Perpetual change is obvious there.

Who is it that is watching?

 

[YmirGF]

Who is it that is watching?

In my case, it is me who is doing the watching, as it were.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That wasn't exactly the analogy, though. The analogy was about individual enclosed spaces as analogous to individualized consciousness. Upon looking, it was realized that there are no such enclosed spaces separate from one another. It is one continuous space.

It's still a poor analogy.

So I'm still waiting for a straightforward answer to the question: "How can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?"

The question is in response to your assertion that consciousness is "not limited by the senses". ( post #1533 ).

So can you give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Who is it that is watching?

Just answer the question!

Just to remind you,the question is: "How can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?"

The question is in response to your assertion that consciousness is "not limited by the senses". ( post #1533 ).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That wasn't exactly the analogy, though. The analogy was about individual enclosed spaces as analogous to individualized consciousness. Upon looking, it was realized that there are no such enclosed spaces separate from one another. It is one continuous space.

But space is still a poor analogy for consciousness, so stop hiding behind this blokes non-explanation.

So just answer the question: "How can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?"

The question is in response to your assertion that consciousness is "not limited by the senses". ( post #1533 ).

 

[YmirGF]

It's still a poor analogy.

So I'm still waiting for a straightforward answer to the question: "How can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?"

The question is in response to your assertion that consciousness is "not limited by the senses". ( post #1533 ).

So can you give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question?

Listen to Deepak's lectures at 3x normal speed for 76 hours straight?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A general question: "How can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?"

Can you answer this question without a load of bull****?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Listen to Deepak's lectures at 3x normal speed for 76 hours straight?

They might make more sense that way. It's scary that people look to this guy for inspiration, their lives must be very sad.

 

[YmirGF]

They might make more sense that way. It's scary that people look to this guy for inspiration, their lives must be very sad.

I was tempted to answer your wonderful question, but thought I'd like our resident lecturer respond in his own words without robbing the thinking of others.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I was tempted to answer your wonderful question, but thought I'd like our resident lecturer respond in his own words without robbing the thinking of others.

I'm looking forward to a succinct and lucid explanation.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm looking forward to a succinct and lucid explanation.

It should be a piece of cake for someone in tune with the "the changeless universal consciousness".

 

[Robert.Evans]

Just answer the question!

Just to remind you,the question is: "How can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?"

The question is in response to your assertion that consciousness is "not limited by the senses". ( post #1533 ).

We can dream can't we? What does that have to do with physical senses?

 

[Runewolf1973]

We can dream can't we? What does that have to do with physical senses?

Dreaming still requires a physical brain and complex interactions. Those complex interactions are our senses.

 

[YmirGF]

Dreaming still requires a physical brain and complex interactions. Those complex interactions are our senses.

Go figure, eh?

 

[gnostic]

Whether it be consciousness, subconsciousness (dreams) or unconsciousness, all 3 are tied to activities of the physical brains.

The whole idea that there are consciousness outside of the physical brain, is nothing more than wishful thinking, delusion or a myth.

And there are no more evidences to support an universal consciousness than those out-of-body or near-death experiences. The whole "transcendence" thing seemed more hallucinatory than anything else.

They make good paranormal stories, I do enjoy good ones, but that's all their worth.