I have a few books and tapes by this man and have enjoyed some of it. It seems that through the years he has evolved from a physician to a teacher on wellness/spirituality to a promoter of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to a spiritual guru of sorts himself (in a kind of New Age/Hindu perspective). All fine and well, only now he seems to be on the "attack" against other religions.

Here are a few quotes from a 1-24-05 interview with "Time."

Q. Should the deaths of more than 150,000 people from the tsunami affect our image of God?

quote:

Actually, our image of God is outmoded anyway, whether the tsunami occurs or not. Religion has become divisive, quarrelsom and idiotic. Religion is the reason we have all this conflict in the world. We have squeezed God into the volume of a body and the span of a lifetime; given God a male identity, an ethnic background; made him a tribal chief and gone to war. Yet people are not ready to forsake their image of God.

Anyone see here a cheap shot at Christian belief in Jesus as the incarnation of God? Or a straw man argument against the Iraq war? (OK, we'll get to that one shortly.)

Q. Why do you believe God is a woman?

quote:

I think God is more likely to be a woman because women are nurturing and caring and loving. The human male has become the most predatory animal on our planet. It's time that we embrace the feminine face of God.

So, again. . . "God is more likely to be a woman" than a man = than Jesus Christ? And is this bit about women not a tad sexist--as though they are not predatory, or that men or not caring and nurturing? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for embracing the "feminine face of God," but it doesn't follow that in order to do so we have to reject the notion that God became a man.

Q. How do you feel about the war in Iraq?

quote:

I think it was a colossal mistake. It is sowing the seeds of distrust and hatred and the desire for retribution on the part of our perceived enimies. I said "perceived" because when you look at any enemy deeply enough, you'll find that they're a human being just like you. What did those poor Iraqis do to America? What did the childrten of Iraq do to America? Or for that matter, what did Saddam Hussein do to us? We went after the wrong country and the wrong people.

Opinion duly noted! It ticks me off, however, to see America's noble efforts and sacrifices in behalf of freedom for these people so flippantly dismissed and mischaracterized. Fewer people died in Iraq last year than during 2002 and the U.N. sanctions.

". . .when you look at any enemy deeply enough, you'll find that they're a human being just like you."

How marvelous!

- - -

Now, consider that this man is the spiritual advisor of many Hollywood elite . . .

quote:

I think God is more likely to be a woman because women are nurturing and caring and loving. The human male has become the most predatory animal on our planet. It's time that we embrace the feminine face of God.

Oh, brother. I have a little theory floating around. It�s yet to be proved. But I would like an honest study done on the role of woman in influencing, facilitating, promoting or enabling wars. I don�t think they�re quite the passive, impotent entity that they are commonly made out to be. Granted, they may not be pulling the trigger on the guns but they are at the heart and soul of what is being fought over. You suppose there is some egging on going on in the background? Do you suppose woman don�t play a significant part in bringing out the aggression in males?

Deepak has been smoking a little too much leftist, postmodern and political correctness weed. Besides that, I think he�s become a bit full of himself.

I feel that he is an important figure in introducing western people to the ideas of India.
He is a popularizer as was his longtime freind, George Harrison. (may he rest in peace)

He does seem to be up there on his pedestal, but I feel that anyone who can write 20 books in ten years
has a remarkable amount of energy. I believe he has good character as well. Last year I found a big scandal about some woman who had claimed to have had relations with Deepak. It looked like a
smear to me. Deepak was obviously very hurt by this, but that is the price of fame today.

He seems to have a genuine sense of missionary zeal. If Christians sent to India have this type of zeal, it bodes well for the subcontinent.

I was in a Seventh Day Adventist church about ten years ago where I met a retired professor who had tought with Deepak in California. He told me that
"He was really nothing special, just another one of the professors."

Now he has to contend with hecklers who believe him to be the antichrist, but that also is the price of fame.

If we are lucky, we might know more about ayurveda
in the new century, as well as more about refuting
New Age beliefs that prove false or destructive.

For me, it's a mixed bag with Mr. Chopra, but he has caused me to think...

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

For me, it's a mixed bag with Mr. Chopra, but he has caused me to think...

Agreed, MM. And what makes Chopra's stridently leftist political views all the more painful is because his whole spiel, at least theoretically, is about transcending that kind of stuff. Instead he basically undermines the very core of all that he teaches with his political attitudes that seem far too simplistic for such an educated man so we're left to assume he is simply being aggressively partisan.

I don't really care about his leftist views, quite frankly. It's these cheap shots at Christianity that bother me. Most unbecoming for any spiritual leader of any tradition.

This man has a following, and his anti-Christian rhetoric (and I'm pretty sure that's what it is) will influence many.

BTW, what religion considers God a "tribal chief"? I never heard that one before.

I don't really care about his leftist views, quite frankly. It's these cheap shots at Christianity that bother me.

I find that one follows the other.

This man has a following, and his anti-Christian rhetoric (and I'm pretty sure that's what it is) will influence many.

Don't underestimate your humble self, I say. This occurred to me as soon as I saw this topic. How remarkable the "diversity" of opinion at Shalom Place. How wonderfully "tolerant" it is of other viewpoints and religions. (I feel all those quotation marks are necessary because I mean the real thing, not the fake kind.) I would just as soon come here to learn from this bunch than go to a Deepak Chopra seminar.

Let him be anti-Christian. I can tell you for a fact that when I've most been shown the merit of Christianity it's largely been the Colonel Klink factor at work. (I'm not sure what the correct answer is but I know that certain people, such as Chopra, can be depended on to show me the wrong one.) Sometimes the truest merits of something is revealed best in contrast to, and rebuttal to, the Deepak Chopras of the world. "Celebrate" his lazy facileness. Continue to rebut his thoughtless words so that we might learn. That's what I tell my brother all the time when he throws his hands up in the air in frustration over something like this. I tell him to keep putting out his reasonable and thoughtful opinion. You might not get people to openly agree with you but you will plant a seed. That seed, if it's a good and true one, will grow.

OK, then, here are a few more zingers from this interview. Some of what's in the interview I agree with and I find quite good; that's partly what makes his teaching so insidious and corruptive. When he lashes out at Christianity--having already made some good and profound points--one feels drawn to agree with his assessment, especially if one is somewhat ignorant of Church history and doctrine. Also, it's pretty obvious he's evangelizing for Vedanta as though it's some kind of scientific, impartial spirituality without religious assumptions of any kind. )

OK, now the zingers . . .

"Christ wasn't a Christian and Mohammed wasn't a Mohammedan," he explains, obviously not for the first time. "Buddha wasn't a Buddhist. These are dogmas and ideologies. The fight is about semantics."

D'oh! Only, it's pure naivete of the worst kind to frame it this way, as though there is nothing of Christ or Mohammed or Buddha that is mediated by their religious traditions . . . they're naught but "dogmas and ideologies . . . semantics." Conflating these three concepts is also problemmatic, to say the least.

I've drawn on Vedanta because it is a wisdom tradition that talks about unity consciousness and the one reality from where everything comes.

Wrong! He's drawn on Vedanta because he's a committed Hindu and a disciple of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Ignoring that fact, the reasoning ounds good, but is based on an unprovable religious assumption which, in his hands, also takes on a panthestic quality. His implication is that Vedanta is far better than those ideological religions and their dumb doctrines, and that it is somehow free of doctrines and religious assumptions . . is scientific . . . Umm . . . no, Deepak.

But you'll find all seven responses in biblical literature. An example of the fight/flight response is Jehovah when he gets upset. . .

Finding the seven responses in biblical literature doesn't establish an equivalency between Judaism and Vedanta any more than the Jewish wars establish an equivalency with Bin Laden. Logical fallacy!

In many cases, it's the simple fact that science and technology have dismantled our traditional beliefs. If we are aware what science has shown us, we can no longer think of God as a dead white male in the sky. We can no longer squeeze God into the volume of a body and the span of a lifetime. That limits God.

There's that "dead white male in the sky" remark again. What else could that be but a denigration of the Christian belief in the resurrection. There's also a cheap shot at the Christian belief in the incarnation. Christian dogma does not limit God in professing these articles of faith, however, as Chopra would know if he took a Theology 101 course sometime. Instead, he chooses to bash straw men!

This is a huge universe. Planet Earth is a speck of dust in an unbounded expanse, an ocean of space-time. We're part of a little galaxy on the outskirts of infinity. A simplistic notion of God is no longer tenable.

Quite so! But another straw man (as though all religions teach "simplistic notions of God"). I daresay Catholic (and most Christian) theology is up to the task of affirming the vastness and complexity of the universe AND its traditional understanding of the nature of God.

Science begins to validate that within each of us there is at least something that is not subject to mortality.

Well, maybe. Depends on what he means by science. None of this has been conclusively proved by anyone.

The more you look at it and speak to eminent neuroscientists and physicists, the more apparent it becomes that consciousness is independent of brain, that if anything the brain edits the consciousness, taking bits and pieces to reinforce a prevailing worldview.

Brain = hardware; consciousness = the intelligence/energy that runs on it; programming = software. No one, nowhere, so far as I know, has demonstrated how any of these three can exist apart from the other two. I do believe consciousness goes on in the afterlife, but no one has proven beyond a doubt that this is so. Here, as in so many places, Chopra states his beliefs as though they are scientific facts.

If you look at Vedantic tradition, there are only five reasons why people suffer: they don't know who they are; they're attached to that which is impermanent and insubstantial; they are afraid of that which is impermanent and insubstantial; they have a false sense of identity through their ego; and they're afraid of death. Period. Those are the five causes of suffering.

Where does the toothache I had last year fit in?

And, of course, he had to get some really cheap shots in against Bush and politicians:

quote:

Dave: You mention Mandela. Where does politics fit into all this?

Chopra: Politics is part of the fight/flight and the reactive response at the moment, as is business. It has a long way to go.

Dave: In another interview, you noted a certain concern about the man who recently was elected President and his lack of...

Chopra: ... awareness.

Dave: Awareness of the world at large, let's say.

Chopra: Well, he's learning to delegate appropriately, so maybe we'll survive.

Again, there's some good stuff in the interview, but I feel about Chopra the way I do about Wilber and other New Age Religion gurus. There are some interesting and refreshing ideas, but also so much garbage about Christianity and Western culture as to render their teachings baneful, at best. They're also really evangelizing for one or another form of Hinduism -- usually Vedanta -- without honestly acknowledging that to be the case. Too bad these kinds of books are perennial best-sellers these days!

Wrong! He's drawn on Vedanta because he's a committed Hindu and a disciple of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

LMAO! Nice counter-zing. It seems Depak will make a nice case study. It�s all the rage these days to have "no boundaries", "no borders", no dogma, no prejudices, no "exclusiveness", no etc., etc., etc�.except, of course, for the ideas that I am preaching. All those borders, boundaries, assumptions, and exclusions are valid because�errr�because my intentions are so well meaning.

If you ask me, and I say this in all sincerity, this is Kindergarten Spirituality 101. These are the type of opinions I remember holding when I was 12. And while I�ll be the last to discount the sometimes pure wisdom of a child, I also recognize that children don�t actually know how to build a rocket ship like adults do, even though they may dream of soaring into the sky.

Depak, at best, teaches us that we need to take a hard look at our assumptions so that we don�t make the same mistakes over and over again. But, ironically, (and not altogether unexpectedly), he makes the same mistake himself (as WC so eloquently pointed out). His real ultimately truth looks an awful lot like the worst elements of those he is criticizing.

Phil 4. Deepak 1. Middle of first quarter.

Too bad these kinds of books are perennial best-sellers these days!

Let me throw in a Buddhist �maybe�. If he sells books it shows there is an interest in spirituality. Personally, I think Christ and Christianity are more than strong enough to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous misrepresentation. It�s how you (we) all respond to it that helps to define Christianity�at least in the mind of the public. You, Phil, have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater. You�ve noted there are some things Deepak says that you agree with. You haven�t stooped to character assassination in order to criticize those things you don�t agree with. At least that�s how I see it.

If people are buying his books and buying into his religious preaching then it means one of two things: People either like his brand of spirituality or they dislike more home-grown forms of spirituality (Christianity, in particular). And goodness knows the latter is not too hard to understand. It�s been the wholesale demonization of Christianity in our culture and the mindless elevation of Eastern religions that has opened a wound for junk like Deepak�s to seep in. But the bright side to this is that this kind of pressure can help snap Christianity out of any doldrums it is in and/or to help to renew itself once again and to reintroduce itself. And such paper-thin (as I think he is) religious zealots such as Deepak make for the perfect opportunity to do so. How to do so kindly, and in a truly Christian way might be the ticket to success. As you might have noticed, I ain�t quite there yet. Too much Ann Coulter in me.

There is a sort of New Age syndicate where they sit on each other's boards and have a mutual admiration society. Christian broadcasters have fallen into this in the past. They begin to believe their own press clippings and tune into the meme which their audience represents and the tail proceeds to wag the dog. "What goeth up must needs cometh down, and great shall be the fall thereof," --- mm chap. 1, verse 1.

Maybe we can take them all down with RICO or a conspiracy rap. How about an antiTRUST suit?

Hee hee. I'll take RICO.

And, yes, Brad, there is good in Chopra's teaching, especially when he writes about mind-body connections and how thought affects the body. When he inches over into the realm of spirituality, I find him less helpful as it's naught but Vedanta disguising itself as science. Even that I wouldn't have objected to until I noticed he's been slamming Christian belief in the incarnation and resurrection lately. True colors time, methinks.

- - -

So, turning now to Dr. Chopra's teachings on "God." Time and again he writes things like the following: Divine intelligence, or God, is unbounded, eternal, ineffable, without any beginning or ending in time, and beyond the edges of space. Therefore, the emptiness that you speak of is not an emptiness. It is the fullness of infinite possibilities. It is the field of pure potentiality. It is the immeasurable source of all that was, all that is, and all that will be. God is therefore not conceptualizable, but definitely realizable.

Note that he conceptualizes about God (unbounded, eternal, ineffable, etc.), then concludes by saying that God is "not conceptualizable." Just an innocent contradiction? Or is it a matter of him getting his concepts in before invalidating others? Not that I object to his description of God,here. It's OK as far as it goes, only one must consider it alongside others, such as the following, which are common in his teaching.

God is the infinite, unbounded, eternal intelligence that constantly projects itself as the Universe--through the creation of space, time, matter and infinite energy.

That's monism, which is also what Vedanta teaches.

He also speaks of God in many places as the "field of infinite possibilities." His language here attempts to connect with quantum physics, which, he claims, implies the same -- i.e., that the universe (which is indistinguishable from God, really) is a "quantum soup." This kind of language suggests scientific credibility, but really, friends, quantum physicists do not know what the ultimate nature of reality is. Nor do their theories support pantheism/monism over other ways of looking at things.

So God as "field," "intelligence," etc., but "not conceptualizable." Ahem, who's conceptualizing?

Also, what's the image of God coming from all this? Personal? Impersonal? Beyond both, he would probably say, failing to understand that anything must be one or the other. For by affirming a Personal God, Christianity (and other theisms) assert that God is not simply an Intelligence, but a volitional Being . . . a Supreme Being. That's not quite the same as a "field" (such language fails to arouse much spiritual passion in this pilgrim).

Missing from Chopra, too, is an accounting for the existence of evil. Like other Easterners, he speaks often of attachments, mistaken identity, illusions, etc. All fine and well, nevertheless one must ask why ultimate intelligence extending itself into the universe has become so confused about its identity, and why it has attached itself to its own projections? This is always the undoing of monism, imo; I don't think the contradiction here can be overcome with even the most clever of sophistries. And even if one were to succeed, one would still be left wondering why we should have any confidence that such an intelligence -- which so badly confused itself in the first place -- can extricate itself from its confusion using even Dr. Chopra's books for guidance. How liberating would it really be, after all is said and done, to detach from one's delusions, only to realize that the "field" was the confused agent to begin with?

None of this occurs to Chopra, however, or if it does, he's not much bothered by it. No doubt, he would sneer at the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation as (ontological) "dualism" (which it is, and happily so). Yet only such "dualism" adequately establishes creation as "real being" with God as its Creator, the One to Whom we are to give an accounting for our lives, and the One who is all-good and not confused about anything. And only Christianity adequately accounts for how creatures come to share in the divine nature itself without resorting to monism, but through Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection and the gift of the Spirit. Yes, that "dead white male in the sky" is the One who makes that possible, and who even graces the good that Chopra does.

Note that he conceptualizes about God (unbounded, eternal, ineffable, etc.), then concludes by saying that God is "not conceptualizable." Just an innocent contradiction? Or is it a matter of him getting his concepts in before invalidating others?

Hmmm. That's a smart criticism.

Missing from Chopra, too, is an accounting for the existence of evil. Like other Easterners, he speaks often of attachments, mistaken identity, illusions, etc. All fine and well, nevertheless one must ask why ultimate intelligence extending itself into the universe has become so confused about its identity, and why it has attached itself to its own projections? This is always the undoing of monism, imo; I don't think the contradiction here can be overcome with even the most clever of sophistries. And even if one were to succeed, one would still be left wondering why we should have any confidence that such an intelligence -- which so badly confused itself in the first place -- can extricate itself from its confusion using even Dr. Chopra's books for guidance. How liberating would it really be, after all is said and done, to detach from one's delusions, only to realize that the "field" was the confused agent to begin with?

Oh my goodness, I may be accused of toadyism (that ancient word that JB and I learned), but I believe that is be a world-class critique. A slam dunk. A coup de grace. Full phasers fired with a photon torpedo chaser. If I knew more about monism I might even get more excited.

None of this occurs to Chopra, however, or if it does, he's not much bothered by it. No doubt, he would sneer at the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation as (ontological) "dualism" (which it is, and happily so). Yet only such "dualism" adequately establishes creation as "real being" with God as its Creator, the One to Whom we are to give an accounting for our lives, and the One who is all-good and not confused about anything. And only Christianity adequately accounts for how creatures come to share in the divine nature itself without resorting to monism, but through Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection and the gift of the Spirit. Yes, that "dead white male in the sky" is the One who makes that possible, and who even graces the good that Chopra does.

I think Chopra's brand of philosophy, metaphysics, and religion plays well to the feel-good crowd who think the key to happiness is if we all just stop making those nasty things called judgments (which is a judgment itself, but I digress). That's why Deepak's god is described as an amorphous field of energy or whatever. It might as well just be one of those gas-cloud aliens who appeared in several of the Star Trek episodes. Such an amorphous "field of possibilities" is highly desirable to the postmodern relativist crowd, and is certainly preferable to a god who might represent a "field of responsibilities".

I'll grant you that original sin doesn't play too well with me either, nor does the concept of evil in a universe supposedly made by a just god. But even though I haven't reconciled those things that is no reason, at least as far as I'm concerned, to punt, to just give up and inhale whatever metaphysics sounds most like it came from an episode of Oprah.

Ten years in this tunnel now, and going back and forth, back and forth. I'll get around these people
who are NRA members, go shooting on the weekends, vote republican, go to church and/or read scripture,
pump up at the gym, work on the car or motorcycle,
have a big dog or two, perhaps a family, served in the military, have their own business and/or a stock portfolio, tell politically incorrect jokes and admire the founding fathers, motherhood and apple pie.

The same day or next day I'm with the people who recycle, shop at health food stores, do yoga or meditation, have a cat or small dog, vote democrat, read Chopra, Course in Miracles or Conversations with God, have one of those "alternative" sexual lifestyles, believe in feminism and "choice," and believe that it takes a villiage to raise a child, support medical and nonmedical marijuana and other herbs, believe the suburbs are the root of all evil, and just do not
judge anyone except for those judgemental people, enjoy gardening and nature, and make their own candles and things.

I look at the one and see too much yang, and look
at the other and see too much yin. Can we ever get
everyone together, or is it some cosmic comics imbalancing act?

Re. my "slam-dunk" of Monism. Well, I'd like to take all the credit, but I'm standing on quite a few hefty shoulders here.<br /><br />Brad: Overall he impresses me as a very fine motivational speaker but, alas, like so many others who find fame (as in Hollywood actors and such), they then think they have some magic gift for discerning truth, even religious truth.<br /><br />He's actually a very boring speaker -- somewhat flat and monotonish! He's a good motivational writer, however, and, as I mentioned above, I think he's very good on elaborating mind-body relationships. His Quantum Healing is a real keeper, and in Perfect Health, he does a nice job of bringing Ayurvedic health principles more into the mainstream. It's when he takes the good capital earned from these kinds of ventures and uses them in the interest of establishing credibility for his spiritual and religious views that I start to have problems with his teaching. If he'd just come right out and say, "I'm a Hindu and what I teach is Hinduism," that would be fine. But instead he presents it as all another level backed by science and as equally valid as his reflections on the more empirically-validated topics. <br /><br />w.c.: For those who haven't, taking a theology course from an Anglican or Catholic institution would probably be helpful, and surprising.

Yes! I've had this happen time and again in workshops and retreats, where New Agey types who attended because I'd written a book on kundalini (and so must be cool or enlightened or something) found that traditional Christian teachings on human nature and spirituality really made sense and weren't at all what they had been taught. For so many in today's religiously illiterate society, Christianity is associated with what the televangelists present, and that's unfortunate.<br /><br />MM: [i]I look at the one and see too much yang, and look at the other and see too much yin. <br /><br />Ha. I think you're on to something, although I'll have to think about that some more. Some of the problem with Chopra is with his use of logical fallacies and (as someone above suggested) his arrogance. I don't think that's a yin/yang issue. But I know the groups you speak of and your associations make senseAs an author, he (his thoughts, opinions, experiences, etc.) is present to us in the writings we are critiquing. Unless we are misrepresenting him, I have no problem with this critique. But if we (especially me) are misrepresenting him, then he is at least partly to blame for not being more careful in what he says/writes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: w.c.,

quote:

Ten years in this tunnel now, and going back and forth, back and forth. I'll get around these people who are NRA members, go shooting on the weekends, vote republican, go to church and/or read scripture, pump up at the gym, work on the car or motorcycle, have a big dog or two, perhaps a family, served in the military, have their own business and/or a stock portfolio, tell politically incorrect jokes and admire the founding fathers, motherhood and apple pie.

The same day or next day I'm with the people who recycle, shop at health food stores, do yoga or meditation, have a cat or small dog, vote democrat, read Chopra, Course in Miracles or Conversations with God, have one of those "alternative" sexual lifestyles, believe in feminism and "choice," and believe that it takes a villiage to raise a child, support medical and nonmedical marijuana and other herbs, believe the suburbs are the root of all evil, and just do not judge anyone except for those judgemental people, enjoy gardening and nature, and make their own candles and things.

I look at the one and see too much yang, and look at the other and see too much yin. Can we ever get everyone together, or is it some cosmic comics imbalancing act?

MM, I was quite impressed with that bit of poetry masquerading as a normal internet post. It is easy (for me) to sit here and pontificate, but there is a real world out there that often defies our easy descriptions and judgments. We're touched by the innocent presence and struggle of people of any stripe. In the unaware and candid happenings of normal intimate daily life you might be hard pressed to tell the liberals from the conservatives. Most people just seem to want to go merrily about there business, whatever that business is, without hurting anyone else. But we should not forget the larger, unseen, frameworks and ongoing struggles that facilitate this peace that exists at the bottom of the food chain, so to speak. The world of politics is inherently filled with conflict, and in the west we have ritualized this conflict to mere words and votes. It would be nice to bring more civility to the process, and we can and should strive to do so, but there is a lot of ritualization (thank goodness) of violence in this process instead of real violence. We err greatly, I think, if we overlook or forget this and forget the interface boundary that exists between personal ethics and ethics that are appropriate to the national political level. "Thou shalt not kill" works great between you and me, and it is good to keep in mind should some severe conflict between us arise. But that's the last thing we want either the police or our military forces to be constrained to if it's tasked with saving innocent lives from aggressors.

Maybe I've wandered away from you message, MM, but the above is what was spurred in me. I think sometimes that there are several hats we wear when talking about all this stuff and it's useful to see that we do so and that we switch them often. I, for instance, would wish nothing but peace and prosperity for the Palestinian people on a personal level. On a political level I would tell them that they must stop teaching their children to hate and they must stop supporting the instruments of murder or they will continue to remain poor and continue to live precarious lives.

But I think you also point out (I think) that differences are easy enough to spot and comment on, but that similarities and common themes, while they might indeed be staring us right in the face, are much harder to grasp and articulate. There are surely common threads between the leftist gay gardener and the NRA bambi-killing redneck. Both, for instance, likely eat meat. Both, for instance, love getting out into nature. Both, I'm quite sure, have walled themselves off from much of humanity by the tight-fitting masks they were that declare who they are. "I'm a redneck who chews tobacco." "I'm a gay gardener who eats Ben and Jerry's ice cream." Special people (I've got St. Francis in mind) are wise enough and compassionate enough to see right through those outer masks and pierce directly to the humanity and common human strivings that lay underneath. Particularly in this day and age we put on so many layers of affectations that we forget just how simple and basic we really are about most stuff.

If Deepak doesn't want to just add to all the noise that is out there then, like Phil suggests, it might be better if he were just a little more honest. That is particularly so for people whose goal is apparently to free the world from misunderstandings and who wish to improve on our morality.

He's actually a very boring speaker -- somewhat flat and monotonish!

Phil, I remember him most from a PBS special he did. He may have done several of them by now. I don�t know, but I think it was his first that I am referring to.

I thought he was a compelling speaker�so much so that I watched his presentation a couple times. But later � much later � it occurred to me that the reason I didn�t get a lot out of it wasn�t particularly because I was so ignorant but because, at least as I saw it, his stuff was so much fluff. Throwing around the word "potentiality" sounds good but that�s about it. But I also must say that I don�t have the personality type where revving one�s engine for its own sake has a therapeutic effect. I acknowledge that some people are built quite differently and do get a lot of life-changing ideas and inspiration from such drivel (sorry�that subjective side of me just won�t die).

I have read a lot of self-help books and do acknowledge that helpfulness of those that have been "so much drivel" as certainly they�ve showed me what path not to go down (and, of course, there are indeed many good ideas presented that one may just not be ready for and the reading of a book that one considered "ineffective" might actually be helping to prepare one). That said, there are only two books I�ve read that I felt had any effect on me. The first was Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. The second was Here Now In Love by PSR. I can�t even include the Bible in that list because the Bible for me has always been an uckky thing. It�s a constant reminder of how simplistically some people understand this stuff (mea culpa�I too am but a child), but I really do mean that sincerely. My own mother drives me nuts sometimes with her simplistic, fundamentalist approach to things.

Yes! I've had this happen time and again in workshops and retreats, where New Agey types who attended because I'd written a book on kundalini (and so must be cool or enlightened or something) found that traditional Christian teachings on human nature and spirituality really made sense and weren't at all what they had been taught. For so many in today's religiously illiterate society, Christianity is associated with what the televangelists present, and that's unfortunate.

I�ll not be too modest and not say that I don�t have an innate and somewhat reliable sense of things that are good and true even if I am sometimes late to the party. I didn�t particularly like Reagan in his day but I�ve caught up and think I really understand his message where others, even during his time, simply saw a man who "made them feel good about America." Well, that may be true, but that is also not saying particularly much nor can one really build intellectually on simply "feeling good". And religion for me (and even now) is something I�d rather not formally dip my toe into. For better or for worse, I�ve equated freedom with finding my own way and I perceive organized religion as a sort of smothering tyranny that is over-ritualized and unnecessarily constrained. That said, my attitude has been completely changed by the presentation of Christianity by PSR and JB. That�s a side that, frankly, I hadn�t seen before and a side I don�t think many have seen before. It�s no help, of course, that their presentation must compete with a lot of hateful or just plain ignorant stereotyping that is going on. Some deserved, but most not, I think.

The advice I would give all you religiously smart people out there is to out-Deepak Chopra the Deepak Chopras of the world. For our purposes here I think the critiques are highly instructive, but I have the feeling that if tomorrow I wrote the world�s best zinger rebuttal to Chopism and it climbed to that top of the best-seller list that it would increase interest in what Deepak is teaching instead of diminishing it. I think you would sort of get the reverse martyr effect. But a book written to reveal the outstanding "new agey" aspects (if you�ll pardon the expression) of Christianity might tap into a real need out there and thereby starve out Deepak�s teachings for a lack of oxygen.

It�s probably the same with anything, including conservative ideology. The best books (including Rush�s) are about the positive aspects of conservatism, and not the ones that are simply a non-stop criticism of the left, as valid as that may be.

My primary experience with Chopra's speaking skills is through tape series by him that I've purchased through the years. There, he seems to be reading a speech and does so without much inflection. Initially, I was expecting a kind of Anthony de Mello . . far from it!

there are only two books I�ve read that I felt had any effect on me. The first was Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. The second was Here Now In Love by PSR.

I take that as a high compliment, Brad (your marketing stipend is in the mail. )

. . . if tomorrow I wrote the world�s best zinger rebuttal to Chopism and it climbed to that top of the best-seller list that it would increase interest in what Deepak is teaching instead of diminishing it.

There really don't seem to be many good rebuttals on the web. Some sites list him as a cult figure, which is wrong, imo; others have billed as a New Age teacher, which is more correct, but they don't really criticize specific points of his teaching.

It's worth noting that his gross income last year was in excess of $20 million. This man's influence is considerable!

It's worth noting that his gross income last year was in excess of $20 million. This man's influence is considerable!

If you ask me, and this is totally a subjective opinion, I know, I would say that somewhere along the line in making that twenty million dollars, Deepak lost his innocence. Just look at that photo of him from that link. Granted, he's getting older. Who isn't? But there isn't that stardust twinkle in his eye. There isn't that easy smile and warm countenance that I remember from that PBS special that I mentioned.

And then I remember the rather symbolically idiotic stunt when he was talking about being a human shield against coalition forces in Iraq. That's about when Mr. Chopra jumped the shark. That's when he, a supposedly more enlightened and compassionate guru, started to equate true compassion with rather obviously facile leftist ideology. It's when he lost his credibility, at least in my eyes, as someone supposedly concerned with peace, healing and enlightened wisdom. Not that trying to stop conflict is a bad thing, but just look at who he was protecting and who he thought the world needed protecting against. Not Saddam but the United States. Granted, if Deepak had been for years manning the front lines in Ethiopia, in the Sudan, in Bosnia or in places in the world where the strong and unjust murdered or abused the weak then I might have admired him for his true pacificist stance.

Some of this stuff you cited, Phil, is just another nail in the coffin.

I take that as a high compliment, Brad

You're welcome. And you should because it's true and I meant it.

http://www.cultfaq.com/c92.html

http://www.religionnewsblog.co...chives/00001704.html

Another New Age guru, Anthony Robbins, last time I checked, was pulling down a cool $50,000,000 per annum, equalling megastar Paul McCartney's income.
We could get a bible to every Iranian citizen with that kind of money, and the results are more sure than neurolinguistic programming, BTW

What's being offered? Health, wealth, peace of mind and healthy fulfilling relationships with self and others. Can we publish a glossy bible with color coded blessings for the seekers and get the New Age booksellers to carry it? HHHmmm...


caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Yogic flying, MM? Those are a couple interesting links. It sounds like Deepak is pretty adept at selling both snake oil and innovative advice. His easy manor and smile probably make it harder to tell the difference and leave one less likely to be concerned about it.

What's being offered? Health, wealth, peace of mind and healthy fulfilling relationships with self and others.

I think it's the health, and particularly the wealth, that makes all this so new-agey. In our postmodern, cynical, materialistic, consumer-oriented, disposable, hectic, crowded and increasingly nihilistic world it is only logical and natural that anyone whose answer to the question "How can I find meaning in this increasingly materialistic and cynical world? is "Tap into your unlimited possibilities" is going to find a following. But that's basically giving the patient more of what's making him sick. It's mindless consumption that's killing us and Deepak's answer is not to cut down and simplify but to fulfill those potentialities! Enough already.

It's a seductive answer to what ails us. And it's an approach centered on the idea that we're not good enough as we are. We must be smarter, smoother, more efficient, more enlightened, more this, more that, just like your guru, just like your guru in his nice suits and black stretch limousine. See how successful I am! It's not so much about enlightening. It's about forced or crash-course evolving and pity if you're not one of the better people with the right stuff to begin with. If you're not then all the book reading in the world won't help you, but I'll be glad to take your money anyway. Although I might not explicitly market it as such, all this stuff is for the super-achievers and go-getters. One must already be fit and smart enough to fulfilling one's potentialities as fast as quantum physics can blink those potentiality particles into existent.

Ultimately it's a burn-out philosophy and religion. None but the very few (and these very few are usually the ones showing themselves off as the typical and then raking in the money) will find success and health. It's just not geared toward accepting us as we are. It's just a new and more novel way to chase after the ever-elusive perfection of our false selves.

Before giving us a litany of new goals and attributes to chase after, we first need to pair down and out some of the false ideas that are making us sick. I believe most of those ideas center around the lack of acceptance of our selves. There are a lot of ways to learn that "I'm okay deep-down just the way I am" but one of them isn't striving for fulfilling one's potential. My goodness, filling one's potential and mining the field of possibilities could drive us all mad. Does anyone else see that there is no end game implicit in this search? It's just a maddening quest for more and more. There's always some better potential around the corner. There's always something more I could do to remove this sense of purposelessness or pain.

Stop. Right now. Stop. Whether it's "Jesus loves you" or "you don't need that second home in Vermont to make you happy" the message is the same: Stop running away from yourself. Unless you were born a Ted Bundy, accept the good that you are. Stop trying to fulfill your damn potentialities and to "get a life" and simply live that life. HNIL, right?

http://www.bedegriffiths.com/

I would recommend Bede Griffiths to any Christians
seduced by Deepak's new age promises. His sanyassin
Wayne Teasedale takes this all much further, and probably thinks Chopra is wonderful.

Griffiths went to India to seek "the other half of my soul." It's an excellent concept for a westerner,
but why lose the first half?

In one of the tape series of him that I have, Chopra describes the meditation approach he uses as leading him to an experiences of awarenss that he describes as follows:
I am aware only of the fact that I am aware.
Nowehere, ever, do we hear him describing anything remotely similar to infused contemplation, where awareness is "informed" by "an-other" Presence communicating life and love.

So what is this awareness that Chopra speaks of? Is it God? The soul?

Having come upon this many times in my own prayer and meditation, I'm convinced it is the latter--specifically, human consciousness in its non-reflecting, non-intentional aspect . . . consciousness "at rest" . . . . "gathered consciousness." This is a good experience, to be sure -- a kind of "resetting" or "zeroing out" to enable intentionality and reflectivity to move more in self-chosen rather than karmaically-driven directions. In a way, it's also a kind of experience of God in that human consciousness is created by God and so God is "hidden," as it were, in the ground or origins of consciousness itself.

This kind of experience of non-reflecting consciousness is what I think Vedanta and even Buddhism has come upon, and its non-theistic quality is why they use non-theistic language to describe it. It's a mystical experience, especially from the vantage point of the Ego, which seems more identified with the intentional and karmaic dimensions of consciousness. This is not theistic, nor, less, theotic mysticism, however; rather, it's a kind of philosophical/metaphysical mysticism.

I'd have no problem if Chopra was a little more clear about what he's teaching, especially when he tries to relate it to Christianity and other theisms. Alas, however, he, like Wilber and so many other New Agers, assumes that his experiences are somehow definitive for the human race, and that theistic/theotic expressions are merely a consequence of semantics. Because theism seems to only add a complicating layer over what they can achieve nontheistically, they are generally prone to annoyance at theistic religions . . . something I think Chopra is indicating in his obvious slams of Christianity lately.

uote:
Actually, our image of God is outmoded anyway, whether the tsunami occurs or not. Religion has become divisive, quarrelsom and idiotic. Religion is the reason we have all this conflict in the world. We have squeezed God into the volume of a body and the span of a lifetime; given God a male identity, an ethnic background; made him a tribal chief and gone to war. Yet people are not ready to forsake their image of God.

"Anyone see here a cheap shot at Christian belief in Jesus as the incarnation of God? Or a straw man argument against the Iraq war?"
_______________________________________________

Before I comment on this thread Phil, I am curious as to why you interpreted Depoks statements as being specifically about Christianity, because I didn't take it that way at all.

Also, I would like to know if of the participants in this discussion have ever practised TM, the Yoga Sutras or any other form of eastern meditation or even Centering Prayer, as it is identical to TM, except that there is an sanskrit mantra given. And if you have had such a practice, did you practice for an average of 1 to 2 hours a day, along with yoga asanas and regular ayurvedic treatments for the past 25 or 35 years? I ask because I know that Dr. Chopra has had such a pracitice. This daily practice of deep inner silence has very much informed his experience of God, as it has mine, although I am certain his practise was much more disciplined and clearer than my own. And I am certain these practises have influenced him much more then his traditional Hindu background.

You all should know though that amongst the TM community, it is rumored that Depok has ghost writers for his books...He has a full time medical pracitice...there is no way he could write all these books. Also he and Maharishi had a falling out years ago. Chopra got tired of all the bull**** in TM movement politics and decided to go it alone. It caused a huge rift in the TM community. Some side with Chopra, and feel there are many in the movement who have "blind faith" in Maharishi. I tend to see it from both sides, and deeply appreciated what both of them have brought to the world.

I think having a common ground of experience is a very salient point to keep in mind before trying to communicate about ones experience of God or anything else for that matter. ...If there is no common ground, then it is very easy to fall into 'predjudicial thinking" and that applies to all of us.
It's rather like trying tell someone who has never heard Mozart, what hearing Mozart is like.... And even if we all tried to, we each would express it very differently wouldn't we?
Rishi, Devata, Chandis...the Knower, the Known and the Process of Knowing....are always in operation and always informing and changing the other...and have been throughout time. I feel this is the essence of what Depok was saying, but I would agree with you all that he could have been more receptive, nurturing and relational in his reponse...which would be more feminine in it's essence
I am guessing he must've been very tired. I received a primordial healing sound technique and pulse diagnosis from him years ago and have attended meny of his lectures. I found him to be a very sensitive, and connected man, even when on a very grueling and hectic schedule. And I find him to be a very captivating speaker.... he has a beautiful voice and is nice to look to look at too!!!
Virya

Hi Phil and others,


I am a newcomer to this site...I knew Phil and Lisa 25 years ago from the Awakening Community in Baton Rouge, La. I posted a reply last evening to the Depok thread, not realizing there were two pages to it.
I rechecked it this morning for editing (lots of mispelling...sorry folks...Is there a spell check on this site? ) I guess by opening it, it moves it from the new post position? ...as it was no longer there.
I have more I would like to add to this thread but I would first like to hear from some of the participants on my questions for reasons I explain in my post. Thanks.. Virya

Hi, Virya. It seemed that your questions were mostly aimed at Phil so that�s why I, for one, had little to say. But now that you�ve opened the floor�

I think having a common ground of experience is a very salient point to keep in mind before trying to communicate about ones experience of God or anything else for that matter. ...If there is no common ground, then it is very easy to fall into 'predjudicial thinking" and that applies to all of us.

And if you think about it, "common ground" could also be thought of as understanding the differences, the things that aren�t held in common. In the case of Dr. Chopra, although his spiritual credentials are quite impressive, a number of his statements clearly entered the realm of partisan politics where he, quite eloquently I would say, mapped out some of his ideology. Much of it I just flatly disagree with, and I tend to think that his political beliefs need to stand on their own. Although his spiritual credentials might be quite good, at least in my mind, they do not inherently buttress his political arguments. But I think too often people try to make them do just that. The Dalai Lama, for instance, might be one of the world�s nicest, most peaceful, most personable fellows, but when it comes to critiquing economic and political systems he leaves much to be desired.