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

13

Comments

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    I thought Dyson was a vacuum cleaner.

    nakazcidanatamanKundoRowan1980
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited January 2015

    @anataman said:
    To stimulate the debate dakini - but also to stimulate your being! I am nought without you...

    A perfect example of inter-being! ;)

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

    @Dakini said:
    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/...

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator

    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.

  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    edited January 2015

    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?

  • 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

    @SpinyNorman said:
    I thought Dyson was a vacuum cleaner.

    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.

    Kundoanataman
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    Although we have Dyson over here in the colonies, too.

    karasti
  • @Dakini said:
    Chopra goes too far. Saying that cells have consciousness is on the edge of believability and current scientific theory. But going so far as to say that cells "have a desire for meaning" is over the edge.

    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.

    vinlynRowan1980karastiShoshin
  • @SpinyNorman said:
    So you are trying to compare a monk living on alms to somebody worth 20 million dollars? It simply won't work.

    http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/deepak-chopra-net-worth/

    If you're saying I'm not impartial in my criticism, sure, you're probably right. But then why should I be impartial? I'm a Buddhist, not a new-ager.

    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

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @robot said:
    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.

    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/

    Chaz
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran

    I can't stand either of them

    Chaz
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @karasti said: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.

    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/

    lobster
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @thegoldeneternity said:
    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. :p

    Dakini
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @robot said: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.

    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.

    lobster
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited February 2015
    Deepak Chopra lost me somewhere during his Quantum Healing book. I can't quite remember exactly what he said but it was about a cells memory and communication between other cells. I just remember thinking "Well, if that was true, I wouldn't have any scars".

    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.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @ourself said:
    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.

    lobster
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @Dakini said: 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.
    ......

    You really can't say what most western Buddhists believe. You really don't know.

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @ourself said:
    Deepak Chopra lost me somewhere during his Quantum Healing book. I can't quite remember exactly what he said but it was about a cells memory and communication between other cells. I just remember thinking "Well, if that was true, I wouldn't have any scars".

    His list of credentials are pretty impressive but some of his stuff just doesn't make a lot of sense.

    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.

    Medical degrees don't really make a scientist.

    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.

    At first I put him in the same league as Echart Tolle but with more formal education. Not so much anymore.

    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 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 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.

    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 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

    I like that he stands for reason so I'll give him credit for that.

    For me, the verdict is still out there, too.

    Look at his net worth ....

    silver
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @Chaz said:It means they're dupes, actually.

    I would say a lot of people have been duped in this case, yes.

    lobster
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @Chaz said:You really can't say what most western Buddhists believe. You really don't know.>

    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.

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    I've been involved in the UK Buddhist scene since 1980 and based on that I would say Dakini's characterisation was pretty accurate.

    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.

    The argument that some Buddhists believe in weird things is a straw-man anyway in this discussion.

    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?

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    I would say a lot of people have been duped in this case, yes.

    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?

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @Chaz said: 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.

    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?

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @Chaz said:If Chopra is a Charlatan for teaching what he does, what does thant make the Dalai Lama for teaching Vajrayana?

    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.

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    My main criticism of Chopra is his dishonesty, the way he pretends he has scientific support for his theories when he clearly doesn't.

    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.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @Chaz said:

    The two video clips in this thread are ample evidence of what I'm saying. Have you actually read the thread?

  • 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

    @Chaz said: 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?

    >

    I think you're just being your bullying self so you can pack it in with the personal remarks.

    How's that?

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    The argument that some Buddhists believe in weird things is a straw-man anyway in this discussion.

    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.

    silver
  • 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

    "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?

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    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.

    vinlyn
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @vinlyn said:....then turn around and say that "my" belief system is okay even though many aspects of it have virtually no support in science.

    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?

  • 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

    @silver said:
    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.

    >

    I'm so glad for you. :unamused:

    The topic at hand is "Richard Dawkins v. Deepak Chopra".

    silver
  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran
    edited February 2015

    @federica said:I'm so glad for you. :unamused: 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.
    =)

  • @federica said:
    "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?

    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.

    nakazcidChazlobstermmo
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    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.

    silverChazHamsaka
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2015

    .

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2015

    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.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator

    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.

    Kundo
  • Dalai lama on creation of the universe: http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

    The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. Many gross consciousnesses appear as dependents of the physical aggregates, of the body. This is evident when you consider the different neurons and the functioning of the brain, but just because physical conditions are met does not mean that this is enough to produce a perception. In order for a perception which will have the faculty to reflect and know an object to arise, it must have a consubstantial cause. The fundamental consubstantial cause, of the same substance as its result, will in this case be the subtle consciousness. It is this same consciousness or subtle mind which penetrates the parental cells at the moment of conception. The subtle mind can have no beginning. If it had one, the mind would have to be born of something that is not the mind. According to the Kalacakra Tantra, one would have to return to the particles of space to find the fundamental consubstantial causes of the external physical world as well as of the bodies of sentient beings.

    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.

    Dakini
  • @karasti said:
    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.

    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.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    @Dakini said:

    Cool, I'm starting a new topic: What is Western Buddhism.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator

    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.

    vinlyn
  • How is 'proving' that Chopra is a fraud any benefit to anyone here?

    =) You are free to do that for yourself if you have the time and inclination. You are also free to verify the veracity, scientific basis and credentials of Professor Dawkins.

    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.

    lobsterHamsaka
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    @Cinorjer said:
    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.

    vinlynkarastiChaz
  • @vinlyn said:

    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.

    lobsterDakini
This discussion has been closed.