Deepak Chopra and Intent

Deepak Chopra and Intent


Pope Benedict and the Mystery of Two Worlds

posted by dchopra

An article in the Washington Post by Deepak Chopra on the Pope’s visit. Pope Benedict and the Mystery of Two Worlds



Advertisement
Comments read comments(11)
post a comment
Bob

posted April 17, 2008 at 9:08 am


“the Church’s position is that he is infallible to begin with
Only on matters of faith and morals. And what that really means, is that as Catholics, we trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Pope on those particular matters.
“sectarianism would let sinners continue to do wrong as long as they had confessed to God and done their best to change”
You know that’s not true, Dr. Chopra. The Church has always upheld respect for the secular law, based on what Jesus Himself said about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Of course, when I say “the Church” I mean the actual Church, not the imaginary one that you seem to have made up in your mind.
“As for the general decline in church attendance, there’s no reason to feel that this trend, now decades old, will be reversed.”
The Church survived the torture and murder inflicted by the Romans, it survived the corruption that flourished in the Middle Ages, it survived the Reformation, it survived Henry VIII, the so-called Age of Reason, the French Reign of Terror, and Spiritualism a.k.a. the New Age movement of the 19th century.
It will now purge itself of abusive priests, begin the healing, and survive this trying time as well.
And, I dare say, Deepak Chopra, the Church will survive you, too.
Still praying for ya,
Bob



report abuse
 

Sol

posted April 17, 2008 at 7:44 pm


Ummm, Bob? What’s with this “Still praying for ya” condescending nonsense I’ve come across more than a few times in your posts? Are the Chopras on their way to hell as far as you’re concerned or something? I only ask this because I enjoy reading this blog, but the posts I see from you seem to take on the tone that you’re right in your spiritual beliefs and all us “new agers” or simply people who like to think for themselves instead of being told what to think and believe, are wrong or lost and need to be prayed for by people like yourself. I’ve bit my tongue before as to not wanting to start a petty exchange of words on the differences between organized religion and secular spirituality, but I just had to ask why do you seem to keep looking for an occasion to be offended by what is said on this blog about organized religion? If you were secure in your beliefs, you wouldn’t feel the need to constantly come here and defend your faith. “The Church will survive you, too” is almost too comical to comment on. I guess you’re right — a philosophy that is inclusive, enlightened, understanding, and accepting of all spiritual paths as opposed to the intolerant divisiveness of organized religion that still operates on the egoic, antiquated black and white mentality of “I am right, and you’re wrong,” would seem a bit on the threatening side to an institution that has no real ambition to evolve its way of thinking and being in this world to accommodate the evolution of consciousness we are seeing in the 21st century. Either we’ll see more compromise in the church’s rigid, exclusive belief system and its intolerant stance on social issues, or we’ll continue to see a decline in church attendance. I don’t think the critical mass that needs to be reached is too far off, but it couldn’t come soon enough if we are to see a more enlightened, compassionate, and tolerant mentality as opposed to an outdated mentality steeped heavily in fear and superstition that is thousands of years “too” old that never fails to still contribute to the division, violence, and war we see today.



report abuse
 

Bob

posted April 18, 2008 at 10:03 am


“If you were secure in your beliefs, you wouldn’t feel the need to constantly come here and defend your faith
I’m secure in them. As I said in the post (which maybe you didn’t read all of?) the Church has prevailed throughout the ages and it will survive even these trying times.
Still, I defend it because I love it. We defend what we love. You’d defend your husband if someone said something libelous about him, wouldn’t you?
“why do you seem to keep looking for an occasion to be offended”
Because the Chopras keep looking to offend. I’ve never once seen on this blog a criticism of any other faith; only Christianity gets attacked, and the worst attacks are made on Catholicism.
And I’m not the only one who feels this way. Go to Gotham’s post about the Pope visiting, and you’ll see there are plenty of others who notice the venomous tone this blog takes on when it comes to Catholics.
“outdated mentality steeped heavily in fear and superstition that is thousands of years “too” old”
You call it outdated, but it’s survived the tests of time and well over 1 billion still adhere to it. You say it’s heavily rooted in superstition, but we see it rooted in love for God. You see it as too old, but we see it as a constant renewal of spirit, forever young.
My guess is, that like many people, you never really got to know it. So please, read the Church Fathers, the lives of the saints, the papal encyclicals, talk to the parishioners who show up for the daily mass and ask about the Rosary and Adoration and Blessed Virgin, and then see if you have the same picture of the Church.
As Bishop Sheen once said, there are less than a 100 people in the world who hate the Church for what it is, but thousands hate it for what they mistakenly think it is. And where do a lot of the misconceptions begin? With people like Deepak Chopra.
As for the “praying for you”, I sign off with that because I am praying for the Chopras, and they shouldn’t mind too much — after all, they think it’s nonsense, so what why would they think twice about it? And for that matter, why would you?
I’m not trying to facilitate conversions or attack another’s faith. I just wish with all my heart that people like the Chopras would think twice before attacking something that so many people hold dear. It seems like the human thing to do.
God Bless,
Bob



report abuse
 

walter

posted April 20, 2008 at 10:45 am


“Giving the Pope advice is a contradictory task, because the Church’s position is that he is infallible to begin with.”
That first sentence betrays Mr. Chopra’s almost complete ignorance of Catholicism and Christianity. The man who sits on Peter’s Chair is not infalliable in every utternace from his mouth. The Holy Father is only infalliable when it comes to teching faith and morals and that has nothing to do with the person (Benedict or JPII would be the first to admit that even they fall short of the Glory of God) but because he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error in this area. Christ would not leave a leader with the awesome task of “strenghten the bretheren” and then leave him on his own.
I will pray a Rosary or the conversion of your heart Mr. Chopra



report abuse
 

Matt

posted April 21, 2008 at 9:34 am


Sol,
According to the USA Today.
1 in 4 Americans is Catholic.
With 42 percent of immigrants being Catholic, the Catholic church is going nowhere.
You might start to see a more diverse church, but the numbers are staying about the same.
Perhaps you would be okay with the Catholic church if they accepted your personal beliefs & Chopras?
A belief is a belief, whether it is liberal or traditional.
Chopra is only accepting towards more, “liberal” beliefs.
Isn’t that discriminatory on his end.
To ridicule those who have traditional beliefs.
Its like, you better become more liberal in your thinking or else mentality.
You are talking about conformity.



report abuse
 

james curtis

posted April 21, 2008 at 10:25 am


The level of ignorance about Papal Infallibility here is shocking. Mr. Chopra is ignorant, as well. The doctrine of infallibility pertains only to official religious matters ruled on by the Pope, after he consults with the college of Cardinals and the collegial consensus is reached, with the Power of the Holy Spirit. The Pope is not considered to be personally infallible in all areas. Read the history of infallibility and the original Encyclical that defined it during the Reign of Pius the ninth. Then, Mr. Chopra, weigh in on what it really means.



report abuse
 

james curtis

posted April 21, 2008 at 10:31 am


ps. New Agers believe “you are your own personal God-deity/higher power.” Christians take Jesus at his word when he said I am the way and the Truth and the Light, the only way to the Father is through me.” Our personal divinity proceeds directly from God, through him.
While I do not take a lot of the Bible literally, I do take the words of Jesus Christ literally. I do not criticize new agers for their way of believing, I just do not believe them. “I myself, alone, am nothing; it is the father within me that doeth the works.”



report abuse
 

Matt

posted April 21, 2008 at 10:32 am


Furthermore…
I thought Chopra thought of himself as a religious philosopher.
1/2 of his articles bash Catholicism & the diety of Jesus.
Instead of trying to inspire others, he attacks other’s beliefs on a regular basis. In particular Christianity & Catholicsm.
I for one have a very low opinion of Chopra & think he has a very rotten agenda.



report abuse
 

Sol

posted April 21, 2008 at 8:13 pm


“I am the way and the Truth and the Light, the only way to the Father is through me.”
Is that so? Are you comfortable with telling others that they aren’t going to make it to the Father if they don’t believe in Christ, or if you’re not actively telling them, personally believing in that yourself? Well, I’m sure not, and it is precisely for this reason I no longer call myself a Christian. I don’t believe my “new age” beliefs, as you call them, are any better than yours – they just make more sense to me and resonate with my soul as being true, or at least a little closer to the Truth. I just wouldn’t tell others that the only way to heaven is through my beliefs, which those of us who believe in a more secular spirituality are not doing, and if some are, then of course they are committing the exact same error in their mentality that they so fervently oppose, as you mentioned Matt. The reason organized religion seems to be losing its stronghold on the human psyche is that people are beginning to wake up and realize that in order to see a better world, a more peaceful and understanding world, we need to dispose of this “my way or the highway” attitude that runs rampant in organized religion – not necessarily the traditional beliefs that you have held near and dear to your heart for so long, and for Christianity, thousands of years. People who believe in a secular spirituality aren’t out to destroy organized religion like some of you think; they are just pointing out some of its shortcomings without a “rotten agenda.” People attack and ridicule things they either don’t want to understand, or can’t understand. You make it sound like Chopra is hell bent on destroying Christian faith when I believe he only wants to see it evolve. Just because Chopra interprets the life of Christ, his teachings, and his divinity in a different way than traditional belief, does not mean he is out to maliciously and intentionally “bash Catholicism & the deity of Jesus.” Just because someone questions, challenges, and offers an alternative approach to Christ’s teachings doesn’t mean they have some dark, insidious, and evil intention to destroy traditional belief. For a lot of us, traditional belief has failed, or is incomplete, and when someone like Chopra adds to it, explains it, or offers another way of looking at it, we learn and grow in a way we couldn’t in the traditional belief system. I didn’t realize that spiritually growing outside a church was such deplorable pursuit. Isn’t he and others entitled to believe in Christ in their own way, or in a way that resonates with them as being true? Or is there only one way to believe in Christ, and that being your way? That sounds a bit arrogant, does it not? Many beliefs in Christianity have been edited, manipulated, changed, argued over, and altogether discarded when they no longer served humanity. The early Church Fathers were very selective in what made the final cut into the Bible – disregarding texts that were just as relevant, yet went against the Church’s desire for power and control over the masses. Texts like the Gnostic Gospels which didn’t jive with how the Church wanted people to believe in Christ, yet were no less authentic or Biblical than the four that made it into the Bible. Just look back over the last two thousand years – is this the best we can do? An increasing number of people don’t think so and are changing and evolving to make this world a better place. I love the teachings of Christ, but I would never make him into a “key” or “ticket” in order to gain entry past the pearly gates as Christianity has done. I think we forget that Jesus was not a Christian, but a man of the highest level of enlightenment, a spiritual teacher/messiah who had achieved God-consciousness, and was only trying to show us how to live it ourselves. I believe his intention was to save us through his life by showing and teaching us how to live rather than through his death. I would rather try to live like Christ to the best of my ability as opposed to just going through the motions of life sinning or not sinning just believing in his divinity out of fear of retribution at the end of my life. James, you say you don’t take a lot of the Bible literally, but with all due respect, I believe you are taking the aforementioned quote too literally. Perhaps Christ was speaking of living like him, acting like him, being like him (Christ Consciousness) in order to go to the Father – despite whatever religion you are, or in fact, if you have no belief in God. If you believe Christ to be far superior to yourself, this might be difficult to understand that we too have the opportunity to live and be like him. I only know Jesus’ teachings to empower us and lift us up – not to put us down in obedience and submissiveness. Furthermore, a Hindu or Buddhist who lives like Christ to the best of his or her ability will go to hell? But a serial killer who asks for forgiveness and accepts Christ as his lord and savior will make it? I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t exactly sit well with me, as I would hope most people would find that troubling.
“ps. New Agers believe ‘you are your own personal God-deity/higher power.'”
That’s actually not true, at least for me it isn’t. It is a common misconception amongst the religious faithful that anyone who has an alternative approach to believing in God who doesn’t find traditional religion sufficient, is somehow disrespecting and rejecting God or Jesus altogether, and thinks himself or herself to be a god or God. I do not believe that I am my “own personal God-deity/higher power” like you classify “new agers,” but at the same time I don’t believe that I am a dirty sinner who is an expendable life form/creation that can be punished into everlasting damnation if I simply don’t wholeheartedly accept what the Bible says – specifically that I must accept Christ as my lord and savior – not to mention if I break one of the Ten Commandments and fail to ask for forgiveness before my last breath. We simply believe we are a spark of the divine with a soul/spirit that is indestructible, eternal, and forever loved by God unconditionally – not The Spark (God) that made it in the first place. We don’t believe that we are sinners against God who need to earn his love, approval, and forgiveness to be accepted into heaven, for this implies that God is capable of being offended which is something that doesn’t resonate in my soul as being true. I have been told that, but nowhere in my search have I felt that or believed that – at least as far as I am concerned in my personal beliefs. I of course don’t mean to speak for any other but myself. We get offended on a daily basis, but it is my humble belief that God doesn’t or moreover can’t, for that would imply that He/She is then capable of the worst of negative human traits and opens the door for God to be angry, jealous, full of retribution and hatred, and gives Him/Her the authority to condemn and punish. I don’t say these things because they’re cute, nice, or ideal – I say them because this is how I have come to know my relationship with the divine through my own personal experience in my spiritual journey. I want to know the divine through seeking, asking questions, and experience rather than through blind faith/blind worship. I believe we were given an intelligent, inquisitive mind to use – even if that means challenging and questioning what has been regarded as sacred and revered for thousands of years. I believe God to be perfect – I am not perfect; therefore I am not my own personal God-deity/higher power, but simply a child of God like you or any other human being. I think where we most disagree is on the nature of God. I can’t reconcile a perfect, loving, forgiving God with imperfect, petty, humanistic traits such as judgment, wrath, condemnation, and punishment. I think humanity needs to decide if we have a loving God, or a mean, wrathful God who is capable of punishing those who simply choose another path to God. Is He/She really judgmental and wrathful on Tuesdays, but loving and forgiving on Thursdays? The imperfect, judgmental, punishing god was created thousands of years ago by man to instill fear and obedience into the masses to get people to come to church, and ultimately fulfill man’s egoic desires for power and greed, therefore burying the eternal, unconditioned consciousness (God) that is all-loving and all-forgiving underneath layers upon layers of ritual, superstition, dogma, and man’s imperfect, limited, and incomplete interpretation and assessment of the Almighty – that which is unlimited, infinite, and eternal; that which cannot be summed up in one book, but only be pointed towards through the many masters and books. We didn’t have a complete understanding of many facets of society such as science, technology, medicine, economics, philosophy, politics, astronomy, and our overall place in the universe. What makes you think that we had a complete, unchangeable understanding of God and our relationship to Him/Her and each other? Is Jesus so upset and petty to hold an eternal grudge or eternal resentment against those who don’t believe in his mission and divinity the way Christianity does, or is it man’s pettiness, imperfection, and “need to be right” who is holding the grudge? I’ll choose the latter any day.
“Man made ‘God’ in his own image. The eternal, the infinite, and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as ‘my god’ or ‘our god.'”
— Eckhart Tolle
God Bless,
Sol



report abuse
 

Matt

posted April 23, 2008 at 5:22 pm


Sol,
You are the one who has written a novel on an internet board.
You obviously believe your “new age” beliefs are better otherwise you wouldn’t waste your time blabbing on & on.
Yes I believe my view is correct.
Jesus is God.
It is your choice what you believe, what do I care.
Very fitting that you ended with Tolle.
Eckhart Tolle – leading man astray & making money.



report abuse
 

Bob

posted May 4, 2008 at 1:48 pm


“Are you comfortable with telling others that they aren’t going to make it to the Father if they don’t believe in Christ
As comfortable as I am telling them that the only way to get to my house is to drive up my street.
“I don’t believe my “new age” beliefs, as you call them, are any better than yours – they just make more sense to me and resonate with my soul as being true
It’s Chopra who has the problem with people believing differently than him, not me. I’m a fan of a religiously pluralistic society. Chopra is the one who wants everyone to subscribe to one view, and that view is his.
“I can’t reconcile a perfect, loving, forgiving God with imperfect, petty, humanistic traits such as judgment, wrath, condemnation, and punishment”
The average parent loves their child unconditionally, and will forgive just about everything if the see their child is sorry. But that doesn’t stop them from judging or condemning bad behavior, does it? It doesn’t prevent punishment either.
“the Almighty – that which is unlimited, infinite, and eternal; that which cannot be summed up in one book”
Well, if He wrote the book…
As for Tolle, well, I’m going to trust my faith to theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, not an Oprah Book Club author.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Why God Makes More Sense than Atheism
After two centuries of the tug-of-war between science and religion, it's clear science occupies the dominant position. It has passed the "So what?" test, meaning that science as applied to practical daily life has been immensely more important to modern people than God. This has given atheism, both

posted 10:39:29am Nov. 24, 2014 | read full post »

How Richard Dawkins Lost His Battle with God
When he wrote his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expected to accomplish two aims that have proved to be remarkable failures. The first aim was social. He wanted to attract a horde of doubters, fence-sitters, and agnostics to gather their courage and join the atheist ranks. This

posted 11:50:49am Nov. 17, 2014 | read full post »

How to Make God Love You
Although the modern controversy over God centers on the famous headline from Time magazine, "Is God Dead?" this isn’t really the key question. By definition, God can't be dead, because "dead" implies that God was alive, and once alive, an immortal being can't die. Yet defining God as immortal or l

posted 11:05:23am Nov. 10, 2014 | read full post »

Why God Doesn't Care What You Do
In every religion that believes in a personal God, there's a connection between the divine and the human. A personal God created life, and he (or she) cherishes his creation. No love is more intense than divine love. No anger is more intense than divine wrath. As relationships go, the one with God p

posted 11:15:46am Nov. 03, 2014 | read full post »

"I am the master of my fate": A New Take on Free Will
Back when schoolchildren regularly read uplifting poetry, there was a famous Victorian poem that affirmed the human birthright of free will. It was "Invictus," by W. E. Henley and began: Out of the night that covers me, Black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For

posted 11:27:37am Oct. 27, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.