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.
Chopra and atheism
vinlyn
Colorado...for now Veteran
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/living/deepak-chopra-atheism/index.html
He's occasionally mentioned here on the forum, as is atheism, so I thought some of you might be interested in this CNN article.
1
Comments
I like how he showed everybody as being on a scale of belief. Not just yes or no.
Thanks for sharing
This article – I think – is a nice attempt of capturing an aspect of modern life.
How – if at all - can I combine being “spiritual” with being rational. That is a problem because when I am being rational and honest I cannot believe the traditional religious narratives as if they are factual truths. So what is being spiritual, if there’s no God, no rebirth and no heaven or hell?
For me the answer is to be found in what I thought was typical for Zen; the practice of doing the impossible. If body and mind can’t find the answer; then drop off body and mind and give the answer. I hope you get the idea of what I’m trying to say.
When I’m trying to be rational I’ll have to be ruthlessly rational. And when I’m trying to be spiritual, I’ll have to be ruthlessly spiritual.
If that leaves me with contradictions; I’ll embrace the contradictions without any reservation.
Chopra - in my understanding – advocates something in the middle between being rational (or skeptical) and being spiritual.
I’m suggesting that there’s another way. Embracing contradiction.
I read from a Tibetan teacher the concept of “me gak” If I remember that expression correctly. It was described as the non-confirming denial. It said that I can deny one thing but avoid the confirmation of the opposite.
It amounts to the same thing: embracing contradiction is a crucial step towards realization.
I don’t believe in God, and I can meet Him everywhere.
That’s beginning to smell like Zen I’m afraid.
(and now I'm off to work)
Oh no, another thread about God!
me gak - that deserves attention, many thanks, do you have a source @zenff ?
ChopRa is not God or his spokesperson. God told me that but I never listen to voices that say, 'nobody hears my message' . . .
I was recently watching some interviews of Ayn Rand another renowned superficial populist from the extreme atheist side rather than the pseudo informed centre. Plausibility always relies on the relative ignorance of the audience. The thing these pundits both hate and have in common is having their facile assertions challenged. Cultists and the narrow are like that . . . too hash? May his noodliness forgive me . . .
http://www.venganza.org
The reason most scientists and the Buddha (allegedly) were atheist when circumstance allowed, was due to focussing on the knowable essentials.
and now back to the Ain . . . or not . . .
Indeed, and Chopra's new-age nonsense is easily challenged. I like the picture you posted, does it portray the fishy creator C_d?
Ajahn Chah used to talk about embracing uncertainty, a very similar idea. Not knowing can be uncomfortable but it's often the reality of our situation.
@SpinyNorman My pic is a male or rather saucy depiction of The Flying Speghetti Monster. The equivalent Mrs C_d or the Shekhinah is the Invisible Pink Unicorn ... I knew my little pony dharma would become popular . . .
Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
Before such things became popular, Bertrand Russel had a flying teapot and I had Cecil the Ultimate Deity
http://peace.wikia.com/wiki/Cecil
Check out the DIY deity link if you need a new Deity ...
Oh, I see. Chopra's pink elephant is "cosmic consciousness", it seems to be a new-age take on Hindu ideas muddled up with some pseudo-science.
Not many can admit that they see and live a life with many contradictions. So I admire that. It's honest. And I do it.
You know what's funny, is I just saw this article posted on CNN,and I came here knowing I would see it also posted here, because NB loves it's ranting of Chopra. Maybe we should host him for a roast ala Comedy Central. Glad to see we are so predictable
They were pretty brutal on the Bieber roast. Do you think Chopra would cry?
With friends we were reading all transcripts of the extensive courses that our local Geshe had been giving.
When explaining the superiority of the Madyamaka -school this point of “me gak” was mentioned. The problem that it solves is that of avoiding nihilism while being radical about emptiness.
In my words: one can negate everything without positively confirming that there’s nothing. The negation of A is in logic the confirmation of not-A. But here there’s supposed to be a narrow escape between the two. This point is subtle (probably a lot more than it appears in my little “explanation”) and is to be approached in meditation on emptiness and absolute truth.
For me it rang a bell, because my first zen-teacher had shocked me previously with his statement that “something is only true if the opposite is also true”. And you obviously know that in koans contradictions (paradoxes if you like) are used a lot.
I didn't find a lot on internet:
Maybe the teaching of Two Truths offers a framework for being rational and spiritual at the same time.
When talking on relative truth I can be perfectly rational and rely on well-chosen concepts and perfect reasoning.
On the subject of absolute truth words and concepts are beside the point. It’s just a “spiritual” thing and when I attack it with my rational mind I’m not getting it.
Many thanks for your extended comments. Will look into some of the concepts you mention.
These may seem like subtle mind masturbations, in fact they are important illustrations of interior states that are of intrinsic value to those transcending the limits of binary 'either or' thought/being.
Mr Chopra is to be congratulated. Not because of his relative ignorance but because even the shallow can lead to depth . . .
In a similar way many new age platitudes and cliches are promoted. We do not expect too much from such pundits. Maybe we should ...
“something is only true if the opposite is also true” is something I have come across in Sufi teachings. It clearly does not apply to most maths, programming and practical life situations. It is however useful in quantum programming and some forms of advanced maths that use imaginary numbers, such as different forms of infinity ... I forget who developed the ideas of an infinity of infinities ...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Such maths is beyond my comprehension incidentally ...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
Thank goodness for smart cookies ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_comments_infinity.shtml
We have the majesty of Buddhist texts like The Heart Sutra and MN1, The Root Sequence.
Why even bother with a charlatan like Chopra?
I found Chopra's short and lackluster response to CNN's contrastingly in-depth documentary on atheism in America (and one family in particular) rather piffle-y. Does this opening paragraph even make sense?
"No doubt faith is in crisis. But this applies ... to the personal agony of families."
I did use the embedded links to read CNN's write-up, which was interesting and quite detailed. But Chopra's dyspeptic comments and asides about atheism are - can I say piffle again? No? OK, how about dismissive?
knee-jerk skeptic
mind is being conditioned by others
rigid skepticism
And I saved the best for last:
believing in nothing but the material world is cold comfort
But doesn't Chopra say that "Atheism can do good by casting a skeptical light on cultural mythologies" Can? How about "does"? Hmm. I reckon the atheists can aspire to that, then.
These are not the droids you're looking for...move along.
Oh, how I hate feel aversion to these threads!!!
Chopra's isn't alone in his piffling.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no shill for Chopra; never read one of his books and saw him on television only once years ago.
But I do think that the condemnations on the forum are often of the knee-jerk variety, almost always from people who have written a total of ZERO books on any topic and struggling along through Buddhism. So, some jump on someone who doesn't say what Buddhists are supposed to say. Dismissing people's views out of hand, when that is done, is not the open-mindedness that many Buddhists profess is essential to Buddhist thought.
I just can't take Chopra's new-age nonsense seriously. And I can't take God seriously either. What a naughty Buddhist I am!
Yes, the two truths thing can be helpful. But I think sometimes people just get confused at the relative truth level, maybe hanging on to out-dated beliefs and assumptions, clinging to a muddle of contradictory views, fudging the question and the answer.
We certainly are.
Yes.
I have mentioned before how mystical experiences are as unfathomable, paradoxical and very similar to the Mahayana Buddhist dictum:
Emptiness is form and form emptiness
The Pink Unicorn explanation of 'Being and yet not' is as strange as Shroedingers Cat from Quantum physics. Strangely in its attempt to mock, for me at least, it seems quite useful and insightful on quite a deep experiential level. How odd.
Chopras experience of mysticism and appropriation of Quantum physics is lucrative and superficial but then many new age pundits are trite. They do lead those so inclined (perhaps hopefully Chopra too one day) into informed science and genuine mysticism/dharma. He is not a bad person, far from it.
This message sponsored by the pink that has no unicorn tale
...Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a certain Richard Dawkins shoots himself in the foot....