Recently in Spirituality Category

We live in an age where massive amounts of money are spent for research into the brain and almost nothing into researching the mind. This represents a huge demotion. In prior centuries the mind was exalted. It was the mind that perceived beauty, experienced love, and reached for God. Can the brain really do all those things on its own? Neuroscience says yes, but that's a leap of faith. Why would a neuron have any interest in beauty, love, and God to begin with? Its whole life is spent exchanging chemical and electrical signals with other neurons. On the fringes of speculative thinking, the mind is coming back into its own.

Instead of trying to rehabilitate the mind, we think it's more fruitful, and far bolder, to put the mind at the very center of reality. Nothing exists except in your own awareness. If you can't see, hear, touch, taste, and smell a thing, if you can't even think about it, the thing cannot exist. Yet even without a world of things, consciousness does exist, and it has enormous untapped potential. That was proven decades ago when physicists discovered the observer effect. Technically, the observer effect applies to light. Light can act like a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time. It defies ordinary logic, but Einstein and his colleagues discovered that light "decides" whether to act like a wave or particle depending on the observer.

Until it is observed, light exists in suspended animation, so to speak. It doesn't take the form of particle or wave until an observer tries to measure it. After that, there's no turning back. Whatever the observer sees is reality. This implies that observation is a creative act, and quantum physics has lived with that fact for two generations or more. Only for ordinary people, the observer effect hasn't had much to do with their lives.

Or has it?

Children who are raised under a disapproving eye, who are made to feel bad, worthless, and unlovable, are very likely to grow up to feel that way permanently. Isn't a judgmental parent a kind of observer, creating the very flaws he sees? On the other hand, children raised under a loving eye have a far greater chance of loving themselves and developing the good qualities seen in them. You can come up with many examples of how the observer effect might influence daily life.

But what if we are missing the forest for the trees? What if consciousness is creating much more than we suppose. It could be creating something as basic as time and space. At the quantum level, Nature isn't bound by either one. Not only is time relative, but certain phenomena travel faster than the speed of light, needing no time at all to cover billions of light years in distances. That, too, is well known in modern physics. But few thinkers have applied the same effect to the mind.

Here things get tricky. Let's say you are an observer. You watch an event unfold such as the action of light deciding whether to be a wave or a particle. Since your brain is composed of quantum interactions, it isn't a stable observer. Waves are watching waves, particles are observing particles. Which implies that your brain only "decides" to be a brain at the moment you perceive anything. This quirky notion drops us immediately into the quantum soup, where nothing is stable at all.

To get out of the soup, we need to know why time and space look so stable. I don't expect the room I'm sitting in to collapse a minute from now, and I don't expect my car to shoot off at the speed of light, even though photons and subatomic particles are the basis for my car and my room. The reason we have a stable sense of time and space isn't because they are "real," in the sense that time and space don't need an observer. They absolutely do, for without a mind, nothing exists but randomness and chaos at every level.

The mystery of how time and space become real is tied to the mystery of mind. Some cosmologists, looking at the evolution of the universe, can't tolerate randomness. They don't believe that the explosion of the Big Bang could create the complexity of DNA, any more than a hurricane blowing through a junkyard could create a 747 jetliner. It has been proposed that the visible universe is matched to our own minds. The events we observe that lead to our existence here on planet Earth are precisely the events that can be observed by the human mind. One can imagine life forms on other planets that see an entirely different universe, the one that led to their existence.

Calling an idea tricky doesn't make it absurd. This so-called "anthropic principle" rests upon an irrefutable basis: Nobody can observe anything that the mind isn't set up for. Silicone crystals may be vibrating in a language that sings and makes up poetry, but we have no means of eavesdropping since our minds can't conceive of minerals leading complex social and artistic lives. Now let's go a step further.

Instead of hogging the limelight by saying that the mind must be human, what if we posit that life is in charge of the universe? This was certainly true before the rise of science. The creation emanated from a living God, and since God was everywhere, life was everywhere. Science traditionally considered this a matter of faith rather than reason. They could point to atoms and molecules, amino acids and enzymes, proteins and primitive life forms, all the way from blue-green algae to human DNA. Isn't it obvious, they say, that life developed from non-life over billions of years?

Actually, no, The tracks of evolution are just that, footprints to show that something or someone has passed here. A radio playing Mozart is just such a footprint. It proves that Mozart once lived, but you can't tear apart the radio and find Mozart inside. You and I are the children of evolution, but only part of our evolution is visible; the rest, the most mysterious part, is invisible. Therein lies the answer to how we became masters of space and time.

(To be continued)

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

deepakchopra.com
Follow Deepak on Twitter

by Robert Lanza and Deepak Chopra

Can decisions we make now change the past? Modern physics tells us that particles possess a range of possible states, and that it's not until the actual act of observation that they take on real physical properties. Until this occurs there cannot be a past. Even eminent physicists Stephen Hawking and John Wheeler (one of Einstein's last collaborators) agree it can be no other way.

According to a new scientific theory, the past is simply the framework of events that defines our existence (Biocentrism, BenBella, 2009). Much of it is still fluid and unwritten, and has yet to be determined. In fact, two years ago, a team of French scientists published a landmark experiment in the prestigious journal Science showing that what they did -- now, in the present -- could retroactively change an event that had already happened in the past.

When you walk through the woods and observe things, the 'probability waves collapse' and the past is locked in. For instance, when you look down at the ground, there is a certain degree of physical uncertainty as to what is underneath. If you dig a hole for a tree, there is a range of probability that there will be a pebble either here or there. Of course, the probability of finding a diamond is much less than finding sand. But all those probabilities exist, and at any given time you either experience hitting a boulder or loose soil. Say you hit a boulder, the precise glacial movements of the past that account for the rock being in exactly that spot in your yard will change as described in the Science experiment.

Some will ask "But what about dinosaurs -- how can there be fossils?" Of course, once fossils are observed, part of the past has been determined. But dinosaur fossils are really no different than anything else you observe in nature. For instance, the carbon atoms in your body are 'fossils' created in the heart of exploding supernova stars.
The sum of the matter is this: physical reality begins and ends with the observer. We cannot go beyond the observer with our concepts of space and time. Without such an animal observer, space and time, and the evolutionary events thought to fill them, are altogether impossible.

As humans, we take the mind for granted. We are pleased with such books as Newton's Principia, or Darwin's Origin of Species. But they instill in us a complacency. Darwin spoke of the possibility that life emerged from inorganic matter in some "warm little pond." Trying to trace life down through simpler stages is one thing, but assuming it arose spontaneously from nonliving matter wants for the rigor of the quantum theorist.

In 1953, Stanley Miller mixed together some gases in an effort to mimic the geophysical environment of the primitive earth. He then subjected them to electrical sparks, corresponding to the lightning present on the primitive earth. After about a week the fluid turned brown and was found to contain amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Subsequent experiments by Miller and others have also succeeded in producing more complex organic molecules, including nucleic acids, which act to store and translate genetic information in living organisms.

While it is true, a rich variety of organic molecules can be synthesized in any one of many different ways, and it can probably be done in your bathtub, the experiments do not fail to have an animal subject. Our intercourse with the molecules is such as is necessary for them to exist as real objects. Half of the experiment is the scientist, who does not recognize that their consciousness renders possible the space, indeed, the very reality of the reaction vessel itself. It cannot be otherwise than important to remember that the Universe does not run mechanistically like a clock, and that physical reality extends no further than the animal observer.

"We are participators," Wheeler once said "in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past." Before his death last year, he stated that when observing light from a distant quasar that's bent around a foreground galaxy, we set up a quantum observation on an enormously large scale. It means, he said, the measurements made on the light now, determines the path it took billions of years ago.

Choices we make now really do change the past.

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

Robert Lanza, MD is a leading scientist and author of Biocentrism a book that lays out his theory of everything.

deepakchopra.com

Follow Deepak on Twitter

What makes the best 'case for God' to a skeptic or non-believer, an open-minded seeker, and to a person of faith and Why?

The Trappist monk and writer Thomas Merton remarked that God is always a step ahead of the seeker, having just departed wherever the seeker arrives. That's true for anyone who seeks proof of God. The debate is constantly changing its ground. But it wouldn't be true of personal experience, which is the most convincing proof to any individual, an immediate sense that God's presence is here and now (although much less convincing to friends and family who stand by as spectators). The Bible contains almost no intellectual arguments for God's existence, being entirely filled with direct experience. Jehovah talks to the prophets: Jesus performs supernatural miracles. In modern times the reverse is true. We hunger for objective evidence of all things, even things that cannot help but be subjective, such as beauty or for that matter, thinking itself.
The essential question isn't which type of proof is convincing but whether any proof is possible. Science has steadily eroded religion by saying, in essence, that there is no proof that satisfies experimental inquiry. In the eighteenth century most people would have accepted the argument from design, a rational proposition which pointed to the intricacy of Nature and declared that there must be a Creator behind it. Although such an argument can be updated, not through the creationism of Intelligent Design but by a rigorous argument against randomness, that has proven to be too great a leap for people inculcated to believe that randomness is, in fact, the basis of the universe since the Big Bang.
I'd offer that convincing arguments for God depend upon several factors:
-- Getting rid of the notion that God is a person.
-- Throwing out all dogma and religious conditioning.
-- Looking into the nature of consciousness, which links the observer to reality.
-- Taking seriously the concept of an intelligent universe, which implies self-awareness as primary in Nature, not a chance development in human beings.

There are now countless books by a diverse range of thinkers to support all these avenues of exploration. But ultimately, without an understanding of consciousness one can't possibly explain God or the numinous, or expand from personal awareness to divine awareness. Perception changes with the perceiver, including perception of God. Such an ever-elusive deity cannot be the real thing, only a mirror of our own restless awareness. Therefore, to be fully real, God must be perceived at a level of consciousness that isn't personal or shifting. In the East such changeless consciousness is available in a state known as enlightenment, the Christian equivalent of grace. In a secular society such a state of consciousness has yet to be defined and widely accepted (although millions of people meditate or pray, hoping to meet the divine face to face).

Theology has lagged far behind in helping us explore God personally or define the state of God consciousness, unfortunately, being occupied with side issues like defending one faith against another or trying to lure believers back into the church or synagogue. Scientists have done a far better job, ironically, by dismantling outworn notions about reality, but it's rare to find a scientist who is professionally interested in either God or consciousness. God is considered so unscientific to begin with that few researchers consider this a valid field, except for the purposes of a debunker a la Richard Dawkins, who does nothing more than repeat the tired clichés of skeptical materialism. Telling us all the reasons that finding God is impossible, attempts to prove a negative and is useless in explaining the great thinkers, sages, and saints who assure us that God is real.
So where do we stand now? On our own two feet -- seekers must find proof that satisfies them, one person at a time. It's not an easy journey, but it never was, except to those who preferred blind faith over personal exploration. The reason that the Kingdom of Heaven is within is that God is a state of consciousness; there is nowhere to look but within. The deity may be infinite, all-pervasive, and ever-present, but proof of God is on the move, shifting as fast as our own perceptions.

Published in the Washington Post OnFaith

deepakchopra.com

Follow Deepak on Twitter

A lot of people struggle with turbulent emotions and addictive behavior. They spend years in psychotherapy and at times they are able to overcome addictive habits through will power, only to have a recurrence and go back to old ways. From my experience, and also through observation of many people , I have discovered that a lasting change from unwanted behavior can be achieved through the practice of mindfulness.
Mindfulness has been interpreted as many things. My view of it is that it is remembering to bring your awareness to the present moment without getting emotionally or mentally engaged in the situations and circumstances surrounding that moment. When we do this we get the insight that most of our turbulent emotions and addictive behaviors are conditioned responses in our nervous system, which have been programmed during our childhood and growing years.
For some people, bringing their awareness to the present moment seems like an abstract or confusing instruction. In fact, it is quite simple. You can come to the present moment by shifting your awareness to your breath, or you can bring your awareness to the sensations in your body. Others may find it easier to let their attention rest in the space between objects. This can be the space between breaths, or the space between movements. Once you find the method of mindfulness that suits you best, it becomes easy to access your silent presence.
For many years I would periodically take a few days of absolute silence. During these periods after the initial adjustment of not engaging in conversation, not reading a book, not watching TV, or going even on a computer, I found I would then slip into a profound silence which allowed me to experience something that cannot be described. I was bathed in mystery and felt that I was inside God's mind. These days when I'm on a long trip on an airline, say 17 hours from India to the US, I will practice total silence with my eyes closed during the entire time. It will frequently bring me into the same exquisite realm of silence or mindfulness.
As a result of this "vipassana" practice there is spontaneous awakening of intuition and conscious choice making. It's like taking a spiritual bath and renewing yourself. Old habits and behaviors die hard, but silence and witnessing awareness are definitely a means of stepping out of river of memory and conditioning and seeing the world again as if for the first time.

Thursday is National Day of Prayer, as mandated by Congress. What should President Obama do? Should he follow tradition and sign a ceremonial proclamation? Should he follow President George W. Bush's practice of hosting a formal White House event? Should he ignore it completely?

Whether or not a national day of prayer is worthy of the name depends on what prayer is meant to be. In the Bush era, public or group prayer followed the pattern set down by Nixon in the Sixties: it was a validation of conservative values. God was for law and order and against hippies. God was against anyone who didn't believe in him, a ridiculous position when you think about it. Shouldn't God, of all beings, not need the approval of others? As long as prayer was simply a shout-out to evangelicals and supporters of the current war, I think it had little value as a national activity.

Anyway, prayer is personal to begin with. It is called upon by individuals for their own reasons, regardless of politicians who want to co-opt it.

Is there a single thing that prayer is meant to be? Many among the devout would find this an odd question, because for them the issue is self-evident. Prayer is a way to talk to God. The image is quite basic, like a telephone call. Whether God answers is exactly the same as whether the person you have dialed picks up the phone. The only mystery -- and it's a huge one -- is how to judge when God answers and when he doesn't. Is he angry or indifferent? Is he sufficiently pleased with your behavior in general? Does he deem it fit to fulfill your special request?

The human race has entangled itself fruitlessly in these mysteries for centuries, so it would be helpful to somehow get them out of the way by giving prayer a new meaning, one that doesn't depend on the fickleness of an invisible being living above the clouds. Why not consider prayer to be an action in consciousness? It may be too hard for someone in the Judeo-Christian tradition to let go of a personal (and usually masculine) God in favor of something as impersonal as one's own awareness, but I think this is where the focus should lie.

Everything about prayer happens in consciousness and nowhere else. The message is sent and received in consciousness; the results are noticed in consciousness; one's expectations, beliefs, and intentions are rooted in consciousness. Jesus proclaimed the existence of God inside each person, and "inside" means in a person's deepest consciousness. Therefore, prayer is one process: consciousness interacting with itself. Religions enforce a division between the one who prays and the one who answers, but why? Stripped of religious vocabulary, a prayer is nothing more than an intention. Either that intention comes true or it doesn't.

Once we put the issue on this basis, we can talk more rationally about how intentions come true. Does consciousness have the power to make dreams come true, to rescue people by bringing unexpected solutions, to heal illness, inspire faith, and surmount crises? A massive amount of evidence from the world's wisdom traditions says that a heartfelt intention arising in awareness possesses all these powers. There isn't space enough here to elaborate on the point at length, but anyone who delves seriously into the power of intention will come to the conclusion that having a prayer come true depends much more on the consciousness of the person who's praying than on an invisible, fickle, unknowable power who may or may not be listening.

Published in the Washington Post