Hi Surya Deva,
But what about my question: Is it not making you suspicious or somehow self-critical that the thing you are convinced of is so awesome?
would you please reply to this? No need to tell me you don’t have to reply because I did not reply to anything. Indeed you don’t have to. It’s not big deal anyway, just it interests me how you see this.
[quote]Yeah, you have proven everything. To you. To me you didn’t. And since you asked “personally”, I told you once more.
Man is not the measure of himself. Truth is not weighed by whether you accept it or not, it is based on evidence. I have shown very clearly through evidence all my points. I have shown QM has indeed disproven locality and realism, and it has indeed proven teleportation and levitation is possible with empirical evidence. I have proven using logical evidence the brain is not the mind and the mind exists separately, and can manipulate matter. I have proven consciousness is the substance of reality, again, using logical argument. You have not been able to refute the logic.[/quote]No no, you simply say you have proven and I have not been able. You have not proven and I have been able. It is only that I got tired of being able and talk about the same stuff over and over again. Whatever I say, you will have a reply. And then it’s my turn again. It will be exactly the same with this conversation about motives and style of discussion, you will not admit I am right. On the contrary will you prove that I am wrong. And when I will have gotten tired of this new strain of debate, you have a last word again and it will be: “I have proven and you have not been able.”. You’re like perfect.
However, I’d like to show you one or the other flaw in your way of discussion, let’s see how you refute that like nothing:
You make a capital mistake when you’re “proving” stuff. While it is - to some degree - allright to argue deductive in philosophy, it is not automatically in science. I give you an example, but - disclaimer! - only to demonstrate how you discuss and how that method is faulty, so do not expect me to discuss the actual subject: Teleportation. What we actually had been talking about, the actual thing in question had been: Can 1) a person 2) teleport themselves with 3) only their mindpower? So without any technical device. This would not even be proven if modern science was able to teleport a person with technology. If we could beam persons like in Star Trek, this would still not be proving that we could beam without the transporter-technology, because being able to teleport with technology is not necessarily followed by being able to teleport with only mindpowers - just like human flight without devices is not necessarily following people flying in aeroplanes.
Another point is relevant here: Most people don’t “even” know what quantum mechanics is. And they have no idea about the phenomena on the quantum level. They will assume that something like quantum teleportation does not exist. They never heard of it, never heard of non-locality. So they will initially say: That is not possible. When they then find out it indeed does exist? They have been refuted! Disproven! But so it only seems, because they were wrong and you were right. In a detail. You might (<-!) have tried this on me too, cuz in that post where you linked those basic tutorial about QM and the news articles your summary was “non-locality exists”. Which I never questioned. Because I know what QM is.
However, it does not even really apply here: What can we beam? A cup? No. A single atom? No. A single particle? No. We can beam nothing at all, so even your deductive reasoning is unreasonable. There is only a phenomenon called “Quantum teleportation”, but that is not the teleportation we talk about. And there are some people having an idea how it might be possible to teleport a light beam, which, though, is only a theory. If we could teleport a light beam, it would increase the probability that some day we will be able to teleport persons. And thereby it would indeed appear more probable that a person can teleport without technology. That’s all.
You say people can teleport with their mind-power. You’ve proven it and I have not been able to refute it. Wrong. You wouldn’t even have proven it, if next month the light beam beamer would do it’s trick or in a year the first person would be teleported by a machine.
And again: This is an example how you discuss and prove your points, not a discussion of teleportation. You, though + obviously, may feel free to prove teleportation via mindpower again.
[quote]No, I haven’t. But of course you’re free to think so. But what about my question: Is it not making you suspicious or somehow self-critical that the thing you are convinced of is so awesome? And what about those billions over billions of people who have a different viewpoint: They are all wrong? And you’re like the cream? Of menkind? How do you explain that? Take for example the pope. He is extraordinary smart and educated. Does he not know what you know? Does he not understand what you do? What is his problem, how come he does not recognize Yoga and Hinduism to be the one and only valid and sound viewpoints on existence? Just as an example.
Like I said man is not the measure of himself. In the past a vast majority of world believed the earth was flat, the sun went around the earth, heaiver-than-air flight is impossible. The Pope is indeed an intelligent man, but he is also a religious man and he cannot go against his beliefs.[/quote]Why not? Let’s say this intelligent and educated man knows all you know. Or even more! :o And that must obviously contradict his beliefs, right? Why can he not give them up? Is he then unreasonable? Ignoring facts? Like a child? Why wouldn’t he be interested in the absolute and unquestionable truth? Because of a an even sweeter candy his belief promises him?
Or is faith so strong that it sometimes appears as knowledge? Does the pope maybe think that he not only believes in his god, but actually think he knows god exists? Tricky question, isn’t it? Fortunately you have all the excuse you need to ignore it. Cuz I didn’t reply to every single one of your awesome proofs. 
If you free yourself from the shakles of belief and start think scientifically everybody will come to the same truths of Yoga/Hinduism.
So you think that the only and highest truth in the world is Yoga/Hinduism? And those billions over billions of other people are simply sorta dumb? Is every smart and reasonable person a Hindu? Yogi? Or simply unaware of the great truths provided there? Should every living woman and man become a Hindu?
I did not need to cite from any scripture to prove my points.
And I think without any scripture you would not even have any points. Books made you, you did not do the thinking yourself. As it appears, dear, as it appears to me. An impression. Because you talk about books and other people and modern science and your education and all the -isms all the time.
I completely relied on empirical and rational evidence. You do not understand Hinduism is not a religion in the conventional sense of the word. It is a science developed by ancient Risis of India to discover truth. To validate for yourself either using empirical methods or rational methods what the truth is. Now modern science has validated everything it says. In the end whether you accept or reject this evidence is your choice, but it is not going to change the fact that it is true.
There there, it’s quite allright.
Let me ask you, why do you do Yoga?
I do not do Yoga, I do Asanas and a little bit of Pranayama. For health-reasons. Also, some of the mind-related teachings from Yoga had an influence on me and introduced me to things I didn’t know, mostly the book “The Secrets of Mind-Control”. Additionally I agree with a lot what’s tought in Yoga, but that I have either learned elsewhere or concluded myself, particularly the Yama- and Niyama-stuff. But I don’t think of myself as a Yogi, I don’t embrace any path.
[quote]But I wonder what you might be looking for, when you already know it all. When you are already right with everything you say, if you have figured it all out from start to finnish (makes me every time again). What is your benefit? Are you - I don’t think so, but what do you think - really interested in learning about other people? What they believe in, how they deal with life and those large questions? And if you are, how does that manifest, how do you show that? From my perspective, if someone says something contradicting your viewpoint, you’re all about deconstructing that. Besides that you have no questions, you only have answers. You make lots of statements, start threads that are all about informing people about this and that. So what is “discussion” in your opinion? Telling people what’s going on and how and where and why they are wrong in cases they disagree with you?
I like discussing ideas and sharing knowledge. If you see my first few thread they were questions. I then realised that there was a lot of misunderstanding about Yoga, Hinduism and this motivated other threads.
So I am both sharing and discussing ideas. [/quote]Found some of your few questions, let’s say 10 posts out of - right now - 438?
But you get the point I am interested in, don’t you? You “share” a lot of your knowledge: Why? Are you at all interested in other peoples viewpoints? You only seem to desire to change people’s views, if they’re different from yours: Why? Do you want to convert them to Hinduism?
From another thread:
It is inevitable. My prophecy will come true that America will be Hindu by the end of this century. It is the religion of the 21st century for scientific and spiritual people. The Abrahamic religons will be assimilated by Hinduism.
More and more people will accept in America that Jesus was a master, one of many masters. They will accept Krishna, Buddha and many masters. They will accept reincarnation. They will accept dharma. They will accept Yoga both its theory and practice.
The Sat yuga will return to this planet and Vedic dharma will once again be the one world religion like it was in the past.
And you’re the vanguard?
