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
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I thought Dyson was a vacuum cleaner.
A perfect example of inter-being!
It's just the Mahayana doctrine come full circle - ta da!
And for my next trick I will pull a cheshire cat out of thin air - if it will let me!
Here pussy pussy - I prefer dogs to cats - more obedient!
...\lol/...
I forgot who asked now, but the studies I was referring to where things discussed in eastern medicine are continually being proven in western medical ways are such as the effects of the areas of the brain that resonance imagery of the brain can now show-the increase in gray matter in those who meditate, for example. The study UCLA put out not too long ago about how they figure yoga reduces stress. When people inn the western world started experiencing these benefits, they were laughed at and mostly ignored and told science didn't prove it. Except our scientific methods available now, CAN start to prove it, and they are. Because of that, I am unwilling to suggest that because we cannot prove something today means it doesn't happen, or doesn't exist. Does that mean every idea that eastern systems, or Deepak Chopra or whoever else has, will be proven 100% true? Of course not. But I have seen enough studies about the actual proven benefits of yoga and meditation that were talked about ages ago, to know that maybe other things that come out of those systems are worth considering even if our science cannot yet prove it.
If you are looking for me to provide you with studies that everything Deepak Chopra says has scientific proof, you aren't going to get it. I already told you that I do not follow him, and only know a very little bit based on a book I read 20+ years ago and another I read more recently because I have been reading about Ayurveda. The only point I have been trying to make is that some of the things he has said have more recently been proven true by science, such as his view of the benefits of meditation. To me, that means perhaps I shouldn't dismiss every single thing he (and there are others who say similar things to what he says, I am sure) says just yet, either. Just like with anything else, you take what you can use and leave the rest. If you can't use anything, then just leave it.
The proof is in the pudding - not the words about it that satisfy you mentally, rather it is the pure experience of the tasting, feeling, smelling, seeing etc... That is a real experience, but try putting eating a lime cheesecake into words?
I was wondering which one of us two British idiots was going to mention that, so I made a conscious decision to let you do it.
Although we have Dyson over here in the colonies, too.
Perhaps Chopra has gone too far, but my point was that Buddhists also believe and teach some pretty far out stuff, far beyond the bounds of scientific theory, without attracting such vitriol.
http://www.maitreyaproject.org/en/index.html
So something else must be at play here. It must be the money.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/deepak-chopra-net-worth/
No, not comparing, I'm saying that they are the same. Earning a living from teaching their stuff.
I don't think there is anything wrong with someone thinking that their own beliefs are superior to other people's, I do it all the time. I just think it's unseemly to be publicly insulting about it, particularly when the person whose beliefs you are criticizing has thousands or millions of supporters who feel that they have been helped. Not to mention that the person puts their money where their mouth is.
https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/deepak-chopra#causes
True, about Buddhism including some far out stuff. But most Western Buddhists don't believe the farthest out stuff, like the existence of 32 realms, and so forth.
Some of us (mentioning no names to protect the innocent are on the path to truth) as such we can expect to find charlatans, Buddhists trying to marry us off, kundalinis trying to fondle our chakras, insane cructaceans and if we are discerning . . . good advice in an applicable form.
I agree with 95% of what Professor Richard Dawkins says. He is a scientist and deals in facts.
I find that Dr Dolittle [he talks and squawks to the animals] is 80% ignorant. Too high but entertaining.
We truth merchants can be a little discriminating. So for example we know that Dr Chopra is a bamboozler. We are not without compassion for deceased cultist Osho the well known nitrous oxide addict or hospital building miracle sham man 'Sai baba' or the deceased sexual predator and charity worker Jimmy Saville. We are also not afraid to call an alcoholic drunk, a non mystic muddled, and so on . . .
There are so many roads into dharma including the populists, pop gurus, pseudo and rogue lamas. No doubt.
Try not to get caught in the limited. The partial squawk of a well meaning parrot. That is my plan.
. . . .and now back to the controversy . . .
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/05/psychological-self-vs-no-self/
I can't stand either of them
OK, fair enough, but Chopra's claims of cells and the universe being conscious are in a different league entirely. And he makes these outlandish claims with nothing to back them up but pseudo-science and gobbledygook.
y'all seen this before? Deepak Chopra wisdom generator:
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
"Freedom is only possible in immortal sensation"
"The universe depends on subjective love"
Right, yeah, OK.
What's unseemly to me is somebody like Chopra pretending that he has scientific support for his theories when he most certainly hasn't, as the video clips in this thread have clearly demonstrated. His use of pseudo-science is dishonest and misleading, and takes advantage of the fact that many in his audience don't have a sufficient understanding of the science to realise that he is spouting nonsense.
His list of credentials are pretty impressive but some of his stuff just doesn't make a lot of sense. Medical degrees don't really make a scientist.
At first I put him in the same league as Echart Tolle but with more formal education. Not so much anymore.
Although I can honestly say I enjoyed his book "Buddha" very much.
I can get behind the idea that cells are the result of information being shared. In that sense would agree that the universe runs on a kind of intelligence but doubt the universe as a whole is intelligent.
I could see it having a kind of self awareness but only vicariously through the process of life's evolution (us). Who knows though... It could be in the long process of waking up. Maitreya, is that you? But anyways.
Dawkins, I don't know about. I'm not able to watch videos at the moment but I never found his arguments entirely compelling and it's been a while.
I like that he stands for reason so I'll give him credit for that.
@SpinyNorman;
In case you didn't know, those quotes you got from that wisdom generator are not real Chopra quotes. It generates "quotes" out of random "buzz words" in his books.
To me everything he says sounds like a succession of random buzz words, it's meaningless word salad if you stop to look at it carefully.
It's sort of fun playing around with ideas like the universe being intelligent or whatever, but claiming scientific support for such theories is dishonest and misleading.
It's a typical new-age ploy, using pseudo-science to make it sound like you have the answers, also using a lot of jargon, inventing words which are never clearly explained. Sorry but I think this guy is just full of BS, and I'm surprised that people are taken in by it.
You really can't say what most western Buddhists believe. You really don't know.
Likewise, and I think you hit on an important point. There are a lot of people out there really get into DC's stuff and lot that don't. If not getting into DC amounts to him being a charlatan, what does that say about those who follow him.
It means they're dupes, actually.
Quite right, but they don't give any of us the chops to denigrate the beliefs or teachers of others. Referring to someone as a dupe, even if indirectly or through inference is something none us can or should support.
Yes. They share a similar audience. I kinda like Tolle myself, but I don't think he's particularly profound.
We could say the same about Osho. I find his teaching on Lojong acceptable, but for the rest ......
I can even get behind the idea of consciousness on a cellular level, but see no proof scientific or otherwise. The way I see it, I have 20 years of life, give or take, and who can say what breakthoughs in our knowledge may take place.
I find the verdict is still out for me too, but I have been able to observe the effect his teaching engender in others. I see an intellectual snobbery and intolerance in his "followers" that rivals that of the most strident of fundamentalists
For me, the verdict is still out there, too.
Look at his net worth ....
Man, you can't even trust a wisdom generator these days...
I would say a lot of people have been duped in this case, yes.
I've been involved in the UK Buddhist scene since 1980 and based on that I would say Dakini's characterisation was pretty accurate.
The argument that some Buddhists believe in weird things is a straw-man anyway in this discussion.
Well, there's a LOT more to western Buddhism that what you claim to have seen in England, my friend.
And if that's the case in England, fine, but you should be a bit more specific about your demographic.
I wouldn't say so. You have been denigrating Chopra in fairly absolute terms and it would seem speaking as a Buddhist. It's not unreasonable to call general Buddhist teachings, many of which can seen as kinda "out there" into question as well. If Chopra is a Charlatan for teaching what he does, what does thant make the Dalai Lama for teaching Vajrayana?
So you'd say that you have the chops to call others Dupes?
I don't think so. I think you have a very subjective personal opinion and you're trying to foist that on the rest of us in a somewhat passive-agressive manner.
Hows that?
All opinions are subjective, but I have explained here why I have the view I have.
As for "passive-aggressive", you will need to justify that comment. Or perhaps you are projecting?
My main criticism of Chopra is his dishonesty, the way he pretends he has scientific support for his theories when he clearly doesn't. I'm not aware of the Dalai Lama being dishonest like this. Are you?
If there are Buddhist teachers who are being dishonest or behaving badly then I wouldn't try to defend them just because they are Buddhist.
Yeah. You keep saying that, but you haven't offerd a shred of proof that is the case.
It's not up to us to verify your cllaims, it's up to you to support them.
We could accuse you of the same dishonesty.
The two video clips in this thread are ample evidence of what I'm saying. Have you actually read the thread?
>
I think you're just being your bullying self so you can pack it in with the personal remarks.
How's that?
No it's not -- at least not if you operate based on principles.
You can't denigrate one person's belief systems because they believe in "weird" things that have virtually no support in science, and then turn around and say that "my" belief system is okay even though many aspects of it have virtually no support in science.
If Buddhism is anything, it's a set of principles. So to not operate one's life based on principles is disingenuous if you purport to be a Buddhist.
"What Buddhists believe" may or may not be a strawman argument, but it's not the topic in hand, so let's stick to that, shall we?
Umn, well it seems the topic at hand as it were, is / was rather open, since the OP simply posted the yt video with the opening comment being: "Fascinating exchange between these two on the nature of consciousness and the universe," and then folks proceeded to opine however they felt like. I have nothing against that myself.
But I haven't said that.
Anyway, back to the topic. What do you think about Chopra's use of pseudo-science? Do you find it credible?
>
I'm so glad for you.
The topic at hand is "Richard Dawkins v. Deepak Chopra".
Well yeah...it's also the thread title, but what is it we're allowed to say about it/them?
Like em, hate em, oh, SN has started a new thead I see. Good.
So what is the topic at hand?
Apparently what is fascinating is that Chopra is a fraud and Dawkins isn't.
There is some dark pleasure in indulging in being harshly judgemental of others faults. I can feel it and have been, and continue to be that way at times. It is something that some of us have to struggle against. Compassion and humility demand that we curtail it.
How is 'proving' that Chopra is a fraud any benefit to anyone here? Are we elevated by his disgrace?
Is he a sexual predator or criminal? No he is a businessman and his work is legitimate or he would be arrested for causing some kind of harm.
Whatever the market will bear. That's the system we are living in.
For folks who are trying to develop compassion and whose most fundamental beliefs include accepting that we are all ignorant until enlightenment happens, this type of derogatory conversation is harmful. In my opinion.
I lean toward what you are saying, @robot. And honest critique with some substance is fine. But it seems this thread is about ranting on (and on and on and on) someone. And here's my feeling -- he has been criticized, for example, about relying on the placebo effect. Well, after all the books (etc.) that he's sold, someone must be being uplifted by his message, and if it happens to be by the placebo effect, well if it works for someone, then it works. I would just hope that someone who is contemplating buying one of his books (etc.) would at least be a wise consumer. Let the buyer beware.
.
Our universe is conscious. We don't have a single experience without consciousness. Like the western koan: if a tree falls in the forest without anyone there does it make a sound?
Since we have no experiences without consciousness how can we directly know a universe lacking consciousness?
cittamatra view of emptiness.
I haven't read DC or this thread so I think maybe he is claiming something different from the cittamatra view.
I'm confused on how a singular view of British Buddhism means an all-encompassing view of all of western Buddhism. You know that there are quite a few Tibetans living in the US, right? Many of whom still follow, very much, traditional Tibetan Buddhism complete with deities and realms? Or are they not included in "western Buddhism"? And if they aren't, then what IS Western Buddhism? Because to the best of my knoweldge, excluding all the traditional Buddhists hasn't left western Buddhism with it's own definition just yet. It's still very much being worked out.
Nevermind other religions that, when you think of it, have zero scientific proof yet we accept them. There's no proof for God, Satan, Heaven or Hell, but we are perfectly fine not randomly attacking every Christian we see who believes in those things and talks about them in the open. There has to be some room for things that are not provable. That is why belief sets are belief sets...because they all require some degree of belief beyond what can be proven. We all pick and choose what works for us, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is ok to openly slam the ones we don't agree with.
Dalai lama on creation of the universe: http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html
Note: dalai lama isn't the final word on Buddhism! My teacher does not agree with HHDL on some points according to one of her published teacher student question and answer session.
My impression is that the mod-ship has said this is off-topic. But to answer the question, Tibetans, Koreans and Japanese don't become "Western Buddhists" by virtue of being located in the West.
This would be a great question for its own dedicated thread.
Cool, I'm starting a new topic: What is Western Buddhism.
Thanks, @vinlyn
I only skimmed and had not seen the comment about it, sorry about continuing it. Moved to the other thread
I thin it's a valid question to ask: why it's ok to bash one side that has no scientific backing, but fully accept it in other ways. There is no scientific proof for reincarnation, or the hungry ghost realm (depending who you ask it might be real and literal, or it might be a psychological state). There is no scientific proof of monks who can levitate or do other acts that we'd consider completely abnormal. We've discussed ghosts, psychic abilities, dreams, meditative experiences, previous life experiences, and so on. Most of it unprovable by science. Many people on this forum, in the past, have said "well, I haven't seen it but I won't discount it, either." Most likely because they want to trust the sources of the information, or because they have experienced something themselves and therefor consider it real, even if they cannot explain it. Why is it so much of a stretch to say DC experienced things we haven't, and so cannot relate to?
Of course, I don't care if someone trusts Deepak Chopra, or not. I do find it kind of odd that in a forum where many times we have discussed mystical, unexplained phenomenon with an open mind, that ideas DC might have are completely and utterly slammed into the ground with a basis of "there is no science behind it, he made it up" which the same could be said of a whole lot of things we have talked about here, yet it never came up.
http://skepdic.com/chopra.html
At the risk of dropping into the end of an interesting debate, my problem with Deepak is that he holds himself up and is touted as an example of Eastern philosophy and beliefs. Quite simply, he gives Buddhism a bad name because people hear him spouting a stewpot full of mysticism and pseudo-science and figure that's what we're all about.
How exactly does "he give" Buddhism a bad name. Is he Buddhist?
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 suppose he can best be called a man raised in India who was very familiar with the guru culture, who moved to America and checked out TM and set up his own thing incorporating about every new age idea out there and given a huge boost by Oprah on her show. Unfortunately, most people out there don't make distinctions or have the foggiest idea about the huge diversity of Eastern philosophy and practice, and he certainly doesn't. Perhaps I used the wrong words. I can't blame him for the sloppy job people do educating themselves about the wonderful world out there.