.
Deepak Chopra is deliberately deceiving people to make a quick buck. And it is unfortunate that the gullible people fall for this sort of mumbo jumbo every time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdcB7FIrXXI
Printable View
.
Deepak Chopra is deliberately deceiving people to make a quick buck. And it is unfortunate that the gullible people fall for this sort of mumbo jumbo every time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdcB7FIrXXI
I never quite had the attraction to Chopra as many did, but I can't explain why. I figured that I just wasn't evolved or spiritual enough to grok it.... In this public apology he admits to being defensive and "mean spirited" in the face of criticism. I don't view this as really being as evolved as he would like to appear. Speaking of appearance, he's got some serious bags under his eyes, which indicate a health issue. Something I hope he's looking into.
Be sure to watch his public apology to Richard Dawkins on YouTube.
Those of us who criticize and put down others on Wacco, can rest assured that we're in "good company" with a world famous, spiritually evolved person....Depak Chopra. That should help alleviate any feelings of guilt or remorse that we (probably don't) have.
I also don't track with Dr. Oz. I've always been out of the loop when it comes to "worship". I do have a lot of respect for Jon Stewart, Bill Mahr, Steven Colbert, and of course Rachel Madow, and a few others who share their view of how it really is.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Be sure to watch his public apology to Richard Dawkins on YouTube.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Where is it? I'd like to watch it asap.
Thanks!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
When the YouTube video you posted, finished, there was a choice to watch others. One of these was the apology. It followed on the heels of the one you posted, so I thought you knew about it. I didn't copy the link, because I was in the middle of another copy/paste.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KX-JVt0uf0Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
I don't understand how either of these videos proves that Deepak Chopra is a charlatan. He never claimed to be enlightened! He teaches ancient techniques for a good and healthy life. He is an eloquent speaker and devoted to consciousness studies. As far as the bags under his eyes, at 65 years of age he looks to be about the same age and health, if not better, of most of the 50-ish year old men that I know.
I can see that the worshippers of science dogma are threatened by the perspectives that he explores, his acknowledgement and even reverence for the mystery that life is - and that he is still human enough to take criticism personally - and that he is self-responsible enough to admit and apologize for his less-than-ideal behavior. Deepak's teachings have always resonated with my personal truth, but regardless of whether you resonate or not, he hardly warrants all this name calling. Are you going to go after Opray next because she has made millions off of her film, television and now spiritual ministry? People who help other people and actually have millions that they can do more good works with deserve some praise. I personally am inspired by both of them and frankly consider this conversation a very strange distraction. Questioning myself for entering it at all, but I was curious if I would see something in the videos that would change my impression of him. That I haven't.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Maxime Zahra:
Not really a charlatan, but WAY overrated. Very prolific, and rather typical in repeating very common ideas. He just writes a lot of books and has cultivated a public name and brand. No big deal, he's obviously put a lot of work into promoting his public presence, so more power to him I guess; he just doesn't really have that much original to say. Another spiritual marketer. IMO.
I agree. I've met Deepak several times in my previous vocation as an event producer and experienced him to be extremely personally gracious, when many "celebrities", "rock stars", and even "consciousness thought leaders" I've met have been self-absorbed. I also know people who have worked with him closely who deeply admire him, not as a "guru" but as a human being with integrity.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Maxime Zahra:
Nobody is perfect. And I too could find something to criticize. But the way he has courageously put himself out there for so many years and has so effectively and intelligently championed the evolution of consciousness that has successfully penetrated the mainstream makes him a hero in my book, despite whatever mistakes he's made or shortcomings he may have like the rest of us.
The current science model is limited to studying objective, physical reality that is measurable with current instruments. Which is correct for most things. Deepak, along with others, challenges current science to try to expand beyond the objective to also include the domain of subjective consciousness, which also exists and so why should it not also be included within the totality of existing phenomenon to be acknowledged and explored?
Because of the domain he addresses, he's an easy target for the cynical and the jaded, of which I admit to being one of sometimes. But how would we or anyone else fare in such a spotlight?
Scott
.
Frontrunners are most vulnerable to criticism and worship. Any leader knows this is part of the package. If Chopra has truly changed people's consciousness, that's very powerful. If he's triggered resonance in those who were already consciously evolved, that's a positive outcome, also.
Anyone who reaches the pinnacle of respect or worship by the masses must deal with the ego, so if anyone escapes becoming self-absorbed, that's to be admired.
Has he changed anyone's consciousness in this community? Do any of us know someone whose consciousness has really been changed by Deepak? Just wondering. Those would make interesting stories. I can recall certain leaders who were influential in actually changing my consciousness. Some weren't even recognized leaders.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:
Published on Mar 13, 2013
Sam Harris and Michael Shermer show just how bad Deepok Chopra's argument is. To skip past Chopra's babbling nonsense, skip to 2:49.
Note: Although Harris has said some things in the past that I don't agree with I feel he nailed Chopra's bullshit to the wall in this clip. Chopra did what I find a lot of believers do: they mix a little science in with a whole lot of religious nonsense and pass it off as fact. People who aren't familiar with science think he's saying something brilliant when in fact he's just spouting gibberish.
Full debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi2IC6...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09UmufmfSLc
I watched the 10-minute video and found Sam Harris's and Michael Shermer's eloquence mostly off the mark. They did not understand Deepak Chopra's language, they displayed their arrogance with calm disdain, and played to the audience instead of finding common ground for an intelligent discussion. Chopra knew what he was talking about, and his adversaries didn't. Too bad the moderator was not astute enough to call Harris and Shermer on their own misunderstandings and misdirected criticism.
Perhaps the full March 23, 2010 debate at Cal Tech on ABC's Nightline program reveals more of interest, but this excerpt seems to showcase the futility of intelligent discussion when the aim seems to be to tear down rather than to understand.
When I don't understand someone, it's easy to imagine I'm hearing gibberish.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
I'd like to echo Scott's previous post. I have also met Deepak Chopra. It was when I was working at Readers' Books in Sonoma. They had an author event and Chopra was the author. All of us found him very gracious, humble, open and engaging. I remember one aspect of his visit. Chopra wanted flowers on his table when he gave his reading. Somehow our event person had forgotten. Chopra arrived about 90 minutes early, just to look over the setup. He noticed that there were no flowers and asked about that. We apologized and he graciously said it was of no importance. He then when out for dinner. When he came back he brought flowers with him that he purchased (I believe at Safeway) at his own expense. He smiled at the event person, who got a vase, and we proceeded with the reading. This was all done smoothly and with ease. There was not a trace of irritation or criticism; it was more like Chopra was a gracious guest and found an easy solution and followed through on it. This is a small thing, but if, like Scott and I, you have done a lot of events these small things are meaningful. Some people who become famous become prima donnas. It's easy to understand why; all that adulation can go to one's head. But my experience with Chopra showed not a trace of an inflated ego.
I don't always agree with Chopra on specific suggestions he makes regarding health or philosophically over metaphysical understandings. That's OK; because Chopra is part of the ongoing conversation. I don't know Edward personally, I only know him from his posts here on Wacco. And from these posts I get the impression that Edward is extremely hostile to religion, spirituality, or anything that offers a view outside of that proclaimed by scientific materialism. Edward gets to do that. But from my perspective that is a narrow vision of reality and simply does not map onto my own experience and understanding. It seems to me that the view Edward espouses has made it difficult for him to enter into a conversation with someone like Chopra or others who do not share his own presuppositions.
My impression is that a "charlatan" is someone who pretends he's something he's not, or hypes a tonic he knows is horse piss. Simply being wrong about a dietary supplement, a deity, or a carpet cleanser isn't charlatanism.
As a student (all the way thru a Stanford Ph.D.), I regularly classified my profs as either geniuses or dumbfucks. Predictably, the latter outnumbered the former. But I did at least manage, unlike many fellow students, to take the geniuses' pronouncements with a grain of salt and glean at least tiny bits of protein from the dumbfucks. I myself have done and said some remarkably stupid things in my life — hard to believe, but true — yet I still put up with myself and try to peel off any labels that've been slapped onto me.
The only reason I comment on this is that I feel that labeling people is grotesquely impractical. All the people I'm truly interested in — whether for their talent, their humanity, their beauty, or their vile atrocities — are collections of extreme incongruities. Everyone from the President on down, or on up. Nixon (IMHO) was a vile, sick man, yet he did some good things; Obama (IMHO) is a good man, yet he's presided over some vile, sick things. Indeed, those descriptions themselves are labels, but I'm trying to say that these are people negotiating with themselves day by day, and with the dynamics of the rest of the world. I remember my 3rd grade teacher Miss Young as an angel and my 4th grade teacher Mrs. Schumaris as a crochety bitch. Those labels express my feeling, but they're a child's labels. They take the place of actually seeing.
By temperament I'm extremely judgmental. But by profession (as an actor and dramatist) I'm trained to look for motive, incongruity, contradictory layers of behavior — and I think this is more accurate. I do love good satire and inspired invective, but even if the object is Ted Cruz, I know it's not Ted Cruz the dad or Ted Cruz iwho pets his dog or Ted Cruz in the flesh: it's Ted Cruz Incorporated, that looming flat billboard, that hypothetical quasi-human that e.e. cummings had in mind when he wrote "A politician is an arse upon / which everyone has sat except a man."
Enough. Labeling comes easy mid-afternoon. Back to work.
-Conrad
I have nothing against Deepak personally , meaning who he really is and insofar as his general ability to live by the better principles of behavior, or his general ideas for that matter. I agree with the foundations for what he says, although I find a lot of his interpretation repetitive and over generalized 'stuff'. Some of it, too much of it, is for a fact romanticized generalizations, for sale. I ran into a very prolific and high money coach (Max Simon) who used to work promoting for Deepak and learned his craft of high energy high end marketing through that association. You can't even touch this guy for a price. He's strictly into the high end coaching buz. For this guy everything is calibrated by how much money it can make, he has totally lost the spirit of the matter (hehe). Respect is garnered by how much you make ($$$$).
As for Richard Dawkins, he is a chronic cynic and renowned skeptic, about anything beyond scientific materialism. He regularly attacks really sincere thought leaders like Rupert Sheldrake, among others. His set of views is notoriously limited, presupposing anything that is not based on material pre-eminence is gibberish, not open even to the evidence of peoples' experience, even when it can be documented clearly. In other words that set of experiential evidence is just pre-eminently thrown out the window; not worthy of so much scientific investigation if you will. Just kind of sad to close off to so much of the potential of consciousness in my opinion. Still, I think Deepak has overdone it quite a bit on the amount of repetitive generalizations that he clearly markets. I don't really consider him a sage. There have been those, like Yogananda for example, or neem karoli baba, or Nisargadata, or Ramana Maharshi. One of the signals of sage to me is that what they share is not for sale in the consumer market. It doesn’t have that edge of trying to create more product to sell more stuff. It's hard not to be corrupted by consumer culture. Many people believe that it is necessary to sell yourself in order to get the message out, but it always comes off as a pitch to me, and loses the authenticity in the process. Deepak if you were really so authentic you wouldn't be marketing to the stars in Hollywoodland, and so by association to the rest of us. Too many 'Products'. You want to be genuine? Establish a non profit and put your energy and wealth into helping the most vulnerable. You would be supported adequately I am sure, without having to be a super star metaphysician.
Truth is I am saddened by what has become a high volume (amount and pitch) spiritual marketplace. It really debases the Truth for me, the Truth that is available to every one of us by the way, without having to follow the loudest and most prolific among us.
I keep thinking I'm done with this thread and then I read another perspective that elevates the conversation and which I personally experience as stimulating and exciting, and which offer new hope for my own sense of humanity. Your comment, Conrad, reminds me of the teachings of non-violent communication, which I find extremely helpful. Specifically, the more familiarity we have with our own feelings and needs, the less we have to point fingers and name call at others. Typically, these projective behaviors indicate similar intolerances toward ourselves. Leaving me with great empathy as I strive towards loving kindness towards myself and all beings. May we all be happy, may we all be at peace.
Maxime Zara
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
I watched the whole debate, and while I am happy to express my opinion I encourage everyone to watch it and make up their own mind. I would normally find myself on the rational, scientific side of this kind of debate, so I expected to support Shermer and Harris. In fact I found myself embarrassed for them. First of all they did not debate the topic, The Future of God, but rather attacked the history of religion, a very different matter. They seemed to start with the assertion that God does not exist, and therefore can have no future. This precluded any kind of real debate. Worst, they indulged in so many logical fallacies that I lost count. I did identify straw man arguments, appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks and others that I do not recall right now. I would love for Dixon to watch this and comment. They were condescending and personally dismissive.
I had not had any previous experience of Deepak Chopra, and what I did know of him inclined me to the belief that I would not find much common ground with him. To my surprise, I found that he spoke to the actual subject, which was the concept of God, rather than religion. He expressed great respect for science and the scientific method. He tried to find common ground and several times offered olive branches that were contemptuously rejected by the other side. It is worth noting that he was the most qualified scientist on the stage. He did not seem arrogant or dogmatic. During the question period one person said that he was a nuclear physicist and took exception to some of Chopra's use of scientific terminology. He rather mockingly offered to give him lessons in the subject. Chopra's immediately and enthusiastically accepted, and said that he was always eager to improve his means of expression by increasing his knowledge.
Please note that most of my comments concern form rather than content. While I found that Chopra made by far the better arguments, I did not agree with everything he said, and he does seem prone to applying scientific principles outside their proper area of application. In any case, even if you disagree with him, he is clearly no charlatan. He has well developed ideas that he believes in and expounds those ideas in a graceful manner.
Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary. Watch it for yourself.
Patrick Brinton
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Karl Frederick:
.
I had an almost exactly similar experience with Deepak Chopra while producing a talk he gave to a large audience, except it didn't involve flowers but a more serious technical issue that made him have to change what he had planned. After telling him, I embraced for the blast, or at the very best the subtle disdain of incompetence I would normally get from the egos of such high profile people. But instead he let it go immediately, and as Jim said, there was not a trace of irritation or criticism. I gained instant respect. In my experience, that is not how charlatans behave. And such respect, either for one's character or work, doesn't make me a "follower" or whatever.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
Regarding postings by others negatively comparing Chopra to the status of a "sage", to my knowledge he has never presented or claimed himself to be one, nor is that really the domain of his work. So it might be a little unfair to put him to that standard.
Scott
.
Thank you Patrick. I agree with what you say about the critics. It's what I was talking about when I mentioned Dworkin. His ilk really have a very fundamentalist view. They are not religious but they may as well be in the most radical sense as they have a very fixed set of beliefs. To these rationalist atheists nothing is worthy of discussion other that what can be perceived and measured by the basic 5 senses. It's a very limited point of view, and yes they do tend to be dismissive and sarcastic toward anyone who doesn't agree with them. You just can't argue with that. It's what is called a presupposed position or point of view. My view is that whatever is experienced within the realm of consciousness is worthy of study and consideration as an aspect of reality, whether anyone else can 'see' it or not. It still means something and it doesn't 'matter' that there is no physical object of reference to validate it (the experience(s)). Modern science has taken this path which is severely reductionist and relies on a presupposition that as I said any phenomenon (conscious experience) that isn't within the realm of the senses doesn't exist. Yes it does. It exists in the realm of experience which can be reported and studied, especially when there is a shared or similarity in aspect which may be quite qualitative or 'subjective'. Subjectivity is also one of those myths.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
Sounds like Deepak was much more well behaved which I would expect. Kind of ironic for behaviorists to behave so badly and blind to their own presumptions.
I am really enjoying this ongoing discussion. I am a contemplative or philosopher at heart. Glad to find others to share it with.
That's fundamentally (sorry 'bout the pun) misrepresenting that ilk. They don't 'believe' in the senses at all. They're searching for things that can be measured and more importantly can be predicted. The senses only come in as an unavoidable interface between the mind and reality, and serious effort is made to minimize and account for their influence.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Ronio:
The physicists most emphatically 'believe' in things that can't be seen or touched. They are indeed clear that they completely reject pretty much all explanations for phenomena that can only be subjectively perceived. They're also rejecting the idea of 'belief' itself. The term 'atheist' is not the same as 'agnostic', and most ilkers are agnostic. Some, including Dawkins as far as I know, do go all the way to 'atheist' using Occam's razor - they've never been presented with evidence of any phenomena that leads toward postulating a divine presence, so they presume none exists. But existence of a deity is (by those standards) an uninteresting problem because it's undecidable. No test has been proposed that can decisively prove or eliminate divine intervention as a force of nature.