Yes, peace IS the way. That is SO deep. We should handle dangerous people with talk and reasoning. Then someday you can say...well, let's let Alec Baldwin say it

do they teach you how to practice sneering condescension at HowToBeAConservative class?

No Mark, I learn that from watching smug pacifist idiots talking obviously, patently nonsensical stuff about life and death issues. They inspire sneering condescension without the need for instruction from VRWC HQ. They get to talk about "peace" and show how enlightened and superior they are, jacking off their fourth circuit for cheap feelings of moral superiority.

Indulging their masturbatory instincts, however, leaves us weak and vulnerable to attack. This is a dangerous world, and dumb pacifist nonsense will get us killed.

In short, schmucks who would endanger our very survival in order to generate cheap personal feelings of moral superiority have "sneering condescension" coming to them.

what's VRWC?

VRWC is shorthand for the famous phrase coined by Hillary Clinton, who once charged that there was a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get her poor innocent husband.

right, i should have known.

he takes stabs at liberalism and all religions...

Maybe that should be "liberalism and all other religions"...

Chopra is the babble-meister, for sure - I went to a lecture once, and left when I had filled an entire notebook page, front and back in tiny writing, with errors of attribution and understanding in the two areas *I* know which he uses to support arguments.

He reminds me of an English professor I had in college, who lost an entire class by insisting on talking about deep time as "light years." If you want abstruse philosophy *really* supported by physics (quantum or otherwise), I suggest Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid [0465026567] and Metamagical Themas [0465045669].

Wow! never saw those arguments comming... < insert-rollingeyes-smiley-here >

...cheap feelings of moral superiority.

it's interesting that you're oh, so sure about the intent of everybody else.

if the angle isn't yours, it's cheap, smug , nonsense, etc. oh...did i mention cheap? yea, thought i did.

i would have been interesting to see you walk up to ghandi and call him a stupid fuck, which he obviously was.

It's hard to trust a guy who mangles modern science, even if he has good intentions. It makes me wonder if everything he say is BS. I provide the following quote:

"The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any better.

Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth.*

*Heinz Pagels (an actual physicist). He was an associate professor at Rockefeller University and Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Well far be it for me to dispute the sayings of a physicist, but his opinion is based on his conditionning of the cartesian mindset. Just like a priest wont accept scientific disputations on God's existence. Any argument made in favor of the scientist's belief, especially based on pedigree, would be sophistry at best.

Just like there are misguided men of spirit, there or misguided men of science. And both can have very convincing arguments.

But I will say thay when I read material by physicists who specialise in quantum physics, they sound like eastern philosophers and sometimes quasi-quote the philosophy, but the sacred words are replaced by scientific and synonymous ones.

I just like to look at all possibilities. And don't fall into either camp.

I just like to look at all possibilities. And don't fall into either camp.

That's fine. As long as you know that you're being snowed in at least the quantum mechanics/spirituality connection. Let's see Chopra solve the Schrodinger Equation for the bound state energy levels and first few eigenstates of a hydrogen atom, then derive the perturbation from spin-orbit coupling, and I might start to think he knows at least a little something about elementary quantum physics. Do you think he knows how to solve three-dimensional second-order partial differential equations in spherical coordinates? Even if he did, that still leaves a huge gulf to get from there to theories of consciousness.

If a car salesman tells you that a used car you're buying has only 35,000 miles on it, a recent brake job, and a new water pump, and you find out later that the odometer has been tampered with, you might start to suspect his other claims. Yes?

Duane, the guy is obviously "light years" ahead of the rest of us in his understanding, so much so that he's giving his next lecture in the eigenstate's capitol...

He's probably been studying the subject for at least 20 light-years, so I guess we should show some humility.

Mr Saleski- Reasoning and moral appeals are great- if they work. Gandhi and MLK were dealing with ultimately humane opponents, open to moral persuasion. That's much preferable to violence if at all possible.

The peace fags provide an important part of the public discourse. They keep the hawks honest, or at least some reasonable facsimile of such.

But when you've got vicious people who are flatly bent on exterminating you, cheap supposed spirituality will do nothing but get you killed.

In short, Bin Laden would make a lampshade out of Gandhi- and not feel bad about it.

So Duane, what are you trying to say here? Oh wait I know. My brother in law does this when losing an argument, short of slapping me around with his PhD in philosophy. I call it machine-gun tactics. Just throw as many citations and as much heavy-handed concepts at the not-PhD guy and burry him with it. Yada yada yada.

And I suspect any claim even if it comes from some dude with an impressive pedigree.

Yer allowed to disagree, you don't have to get your panties in a pinch about it. It's just a damn book review. Chill Pill time.

Just trying to provide you with some "enlightenment." I was firing my machine gun at Chopra, not you. You're not hurting anyone. Chopra and other charlatans do tend to make my panties bind. What can I tell ya?

Maybe it's time for you to draw upon some of that inner peace that you have learned to access, eh?

I did draw upon it and it manifested itself as restraint ;)

I guess I should consider myself lucky then that you didn't unleash your full mystic power and lay waste to my fragile ego.

[End of sarcasm sequence.]

Look, instead of getting all pissy, you could just accept the fact that you need to learn for yourself. If you don't know what I was talking about in Post 12, a better choice than getting defensive about it is to go look these things up for yourself. You say you have read several of Chopra's books, so you're clearly capable of learning. You might want to learn a few other things first though before you swallow his bull. Read some books about quantum mechanics that are written for the lay reader, for example. Not The Tao of Physics or any of those other physics-meets-Eastern-philopsophy con jobs. The danger, of course, is that you will find out that someone you look up to doesn't know as much as he pretends. I used to read a lot of UFO books when I was a teenager, and I lapped that stuff up. But you know, you have to face reality at some point. How old are you, anyway?

So this is the post where you get even more patronizing? And trying to discredit me by using my age. So funny are you. Well I'm probably older than you assume (since you even raised the question)

I would similarly invite to read great litterature of Buddhist and Taoist origin, but You obviously have a closed and rigid mind, since you treat anything that isn't in your worldview as a con job and bullshit. So I won't bother.

Well, look, Jeliel3, how bout we let bygones be bygones, and start over. I didn't come here to fight. I never said that Buddhist and Taoist writings were bullshit, just the connection between them and modern science. I don't know much about Eastern religion. But I am familiar enough with physics to know its limitations. Its reach does not extend into the spiritual realm.

... since you treat anything that isn't in your worldview as a con job....

Nah. Just stuff I know about that is being misappropriated to sell things.

Sounds good to me.

Thank you. Now, if you can, and if you don't mind, can you recommend some good introductions to Taoism and/or Buddhism? Something gentle please. I have read Confucius and the Tao Te Ching, and a few of those physics/Eastern mysticism books (which may not actually count). My exposure is quite limited.

Reginald Ray is an Archaya and a university prof that wrote these books to teach his classes, because none were sufficient. Big books that barely scrape the surface.

Indestructible Truth : The Living Spirituality of Tibetan Buddhism (Ray, Reginald a. World of Tibetan Buddhism, V. 1.) (Paperback)
by Reginald A. Ray
1570629102

Secret of the Vajra World : The Tantric Buddhism of Tibet (Ray, Reginald a. World of Tibetan Buddhism ; V. 2.)
by Reginald A. Ray
157062917X

Bodhidharma, is the founder of Zen. It's a small book, but not easyly digested.

The Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma : A Bilingual Edition
by Red Pine (Translator)
0865473994

Here are books on Buddhism and zen from the viewpoint of guys who made all the wrong decisions in life, and then discovered the pratice to better themselves. They take a no holds barred approach to Buddhism. Dharma Punx ius Tibetan and Harcore Zen is about Zen. Both are great read from writters that avoid trying to sound illuminated at all costs.

Dharma Punx (Paperback)
by Noah Levine
0060008954

Hardcore Zen : Punk Rock, Monster Movies, & the Truth about Reality (Paperback)
by Brad Warner "
086171380X

Hope that helps.

Zen is not Buddhism

Thanks JELIEL3. I'll take a look at those.

Aaman, what does that mean?

Topic for another post, perhaps

Oh boy here we go. Again.

Zen is Buddhism, but with a very different approach. It's approach is that enligntenment is already here, you simply have to tune your inner-radio to hear the song. So this is why Zen Buddhism is mostly meditative-oriented and also they ponder, depending on the Zen school, on koan. The zen schools acknowlege the Buddha but he seems to be a small player in the enlightnement game.

"That which asks is your mind. Through endless Kalpas without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real Buddha. This mind is the Buddha." -- Bodhidharma (Bloodstream Sermon)

Oh and another great book on Zen is:

Appreciate Your Life : The Essence of Zen Practice (Shambhala Classics)
by Taizan Maezumi,
1570629161

Interesting stuff. I'm just passing through, but thought I'd recommend a book for you, Duane, called "The Taboo of Subjectivity" by B. Alan Wallace. Solid introductions to Buddhism can be found by Rupert Gethin (especially early Buddhism), Peter Harvey and Michael Carrithers ('The Buddha').

My own two cents on Deepak Chopra is that his attempts to mix/mingle the realms of science and religion should challenge us to think more about both. Ultimately, he simplifies each to some extent to fit into his world-view, but his writing can still be useful to those who would not otherwise bother to pick up a book on quantum physics or eastern spirituality. On a philosophical level these two, in so far as each tries to understand the true nature of things, must not be separate, but two perspectives on one and the same world.

From Wallace's book, quoting Werner Heisenberg, 'if one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle... the only thin which can be written down as description is the probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being... belongs to what is described.' (Heisenberg 1962 p.70)
Following this, Niels Bohr... declared that 'an independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.' (Bohr 1987, p54). (Wallace 2000, p71) Wallace�s fundamental argument is that we can assume a Cartesian world-view (separate, real subject and object) only for so long before it breaks down (ie in quantum physics). The funny thing is, Buddhism, especially in its more philosophical stages from the 4th Century onward, espouses exactly the same thing but relies on meditation as the 'tool' with which to see the falsehood of the real, independent subject and object.

I probably won't be back here, so if you'd like to chat more, visit my website or email me at justin AT mtfreethinkers.org. -- Best wishes...

This blog incorrectly attributes the "peace is not the way..." quote to Gandhi. It was A.J. Muste who said that.