You'd be really into Nisargadatta Maharaj's book I Am That. It changed my life. Through him I found Rupert and Bernardo, and I know both of them have also read that book.
It's because of the debates he made with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins where they kinda accused him of spreading pseudo science and it got stuck in the atheist materialist culture sphere.
I don't think sam accused him.of anything he shouldn't be accused of. He does use fuzzy words and talk about physics or bring concepts used in physics in a completely wrong way. He clearly does not understand physics yet insists on using that language game to establish that those phenomenon in physics exactly map onto metaphysical claims he makes about nature of existence. What he is saying is nothing new in essense. People in non duality have made such claims long before him. Infact those claims have existed from thousands of years in some form in hinduism and buddhism. Like those people in non dual circlea, Chopra may turn out to be right but the way he arrives at those conclusions and how he chooses to talk about nature of consciousness is misleading. Sam just called him out on that and very correctly.
@@saritajoshi1737 yes, I think the problem is with trying to prove metaphysical claims using things like physics.. I mean, even trained physicists who teach non duality steer clear of that. Because it's not something that can be proved in some objective sense.
I believe words will never be able to show what the deeper meaning of life is. Moreover it is all in the eye of the beholder. Only thing I know for sure is that to just be and let life happen is the closest thing towards enlightenment but I had to get to a certain age to see it all in perspective. Children know this naturally, we grown ups have to come back to it through all experiences life presents to us......... I've read many books written by Deepak Chopra and it all boils down to "just be and let life happen"
I love this. Thanks for sharing it. I've gone back and forth on Deepak. I loved his work. Then, I heard so many people criticizing him I began to doubt what I got out of what he was saying.
@@purpose6113 I've found his work to be very beneficial. He might be wrong on some science. But, that doesn't negate a lot of his brilliant insights. The Third Jesus is a great book.
I too had fallen under the propaganda regarding Dr Chopra! I thank you for your input! It has been a great value and reconnects me with Dr Chopra. Thanks again so very much!
@@boltzmannbrain8698 Indeed, even though their theories have different names (Lanza's "Biocentrism" and Kastrup's "Idealism"), they both argue for basically the same nondual ontology using only science and logic. Hope they can formally meet and exchange ideas sometime, both men are way ahead of their time.
Bernardo, at first I didn’t understand your word salad (entirely my fault) and that’s why I thought “this guy’s mental !”. But then I listen again and realized that your salad is quite digestible and very nutritious. I used to hate philosophy and now I’m interested in Schopenhauer. Your books make me feel intelligent ant that’s mental.
Deepack Chopra is the pioneer who merged spirituality with science. He is not only academically educated but also culturally educated. I have participated to many of his work shop. Some of it went over my head at that time 24 years ago but he knew so much but the culture wasn’t ready to digest that. Bernardo is another brilliant man that I respect and admire. His knowledge and sincerity and profound accessible language that he is using is phenomenal. Deepak and Bernardo are both unique and awaken people to different reality that has been lost. Thank you both!
Facebook group admins with degrees say that I use word salads, even when the average student could follow my explanation. Your validating Deepak Chopra as such has helped the torment lift more than I lifted on my own, me knowing that they're somehow blinded by their conceptions.
I love your work and have greatly enjoyed working through your books. However I would like to know how you would respond to a madhyamaka (Nagarjuna) critique of your work? Additionally, following Vasubandhu, does the idealistic stance not beg the ontological question? For instance even if I grant the fact that my experience of an object is an inner event to argue that it is just this experience presupposes its conclusion- that perception is not a causal interaction with a distal object but mere conscious episode. Secondly, following kant, what goes for the object goes for the precept too. I the same way that we cannot treat the object as a thing 'known in itself,' in abstraction from the sensory and cognitive faculties that deliver it to us, we cannot treat pur inner experiences as things in themselves know apart from our inner sense (introspective). Nagarjuna's would also claim that the materialism is incoherent, as you have beautifully shown, but would further argue that the concept of mind is likewise 'empty' of metaphysical reality. (I'm not going to go into a full exposition here as I'm sure you're familiar with the argument)
Hey Bernardo I have noticed that you have a very large cranium with a certain high top shape to it! coincidence or not? your head looks similar to the ancient greek universal genius eratosthenes! this is meant as a compliment and interesting observation. theres another really smart guy i like, jacques vallee (also background in computer science) whos also got this type of high head. I have bought two of your books, why materialism is baloney and brief peeks beyond i plan to read them soon (gotta finish a couple others first).
Supposedly his son made a documentary about him that displays his actual concern with wealth and status. He always struck me as the typical "eat, pray, love" kind of guru who goes on Oprah and sells books that will teach people to "manifest success". I was always turned off by him. I admit I was a little taken aback when Bernado mentioned him a few times. I have tried to read a book or two of his many many years ago and couldn't get through them. He may be a fine person on an individual level. Or perhaps he is smart enough to see that Bernardo can lend needed credibility to his tainted "scientific persona".
If the suggestion is that I made this to-order for Deepak, it's just wrong. He doesn't even know I ever said this. Neither do I need to tell him, for he's not waiting for lent credibility. And I certainly have benefitted a lot more from his kindness than the other way around can ever be the case.
@@bernardokastrup nah, I wasn't suggesting anything on your behalf. But, it always has to be kept in mind that "hucksters, conmen, and gurus" are often very good at what they do. Obviously, I don't know Deepak on a personal level but I do have a slight understanding of the kind of person that makes millions selling self help books. I just now perused some pages from previous books of his and yes...he does say some fruity, new age platitudes that sound "deep" but are just empty. The kind of tripe that people mindlessly repeat and frame on thier walls. It was his books in the early 2000's that pretty much single handedly turned me off to the "new age movement". Himself, Byron Katie and Ken Wilbur were all people that I was trying to understand. But it was Deepak that basically sent me running towards materialism. You, and your books have brought me back to a "cautious" foray into idealism and other less accepted views. That's why I say that when you mention his name it kinda shocks me, not because of anything in particular....but because he had left such a bad taste in my mouth in previous years.
In sorry to tell you but Deepak Chopra is intelligent at deceiving people with utter tripe disguised as a kings feast and one of the most intelligent men on the planet bernardo kastrup knows it is as well.
@@christopherjordan9707 I tend to agree. Deepak Chopra is very much in the mold of the new age guru/charlatan and it's hard to avoid the associations with quackery whenever his name is mentioned. That's not to say new age literature is necessarily devoid of merit and having never read any of his many books I'm not in a position to judge to what degree his reputation is deserved. Maybe Chopra will help get Bernardo's work out to a broader audience but it also means it will be taken less seriously by many regardless of how intellectually rigorous it is. I think Bernardo is possibly generous to a fault in terms of his willingness to engage with people and simply take them at face value but having said that he does make some good points in this video in support of Chopra.
@@runningfree1973 materialist fundamentalists have effectively weaponised Deepak Chopra to the extent that they only need to drop his name into, for example, a Wikipedia entry and say that Deepak supports that person in order to (in their eyes) discredit them.
Dear Bernardo, I believe you are postulating the right question from the wrong second person perspective. Rather I suggest you should be postulating the question of past, present and future as equal to nothing and everything from the first person perspective. The answer to this question is then resolved harmoniously in as much as the first person persecutive is not subject to the thermal arrow, hence it remains out side of time and space. It is only the second person perspective that is subject to time and space, thus entropic. If I am right, this means the first person perspective is 'immortal' so to speak and can externalise time and space, all events are chronicled or witnessed by the the first person without being subject to entropy and the thermal arrow of time. The mental or conscious state of the first person perspective is per force external to time and space hence there is no past, present or future as the second person would express it. The question on the divisions of time is mute from the first person perspective! It would be better to consider the devisions of time as chronicled by the first person as pure experience, being, eternal being, having no beginning and no end.
For any sceptics I definitely recommend Is God An Illusion, Deepak Chopra's fascinating - and refreshingly civil - conversation with Leonard Mlodinow as mentioned by Bernardo. He challenges scientific-materialist thinking very convincingly even if I personally am still open-minded on this debate.
I think allot of people on the spiritual path or those invested in metaphysical concepts can be overly susceptible to being gulable, irrational or nieve at times. I would consider Depark one of those people. This doesn't necessarily mean they are unintelligent or on the wrong path to truth. The line between literal truths and metaphorical truths can be a very difficult one to grasp.
Dear Bernardo, I wrote to Curt Jaimungal on his youtube channel suggesting you had similar approaches to consciousness... He has just replied to me asking if I could reach out to you, to appear on his channel, as it seems he has tried emailing you but is rather afraid the emails may, as is often the case, be going straight to your spam folder ? So I’ve decided to take the most obvious course of messaging you, as I have Curt, on the comments first. He seems to be like yourself a most pleasant and intelligent individual, with great integrity. Hope this finds you and your partner well, kind regards, Gary Compton
I'm a HUGE fan of Dr. Kastrup. He's come to the same conclusions as the ancient mystics but he's done it by science and rational thought. I cite his work all the time and I was fortunate enough to have him on my podcast. You have to meet people where they are. In his interview with Deepak Chopra he talks about that. While meditation and introspection are necessary to have a rea experience of what is real, we have to first convince the "scientific" people that it's possible their materialistic paradigm is baloney.
My two favourite clips on here have been Deepak facing down Richard Dawkins and Rupert Sheldrake doing the same thing. I love Deepak I love Bernardo to they are me its called agape love we are all One!
It's funny how we all draw opinions on people we don't know......its very typical in Ireland...we turned it into a Game. Word Salads and slegging and that's before we ever get our minds to fly with the Collective Intelligence Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪 😎
I heard Chopra speak about non-duality. He spoke very clearly. The problem was that 90 percent of the talk was about himself and his accomplishments and only 10 percent was about the subject. The 10 percent that was about non-duality was very basic and dull. He added no insights to the conversation. I was very disappointed on the talk. I only learned that he was a very smart man and very knowledgeable about biology and chemistry. Is this what is meant by word salad? Sure, he is very smart and he makes sure you get this by his self reference but I don't think I could sit and listen to him for another hour ever again.
I like Deepak. He is very intelligent. I did not like the phase with Michael Jackson in between. I felt he was going wrong with Hollywood bunch. Now he is fine again.
Bernardo, BIG fan btw, Any thoughts on the few rare but documented cases where people with severe hydranencephaly(literally perhaps only 10% of a brain) who live normal lives with even above average IQ's ? It seems the representation correlation between internal experience & extrinsic appearance can be rather low. A materialists neuroplasticity my arse ! Its much more bizarre imo than finding only a battery & perhaps a radiator under the hood of a well running car. Anyway, your thoughts specifically regarding how such a thing might support or refute Idealism & the current mainstream views.
@@cx777o Off hand I do not ...just search the term & you find the condition for sure .... somewhere in the results will be 2 or 3 severe cases but also with normal & hi IQ's. It was almost a decade ago I encountered it. You know try like "hydranencephaly + average IQ / High IQ" etc. There was a few quite interesting cases. By far the majority are severely disabled in the severe cases.
Im glad hearing this. I think people will jump to any position that that can situate themselves above others in an argument regardless of their understanding. I've never seen the need to denigrate him since like you said he's addressing things don't really depend on rigor. I barely follow his stuff but I don't like popular backlashes that refer to some idea of establishment science. I think it's dumb.
The wisdom of the vedic philosophy and the yogic culture, including Buddhism about quantum physics, Astrology, ethics, light, sound, consciousness....goes beyond modern British science. The nation that destroyed, killed and abused from India for 200 years! Maybe the problem starts there....
I have trouble understanding that a world of chaos and a loss of hope does a intelligent like Barnard have only 21k subscribers. I have not watched for long but I found myself searching for more material that he has published or recommended. I saw a show where he recommend 10 books that people may read that helped him for the never ending search for reality. Though there many realities but the one I look for now is the reality of the Universe, spiritual aspects of consciousness, and then it spreads like a spider 🕷 web. Good luck and I will come and check your RUclips videos on a regular basis. And a big thanks. Cliff Ellixson
Reading your fantastic book about Jung. Would his archetypes follow a more hierarchical Platonic model or a non-hierarchical Deleuzian rhisomatic model? If you know what I mean?
Thanks to Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira I've found validation in the non dual approach to life.
One is logic
The other is poetry
You'd be really into Nisargadatta Maharaj's book I Am That. It changed my life. Through him I found Rupert and Bernardo, and I know both of them have also read that book.
@@ibrahimabdalla9769 Nisargadatta changed my life too.
Rupert is beautiful!
For me, it all started with Nisargadatta too. Today I'm into Spira and Kastrup.
@@ibrahimabdalla9769
If you check out Dr. Iain McGilchrist, he recited 365 poems during Covid. He shares the some similar ideas as Bernardo , I hope you check it out.
I wish you were on RUclips more often. Five minutes of logic and sanity in the middle of 2020. Thank you.
It's because of the debates he made with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins where they kinda accused him of spreading pseudo science and it got stuck in the atheist materialist culture sphere.
I don't think sam accused him.of anything he shouldn't be accused of. He does use fuzzy words and talk about physics or bring concepts used in physics in a completely wrong way. He clearly does not understand physics yet insists on using that language game to establish that those phenomenon in physics exactly map onto metaphysical claims he makes about nature of existence. What he is saying is nothing new in essense. People in non duality have made such claims long before him. Infact those claims have existed from thousands of years in some form in hinduism and buddhism. Like those people in non dual circlea, Chopra may turn out to be right but the way he arrives at those conclusions and how he chooses to talk about nature of consciousness is misleading. Sam just called him out on that and very correctly.
@@saritajoshi1737
What’s your view on chemicals being the reason for consciousness ?
Are we talking about Chopra or Kastrup?
@@anthonygreico9735 Chopra.
@@saritajoshi1737 yes, I think the problem is with trying to prove metaphysical claims using things like physics.. I mean, even trained physicists who teach non duality steer clear of that. Because it's not something that can be proved in some objective sense.
I believe words will never be able to show what the deeper meaning of life is. Moreover it is all in the eye of the beholder. Only thing I know for sure is that to just be and let life happen is the closest thing towards enlightenment but I had to get to a certain age to see it all in perspective. Children know this naturally, we grown ups have to come back to it through all experiences life presents to us......... I've read many books written by Deepak Chopra and it all boils down to "just be and let life happen"
I love this. Thanks for sharing it. I've gone back and forth on Deepak. I loved his work. Then, I heard so many people criticizing him I began to doubt what I got out of what he was saying.
Deepak makes for an enjoyable read. However, I feel he undermines himself with the support for alternative medicine.
@@anthonygreico9735 perhaps your resistance to alternative medicine is your current limited view of the world
I've heard he is pseudoscience and that he has been debunked many times, so I have stayed away from him too. Is he worth exploring?
@@purpose6113 I've found his work to be very beneficial. He might be wrong on some science. But, that doesn't negate a lot of his brilliant insights. The Third Jesus is a great book.
@@Grief2Growth thnx!
I too had fallen under the propaganda regarding Dr Chopra! I thank you for your input! It has been a great value and reconnects me with Dr Chopra. Thanks again so very much!
Read his book " You Are the Universe" to understand Deepak and his worldview
I'm very curious to hear your opinion regarding Robert Lanza's Biocentrism. Lanza's books changed my life forever
I immediately thought of Robert Lanza when I discovered this guy just now. Seems like they are on a similar wavelength
@@boltzmannbrain8698 Indeed, even though their theories have different names (Lanza's "Biocentrism" and Kastrup's "Idealism"), they both argue for basically the same nondual ontology using only science and logic. Hope they can formally meet and exchange ideas sometime, both men are way ahead of their time.
Bernardo, at first I didn’t understand your word salad (entirely my fault) and that’s why I thought “this guy’s mental !”. But then I listen again and realized that your salad is quite digestible and very nutritious. I used to hate philosophy and now I’m interested in Schopenhauer. Your books make me feel intelligent ant that’s mental.
Deepack Chopra is the pioneer who merged spirituality with science. He is not only academically educated but also culturally educated. I have participated to many of his work shop. Some of it went over my head at that time 24 years ago but he knew so much but the culture wasn’t ready to digest that. Bernardo is another brilliant man that I respect and admire. His knowledge and sincerity and profound accessible language that he is using is phenomenal. Deepak and Bernardo are both unique and awaken people to different reality that has been lost. Thank you both!
Look up New Thought in the 1900's. Judge Troward Dore lectures..Every single guru, except Allan Watts, sprang from the New Thought movement
Thanks. Excellent reflection
Facebook group admins with degrees say that I use word salads, even when the average student could follow my explanation. Your validating Deepak Chopra as such has helped the torment lift more than I lifted on my own, me knowing that they're somehow blinded by their conceptions.
Where is the full interview?
ruclips.net/video/yIMyqWXg0to/видео.html
With these type of subjects your "bias" always gets in the way. it's at the same time a curse and a blessing.
I love your work and have greatly enjoyed working through your books. However I would like to know how you would respond to a madhyamaka (Nagarjuna) critique of your work?
Additionally, following Vasubandhu, does the idealistic stance not beg the ontological question? For instance even if I grant the fact that my experience of an object is an inner event to argue that it is just this experience presupposes its conclusion- that perception is not a causal interaction with a distal object but mere conscious episode.
Secondly, following kant, what goes for the object goes for the precept too. I the same way that we cannot treat the object as a thing 'known in itself,' in abstraction from the sensory and cognitive faculties that deliver it to us, we cannot treat pur inner experiences as things in themselves know apart from our inner sense (introspective).
Nagarjuna's would also claim that the materialism is incoherent, as you have beautifully shown, but would further argue that the concept of mind is likewise 'empty' of metaphysical reality. (I'm not going to go into a full exposition here as I'm sure you're familiar with the argument)
I like when you speak about reality vs existence and universal cosciousness...NOT WHEN REFERING TO PEOPLE
Hey Bernardo I have noticed that you have a very large cranium with a certain high top shape to it! coincidence or not? your head looks similar to the ancient greek universal genius eratosthenes! this is meant as a compliment and interesting observation. theres another really smart guy i like, jacques vallee (also background in computer science) whos also got this type of high head.
I have bought two of your books, why materialism is baloney and brief peeks beyond i plan to read them soon (gotta finish a couple others first).
Maybe, just maybe some of the criticism is deserved.
Supposedly his son made a documentary about him that displays his actual concern with wealth and status. He always struck me as the typical "eat, pray, love" kind of guru who goes on Oprah and sells books that will teach people to "manifest success". I was always turned off by him. I admit I was a little taken aback when Bernado mentioned him a few times. I have tried to read a book or two of his many many years ago and couldn't get through them. He may be a fine person on an individual level. Or perhaps he is smart enough to see that Bernardo can lend needed credibility to his tainted "scientific persona".
If the suggestion is that I made this to-order for Deepak, it's just wrong. He doesn't even know I ever said this. Neither do I need to tell him, for he's not waiting for lent credibility. And I certainly have benefitted a lot more from his kindness than the other way around can ever be the case.
@@bernardokastrup nah, I wasn't suggesting anything on your behalf. But, it always has to be kept in mind that "hucksters, conmen, and gurus" are often very good at what they do. Obviously, I don't know Deepak on a personal level but I do have a slight understanding of the kind of person that makes millions selling self help books. I just now perused some pages from previous books of his and yes...he does say some fruity, new age platitudes that sound "deep" but are just empty. The kind of tripe that people mindlessly repeat and frame on thier walls. It was his books in the early 2000's that pretty much single handedly turned me off to the "new age movement". Himself, Byron Katie and Ken Wilbur were all people that I was trying to understand. But it was Deepak that basically sent me running towards materialism. You, and your books have brought me back to a "cautious" foray into idealism and other less accepted views. That's why I say that when you mention his name it kinda shocks me, not because of anything in particular....but because he had left such a bad taste in my mouth in previous years.
In sorry to tell you but Deepak Chopra is intelligent at deceiving people with utter tripe disguised as a kings feast and one of the most intelligent men on the planet bernardo kastrup knows it is as well.
@@christopherjordan9707 I tend to agree. Deepak Chopra is very much in the mold of the new age guru/charlatan and it's hard to avoid the associations with quackery whenever his name is mentioned. That's not to say new age literature is necessarily devoid of merit and having never read any of his many books I'm not in a position to judge to what degree his reputation is deserved. Maybe Chopra will help get Bernardo's work out to a broader audience but it also means it will be taken less seriously by many regardless of how intellectually rigorous it is. I think Bernardo is possibly generous to a fault in terms of his willingness to engage with people and simply take them at face value but having said that he does make some good points in this video in support of Chopra.
@@runningfree1973 materialist fundamentalists have effectively weaponised Deepak Chopra to the extent that they only need to drop his name into, for example, a Wikipedia entry and say that Deepak supports that person in order to (in their eyes) discredit them.
Dear Bernardo,
I believe you are postulating the right question from the wrong second person perspective. Rather I suggest you should be postulating the question of past, present and future as equal to nothing and everything from the first person perspective. The answer to this question is then resolved harmoniously in as much as the first person persecutive is not subject to the thermal arrow, hence it remains out side of time and space. It is only the second person perspective that is subject to time and space, thus entropic.
If I am right, this means the first person perspective is 'immortal' so to speak and can externalise time and space, all events are chronicled or witnessed by the the first person without being subject to entropy and the thermal arrow of time. The mental or conscious state of the first person perspective is per force external to time and space hence there is no past, present or future as the second person would express it.
The question on the divisions of time is mute from the first person perspective! It would be better to consider the devisions of time as chronicled by the first person as pure experience, being, eternal being, having no beginning and no end.
Bernardo, are you there? I have a question for you...
I met him 10 years ago when he was on top of his fame he was very arrogant and narcissist. I guess he got some karma e became more humble.
Karmic consequences I think.
For any sceptics I definitely recommend Is God An Illusion, Deepak Chopra's fascinating - and refreshingly civil - conversation with Leonard Mlodinow as mentioned by Bernardo. He challenges scientific-materialist thinking very convincingly even if I personally am still open-minded on this debate.
I think allot of people on the spiritual path or those invested in metaphysical concepts can be overly susceptible to being gulable, irrational or nieve at times. I would consider Depark one of those people. This doesn't necessarily mean they are unintelligent or on the wrong path to truth. The line between literal truths and metaphorical truths can be a very difficult one to grasp.
So I take it you agree with Bernardo Kastrup while acknowledging that Deepak spouts a lot of nonsense?
It's kinda like hating Nickelback.
Dear Bernardo, I wrote to Curt Jaimungal on his youtube channel suggesting you had similar approaches to consciousness...
He has just replied to me asking if I could reach out to you, to appear on his channel, as it seems he has tried emailing you but is rather afraid the emails may, as is often the case, be going straight to your spam folder ?
So I’ve decided to take the most obvious course of messaging you, as I have Curt, on the comments first.
He seems to be like yourself a most pleasant and intelligent individual, with great integrity.
Hope this finds you and your partner well, kind regards, Gary Compton
We just spoke and it's a 4h+ beast (just posted today). Thank you Gary. - Curt
I'm a HUGE fan of Dr. Kastrup. He's come to the same conclusions as the ancient mystics but he's done it by science and rational thought. I cite his work all the time and I was fortunate enough to have him on my podcast.
You have to meet people where they are. In his interview with Deepak Chopra he talks about that. While meditation and introspection are necessary to have a rea experience of what is real, we have to first convince the "scientific" people that it's possible their materialistic paradigm is baloney.
In your next life you will dream that you don't exist-Eric Graham
So nice to hear someone speak well of Deepak Chopra...he deserves it.
I like Kastrup. But, I feel Deepak undermines any credibility he has by spouting alternative medicine.
@@anthonygreico9735 alternative medicine is a pretty broad field. Most good doctors recommend alternative medicine.
@@williamh5780 All of it has little scientific backing though.
@@anthonygreico9735 what does scientific backing mean?
@@williamh5780 Scientific evidence
My two favourite clips on here have been Deepak facing down Richard Dawkins and Rupert Sheldrake doing the same thing.
I love Deepak I love Bernardo to they are me its called agape love we are all One!
It's funny how we all draw opinions on people we don't know......its very typical in Ireland...we turned it into a Game.
Word Salads and slegging and that's before we ever get our minds to fly with the Collective Intelligence
Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪 😎
I heard Chopra speak about non-duality. He spoke very clearly. The problem was that 90 percent of the talk was about himself and his accomplishments and only 10 percent was about the subject. The 10 percent that was about non-duality was very basic and dull. He added no insights to the conversation. I was very disappointed on the talk. I only learned that he was a very smart man and very knowledgeable about biology and chemistry. Is this what is meant by word salad? Sure, he is very smart and he makes sure you get this by his self reference but I don't think I could sit and listen to him for another hour ever again.
Deepak is a person with an enviable generosity, breadth, charisma and intelligence. Maybe that's why he has detractors
I like Deepak. He is very intelligent. I did not like the phase with Michael Jackson in between. I felt he was going wrong with Hollywood bunch. Now he is fine again.
I love Bernardo but for me there are too many Metoo ticks against Chopra to take him seriously .
Bernardo, BIG fan btw, Any thoughts on the few rare but documented cases where people with severe hydranencephaly(literally perhaps only 10% of a brain) who live normal lives with even above average IQ's ? It seems the representation correlation between internal experience & extrinsic appearance can be rather low. A materialists neuroplasticity my arse ! Its much more bizarre imo than finding only a battery & perhaps a radiator under the hood of a well running car. Anyway, your thoughts specifically regarding how such a thing might support or refute Idealism & the current mainstream views.
thats a really interesting case! Do you have any sources where one can look up more about this kind of phenomena?
@@cx777o Off hand I do not ...just search the term & you find the condition for sure .... somewhere in the results will be 2 or 3 severe cases but also with normal & hi IQ's. It was almost a decade ago I encountered it. You know try like "hydranencephaly + average IQ / High IQ" etc. There was a few quite interesting cases. By far the majority are severely disabled in the severe cases.
Im glad hearing this. I think people will jump to any position that that can situate themselves above others in an argument regardless of their understanding. I've never seen the need to denigrate him since like you said he's addressing things don't really depend on rigor. I barely follow his stuff but I don't like popular backlashes that refer to some idea of establishment science. I think it's dumb.
Bernardo is being kind, he could run circles around deepak.
The wisdom of the vedic philosophy and the yogic culture, including Buddhism about quantum physics, Astrology, ethics, light, sound, consciousness....goes beyond modern British science. The nation that destroyed, killed and abused from India for 200 years! Maybe the problem starts there....
I have trouble understanding that a world of chaos and a loss of hope does a intelligent like Barnard have only 21k subscribers.
I have not watched for long but I found myself searching for more material that he has published or recommended.
I saw a show where he recommend 10 books that people may read that helped him for the never ending search for reality.
Though there many realities but the one I look for now is the reality of the Universe, spiritual aspects of consciousness, and then it spreads like a spider 🕷 web.
Good luck and I will come and check your RUclips videos on a regular basis. And a big thanks.
Cliff Ellixson
Was great to speak with you :)
653cc bRAT hi, yes we did. It’ll be up on my channel soon:)
Very smart profound and objective analysis about the personality of Deepak Chopra.
Interesting.
Great
Well said!
Reading your fantastic book about Jung. Would his archetypes follow a more hierarchical Platonic model or a non-hierarchical Deleuzian rhisomatic model? If you know what I mean?