Deepak Chopra

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

The thread here has given me cause to go back and revisit some Deepak appearances on stages. The debate between Deepak and Sam Harris is worth a watch on You tube. The lack of quality, and even honesty, in everything being espoused from Deepak becomes powerfully highlighted in this debate.

What happened is half way into the debate Deepak admits that when he uses the word god he is not talking about anything even remotely similar to what anyone else means by the word or ever has meant by the word. He says he only uses it because it is an acronym to him for “Generation Organisation Delivery”

The vast dishonesty displayed here is astounding. Not only does the phrase “Generation Organisation Delivery” pretty much mean nothing at all, it is clear that Deepak is not even there to have the debate that everyone else was.

This is like attending a debate about the future of AI, and after listening to everyone else debate for ages simply dropping into conversation that you are not talking about “Artificial Intelligence” like everyone else, but “Aerospace Industrices”. The man could not be more dishonest if he tried.

As harris pointed out what Deepak is doing is being happily misunderstood. He has something to sell and he is calling it “god” as an acronym because he knows the vast number of people who care about god for all the reasons that Deepak was 100% unwilling to even begin to defend on the stage. He is, literally selling his ideas off the back of the marketing that has already been done by others. It would be like me baking a new kind of cake and calling them “BMW” in an attempt to link my entirely different product into the already existing consumer consciousness and associations…. And then copping out of that dishonesty by saying I only used it because its an acronym for “Buns mit weissschokolade”.

“Why use the word god then” Harris asked him and Deepak simply answers “I use it because it is an acronym”. He has a product and he openly admits he is jumping on the word “god” for nothing more than its marketing potential.

And some people, even on this thread, happily go out and finance his dishonesty by actually buying his books. Thankfully I only read mine from a library and did not waste a penny on them.

I strongly suggest you all watch this debate and see Deepak's "honesty" in action from start to finish. By the end of it the moderator is making jokes about his approach and his own team mate is trying to distance herself from Deepak.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Again: Do not assume to know me. You do not know me, nor what my prior knowledge is.

Didn't you make a claim that Deepak was in it for the money? You don't know him, yet you make such a claim.

Yes. It is. I keep asking you to explain something to me and you keep coming up with excuse after excuse for not doing so. The excuses change. At one point is that you have no time. Now it is that you think I am not really interested anyway or that I have zero understanding. Excuse after excuse after cop out. You will say anything at all to avoid the question.

Actually, I don't have enough time to start from scratch. I need to know your level of spiritual knowledge. You wouldn't suggest a book to someone who didn't know how to read, would you?

I can't possible begin to explain his work and teaching unless I know exactly where you are in your knowledge of spirituality.

So you think it exists, but you have not even defined what it is. As I said, this just sounds like you do not understand it yourself really. If you want to establish that the soul exists... start by defining what it actually is you are saying exists.

The soul has many definitions to be honest, pick your religion and there you go. The soul is said to be the spiritual aspect of out human body, and many, many other things.

Here is mine:
I don't think the soul is something that is separate from the body, I think the the body and soul are one thing. With the exception that the soul cannot die, be lost, sold, or sent to eternal damnation. I don't think any god owns our souls. The soul, body, and mind are all connected and work together. When in harmony, our physical bodies are healthy and at their best, when the body, soul, and mind are off balance our body gets sick and weak.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

The thread here has given me cause to go back and revisit some Deepak appearances on stages. The debate between Deepak and Sam Harris is worth a watch on You tube. The lack of quality, and even honesty, in everything being espoused from Deepak becomes powerfully highlighted in this debate.

What happened is half way into the debate Deepak admits that when he uses the word god he is not talking about anything even remotely similar to what anyone else means by the word or ever has meant by the word. He says he only uses it because it is an acronym to him for “Generation Organisation Delivery”

The vast dishonesty displayed here is astounding. Not only does the phrase “Generation Organisation Delivery” pretty much mean nothing at all, it is clear that Deepak is not even there to have the debate that everyone else was.

This is like attending a debate about the future of AI, and after listening to everyone else debate for ages simply dropping into conversation that you are not talking about “Artificial Intelligence” like everyone else, but “Aerospace Industrices”. The man could not be more dishonest if he tried.

As harris pointed out what Deepak is doing is being happily misunderstood. He has something to sell and he is calling it “god” as an acronym because he knows the vast number of people who care about god for all the reasons that Deepak was 100% unwilling to even begin to defend on the stage. He is, literally selling his ideas off the back of the marketing that has already been done by others. It would be like me baking a new kind of cake and calling them “BMW” in an attempt to link my entirely different product into the already existing consumer consciousness and associations…. And then copping out of that dishonesty by saying I only used it because its an acronym for “Buns mit weissschokolade”.

“Why use the word god then” Harris asked him and Deepak simply answers “I use it because it is an ”. He has a product and he openly admits he is jumping on the word “god” for nothing more than its marketing potential.

And some people, even on this thread, happily go out and finance his dishonesty by actually buying his books. Thankfully I only read mine from a library and did not waste a penny on them.

I strongly suggest you all watch this debate and see Deepak's "honesty" in action from start to finish. By the end of it the moderator is making jokes about his approach and his own team mate is trying to distance herself from Deepak.

All the books that I have bought of his where at yard sales or thrift stores. I haven't had to pay full price for them yet. Most I have spent was about $2.00.

And your telling me that people, even science doesn't use words as acronyms? Even ones that already have meaning?

He is a self help guru, just like most psychologists these days. His methods are just different than those already out there. People seem to have a problem when it involves spirituality.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

Didn't you make a claim that Deepak was in it for the money? You don't know him, yet you make such a claim.

A claim that were I to have made it is made on very valid evidence. His own actions and words. He admitted on stage the only reason he uses the word "god" is because it is an acronym for something that has literally nothing to do with god. He is cashing in on peoples associations with the word god, but when asked to defend anything that people actually mean by that word he runs away.

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

Actually, I don't have enough time to start from scratch.

So you are avoiding my questions by once again returning to the no time excuse. You appear to have quite a lot of time as you keep replying and typing quite a lot of words. If you had spent all that time merely answering my questions rather than copping out of them over and over, you would have likely done much in the way of answering them by now.

Simply I am not convinced by you spending vast amounts of time telling me you do not have time.

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

You wouldn't suggest a book to someone who didn't know how to read, would you?

Yes. I would. There are books specifically designed for learning how to read.

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

The soul has many definitions to be honest

I know, which is why I am saying if YOU think such a thing as the "soul" exists then YOU should first define exactly what you mean by that before providing the evidence it exists. Exactly what do YOU mean by "soul"? When YOU say the "soul" exists, what exactly are you saying.

And in your opinion what exactly does Deepak mean by the same word, and what are his evidences in your opinion that such a thing exists?

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

I don't think the soul is something that is separate from the body, I think the the body and soul are one thing. With the exception that the soul cannot die, be lost, sold, or sent to eternal damnation. I don't think any god owns our souls. The soul, body, and mind are all connected and work together. When in harmony, our physical bodies are healthy and at their best, when the body, soul, and mind are off balance our body gets sick and weak.

Now here is the main problem with this: Not once in this paragraph did you say what the soul IS. You did not even start to define it. The whole paragraph is telling us what the soul is NOT. That is not a definition. It would be like defining what an apple is by explaining to people only that it is not an aeroplane.

I did not ask you what you think the soul ISNT. I asked you what in your definition the soul IS.

Aside from that the only positive definition you give (where you say what it is instead of what it is not) is that you said the soul and the body are the same thing. If all you are saying is the soul is the body, then you are saying nothing at all. Literally. Nothing.

What you are doing is taking something we know exists (the body)... calling it something else (the soul) and saying it exists. Of course it does... you have just relabeled something that exists. That is all.

So this definition of "soul" from you needs a lot of work. Most of it is saying what it ISNT, not what it IS, and the one thing where you say what it IS actually says nothing at all.

This is no more than relabeling and waving of hands in woo.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

And your telling me that people, even science doesn't use words as acronyms? Even ones that already have meaning?

If you find me saying that I will eat my hate. I never said any such thing. Please keep your words out of my mouth... I clearly have enough of my own.

What I am saying is not that it is wrong to use acronyms.... nor am I saying that it is wrong to use one that has been used before....

... what I am saying is that it is wrong to specifically use one, that has nothing to do with anything you are actually saying or selling... solely to cash in on the associations people already have with the word.

As Harris put it, Deepak is deliberately being happily misunderstood. He has, with dollar signs in his eyes, noted the strong emotional attachment and associations people have with the word "god" and so he invented an entirely meaningless acronym using that word to associate his products with it.

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

He is a self help guru, just like most psychologists these days. His methods are just different than those already out there. People seem to have a problem when it involves spirituality.

In that he helps himself he is a self help guru. I think you are just deflecting here by inventing a non existant bias against spirituality to hide behind.

I have no problem with spirituality. Nor does Sam Harris who so effectively unveiled the dishonesty of Deepak in that debate. Harris in fact has studied under many many mystics and gurus and very much espouses spirituality, much of eastern philosophy, and even comically was at one point a hired body guard for the Dali Lama. He very strongly supports everything from meditation to eastern philosophies and he thinks much can be learned from those of our species who have gone into solitary confinement in caves in order to find truths about the human condition.

So suggesting those who point out the dishonest of deepak are doing it because of some "problem when it involves spirituality" is fantasy. Pure fantasy plain and simple. What is more likely is those who go into the lucrative career of spirituality feel they should be able to say what they like unchallenged, and so when someone actually does challenge the ludicrous notions they espouse the pretend it is an attack on all of spirituality because they are used to people backing down when they play that canard.

Spirituality and other forms of exploring the human condition, and whether there is a path to a deeper human happiness and well being that is not contingent on simply satisfying ones day to day urges is very much a discipline we need to explore more, and deeper. The problem is that, just like science, there will always be charlatans operating at the fringes of those disciplines, especially when the fringes employ language that the average lay man does not understand. Just like charlatans in science who promote meaningless non existent things like "quantum healing" and "vibrating crystals" and "super charged ionised water".... you will get charlatans in spirituality espousing things with fancy woo words that mean nothing too. If there is a buck to be made, there will be people out there trying to make it.

None of this takes away from science. Pointing out that woo medical cures are charlatan science is not the same as having a "problem with science". Similarly pointing out charlatans operating in the realm of spirituality is NOT the same as having a "problem with spirituality". It is a cop out fantasy invented to hide behind when people do not accept the woo first time off.