Deepak Chopra and Intent

Deepak Chopra and Intent


Seeking the Self: A Ghost Story

posted by Admin

We are all quite certain that we have a self. When you say “I like chocolate” or “I vote progressive,” no one asks what you mean by “I.” That task was left for centuries to philosophers and theologians. “Know thyself” is an axiom worth heeding, but what is there to know? If one camp of modern science has its way, the answer is “nothing.”  The self, we are told, is an illusion created by the complexity of brain functions. As thousands of inputs bombard each other every second, forming an almost infinite tangle of neural messages, a ghost was created whose name is “I.”

 

Thus in one stroke the problem that has intrigued humanity’s greatest minds ‘ “Who am I?” – is reduced to a mirage or fairy tale. The search for the self has proved fruitless when brain scans are consulted.  There is no known location for “I” in the brain, and this lack leads one of two ways: either the self is pervasive or it doesn’t exist. Claiming that “I” is an illusion would seem like a cheap way to shrug off a very difficult problem.  Yet there is some backing for this position in the Buddhist concept of “emptiness,” which holds that all transitory events, including all of our personal experience, are fabricated by the ego-personality. If we give up our cherished clinging to “I, me, and mine,” freedom lies in the realization that there is no fixed self, no fixed mind, not even such a thing as consciousness.

 

Yet when they combine their efforts, Buddhism and neuroscience can’t convince the ordinary person that “I” is a ghost, and there’s another tradition that considers the self the richest part of who we are, the source of unlimited potential for creativity, intelligence, and evolution. In short, there’s a contest between the higher self and no self.  Until a small band of scientific skeptics and atheists stepped forward, waving the banner of absolute materialism, the no-self camp was decidedly in the minority. But materialists see an advantage in denying that “I” exists. For them it isn’t an exotic minority position with little bearing on daily life. No-self falls in with a larger notion that consciousness is just a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain.

 

How did chemicals learn to think? Why is the sugar that feeds brain cells capable of writing Shakespeare while the sugar cubes in a coffee bar are not? Materialists have no answer. They assume, with religious conviction, that chemicals learned to think somewhere in the long evolution of the human brain. This is really a form of animism, like worshiping the spirit in a rock or tree.  It seems like a nice trick to go a step farther and call consciousness an illusion, since that strips all metaphysics and spirituality of any validity. But no one has remotely come close to explaining how chemicals create the illusion of thought, which is not very different from “real” thought.

 

I think the higher self position is the valid one, but it’s not monolithic. There are unambiguous claims among devout Christians that everyone has a soul that will be redeemed by God; this is the higher self as a person’s true core, the part made by God. But in the Indian tradition, there is room for ambiguity. The Buddhist position that the ego-personality is the cause of suffering is echoed in Vedanta by the doctrine of Maya, which holds that “I” is trapped in an illusion of its own making, the illusion that the material world is the ultimate reality and that we are defined by all kinds of external things: money, status, possessions, job, family ties. These props keep the everyday “I” going, but they are actually like waves in the ocean. A wave looks separate and individual when in reality it is nothing but an event in the ocean; its true nature is nothing but ocean.

 

This search to find our true nature raises the mystery of “I” above arcane arguments among philosophers and neuroscientists.  Matters of suffering are at stake, not to mention psychological disorders, relationships, crime, and anything else where the self either goes wrong or behaves in inexplicable ways. If we are machines that harbor the delusion of personal dignity, why not sweep away “I” and treat criminals, the depressed, and anyone else with a problem by injecting different, better chemicals into their brains?  That goal has become standard practice in medicine, yet more and more we are witnessing the dire effects of re-engineering the brain chemically. The alternate is to find out who this “I” really is, because that knowledge, which seems pretty important to begin with, leads to a redefinition of what crime, suffering, mental disorders, and relationship problems actually mean. It’s the most fascinating mystery anyone can face, standing at the very start of the spiritual quest.

www.deepakchopra.com_

Follow Deepak on Twitter

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(1)
post a comment
Don Thomann

posted April 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm


Mr. Chopra,
I have long enjoyed your writings. This one especially interests me. Krishnamurti spoke of a “wrong turn” in the evolution of thought. Although not a Christian, I come from a long Christian tradition. While trying to convey insights into the illusion called “I/me/self/ego” in those terms that define Christian thought, I have realized that the Christian Myth, when not understood as history but rather as a “map” of human consciousness, has a meaning far beyond its conventional religious traditions.

When in the ONE = “Field of Existence” a “particular pattern” identifies itself by the use of memory, it soon believes itself to be an autonomous agent; much the same way that an eddy in the river would if it had a memory of its action and identified that action as being “seperate” from the river.

From that moment on the “particular” perceives its environment as “other” than itself and proceeds to judge it in terms of what is “good” (pleasure, satisfaction, comfort, etc.) and what is “evil” (pain, disease, discomfort, etc.) the proverbial “Tree” in the garden, if you will. From that moment on -for the “particular”- existence is a battle. (Read the bulk of the Bible)

There is only one solution to the fragmentation. That solution is not to be found IN the “particular” because all that it can do will be derived from its own delusional fragmentation Therefore thought, belief, discipline, etc. only further reinforce the “particular.”

The solution is Love. Oh, not all that romantic, emotional and sentimental stuff men are apt to call “love.” Love IS when the division between “me” and “you” is NOT. That division is the very rift that creates the “I/me/self.” When that division, that rift is no more there is “ONE-ness.” (Read the allegorical “death of the I” i.e. – on the Cross and in St. Paul’s “I die daily” and “not I but Christ.”) Christ prayed that men “might be one even as We are one.”

Love by embracing all the “particulars” as the “Beloved” cancels the “fragmentary” state, cancels the delusion of separateness and the “One field of existence” is recognized as the only reality; in the same way our proverbial “eddy” on seeing its true nature becomes – not “one WITH the river” (1+1=2) – but rather an expression IN and OF the river.

Since “to the Eternal all time is NOW, and to the Infinite all place is HERE,” ONE-ness is eternal and infinite! Paradise is HERE and NOW. (Always has been, only a time-bound and finite “particular” could never see that.)

This is a very brief synopsis. Thank you for your time.

LOVE IS!
Don Thomann



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

God Is the New Physics
When spirituality and physics started to be linked, many scientists called it the use of metaphor. It couldn't literally be true that there was a Tao of Physics that linked quantum mechanics to ancient Chinese philosophy. At best there might be a weak link--God and the new physics--the way one might

posted 10:54:59am Dec. 15, 2014 | read full post »

Will God 2.0 Be Indispensable in Ten Years?
The primary difficult with God isn't belief--more than 80% of US responders tell pollsters that they believe God exists. The problem is that God is irrelevant, providing few if any practical benefits in daily life. In an age of faith the circumstances were in God's favor. When people got sick or die

posted 1:58:33pm Dec. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Why Physics Needs God But God Doesn't Need Physics
Recently I created a brief storm on Twitter by throwing out questions that physicists can't answer. Twitter allows you to contact famous physicists directly, and it's predictable that a handful will become irritated and even riled up if you dare to challenge them. "What happens in physics stays in p

posted 10:19:20am Dec. 01, 2014 | read full post »

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 »




Report as Inappropriate

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

All reported content is logged for investigation.