Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Rick O'Shez]

*This coincides with the Buddhistic idea of 'Emptiness',

Nonsense. Emptiness directly contradicts your reification of consciousness because consciousness is also empty.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's OK that you've been taken in; that's the whole point.

We haven't been taken in by your smoke and mirrors and PPNs ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ).

If you want to believe in Brahman that's fine, but there is no need to dress up your belief with pseudo-science and new-age mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nothingness of Consciousness

PPN alert! ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ).... { claxon sounding }

Do you get all these from the NJB ( New-age Jargon Bible ) or just make them up as you go along?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is not evidence for consciousness, it is evidence for interaction.

I'd describe these autonomous bodily functions as being unconscious. Though I recall studies which suggest that most of our decision making is unconscious, we act slightly before consciously deciding to act.
So it's like we're conscious of a making a decision after the event, playing catch-up, so I'm sort of agreeing with your interaction theory...sort of.

I think part of the difficulty here is trying to pin down what exactly we mean by "consciousness", and there are different ways of thinking about it. We often talk about consciousness as a discreet quality or function but that may well be over-simplistic.

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry. It's actually: 'the which than which there is no whicher'.

It's about The Absolute, and you're it, but you don't know it, or rather, you play the game of pretending that you don't. I wouldn't go so far as to call yourself 'rubbish', though.

"And who are you?

Don't give me your name, address and occupation ... You know that's just a mask ... a front ... a big act. Who puts it on? Who puts it on ... your body? Huh! What an act that is! And who puts that on? Your father and mother? Did they put you on? Come off it. You know very well who You are, but you won't admit it. Deep in there in the middle, middle of your heart, You know it. You've always been around and always will be. And the You in you is the same as the You in me.


You're not some sort of tourist just visiting in this world for a short time. You belong here, like the apple on the tree. And as the apple is the energy of the tree, you, yes You, are the energy of the world.


You don't know who You are do you? You can't really get at yourself, just as the fingertip can't touch itself and the teeth can't bite themselves. And that's because You ... the far in you ... is what we call Brahman, the Self of the Universe. The Which of which there is no whicher. The Heart and Foundation of all that's going on."

http://www.harisingh.com/YouAreTheEssence.htm

No, that is not how I view myself. It is a real education watching you squeeze ideas down to conform to your root assumptions about reality. Who I am is relative, but not nearly as interesting as WHAT I am. I am a personality energy essence and have not changed my stance on this in over 40 years of earth time. I do not feel a need to shoehorn that concept into the relatively meaningless concept of Brahman or any other primitive god concept. Those concepts do not capture the reality of my being and are gross distortions of reality.

 

[YmirGF]

I'd describe these autonomous bodily functions as being unconscious. Though I recall studies which suggest that most of our decision making is unconscious, we act slightly before consciously deciding to act.
So it's like we're conscious of a making a decision after the event, playing catch-up, so I'm sort of agreeing with your interaction theory...sort of.

I think part of the difficulty here is trying to pin down what exactly we mean by "consciousness", and there are different ways of thinking about it. We often talk about consciousness as a discreet quality or function but that may well be over-simplistic.

Agree on the desire to over-simplify things as that is a recipe for disaster. It is somewhat foolhardy to apply the KISS principle to extremely complex systems, for example. That said, as should be expected, I don't completely agree with Runewolf, but I find his/her/its thinking much more interesting than the dreary Borg-like hum-drum notions trotted out by Godnotgod with his usual highly questionable sources. At least ol' Runey doesn't have a hissy fit and act like a child when folks push back on his/her/its thinking. To me, that speaks volumes...

 

[YmirGF]

PPN alert! ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ).... { claxon sounding }

Do you get all these from the NJB ( New-age Jargon Bible ) or just make them up as you go along?

I suppose once one smokes enough medical marijuana, it slowly begins to make sense...

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense. Emptiness directly contradicts your reification of consciousness because consciousness is also empty.

I see no conflict here. But yes, consciousness is Empty. The Universe is Empty. Emptiness is the nature of Reality. Because it is Empty, it can be full.

 

[godnotgod]

We haven't been taken in by your smoke and mirrors and PPNs ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ).

If you want to believe in Brahman that's fine, but there is no need to dress up your belief with pseudo-science and new-age mumbo-jumbo.

You've been taken in by the notion of a material universe.

Ah, I see you also utilize caps, as in 'Brahman'. The idea, of course, is to signify The Absolute. Pure Consciousness, Ultimate Reality, Self, Brahman, Absolute Nothingness, Universal Consciousness, etc, are all the same Reality, and that Reality is not just absolute, it is The Absolute, and YOU are IT. So stop your belly-aching.

 

[godnotgod]

PPN alert! ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ).... { claxon sounding }

Do you get all these from the NJB ( New-age Jargon Bible ) or just make them up as you go along?

It's just a reflection of the way things are. Out of Consciousness, which is No-thing-ness, comes Every-thing. How can it be any other way? Consciousness is not in Time or Space. Neither was the Big Bang. The BB was an event in Consciousness, as it continues to be. All we have done is to overlay the conceptual framework of Time and Space over Reality. Change takes place only in Time. The BB, though it seems as if it represents change, cannot be change, because Time does not exist as a reality. The BB, and the resulting Universe, is an illusion of the first magnitude.

 

[godnotgod]

No, that is not how I view myself. It is a real education watching you squeeze ideas down to conform to your root assumptions about reality. Who I am is relative, but not nearly as interesting as WHAT I am. I am a personality energy essence and have not changed my stance on this in over 40 years of earth time. I do not feel a need to shoehorn that concept into the relatively meaningless concept of Brahman or any other primitive god concept. Those concepts do not capture the reality of my being and are gross distortions of reality.

What you fail to realize is that what you call your 'personality energy essence' is a projection of the Universal Self, or Brahman, as it is called. You will fight that, because it is the nature of the personality to proclaim its individuality and uniqueness, an 'I' existing apart from all other 'I's.

But that aside, the question remains: 'Who, or what, is it that is watching?'

 

[godnotgod]

I suppose once one smokes enough medical marijuana, it slowly begins to make sense...

For someone like yourself, yes. At least it will crack open the doors of higher perception just a wee bit, enough for you to get a glimpse, and see beyond the hardened shell of your 40 year old 'personality essence' *cough*. Would you like to learn to see? There are people who can help you, like Chopra and Osho. Excellent guides. But the key is to listen rather than just hear.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't completely agree with Runewolf, but I find his/her/its thinking much more interesting than the dreary Borg-like hum-drum notions trotted out by Godnotgod with his usual highly questionable sources. .

I suppose my relentless pointing out the same thing over and over can seem dreary, but that is because you continue to stubbornly cling to your old paradigm and refuse to look at what is pointed to, attacking the pointing finger instead, like a rabid dog. The bottom line as regards Rune vis a vis myself, is that Rune's relentless pointing to his doctrine of 'interaction' is to the outcome of a deeper fundamental reality, whereas my pointing is to the fundamental reality of The Changeless itself, before any so called 'interaction' even comes into play.

 

[YmirGF]

I suppose my relentless pointing out the same thing over and over can seem dreary, but that is because you continue to stubbornly cling to your old paradigm and refuse to look at what is pointed to, attacking the pointing finger instead, like a rabid dog. The bottom line as regards Rune vis a vis myself, is that Rune's relentless pointing to his doctrine of 'interaction' is to the outcome of a deeper fundamental reality, whereas my pointing is to the fundamental reality of The Changeless itself, before any so called 'interaction'.

No, I meant "more interesting" specifically, as I can readily see that he/she/it is far more interested in having a conversation. You are here only to lecture. Unlike some, Runey doesn't pretend to have the answers, nor does he/she/it have a penchant for quoting dubious sources to buttress his/her/its thinking. I sense an originality there and an authenticity. I get no sense of authenticity from you.

 

[YmirGF]

What you fail to realize is that what you call your 'personality energy essence' is a projection of the Universal Self, or Brahman, as it is called. You will fight that, because it is the nature of the personality to proclaim its individuality and uniqueness, an 'I' existing apart from all other 'I's.

But that aside, the question remains: 'Who, or what, is it that is watching?'

You haven't the slightest understanding of what I mean by "personality energy essence". It is you who are projecting due to your emotional investment in the ideas you hold so dear. I clearly told you I have no use for rather primitive concepts like Brahman and yet you feel a need to correct me.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What you fail to realize is that what you call your 'personality energy essence' is a projection of the Universal Self, or Brahman, as it is called.

Basically you just keep proselytizing your religious belief, a new-age take on Hinduism. After 85 pages it's got really boring.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Chopra and Osho. Excellent guides.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I meant "more interesting" specifically, as I can readily see that he/she/it is far more interested in having a conversation. You are here only to lecture. Unlike some, Runey doesn't pretend to have the answers, nor does he/she/it have a penchant for quoting dubious sources to buttress his/her/its thinking. I sense an originality there and an authenticity. I get no sense of authenticity from you.

I'm not claiming any. This is not my personal view, as Rune's is.

What's so interesting about 'interaction'? What I am proposing is far, far more compelling. I am not interested in being 'interesting'. This is not a travelogue, but about a radical transformation of consciousness by which what you thought to be the case, is not actually the case.

I keep telling you: Higher Consciousness cannot be proven via factual knowledge, so why do you continue to point out that no evidence exists for it, or that my sources are 'dubious'?

I am interested in having a conversation only insofar as you 'get' what I am pointing to. Nothing else matters, because what I am pointing to can only be seen, without words, without having a preconceived notion in mind about what it is you are seeing. This seeing into the true nature of things does not...I repeat...does not, involve the thinking process. It is spontaneous and immediate seeing, without words, without thought. That is everything.

 

[godnotgod]

You haven't the slightest understanding of what I mean by "personality energy essence". It is you who are projecting due to your emotional investment in the ideas you hold so dear. I clearly told you I have no use for rather primitive concepts like Brahman and yet you feel a need to correct me.

Only because you are mistaken.

Brahman is neither primitive nor conceptual. See how wrong you can be?

Brahman is the eternal ground of all Being, so it is ageless, and therefore, neither primitive nor modern. It is not subject to Time.

'Personality', OTOH, is always dated, always old, no matter what labels you slap onto it to make it seem more compelling.

I just want to know who is this 'me' that is watching. Can you answer without getting into your own personal views?

 

[godnotgod]

Impeccable guides.