Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

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

I can, and have, called 'Brahman' something else. Will that make you happy?

If, as you claim, I am proselytizing a religious belief, then state the doctrine that belief is about. Otherwise, cease and desist from calling it a religious belief, because it isn't one.

If you are bored, maybe a nice cold shower while sitting on your zafu will cure your illness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

My "theory" of interaction is admittedly quite simplistic. Given the complexity of those interactions we call "consciousness", I think it would be unrealistic and likely impossible to explain them any other way. Since time immemorial, scientists, philosophers and mystics alike have tried and failed to explain consciousness in any rational manner whereas my "theory", although overly simplistic, does explain consciousness. In my opinion, it is reasonable and valid to say that consciousness is a complex form of interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

My theory of interaction is admittedly quite simplistic. Given the complexity of those interactions we call "consciousness", I think it would be unrealistic and likely impossible to explain them any other way. Since time immemorial, scientists, philosophers and mystics alike have tried and failed to explain consciousness in any rational manner whereas my theory, although overly simplistic, does explain consciousness. In my opinion, it is reasonable and valid to say that consciousness is a complex form of interaction.

I see your conclusion as illogical and erroneous. Your 'theory' of interaction is not even a theory; it's just an observation, and nothing more. It tells us nothing. We already know that everything is 'interacting'. What we want to know is what is at the root of the Universe, and ourselves. What you are calling interaction as the fundamental reality is only what is on the surface; interaction is merely the manifestation of something deeper, a manifestation that is just a set of appearances. What is deeper is consciousness, The Changeless Reality, out of which all 'interaction' seemingly emerges. But to get to The Changeless requires an Awakening from your current state of sleep, a sleep in which you are convinced that, first, you are already awake, and secondly, that things exist in interaction.

To say that consciousness is explained by calling it a complex form of interaction says zilch.

It might be more fruitful to ask: 'what is it that knows I am conscious?'

 

[Runewolf1973]

I see your conclusion as illogical and erroneous. Your 'theory' of interaction is not even a theory; it's just an observation, and nothing more. It tells us nothing. We already know that everything is 'interacting'. What we want to know is what is at the root of the Universe, and ourselves. What you are calling interaction as the fundamental reality is only what is on the surface; interaction is merely the manifestation of something deeper, a manifestation that is just a set of appearances. What is deeper is consciousness, The Changeless Reality, out of which all 'interaction' seemingly emerges. But to get to The Changeless requires an Awakening from your current state of sleep, a sleep in which you are convinced that, first, you are already awake, and secondly, that things exist in interaction.

To say that consciousness is explained by calling it a complex form of interaction says zilch.

It might be more fruitful to ask: 'what is it that knows I am conscious?'

True, what I present is neither a formal or scientific theory, rather it is my own personal "theory". Thus far you have presented no evidence to support your claims, but my claims are well supported by scientific facts. That says a lot.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If, as you claim, I am proselytizing a religious belief, then state the doctrine that belief is about. Otherwise, cease and desist from calling it a religious belief, because it isn't one.

You are preaching new-age Hinduism, and pretty much every post you make contains at least one unfounded claim. It's a monotone rant, a word salad peppered at random with undefined jargon buzz-words.

Like all fundamentalist preachers you're not interested in a genuine dialogue, you attack anyone who disagrees with you and you tell them how ignorant they are.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In my opinion, it is reasonable and valid to say that consciousness is a complex form of interaction.

It would be interesting to look at some practical examples of that interaction at the human level.

 

[godnotgod]

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

I'll tell you what gets boring: your New Age knee jerk reactions.

Achtung!

 

[YmirGF]

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

It IS your personal view and one that is shared by many human animals, of which, more than a few have questionable credentials. You can pretend it is not your view all you like.

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.

It isn't particularly compelling, godnotgod, as it is so counter-intuitive.

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'?

Because you are simply barking at the moon, though some might be considerably less generous. Time and time again, you are merciless with those who question your grasp of reality. In some ways it is admirable that you are so convinced you are right in your assumptions but you blithely pretend that those assumptions about reality are not assumptions. They are... and that is why you perceive what you do, as your view conforms with your expectations.

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.

I do get what you are talking about.... it isn't particularly complex stuff, godnotgod. I've done what you describe above for many, many years. I once saw things as you seem to. I don't anymore. There is no such thing as "The Changeless", unless you are meaning that in some unforeseen novel sense of the words. Turning off the internal dialogue is a pretty basic feat in meditation circles. Likewise not having preconceived notions about what one experiences is also fairly basic. Where we seem to part is that I try not to superimpose fairly limited thinking and concepts onto my experience after the fact. It simply would not occur to me to label my experience, that cannot really be described, as "absolute reality", "universal consciousness" et al. I would literally never occur me to make that leap into that kind of thinking. It would certainly never occur to me to write about it for others to read as I would hate to give them the wrong idea about reality.

There is no way I could truthfully say that "Absolute Reality" or "Universal consciousness" or "The Changeless" exist in any way. I would be lying to people if I were to try to use those terms in some semi-authoritative way. I find the idea behind the "universal consciousness" to be particularly misleading as there is precious little universal about consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

You are preaching new-age Hinduism, and pretty much every post you make contains at least one unfounded claim. It's a monotone rant, a word salad peppered at random with undefined jargon buzz-words.

Like all fundamentalist preachers you're not interested in a genuine dialogue, you attack anyone who disagrees with you and you tell them how ignorant they are.

What? 'New Age Hinduism"? Now who's making things up? WTF is NAH? Only a Buddhish eating ice cream would come up with that nonsense.

I challenge you: If I am a 'fundamentalist preacher', kindly direct me to the doctrine I am preaching. I keep asking, but you don't seem to know of any.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I challenge you: If I am a 'fundamentalist preacher', kindly direct me to the doctrine I am preaching. I keep asking, but you don't seem to know of any.

Your doctrine is new-age Hinduism with some pseudo-science muddled in. Maybe you've been preaching for so long that you've forgotten what you're preaching, maybe you've said the same things so many times that you now actually believe it, maybe you just like the sound of your own voice.

In any case it's incredibly boring.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

Oh my goodness, you are speaking about Brahman as if it were an existential reality. Godnotgod, I'm fully aware of what Brahman is supposed to be and have no need of your explanations on the subject. It IS a fairly primitive concept.... about what I would expect from those it dreamed it up eons ago...

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

*sigh* If that is how you feel about it, there is no possibility that you could understand my use of the word and what I am talking about. In a very real sense, your foundation class ideas about reality preclude you from appreciating a larger view that is not based on previous limited ideas of personality. You are seriously in for such a delightful surprise. You're gonna love it.

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

Wait.... what? You want me to regurgitate the thinking of others? You're kidding, right?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is no way I could truthfully say that "Absolute Reality" or "Universal consciousness" or "The Changeless" exist in any way. I would be lying to people if I were to try to use those terms in some semi-authoritative way.

Indeed. It's a familiar pattern, trying to pretend that religious beliefs are "facts". The use of PPNs ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ) is very revealing here, as if starting words with capital letters lends greater authority or credibility to ideas. It doesn't, of course.

 

[godnotgod]

It IS your personal view and one that is shared by many human animals, of which, more than a few have questionable credentials. You can pretend it is not your view all you like.

A personal view requires the idea of 'I'. What I have been pointing to is not from 'I'. This is a universal view, 'shared by many human animals', in which 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality', as our illustrious leader, Chopra has told us. This 'merging' is the dissolution of the 'I' self, and the coming into play of the Universal Self, Brahman, Ultimate Reality, The Absolute, The Changeless, That, The Witness, Universal Consciousness, etc, none of which are personal views.

It isn't particularly compelling, godnotgod, as it is so counter-intuitive.

That you are the divine essence disguised as this 'personality essence energy' thingie; that you are the Ultimate Reality itself, pretending to be 'little old me', is not compelling? That the mundane observation of 'interaction' IS compelling? Come now!

Because you are simply barking at the moon, though some might be considerably less generous. Time and time again, you are merciless with those who question your grasp of reality. In some ways it is admirable that you are so convinced you are right in your assumptions but you blithely pretend that those assumptions about reality are not assumptions. They are... and that is why you perceive what you do, as your view conforms with your expectations.

I am merciless, because nature is merciless.

There is only one Reality, and knowledge of it is not an assumption or a matter of discussion. It is what it is, and all I can do is point to it. If you choose to attack my pointing finger and foam at the mouth, that is where the merciless part comes in.

I do get what you are talking about....

Stop pretending. You don't get it and that's that. If you did, you would have gotten it by now.

it isn't particularly complex stuff, godnotgod.

Who said that it was?

I've done what you describe above for many, many years.

You can die of old age on your meditation mat. Doesn't matter how long you've been at it. One second or a lifetime. So stop trying to make it a point. You're just trying to pretend that you are some kind of seasoned authority, and making a point of letting everyone know by advertising it. Fact is, you've missed something and are now busy maintaining your hard conceptual shell.

I once saw things as you seem to. I don't anymore. There is no such thing as "The Changeless", unless you are meaning that in some unforeseen novel sense of the words.

You have no basis for making that statement. My basis for stating that The Changeless is a reality is my experience of it.

Turning off the internal dialogue is a pretty basic feat in meditation circles.

When you finally turn off the self created idea of 'I', then maybe you will make some progress. I still want to know who this 'me' is that is watching the waves at the beach, a question you continue to avoid.

Likewise not having preconceived notions about what one experiences is also fairly basic

That includes any personal view via one's personality.

.

Where we seem to part is that I try not to superimpose fairly limited thinking and concepts onto my experience after the fact.

One thing Zen has taught me is that a practitioner needs both direct intuitive experience and intellectual understanding. I have consistently referred to The Absolute; The Changeless; Ultimate Reality, etc, as being UNlimited. So what are you talking about? You've got to try to understand that these terms are simply 'fingers pointing to the moon, but not the moon itself'. That the description of an experience is never the experience itself. That is the true essence of the teaching. So we develop an understanding of how we use words, knowing they are just symbols for something else.

It simply would not occur to me to label my experience, that cannot really be described, as "absolute reality", "universal consciousness" et al. I would literally never occur me to make that leap into that kind of thinking. It would certainly never occur to me to write about it for others to read as I would hate to give them the wrong idea about reality.

No words can accurately describe Reality. That is why I try to make it clear that any words I use are merely fingers pointing to Reality, but not actually THAT Reality. It's just a matter of educating ourselves in the use of words, knowing what they are and are not.

There is no way I could truthfully say that "Absolute Reality" or "Universal consciousness" or "The Changeless" exist in any way. I would be lying to people if I were to try to use those terms in some semi-authoritative way. I find the idea behind the "universal consciousness" to be particularly misleading as there is precious little universal about consciousness.

Again, your limited, personal view simply cannot grasp what Universal Consciousness is. You are still in the realm of attempting to conceptualize what they are, and when your conceptual framework fails, you conclude that they just don't exist as realities.

I am not lying to you. Universal Consciousness is real, and while it is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis, and therefore , proof, it is also as intimate as your breath. In fact, it IS your breath, but you have to PAY ATTENTION! Then, at some point in your inner experience, you will realize that you are not breathing it, It is breathing you. It is alive and conscious, but it is not your personal egoic self, which is pure fiction. Make the discovery.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh my goodness, you are speaking about Brahman as if it were an existential reality. Godnotgod, I'm fully aware of what Brahman is supposed to be and have no need of your explanations on the subject. It IS a fairly primitive concept.... about what I would expect from those it dreamed it up eons ago...

Once again: What the word 'Brahman' points to is beyond Time and Space. Stop acting as if you know what it is; you don't, and that is obvious from your comments about it.

*sigh* If that is how you feel about it, there is no possibility that you could understand my use of the word and what I am talking about. In a very real sense, your foundation class ideas about reality preclude you from appreciating a larger view that is not based on previous limited ideas of personality. You are seriously in for such a delightful surprise. You're gonna love it.

It's just One Big Act.

Wait.... what? You want me to regurgitate the thinking of others? You're kidding, right?

No, I want you to tell me who, or what, this 'me' is that is watching the ocean waves at the beach, that's all. Can you do that?

 

[YmirGF]

No, I want you to tell me who, or what, this 'me' is that is watching the ocean waves at the beach, that's all. Can you do that?

You don't believe in personality as being an existential reality. How could I possibly explain it in terms you would seriously consider?

 

[YmirGF]

A personal view requires the idea of 'I'. What I have been pointing to is not from 'I'. This is a universal view, 'shared by many human animals', in which 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality', as our illustrious leader, Chopra has told us. This 'merging' is the dissolution of the 'I' self, and the coming into play of the Universal Self, Brahman, Ultimate Reality, The Absolute, The Changeless, That, The Witness, Universal Consciousness, etc, none of which are personal views.

Drivel snipped for brevity...

Are you seriously claiming you have no ego? Seriously?

 

[godnotgod]

Your doctrine is new-age Hinduism with some pseudo-science muddled in. Maybe you've been preaching for so long that you've forgotten what you're preaching, maybe you've said the same things so many times that you now actually believe it, maybe you just like the sound of your own voice.

In any case it's incredibly boring.

No, YOU'RE boring. Universal Consciousness is the most exciting thing to catch a glimpse of. It is Reality itself. What could be more compelling?

Still, show me the precise doctrine you claim I am preaching. You can't, because there is none, unless you want to call Emptiness a doctrine.

 

[godnotgod]

Drivel snipped for brevity...

Are you seriously claiming you have no ego? Seriously?

The ego is an illusion, so no one actually has one. Once found out for what it is, it puts up a horrendous fight to stay alive, playing every dirty trick in the book, but at last, must finally just dissolve away into oblivion. It's not so much that you have an ego as that the ego has you.

 

[godnotgod]

You don't believe in personality as being an existential reality. How could I possibly explain it in terms you would seriously consider?

Just show me its location.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Still, show me the precise doctrine you claim I am preaching. You can't, because there is none....

Exactly. It's a horrible muddle, but as I said it looks like new-age Hinduism with some pseudo-science mixed in.