--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" <anatol_z...@...> wrote:
ME:Chopra does try your move of redefining God into something basic and obvious like existence that no one could argue with. This is a false move because it lacks the other associated beliefs about God which for many include scripture. > AWAKENED: Forget about thinking, forget about body, just relax. My question > is, do you know without thinking about it that you exist right here and right > now? To know anything requires reflection. I can have sensations and feelings that dominate thought or just pay attention to the quiet aspect of my mind. But to know that we exist as a form of knowledge requires more reflection than say a person in a coma. For all we know they are in a state of inner pure conscious awareness but without the ability to express it as knowledge it isn't going to help this philosophical discussion. > > ATHEIST: [after some silence in presence of the awakened one] Vibes huh? Lucky atheist. > OK, I exist right here right now. > > AWAKENED: Obviously, it would be foolish to deny your own existence. OK so far. Existence is obvious, or should be. The question is what we choose to include in this concept. > > ATHEIST: OK, so what about God? > > AWAKENED: Existence itself is God. Buzzzz! Then why do we have two words? The reason there is a term "God" is that it includes something that precedes and gives rise to creation. If you strip him of these duties then you are redefining the term from its use in most cultures. If you want to redefine a term then you need to spend a bit more time laying out some of the qualities of your new God idea. Does it exist outside material creation? Did it create the universe? Can it be communicated with? Does it reveal itself in scripture? How is it different from the traditional ideas of God in Christianity or Hinduism for example? <It is on the substratum of existence itself that everything else exists.> If you are making an ontological claim you need to be a bit more precise than using existence to prove existence. What is it "sub" in relationship to? Is it beyond material creation, is that the claim? The term "existence" is a conception that needs more information about what you are asserting that it includes. The primacy of existence for some people means physical creation itself. Are you loading the word with more than that? < Existence itself is your own direct experience in the here and now>. It is a concept, a conclusion we draw from our actual perceptions and sensations and mental awareness. It is not a self supporting ontological identity like matter. I can conclude that I exist without having the term existence refer to what some people assert is a part of existence like "absolute being" in Hinduism. < To deny it would be like saying "I have no tongue" with the tongue.> Not such a good analogy. You are comparing something we have a physical sensation for and a concept that requires more definition to make sense to someone else. We all have tongues but do not define what is included in existence the same way. It is not a self evident thing in detail. > > ATHEIST: [dumfounded, speechless, mind stopped for a while] This is sort of a reworked Descartes' first principles. There is a bit of assumption in the existence beyond thought attempt. That we can know a state of mind without reflection and that is the true first principle. But since it is a subjective state it isn't really an improvement on "I think therefore I am." You seem to be saying "I am therefore I am" and the question is how do you know your own existence. I'm guessing it involves more than just sitting in silence, especially when you come back to the world of language required to discuss it. > > Deepak Chopra failed to prove existence of God to atheists > > I watched two videos of Deepak dialoging with atheists. > > In one case, the atheist was obviously aggressively angry from the start and > Deepak kept his cool. But all Deepak did was condescend by displaying his > brilliant mind of concepts from physics, medicine, spirituality which sound > impressive but > > In the second case, it was Deepak himself who got angry and the atheist kept > his cool neither being impressed by Deepak's tirade of brilliance, nor > getting angry. In this case the atheist won my standard of spirituality by > maintaining a more peaceful environment. > > I was not too surprised, as I saw a few times in the distant past, brilliant > physicists with huge egos from Princeton U tear into each other with > unnecessary ruthlessness at research seminars. > > Also, to me, it seems, that Deepak, like many others with TM backgrounds are > stuck in a time-warp and refusing to move on perhaps to try something new > that might work better relative to different situations to advaita dialog > for instance or something new and novel after all, doesn't Deepak know that > all concepts are relative and not absolute and if you want to influence the > masses, simple talking points are best just watch politics > > So, just exploring here a bit; would it not be more impressive if Deepak > could dialogue as follows: > > ATHEIST: Can you prove to me the existence of God? > > AWAKENED: Sure! Do you know that you exist right here right now? > > ATHEIST: Well, I think I exist, here is my body etc. > > AWAKENED: Forget about thinking, forget about body, just relax. My question > is, do you know without thinking about it that you exist right here and right > now? > > ATHEIST: [after some silence in presence of the awakened one] > OK, I exist right here right now. > > AWAKENED: Obviously, it would be foolish to deny your own existence. > > ATHEIST: OK, so what about God? > > AWAKENED: Existence itself is God. It is on the substratum of existence > itself that everything else exists. Existence itself is your own direct > experience in the here and now. To deny it would be like saying "I have no > tongue" with the tongue. > > ATHEIST: [dumfounded, speechless, mind stopped for a while] > > AWAKENED: Actually, the title of our debate should have been "What Is God?" > rather than "What is the Future of God" which obviously refers to our > conceptions of God rather than direct experience. Our conceptions, > scientific, spiritual, political, economical etc will continue to change this > way and that way, but without direct experience they are meaningless, just > fodder for endless debates. > > AWAKENED: So, now we can sit here silently; or go home, and don't forget to > take existence with you. > > thanks for listening, anatol >
