Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Richard Dawkins v. Deepak Chopra

124»

Comments

  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran

    @robot said:
    What gives Buddhism a bad name is when Buddhists indulge their attachment to their beliefs to the extent that they denigrate other's spiritual paths out loud. And in public.

    I'm not seeing people denigrating other's beliefs so much as denigrating a 'teacher' of a certain collection of beliefs.

    Chopra is a celebrity, and has not resisted his elevation to such, and this is where I've lost trust in MANY self-proclaimed teachers over the years.

    The thing about Dawkins et al is they are sittin' on top of empirical science, and if you have the means, you can go replicate all their assertions, but ya can't do that with Chopra's assertions. Individuals can 'replicate' Chopra's teachings but groups seeking validation can't. That's the difference in my perspective.

    And after a lifetime of seeking and yearning for 'truth' I have had it up to HERE with assertions from 'teachers' that I can't replicate for myself. What else do I genuinely have but my own 'self laboratory'? Watching and listening to others who see Chopra's teachings as valid is a dead end for me at the only level I have true access to -- my 'self'.

    lobster
  • @Hamsaka said:
    I'm not seeing people denigrating other's beliefs so much as denigrating a 'teacher' of a certain collection of beliefs.

    Sorry, I'm not seeing the difference. If someone is selling a collection of beliefs and millions of people are buying it, are they not believers? At least a some of them must be. His popularity is evidence for that.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator

    Last I knew, Chopra is not a Buddhist...he was raised in a Hindu family but his education was actually Catholic prior to going to college. I don't know anyone who thinks "Buddhism" and connects to "Deepak Chopra." HHDL, Chogyam Trungpa, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, even KD Lang. But not Deepak Chopra.

    Chaz
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @Hamsaka said:
    And after a lifetime of seeking and yearning for 'truth' I have had it up to HERE with assertions from 'teachers' that I can't replicate for myself.

    Well, if you can't do what a teacher teaches, who's problem is that if not yours?

    All a teacher can do is teach. You're the one who has to learn.

  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran

    @Chaz said:
    Well, if you can't do what a teacher teaches, who's problem is that if not yours?

    All a teacher can do is teach. You're the one who has to learn.

    You're like a cat pouncing on a toy.

    ChazCinorjerKundo
  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran

    @robot said:
    Sorry, I'm not seeing the difference. If someone is selling a collection of beliefs and millions of people are buying it, are they not believers? At least a some of them must be. His popularity is evidence for that.

    Well, I was thinking that the 'belief' is more personal to the believer, it becomes part of them and they it, whereas the teacher stands somewhat separate. But I see your point, too.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2015

    There are different demographics of peoples understandings of what Buddhism is. Some believe that Buddha is a 'false God'. So what if some demographic thinks Deepak Chopra is representative of Buddhism?

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @robot said:
    What gives Buddhism a bad name is when Buddhists indulge their attachment to their beliefs to the extent that they denigrate other's spiritual paths out loud. And in public.

    We regularly hear a bashing of rebirth and other Buddhist "superstitions" on this forum, so I really don't see the problem with expressing such views. I don't have a problem with people being sceptical, but here it seems that scepticism is being applied in a very partial way here. It's apparently OK to be sceptical of traditional Buddhist ideas, but not to be sceptical of outlandish claims by a new-age guru, or belief in "God", or whatever. And we're on a Buddhist forum and not a new-age forum. Confusing.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @karasti said: Why is it so much of a stretch to say DC experienced things we haven't, and so cannot relate to?

    As I have repeatedly explained, my main objection to Chopra is the way he dishonestly claims a scientific basis for his theories.
    Do you believe he has personally experienced conscious atoms and directly explored the consciousness of the Andromeda galaxy with his mind? I certainly don't.

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    Having read a little of DC's work, I got the impression he seems to put himself across as a 'raft' whereas upon close scrutiny, he's nothing more than a stepping stone, and a rather wobbly one at that.....

    lobsterkarasti
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran

    @federica said:
    Having read a little of DC's work, I got the impression he seems to put himself across as a 'raft' whereas upon close scrutiny, he's nothing more than a stepping stone, and a rather wobbly one at that.....

    Exactly so.

    This is illustrated by this joke:

    An American Buddhist was lost in the Emerald Isle (Ireland).
    'Excuse me Buddy,' he asked Paddy, 'which way is the nearest town?'
    'Well,' explained Paddy, ' . . . you don't want to be starting from here . . .'

    DC is not a good scientist or experienced mystic. Good new age twaddle merchant? Most certainly, top notch. As an ex TM 'scientist' maybe he can hop/fly, not sure about his flying credentials . . .

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @lobster said:'Well,' explained Paddy, ' . . . you don't want to be starting from here . . .'>

    Yes, it's a lovely way to wind up tourists. ;)

    lobster
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran

    What are serious scientists trying to prove btw?

    Just a thought ...\lol/...

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    Science generally starts with ideas and then sees if the observations back them up. New-age gurus just have ideas. ;)

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator

    I have no problem with skepticism, whether it be Deepak Chopra, rebirth, religion in general, or whatever. But I find harsh personal attacks to be bristling. My problem, of course, but it is what it is. We might certainly disagree on rebirth, everything from the finer details to it's existence at all. But for the most part, I have not seen those who do not accept rebirth to be name-calling and very personally judging those who do teach it or accept it. No problem with skepticism over here, but I do have a problem with attacks, whether it be on Deepak Chopra, HHDL or Chogyam Trungpa-all people who have been attacked here by some and I don't see a point to any of it.

    Chazvinlyn
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @karasti said:No problem with skepticism over here, but I do have a problem with attacks, whether it be on Deepak Chopra, HHDL or Chogyam Trungpa-all people who have been attacked here by some and I don't see a point to any of it.

    So any criticism is an "attack"?

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    edited February 2015

    Of course not, but I miss any valid information and criticism when name calling is involved because I immediately skip the rest of the post and tune it out. I hear enough of that from my children. Name calling is really never needed, especially amongst supposedly mature and fairly intelligent adults.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    What do you mean "name calling"? I've described Chopra as I see him.

    Chaz
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator

    I don't believe I was even talking to you. There was name-calling in the thread. If you want to find it, go find it. I never said you did it. I said he was attacked by some. Never said he was attacked by you. And this is not the only thread this has come up in, either.

  • @SpinyNorman said:
    It's apparently OK to be sceptical of traditional Buddhist ideas, but not to be sceptical of outlandish claims by a new-age guru, or belief in "God", or whatever. And we're on a Buddhist forum and not a new-age forum. Confusing

    What is confusing? You have cleared it up nicely in this statement.

    This is a Buddhist forum. Should Buddhists go to a new age forum to discuss traditional Buddhist ideas?
    There are plenty of good reasons why someone interested in Buddhism would want to share their skeptisizm of a concept like rebirth with other Buddhists.

    I can only think of a couple of reasons why a Buddhist would want to rip into some other religion or view that they don't share. None of which would be considered kind or compassionate.
    As I said before, I have done it and still do sometimes. One of my personal goals in this spiritual endeavour is to try to stop offending other people that way.
    I suggest that some people might take offence by things that have been said about material that is important to them.

    The criteria for deciding what is worth saying
    [1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

    [2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

    [3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

    [4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

    [5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

    [6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

    — MN 58

    Why do you care what Chopra teaches?

    lobsterHamsaka
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    What do you mean "name calling"? I've described Chopra as I see him.

    If calling someone a charlatan isn't name-calling i dont know what is.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    I think it's an accurate description.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator

    He was also called a "berk" which of course I had to look up and basically means moron, idiot, stupid (or if you want to go back to the apparent root of the word, something worse than that).

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    So? Doesn't change the fact that you're name-calling.

  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran

    I guess I wonder why this was even brought here?

    =) I feel that people are sometimes served by realising and having their arisings exposed by contention.

    It is dangerous and unskilful to go too far down this path as @robot has mentioned.

    However many of us (speaking of myself) are still impressed by new age mantras, gobbledygook and the latest dharma fad. We have to allow a little gossip . . . so Steve Jobs was a Zen Buddhist, now I can justify using an IPad . . . it is Zen. :3

    We will sometimes excuse the absolutely infantile teachings or behavour of some, because they provide a degree of comfort.

    So it is right that celebrity gurus are exposed as snake oil merchants. Remember most snake oil contained opium and therefore alleviated much pain . . . still snake oil . . .

    Discernment has to be practiced. We have to point and say 'science', 'pseudo science', 'crazy', 'crazy wise' and so on.

    Sometimes we find the Middle Way by touching the extremes briefly . . . That is my plan anyways . . . now back to the wikid naming and shaming . . . >:)

    Hamsaka
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited February 2015

    @karasti said:
    He was also called a "berk" which of course I had to look up and basically means moron, idiot, stupid (or if you want to go back to the apparent root of the word, something worse than that).

    I called him a berk. I looked up the definition and all it gave in the preliminary search was "A stupid person".

    Firstly, I called him a berk in the same way I'd call somebody carving me up dangerously on the motorway, a berk. Someone who'd I'd know a damn sight less about, and someone who in all probability, wouldn't ever cross my path again (if I could help it).

    Secondly, having researched the word further - I completely take your point and withdraw the term unreservedly. It would be Cockney Rhyming slang, and I had no idea of its root sense.

    That does not mean that I don't have a particularly high opinion of DC. I haven't.
    Is till think he's of questionable repute, and it's a danger to take a great deal of what he says, seriously.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @karasti said:
    I guess I wonder why this was even brought here? Obviously we share and discuss all manners of things that are not Buddhist. But it seems to me that this was likely posted solely for the point of taking some time to bash someone.

    Well, you're wrong and I now feel like I'm being bashed myself for having dared to criticise a new age guru. Oh well.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @Chaz said:
    So? Doesn't change the fact that you're name-calling.

    I don't consider it "name-calling".

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator

    I don't have anything else to add. I agree people should investigate and know what they are truly signing up for by choosing to follow anyone's advice. I'd tell them the same thing whether it was Deepak Chopra or their family doctor. I just think we can do better here, and that what possibly could have been a discussion turned into dozens of comments spent doing nothing but bashing someone for no good reason. No one here is a better person for having said, or read, anything in this discussion. No one is wiser. I don't have all day to read every topic here. So I pick and choose which ones seem like they will be of value to me, often based on the title (unfortunately, I probably miss out on some good stuff because people don't pick the best titles, but that's how it goes, lol). I wish I'd never read past the first 5 comments on this one, just a waste of time.

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    @karasti said:
    I don't have anything else to add. ..... I wish I'd never read past the first 5 comments on this one, just a waste of time.

    >

    Good, thanks.
    When we need a new police officer on the beat, I'll let you know.

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    On that note (with the OP's consent....)

This discussion has been closed.