[FairfieldLife] Re: The madness of Chopra...
Deepak Chopra can't be considered a fringe thinker because he is espousing the same ideas as Advaita Vedanta, which is main-stream idealist philosophy. This may be a new notion for some people, who have not read their history, but Chopra's position, like all transcendentalists, is that consciousness is the ultimate reality; without conscious you wouldn't even exist. As a non-dualist, he thinks that everything is mind-made or mentally constructed. Again, this is an ancient philosophical outlook, based probably on the Buddhist Yogacara and Vijnanavada (Consciousness Only School). It's not complicated, but you got it all backwards - it's the pure consciousness that creates the mundane matter, not the other way around. I. Kant, the transcendental idealist, got the same idea without even reading the works of Shankaracharya (8th century AD), but for some reason you seem to refuse to get educated - you don't even seem to be well-grounded in Western philosophy. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I’ve never done anything to Deepak Chopra. Non sequitur. You've probably never even met Deepak Chopra in person. LoL! At least, not in this lifetime. There's just no way that billionaire Deepak Chopra, M.D., can compare to all your knowledge about the spiritual life and all the sciences and your fortune in savings. LoL! Perhaps I’ve mocked his surrealistically bizarre anti-science pronouncements among my friends a few times, or a few thousand times. Non sequitur. How could I not when he tweeted that his personal meditation caused an earthquake http://mashable.com/2010/04/04/deepak-chopra-earthquake/ or claimed that the moon doesn’t exist http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/03/23/does-the-moon-exist/ unless someone sees it? Non sequitur. Chopra is so on the fringe, it’s actually fun to read him usually—picture me with tears in my eyes, emitting cackles like Mozart’s braying laugh in Amadeus. Non sequitur. But when he goes after evolution, it starts to feel personal—and less amusing. Non sequitur. Chopra believes there is some “consciousness” that flows through the universe—an energy field created by all living things, surrounding us and penetrating us, binding the galaxy together…no, wait, that’s the Force I’m thinking of. Chopra’s notion of consciousness has more in common with that of the charlatan book The Secret, which says if you just think really hard you can change reality. Non sequitur. (A lot of children engage in this magical thinking, but as they mature they outgrow it—apparently with some exceptions.) Non sequitur. So perhaps this universal consciousness helped Chopra sense my negative energy. At a recent conference in New Delhi he reportedly said: Non sequitur. Charles Darwin was wrong http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-today-conclave-2015-deepak-chopra-motivation-guru-author-darwin/1/423746.html. Consciousness is key to evolution and we will soon prove that. Why does he have to hurt my brain like this—what have I ever done to him? Darwin “wrong”? Consciousness directing evolution? Evolution being affected by the thinking of beings that haven’t yet evolved, in some sort of tachyon-induced time warp? His words quantum-entangle my mind in a synergistic charlie foxtrot of howling madness. There's more: Why Does Deepak Chopra Hate Me? | NCSE http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257 http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257 Why Does Deepak Chopra Hate Me? | NCSE http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257 I’ve never done anything to Deepak Chopra. At least, not in this lifetime. View on ncse.com http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257 Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: The madness of Chopra...
Re "Can anyone post any logical proof that there was once a "Big Bang": No they can't. A strictly logical proof only occurs in mathematics. Physics always includes data from observation (which is always fallible). But besides that point the fact remains that in the current state of physics all attempts to model a Big Bang using what we think we know about quantum weirdness and relativity theory always end up producing infinite values. That is a dead giveaway that something vital is missing from our present understanding (this isn't my opinion - it's what physicists themselves maintain). We need another Einstein-cum-Newton to help us out. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Can anyone post any logical proof that there was once a "Big Bang", proving that the universe was once in a very high density state and then it exploded from a singularity. Thanks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Oh God, you gotta read this one about Chopra! Superstition | Uncertainty Blog http://uncertaintyblog.com/category/superstition/ http://uncertaintyblog.com/category/superstition/ Superstition | Uncertainty Blog http://uncertaintyblog.com/category/superstition/ Posts about Superstition written by theuncertaintyblog View on uncertaintyblog.com http://uncertaintyblog.com/category/superstition/ Preview by Yahoo From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 1:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The madness of Chopra... I’ve never done anything to Deepak Chopra. At least, not in this lifetime. Perhaps I’ve mocked his surrealistically bizarre anti-science pronouncements among my friends a few times, or a few thousand times. How could I not when he tweeted that his personal meditation caused an earthquake http://mashable.com/2010/04/04/deepak-chopra-earthquake/ or claimed that the moon doesn’t exist http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/03/23/does-the-moon-exist/ unless someone sees it? Chopra is so on the fringe, it’s actually fun to read him usually—picture me with tears in my eyes, emitting cackles like Mozart’s braying laugh in Amadeus. But when he goes after evolution, it starts to feel personal—and less amusing. Chopra believes there is some “consciousness” that flows through the universe—an energy field created by all living things, surrounding us and penetrating us, binding the galaxy together…no, wait, that’s the Force I’m thinking of. Chopra’s notion of consciousness has more in common with that of the charlatan book The Secret, which says if you just think really hard you can change reality. (A lot of children engage in this magical thinking, but as they mature they outgrow it—apparently with some exceptions.) So perhaps this universal consciousness helped Chopra sense my negative energy. At a recent conference in New Delhi he reportedly said: Charles Darwin was wrong http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-today-conclave-2015-deepak-chopra-motivation-guru-author-darwin/1/423746.html. Consciousness is key to evolution and we will soon prove that. Why does he have to hurt my brain like this—what have I ever done to him? Darwin “wrong”? Consciousness directing evolution? Evolution being affected by the thinking of beings that haven’t yet evolved, in some sort of tachyon-induced time warp? His words quantum-entangle my mind in a synergistic charlie foxtrot of howling madness. There's more: Why Does Deepak Chopra Hate Me? | NCSE http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257 http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257 Why Does Deepak Chopra Hate Me? | NCSE http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257 I’ve never done anything to Deepak Chopra. At least, not in this lifetime. View on ncse.com http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257 Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Oh God, you gotta read this one about Chopra! Superstition | Uncertainty Blog http://uncertaintyblog.com/category/superstition/ http://uncertaintyblog.com/category/superstition/ Superstition | Uncertainty Blog http://uncertaintyblog.com/category/superstition/ Posts about Superstition written by theuncertaintyblog View on uncertaintyblog.com http://uncertaintyblog.com/category/superstition/ Preview by Yahoo From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 1:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The madness of Chopra... I’ve never done anything to Deepak Chopra. At least, not in this lifetime. Perhaps I’ve mocked his surrealistically bizarre anti-science pronouncements among my friends a few times, or a few thousand times. How could I not when he tweeted that his personal meditation caused an earthquake http://mashable.com/2010/04/04/deepak-chopra-earthquake/ o
[FairfieldLife] Re: The madness of Chopra...
About Consciousness versus Awareness: One of the characteristics of TM teachings has always been the conflation of two terms - consciousness and awareness. The result is that we liberally use the term “pure consciousness” or occasionally “pure awareness” in our tm-speak. These terms are ways that we conceptually identify a reality that is neither waking, dreaming or sleeping. Usually we call it “the forth state” or “transcendental consciousness”. Supposedly, this terminology describes an “experience” of “transcendental consciousness”. It is described as 1.) remaining “awake inside in a state where knower, knowing and known object are united”. Another way of describing it is 2.) “dissolving the process of experience into the experiencer –thus leaving the experiencer awake and alone within their own nature.” Based upon such descriptions, this terminology then attempts to translate and define two Sanskrit yoga terms 1.) “samprajñata-samâdhi” and 2.) “asamprajñata-samâdhi”. However, finding comparable words in English to translate these types of Sanskrit yoga terms is notoriously imprecise. Consequently, scholars have resorted to all kinds of substitutions – ranging from religious vocabulary to phenomenological terminology to try to establish the meaning of yogic ideas. We also find similar substitutions in the tm-speak displayed here on FFL. Along this line, something worth considering is the blind inter-operability of two words often seen here – consciousness and awareness. So - why should these words be problematic? By definition, the word Latin sourced English word “consciousness” means an “object-defined” attention - whether that object is material, sensory or mental. This word therefore signifies an attention that is not only object focused but also one that is inherently “objectified” by its own operations, functioning and nature. Thus the obvious question - what is a “pure consciousness” (i.e. consciousness without an object)? Is it the opposite of impure Consciousness? If indeed “impure consciousness” means attention to an object, then also any attention to a mantra is also “impure”. Even if the adjective “pure” is added to the word “consciousness” to signify a simple or unmixed consciousness, then still, by definition, it signifies a consciousness that is intentionally oriented, actively engaged and objectified. If the adjective “transcendental” is added to the word “consciousness” then we have merely redefined the word to imply a consciousness that is mystical or supernatural. However, by definition, consciousness always means “consciousness-of”. Thus the label “pure”, simply contrives itself into the term “pure consciousness” so that it seems to be a reality that is other or beyond our immediate experience. Contrary to this, the Sanskrit word “cit”, is the word usually translated as “consciousness”. This word in Sanskrit (cit) actually means “awareness”. “Cit” has the verbal root meaning of “to perceive” and “bright” – each furthering the sense of “naturally luminous” or “self-radiant”. It thus is more accurately translated by the English word “awareness” which means alertness, illumination, recognition and realization. So what does this mean in the TM context? It means that the Awareness we now have while reading these FFL posts is the foundational reality for any accurate definition of yoga and Advaita. This is especially true when explaining the reality of human nature and its development. Your own awareness (svachaitanyam, svasamvedana, svajyotish) is already the most definitive reality. Thus in Advaita, it is this very “one’s-own-awareness” that requires no alteration, no modification or transformation because it is already the most evident yet generally unrecognized reality. The central insight of Shankara’s Advaita is that this “one’s-own-awareness” is at once both mundane and ultimate. His source is the Upanishads, which state that Brahman can be pointed out by the triple indication : “satyam, jñânam, anantam” – reality, awareness, limitlessness. In case you have doubts, here is the etymology: Consciousness = the state of knowing an external object or a subjective perception. The etymology of this Latin-based word “consciousness” is “co/con/com (= with) + scîre (= to know) + ness (= state, quality, condition)”. Yet contrary to this Latin based word is the more simple and native English word “awareness”. This is an “Old-English” source-word that conveys a simpler and clearer root meaning – i.e. vigilant or watchful; closely observant, alert or attentive. Shankara makes an important point in Upadesasahasri Shankara did not extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the mind: As I
[FairfieldLife] Re: The madness of Chopra...
"In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity..." The word mediation simple means to "think things over" and there is hardly anyone on the planet that doesn't think, so everyone meditates to a certain extent. Most people couldn't go through a single day without one or twice pausing to take stock of their own mental thinking process. And, we are all transcending all the time. So, meditation is based on thinking which by nature is dualistic. Thinking itself is the yoga tool for isolating the Purusha. When a person's thoughts fall away, they are left with pure consciousness, a state without thoughts - a state of mind empty of thoughts and all discursive thinking. Meditation itself isn't the cause of the emptiness, it just provides the ideal opportunity for the emptiness to come to our awareness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : About Consciousness versus Awareness: One of the characteristics of TM teachings has always been the conflation of two terms - consciousness and awareness. The result is that we liberally use the term “pure consciousness” or occasionally “pure awareness” in our tm-speak. These terms are ways that we conceptually identify a reality that is neither waking, dreaming or sleeping. Usually we call it “the forth state” or “transcendental consciousness”. Supposedly, this terminology describes an “experience” of “transcendental consciousness”. It is described as 1.) remaining “awake inside in a state where knower, knowing and known object are united”. Another way of describing it is 2.) “dissolving the process of experience into the experiencer –thus leaving the experiencer awake and alone within their own nature.” Based upon such descriptions, this terminology then attempts to translate and define two Sanskrit yoga terms 1.) “samprajñata-samâdhi” and 2.) “asamprajñata-samâdhi”. However, finding comparable words in English to translate these types of Sanskrit yoga terms is notoriously imprecise. Consequently, scholars have resorted to all kinds of substitutions – ranging from religious vocabulary to phenomenological terminology to try to establish the meaning of yogic ideas. We also find similar substitutions in the tm-speak displayed here on FFL. Along this line, something worth considering is the blind inter-operability of two words often seen here – consciousness and awareness. So - why should these words be problematic? By definition, the word Latin sourced English word “consciousness” means an “object-defined” attention - whether that object is material, sensory or mental. This word therefore signifies an attention that is not only object focused but also one that is inherently “objectified” by its own operations, functioning and nature. Thus the obvious question - what is a “pure consciousness” (i.e. consciousness without an object)? Is it the opposite of impure Consciousness? If indeed “impure consciousness” means attention to an object, then also any attention to a mantra is also “impure”. Even if the adjective “pure” is added to the word “consciousness” to signify a simple or unmixed consciousness, then still, by definition, it signifies a consciousness that is intentionally oriented, actively engaged and objectified. If the adjective “transcendental” is added to the word “consciousness” then we have merely redefined the word to imply a consciousness that is mystical or supernatural. However, by definition, consciousness always means “consciousness-of”. Thus the label “pure”, simply contrives itself into the term “pure consciousness” so that it seems to be a reality that is other or beyond our immediate experience. Contrary to this, the Sanskrit word “cit”, is the word usually translated as “consciousness”. This word in Sanskrit (cit) actually means “awareness”. “Cit” has the verbal root meaning of “to perceive” and “bright” – each furthering the sense of “naturally luminous” or “self-radiant”. It thus is more accurately translated by the English word “awareness” which means alertness, illumination, recognition and realization. So what does this mean in the TM context? It means that the Awareness we now have while reading these FFL posts is the foundational reality for any accurate definition of yoga and Advaita. This is especially true when explaining the reality of human nature and its development. Your own awareness (svachaitanyam, svasamvedana, svajyotish) is already the most definitive reality. Thus in Advaita, it is this very “one’s-own-awareness” that requires no alteration, no modification or transformation because it is already the most evident yet generally unrecognized reality. The central insight of Shankara’s Advaita is that this “one’s-own-awareness” is at once both mundane and ultimate. His source is the Upanishads, which state that Brahman can be pointed out by the triple indication : “sa
[FairfieldLife] Re: The madness of Chopra...
Emptybill. Concerning this little essay. Thanks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : About Consciousness versus Awareness: One of the characteristics of TM teachings has always been the conflation of two terms - consciousness and awareness. The result is that we liberally use the term “pure consciousness” or occasionally “pure awareness” in our tm-speak. These terms are ways that we conceptually identify a reality
