Sam Harris vs. Deepak Chopra

[ratikala]

namaskaram luis ji ,

Such is not at all the case, Ratikala.

on what do you base the assumption that Chopra is ill informed and out of touch with reality ???

how are we to be sure that it is not you who are out of touch with reality ???

The lack of worth of Deepak Chopra's ideas has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to understand them.

on what do you base your judgement as to the lack of worth in Chopras theories ???

No. I meant what I said. Reality is more important than fiction, or at least than ill-chosen fiction.

in any debate both sides put forward their hypothesis, even if you dont agree with a person it is grossly immature to call another persons hypothesis fiction , if you wish to refute what he is saying then you must come up with a better explanation , ...

Come back when you want to discuss what I said, instead of a caricature, will you?

I am not the person who ran away last time I chalenged him to a discussion , ....

I have not gone anywhere , I am perfectly willing to discuss any point with you , but you must out of common courtesy accept that if you dissagree with something you must justify the grounds of your dissagreement rather than resorting to calling the hypothesis of others fiction .....

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram spiny ji

In the suttas the Buddha discouraged metaphysical speculation.

on the other hand he didnt discourage enlightenment .

 

[ratikala]

I'm conversant in Buddhism. I'm familiar with and understand Buddhist doctrine. So, I'm more than qualified to characterized your 'Buddhism' as grossly misinformed.

Bold words, no substance at all.

Luis might I ask what gives you the right to stand in judgement of other peoples ability to understand Buddhism ???

what makes you so sure that you have a superior understanding ???

please explain ....

 

[Gambit]

Bold words, no substance at all.

Far from understanding even the basics (such as the dangers of falling into the traps of dualism), you make a point of ignoring and distorting them.

I would characterize both Buddhism and Advaita as idealistic, not dualistic. (Of course, this depends on how one defines dualism. There are different forms of dualisms.) But I would never characterize Buddhism as compatible with materialism. Apparently, you would.

(The term "advaita" literally means "nondual." But the "nondual" school of Vedanta is only one school. There is a dualistic school of Vedanta.)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would characterize both Buddhism and Advaita as idealistic, not dualistic.

Yogachara is certainly idealistic. As for the rest of the Buddhist schools, it's arguable.

 

[Gambit]

Yogachara is certainly idealistic. As for the rest of the Buddhist schools, it's arguable.

Harris appears to subscribe to some form of idealism as made evident in the following excerpt from his writings.

The claims of mystics are neurologically quite astute. No human being has experienced an objective world, or even a world at all. You are at this moment having a visionary experience. The world you see and hear is nothing more than a modification of your consciousness, the physical status of which remains a mystery...We really are such stuff as dreams are made of. (source: pg. 41, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)

 

[gsa]

Harris appears to subscribe to some form of idealism as made evident in the following excerpt from his writings.

While he uses poetic language, it should not be confused with endorsement of idealism. He is agnostic on the relationship between consciousness and matter, and might be best described as a neutral monist. Susan Blackmore has very similar views. It would be a mistake to suppose that either one believes that consciousness produces matter in any kind of crude and reductionist way.

 

[Gambit]

While he uses poetic language, it should not be confused with endorsement of idealism.

"We really are such stuff as dreams are made of." <== This statement is meant literally, not figuratively. In fact, this is textbook Buddhism and Advaita - two belief systems which view the world literally as a dream that we must "wake up" from. (By the way and not coincidentally, Harris' most recent book is entitled "Waking Up." The term "Buddha" itself literally means the "awakened one.")

He is agnostic on the relationship between consciousness and matter, and might be best described as a neutral monist.

Neutral monism is a metaphysical position. And it was first formulated by William James, and best articulated by A.N. Whitehead. It is closely related to, if not identical with, "panpsychism" (or more specifically "panexperientialism"). This position is highly suggestive of the Buddhist doctrine of "pratityasamutpada" (or "dependent co-arising").

Susan Blackmore has very similar views.

Blackmore, like Harris, is strongly influenced by Buddhist thought.

It would be a mistake to suppose that either one believes that consciousness produces matter in any kind of crude and reductionist way.

It would be a mistake to think that Chopra's view is significantly different.

 

[JayanthanBlaze]

Deepak chopra is right about conciousness which is more than we think or perceive.Conciousness is not a brain-based thing.

I suggest you to watch this video by Cognitive therapist Donald Hoffman

 

[JayanthanBlaze]

Deepak chopra is right about conciousness which is more than we think or perceive.Conciousness is not a brain-based thing.

I suggest you to watch this video by Cognitive therapist Donald Hoffman

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram JayanthanBlaze ji

interesting thoughts and questions put forward , ...thank you for this contribution

the nice thing is that he dosent assume , he is investigating what we perceive to be the thought process and that consciousness exists out side of the mind , ...and also refreshing to hear some one saying that our understanding is incomplete

 

[atanu]

One major difference is that Harris doesn't baselessly claim to know the source of consciousness or the explanation thereof. He doesn't make unwarranted assumptions about it like Chopra does. Another difference, obviously, is that Harris believes in no gods, while Chopra is a believer. Chopra also advocates unscientific "medical" practices.

Those are the main major differences I can think of offhand. Personally, I agree with Sam Harris 95% of the time, but I find most of what Chopra says to be little more than hogwash and garnished jargon.

I am not a fan of Chopra. I have now seen the video and I found no assumption on part of Chopra but. What he is telling is known very well to both Buddhists and Vedantists that the universe is the mind, including whatever one sees of one's body-brain. I also do not see that Chopra was defeated. No.

Chopra's fault is that he foolishly engages in futile argumentation.