Deepak Chopra & Adam Plack – Garden Of My Soul (Lyrics)

From album Soul of Healing Affirmations

In my garden the rose opened
But I was too much in a hurry and passed it by.
Love remembered me and said
I will make a rose bloom in your heart..
Today I will remind myself
that my body is the garden of my soul.
My body is the
garden of my
soul.
God and Spirit
I’m in a fog today..
Give me clarity in mind and heart..
Release me from my confusion.
Which is born of the past..
Letme see everything as if
for the first time.
Shower unknown blessings upon me
And surprise me with joy
Let me be renewed in your way..
My body is the
garden of my
soul…of my soul.
My body is the
garden of my
soul…of my soul.

My body is the
garden of my
soul…of my soul.

Advertisements

Deepak Chopra & Gina Fant Saez – Flight to Freedom

From Album -A Gift of Love Vol. 2 – Oceans Of Ecstasy
☆˚❤˚★
(Deepak Chopra)

I want to give you something, my love
For we are drifting in different streams of the world
Our lives will be carried apart and our love forgotten
But I’m not so foolish, that I would hope to buy your heart with gifts
Your life is young, your path is long and you drink my love one sip at a time and run away
I have no play and playmates, your laughter and your carefree ways
You are like a river, that runs swift with a song, breaking through all the barriers
I’m the mountain, I stay and remember and follow with my heart
I’m the mountain, I stay and remember and follow you with my love
(Gina Fant Saez)

My love, my heart, let this time of parting be sweet
Let it not be a death, but completeness
Let your love melt into memory and your pain into songs
Let your flight through the sky begin with the unfolding of wings
Let the last touch of your hands be gentle like the flower of the night
Stand still, oh beautiful love, for a moment
And say your last words in silence
I bow to you and hold up my candle to give light to you on your flight to freedom
My love, my heart let this time of parting be sweet
Let it not be a death, but completeness
Let your love melt into memory and your pain into songs
Let your flight through the sky begin with the unfolding of wings
Let the last touch of your hands be gentle like the flower of the night
Stand still, oh beautiful love, for a moment
And say your last words in silence
On your flight..to freedom

Ayurveda for Perfect Heath, Yoga for Enlightenment, Consciousness & Fundament…

Published on Oct 10, 2018

Deepak Chopra in conversation with Eddie Stern

The Science of Miracles: Perception Versus Reality By Deepak Chopra, M.D.

In its ambition to explain every aspect of the natural world, modern science has sidestepped very few problems. Some mysteries are so difficult that they defy the scientific method. It’s hard to conceive of experiments that will tell us what happened before time and space emerged, for example. But two mysteries have been consistently sidestepped for decades out of prejudice. One is the nature of consciousness, the other the reality of phenomena loosely categorized as mystical or supernatural.

However, now that there is a burgeoning science of consciousness, fermenting with much theorizing, arguments, and controversies, it may be necessary to solve all kinds of fringe phenomena, in particular miracles, that have long been considered the province of superstition, credulity, and outright fraud. (This is the hardened position of the vocal skeptics’ camp, but their impact on the practice of science is too minimal to deal with here.)

Perception and Reality
If you look upon the physical world as a given—what you see is what you get—governed by fixed mathematical laws of nature, the whole domain of wonders and miracles poses no problems. Levitation, bilocation, psychic healing, clairvoyance, near-death experiences, and all the miracles related in the Bible can be dismissed out of hand. Accepting the physical world “as it is” constitutes naïve realism, which all of us depend upon in our everyday lives. As I’ve pointed out in many previous posts, consistently co-authored with a physicist, geneticist, biologist, cosmologist, or philosopher, naïve realism hasn’t been scientifically tenable for at least a century, ever since the quantum era began.

If we can’t accept the physical world as it is, a level playing field can be posited that includes both the natural and supernatural. An impenetrable wall no longer divides the two categories from each other. There are several completely cogent reasons for making such a statement.

All experience occurs in consciousness.
Consciousness is the meeting place between perception and reality.
This meeting place is inexplicable at present. There is no scientific explanation for everyday experience, much less the so-called mystical.
The materialistic assumptions of science as it’s currently practiced have made no headway in explaining how the brain’s electro-chemical activity produces the sights, sounds, textures, and smells of a three-dimensional world.
What is known with certainty, however, is that the brain filters and reduces the input it receives.
The last point needs expanding. If you insist upon being a staunch physicalist, someone who refuses to accept any explanation outside materialism, the brain must be the seat of mind, and the world we perceive must be registered faithfully by the brain. But there’s no doubt that the brain is fallible. Its mechanisms are easily fooled, by optical illusions, for example. Its fixed neural pathways constantly distort even basic perceptions, as when a person suffering from anorexia looks at her starved and wasted body but sees it as “too fat.”

The “Real” World

Leaving aside its fallibility, the human brain processes only a fraction of the billions of bits of sensory data bombarding it every day. Through a process of filtering and reduction, it creates an image of the world that is acceptable for everyday navigation, nothing more. It’s been rightly said that the “real world” is actually a reflected image of how the brain works. It’s an abstraction built up from mechanical manipulation at the neural level.

To simplify, the real world is like a fenced-in corral that includes only what is acceptable and permissible while shutting out what isn’t. Acceptable and permissible are personal terms—we all know people who are blind to aspects of their lives that are glaringly obvious to others. But these are also social and cultural terms. The brain can shut out what society refuses to see. Sometimes this refusal runs deep into the unconscious. The historical denigration of women and blacks, for example, was created by a complex mélange of beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, received opinions, and willful blindness. All of these ingredients changed the brains of the people who participated in them, including the victims.

A science of consciousness must reach beyond the conventions of acceptable and permissible reality that are brain-based. Physicalists find this impossible to do except in a limited way. They insist that the brain must be delivering reality because for them there’s no other alternative. Thus the brain is given a privileged position. Rocks, trees, clouds, hydrogen atoms, and quarks aren’t conscious, but even as it sits in the middle of the scene, with no qualities to distinguish its “thingness” from the “thingness” around it, we are supposed to view the brain as totally unique. This is pure animism, the belief that spirits live inside material objects, verging close to religiosity, turning the brain into a three-pound god.

Expanding Your Reality

By abandoning physicalism, we wouldn’t be returning to an age of superstition (the favorite straw man of the skeptical camp). We would be expanding the fence, allowing in more of reality. Until there is an understanding of how the mind interfaces with reality, no viable explanation exists for any experience, much less the mystical.

All I’ve done in this post is to propose a level playing field for all experiences, and that’s only a start, obviously. Saying that miracles aren’t totally excluded isn’t the same as proving that they exist, or even might exist. Having opened the door, we’ll see if miracles can walk through it, which is the topic of the next post. It was Einstein, not a shaman, yogi, New Age devotee, or charlatan, who famously said, “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

To be continued …

Source: The Chopra Center

Deepak Chopra about his new novel on the life of Muhammad

Full interview with Alan Steinfeld and Deepak Chopra about his latest book Muhammad: A Story of the Last Prophet

How to be Consciously Aware | Deepak Chopra


Author and physician Deepak Chopra delivers a powerful existential speech that will leave you amazed.

What is the dark night of the soul? What is the cure? Deepak Chopra, MD

What is the dark night of the soul? What is the cure? Deepak Chopra, MD

Deepak Chopra- Who is God & Life After Death

Deepak Chopra Interview – Patrick Bet-David asks about Deepak’s life growing up, his life purpose, his self healing mindset, alternative medicine, world peace and who is God?

Deepak Chopra Wants to Heal Donald Trump’s “Inflamed” Inner Child

Deepak Chopra chats with Jimmy about the importance of difficult and polarizing moments in history, and he offers some ideas and a book recommendation to heal a “wounded” President Trump.

Deepak Chopra Guides Jimmy Through Meditation

Deepak Chopra guides Jimmy, The Roots and the Tonight Show audience through a two-minute meditation.

Cosmic Evolution Q & A: Current Understanding of the Universe By Deepak Chopra, M.D. and Joel Primack

The universe is filled with mystery and intrigue, but with the evolution of science, researchers are understanding more and more each year. This interview explores the Big Bang Theory, Dark Energy, and even how consciousness plays a role in science.

Deepak Chopra: How did the universe begin?

Joel Primack
: We have detailed information about the Big Bang. The universe began in a very hot, dense state. About 400,000 years after the beginning, the universe had cooled enough that atoms formed and that’s when the heat radiation of the Big Bang was released—what we call the cosmic background radiation. It comes from every direction around us. We have studied it in detail and it confirms the predictions of the modern theory in amazing detail.

Deepak: Do we know the cause, what triggered the Big Bang?

Joel: There’s a hypothesis, called Cosmic Inflation, that very neatly describes how the Big Bang started, what put the bang in the Big Bang and made the universe expand so rapidly, and what produced the energy and matter.

Cosmic Inflation makes many predictions, and every prediction that’s been tested has turned out to be right. So most cosmologists—physicists and astronomers who study the whole universe—think that Cosmic Inflation must be pretty close to the truth.

Of course the question then is, “What happened before that?” There’s a theory called Eternal Inflation and Cosmic Inflation would just be the last moment of Eternal Inflation in our part of the universe. But we have not yet been able to test Eternal Inflation.

Deepak: Is Cosmic Inflation the beginning of the Big Bang, or before the Big Bang? Was there a “Planck Epoch?”

Joel: If Eternal Inflation preceded Cosmic Inflation, there probably never was a Planck Epoch. Eternal Inflation would operate at very high energies, but lower than the highest energy possible, the Planck energy.

Deepak: Was there never a beginning then?

Joel: It’s a controversial question. There was a paper that claimed to prove that Eternal Inflation must have started a finite time ago, so it’s only eternal in the future, not the past. But a loophole was found in that paper, so the answer is not clear. The farther back you go, the hazier it gets.

Deepak: In Cosmic Inflation, the universe triples in size every tiny unit of time, and triples again and again—and then this exponential expansion stops and the universe expands much more slowly. Do we know the mechanism of that?

Joel: Cosmic inflation is really the name of a class of theories. In such theories, Cosmic Inflation ends quickly and converts to cosmic expansion. Many such theories all make similar predictions that seem compatible with the universe we observe. The details can, in principle, be worked out with enough data, and we’re beginning to obtain such data.

There was a claim that the BICEP experiment had seen evidence of gravity waves from the Cosmic Inflation era. But the BICEP group then worked together with the European Planck satellite team and their revised conclusion was that their original paper was mistaken. The region of the sky that BICEP looked at from the South Pole was contaminated by dust in our own Milky Way galaxy, and what they saw was almost certainly the dust signal.

That team and other teams are doing much more precise experiments at several wavelengths that will allow them to disentangle the effects of dust and other “foregrounds,” so over the next few years we are going to know the answer.

If it turns out that we can see the gravity waves from Cosmic Inflation, we will be able to reconstruct what happened. This would allow us to get close to the Planck scale, the highest energies and smallest things allowed by physics—a very exciting possibility!

Deepak: In your book, The View from the Center of the Universe, you say that the Big Bang occurred everywhere. Please explain that.

Joel: The entire visible universe was a small region at the time of the Big Bang, and the stuff that would become our galaxy and us was deep inside it.

The early stage was very simple and smooth, with only small differences in the density of matter and energy in different regions—about 30 parts per million more here, and about 30 parts per million less there. But that was enough to cause tremendous differences later—galaxies formed here, no galaxies formed there. And in the observed universe we really do see such big “cosmic voids” with very few galaxies.

Deepak: Where did the energy come from for the Big Bang?

Joel: Almost all the energy during Cosmic Inflation was in a quantum field called the Inflaton. If such a field isn’t at its lowest energy state, it will automatically cause the exponentially rapid expansion of Cosmic Inflation. But the process also has to end very quickly as the Inflaton’s energy gets converted to the energy and matter of the universe.

Deepak: What happens then?

Joel: Actually, we know a lot about things that happened starting about a millionth of a second after the Big Bang, since physicists have explored the relevant processes in the laboratory.

In 1977, Steven Weinberg wrote a wonderful book called The First Three Minutes—it’s actually more like ten minutes—describing how most of the light elements were formed at that early era. The deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and most of the helium were formed then, and the theory predicted just how much of these light elements get formed.

We’ve now been able to measure precisely the amount of deuterium and fairly precisely the amount of helium, and the good agreement with theory is impressive. However, there may be a disagreement between theory and observation for the next lightest element, lithium.

Deepak: Is this evidence that if the values of the fundamental and cosmological parameters were any different, we couldn’t be here?

Joel: Yes, but it’s a little more complicated. There was a period when physicists were quite excited about these so-called “anthropic arguments,” which have to do with the universe being fine tuned so that creatures like us can exist.

The way they played that game was they kept all the constants of nature the same except for one, and showed that if you just changed that one even a little bit from what we measure it to be, our universe and creatures like us couldn’t exist. However, if you are allowed to change more than one constant at a time, then it turns out that creatures like us—carbon-based life—could exist in very different sorts of universes.

Deepak: How did galaxies come into existence?

Joel: Quantum effects during Cosmic Inflation create the slight differences in density from place to place that make galaxies form in some places and not in others. These quantum fluctuations are on microscopic scales, but they get blown up to astronomical scales by the tremendous expansion during Cosmic Inflation.

Regions that start slightly denser than average expand a little slower. Gravity slows them down. Regions that start out slightly less dense than average expand a little faster. Astronomers call regions of higher density “richer” and regions of lower density “poorer.” Gravity makes richer regions richer and poorer regions poorer. There are never any exceptions—that’s why it’s theultimate Scrooge principle!

Richer regions are where galaxies will ultimately form. Poor regions grow into big cosmic voids where hardly any galaxies form. And so the structure of the universe that we see today has most of the galaxies in sheets surrounding the big cosmic voids and the galaxies tend to lie along lines that we call filaments. The distribution of the galaxies in space agrees remarkably well with the theoretical predictions.

Deepak: And now we have a situation where 70 percent of the universe is Dark Energy, 25 percent or so is Dark Matter, and only about 5 percent is the sort of stuff that atoms are made of. What is Dark Energy?

Joel: Ha—we wish we knew! We don’t know what Dark Energy is. We don’t even know why it’s there, or what role it played in the early universe. But now it’s making the universe expand faster and faster. Effectively, dark energy makes space repel space.

Deepak: This expansion, I’m told, is faster than the speed of light.

Joel: Rather, what’s happening is that the whole universe is expanding. If you are on an expanding racetrack—if you look farther and farther away—things will be moving away from you faster and faster just because they are farther along the expanding racetrack.

At a certain distance, galaxies will be moving away from you faster than the speed of light. This doesn’t contradict relativity—it’s what relativity predicts.

Deepak: So this explains how the most distant objects in the visible universe are about 47 billion light years away even though the universe is less than 14 billion years old.

Joel: Yes.

Deepak: What is the 25 or 26 percent that we call Dark Matter?

Joel: I proposed back in 1982, with the late Heinz Pagels, that the modern theory of supersymmetry gives us a natural candidate for the dark matter. Supersymmetry is probably the best idea we have to go beyond our standard model of particle physics, and supersymmetry is the basis of string theory.

If supersymmetry is right, all the fundamental particles we know—the electron, quarks, the photon, and so on—have superpartner particles that we haven’t discovered yet. The superpartner particles must be much heavier. And they have funny names:

Squarks (the partners of the quarks)
Sleptons (the partners of the leptons)
Photino (the partner of the photon)
The lightest of these particles—perhaps the photino—might be the dark matter.

Deepak: Is it true that the dark matter is not atomic?

Joel: Yes, the dark matter has nothing to do with protons, neutrons, or electrons—the stuff that atoms are made of.

Deepak: It doesn’t absorb light or emit light?

Joel: Not to any great extent.

Deepak: We are made up of atoms, right?

Joel: Yes. In fact, we’re mostly made of a very special kind of atom—not the kind that came out of the Big Bang (except for hydrogen), but rather atoms that formed in stars.

Deepak: So how do we interact with something that’s not made of what we’re made of?

Joel: A good example is neutrinos. To solve a mystery and avoid a catastrophe in physics—the breaking of fundamental laws like conservation of angular momentum and energy—Wolfgang Pauli suggested that there’s a new particle, subsequently named the neutrino by Enrico Fermi.

Pauli was very diffident about this proposal because he thought he was proposing something that could not be tested. But now we have measured many properties of neutrinos. We’ve discovered three different kinds of neutrinos and that they can turn into each other. We understand a great deal about neutrinos.

Deepak: Are they observable?

Joel: Absolutely! We can do experiments about neutrinos.

Deepak: How is something observable if it’s not atomic?

Joel: Well neutrinos are weird. They only have weak interactions. Their masses are so small that their gravitational interactions are essentially negligible.

Deepak: Can dark matter be of the same category?

Joel: Yes, except that dark matter has a great deal of mass. If dark matter is the lightest superpartner, it is a weakly interacting massive particle, a WIMP. Then it would interact with ordinary matter like neutrinos. But since it would be very massive—in fact, it would be most of the mass of the universe—it would have a great deal of gravity. So it’s a combination of those two ideas.

Deepak: So we’re now in a situation where 95 percent of the universe is invisible?

Joel: Correct!

Deepak: It’s at the moment unknown, possibly even unknowable. And about 5 percent is atomic matter.

Joel: Yes, mostly hydrogen and helium that came out of the Big Bang. The heavier elements—which we and the earth are mostly made of—are only about 0.01 percent of the cosmic density.

Deepak: The atomic matter has the particle-like thingness about them, but they are also waves that can’t be localized.

Joel: No, waves can be localized, with greater or less precision. The better you know their location the worse you can know their momentum. If you want to localize it in time, then you know less about its energy. These are the “uncertainty relations” of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the best-tested theory in all of science.

Deepak: But do we really understand quantum mechanics? There are so many interpretations!

Joel: Yes, the old Niels Bohr interpretation is often paraphrased “shut up and calculate!” The theory makes very precise predictions that we can calculate. There’s no dispute about the calculations.

The problem is that if you try to describe what’s going on in ordinary terms, there are many different kinds of language that you can apply that sound very different—but that don’t seem to have any different implications.

Deepak: It works, but what does it mean? We don’t know what caused the Big Bang. As Sir Arthur Eddington said, “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.” On the one hand, experiments verify the theories, and yet what’s going on?

Joel: I don’t think we should be surprised at the growth of mystery with the growth of knowledge. Newton is supposed to have said that to himself he was like a young child at the seashore, every so often picking up a particularly beautiful stone or shell, while he looked out at the great ocean of ignorance before him.

We live in an island of scientific understanding. As we learn more the island grows, but so does the size of the shoreline where ignorance meets knowledge.

Deepak: So science has expanded the mystery of existence?

Joel: Precisely! And we shouldn’t be surprised at that. The more we learn, the more questions we ask. It doesn’t look like science will end. It’s hard to conceive of an ending caused by a lack of interesting questions.

The questions we can ask now are very different questions. We didn’t know there was dark matter or dark energy before. Now we know, and of course we want to know what they are. We have a very elaborate program to try to answer those questions.

For example, experiments deep underground (to protect from cosmic rays) may detect the dark matter particles. The U.S. is going to increase the sensitivity of our most sensitive experiment by a factor of 100. If that experiment doesn’t discover WIMPs, it could rule the theory out. But it may discover WIMPs.

There is also evidence from the Fermi Gamma Ray satellite that may indicate that dark matter is annihilating itself in the center of our Milky Way galaxy. The evidence is tantalizing, but it isn’t convincing yet. A lot of other data may materialize in the next few years. We might be on the threshold of making a great discovery, but I don’t know what the answer is going to be. No one knows yet!

Deepak: I want to bring up the element of consciousness. In your book you say that we need sentience to know this. I was reading Freeman Dyson’s book, Infinite in All Directions, where he suggests that there is sentience at all levels from the atomic to the cosmic level. I was in a debate with our friend Richard Dawkins, and I quoted Dyson. He screamed at me that Dyson never said that. The sentence I quoted is that “every experiment forces the atom to make a choice.”

I wrote to Dyson, and he responded that there are three riddles that have confounded him all his life: the unpredictable movement of atoms, a universe fine-tuned for mind and life, and our own consciousness. They seem to have some connection to each other. Any comment on that?

Joel: (Laughs.) Freeman Dyson has written many essays over the years—the first collection was called Disturbing the Universe—that are full of wonderful insights, wisdom, and questions. Dyson also wrote the first article that discussed in detail the distant future of a universe that goes on forever.

These are great mysteries, and I think they are going to keep us busy for a very long time—both scientifically and philosophically. I don’t expect to have easy answers to any of them.

Deepak: Is science a product of consciousness?

Joel: Of course. And the connection between mind and brain is a fascinating mystery. My father-in-law had a stroke, which drastically changed his consciousness—so there is clearly a connection. You are an expert on these things from your medical education and practice.

Deepak: Are mind and brain the same thing?

Joel: I don’t think so.

Deepak: Then you are a dualist?

Joel: Not exactly. What’s going on in my mind was drastically influenced by what happened in other peoples’ minds throughout history. The language I use is not something I invented, it’s something I learned—it’s a cultural creation.

We’re interacting not just on the level of the words, but also in other ways. You smile, and I have a warm feeling. It’s visceral. We know that the brain has these tight connections to the heart, stomach, and so on. To imagine that it’s all in one’s head is crazy.

Deepak: If we are non-dualists, we have to ask if the fundamental reality of the universe is physical or non-physical. Or don’t those words mean anything?

Joel: The trouble with the word “physical” is that most people think of chairs and tables and things like that, which are solid. But we now know that’s just a macroscopic description that has little to do with how these things look on the microscopic level.

We can now see individual atoms. We know how things work on the atomic level, and it’s very very different. Calling something physical—if it invokes this common-sense meaning—is very misleading.

Deepak: Is there a fundamental ground to reality?

Joel: As far as we know, quantum mechanics is pretty fundamental. But at some level there is a conflict between quantum theory—which describes how things work on the level of the very small—and general relativity—our theory of space, time, and gravity.

Until we have an encompassing theory that explains how they fit together—and also how to extrapolate beyond their individual domains of validity—we won’t know how far we can trust either quantum mechanics or general relativity.

Deepak: What’s your prediction of where science is going to take us in the next few years?

Joel: I think we’re going to learn wonderful new things about how the universe evolved and how galaxies formed. We’re still in the process of writing papers about some fascinating discoveries from the biggest project in the history of Hubble Space Telescope.

I think we’re going to discover the dark matter, or else rule out current theories. We may discover a great deal about the nature of dark energy. We have a bunch of new telescopes on the way and wonderful new projects that are underway or about to start. I think the next decade or so is going to be a phenomenal period of discovery.

Deepak: Is the mystery of existence going to expand?

Joel: Yes! Suppose we find out what the dark matter is, and it’s some kind of elementary particle. It has to be something completely different from everything we know, so it will be the beginning of the exploration of a whole new world. I don’t foresee an end to this exploration any time soon.

Source: Chopra

A Spiritual Mystery: Does God Listen to Prayers? (Part III) – Deepak Chopra, M.D


It may sound odd at first, but there are ways to improve the chances that God will answer your prayer..
In the first and second post in this series, we saw that the whole subject of prayer is filled with assumptions and preconceptions. Once they are cleared away, a prayer turns out to be a special kind of intention. Therefore, the rules that apply to intentions, which are rules about consciousness, apply. Your prayer will be answered, or not, depending on events happening out of sight – but not out of mind. The mind furnishes the mechanics of making any intention come true.

This quick summary will raise eyebrows if someone denies that the inner and outer worlds are connected. (See the first and second posts in this series for the reasoning behind the union of these two domains of reality.) The world’s wisdom traditions don’t run into this obstacle, which is peculiar to modern materialism. Yet in a way it’s good to start with a blank slate. What makes any intention come true? Three vital elements are at work, as mentioned in the first post of this series:

How deep into the mind is the intention coming from?
How steady is your focus?
How fluid is your intention?
When you perfect these three things, the power of intention becomes real and useful. This is the teaching of Samyama, as it is described in Sanskrit. Let me treat each element in the way Vedanta prescribes.

Depth of Awareness Is Samadhi
Like a river that runs fast on the surface but much more slowly near the bottom, the mind is conceived of as both active and still, even though it’s the same mind. The stillness is present, for example, in the space between thoughts. When you are accustomed to experiencing your mind only through activity (i.e., sensations, images, feelings, and thoughts), the silent source of the mind has been missed. The whole point of Eastern meditation practices is to reacquaint a person with this source. The more often you dive into silent mind, the deeper your intentions are coming from when you aren’t meditating.

What helps Samadhi:

Meditation
Calm, peaceful surroundings
Lack of mental agitation
Absence of stress
Minimal distractions
Self-acceptance
Self-awareness
What hurts Samadhi: the opposite of the above

Steady Mental Focus Is Dharana
Calling up an intention is natural to everyone’s mind. The key is that the intention be one-pointed, that is, your desire doesn’t conflict with other desires or get dissipated in mental restlessness. To be alert, sharp, and clear should be the goal. This isn’t accomplished overnight, and yet there is nothing exotic to learn. We’ve all experienced moments of knowing exactly what we want and never losing focus as long as our desire holds our attention.

What helps Dharana:

Clear thinking
Acting purposefully
Not losing sight of the goal
Confidence
The ability to stick with a mental task
Follow-through
Diligence
What hurts Dharana:

Multi-tasking
Mental confusion
Conflicted desires
Lack of self-knowledge
Fantasy and daydreaming
Short attention span
A craving to escape the self
Fluid Awareness Is Dhyana
Although all the elements behind intention come naturally and are part of everyone’s mental makeup, there is a seeming contradiction between holding a steady focus (Dharana) and being in a flexible, fluid state of mind (Dhyana). It’s like asking water to be ice and liquid at the same time. But the mind isn’t an object or substance. It exhibits complementary states that seem opposite but actually work together.

In this case, an open mind that can adapt to any response is compatible with steady focus. No better example exists than playing a video game, where the player is fiercely intent of scoring points but must be open to every surprising, unexpected event in order to reach a high score. In everyday life, a desire is one-pointed at its inception, but you let it go and await whatever response comes to you. There is a skill involved: Learning to view the world “out there” as responsive to the signals you send to it from “in here.”

What helps Dhyana:

Being relaxed and easy
Mindfulness
Acceptance of things as they are
Putting a value on being
Trust
Believing in the wisdom of uncertainty
Allegiance to a higher level of intelligence that organizes reality
What hurts Dhyana:

Tension
Anticipation
Controlling yourself and others
Rigidity
Insistence on rules and routines
Obsession
Compulsive behavior
Inability to believe that the universe supports you
In these three elements, as you can see, lies a lifetime of potential unfolding into actuality. Every thought has the power of intention behind it. The only issue is how far you are willing to go to cooperate with this ability, to unearth its possibilities, and improve your skill at Samyama.

I’ve deviated from the Indian spiritual tradition by making the power of intention a natural aspect of the mind rather than an advanced, specialized ability that only yogis and swamis can attain. But this is in keeping with the spiritual principle I hold highest: All spiritual attainments are a birthright belonging to everyone. The greatest mysteries are answered by looking at ourselves, here and now.

Source: Chopra

A Spiritual Mystery: Does God Listen to Prayers? – Deepak Chopra Part II

To say that prayers are answered isn’t the same as saying that God answers prayers…

In the first case, a thought manifests as reality. You wish, intend, or ask for an outcome, and the outcome appears. In the second case, a supernatural being in the sky listens to millions of requests every day and kindly responds to a few while turning his back on the vast majority. The first post in this series was devoted to a consciousness-based explanation for prayers as opposed to a religious explanation.

The question automatically arises: If answered and unanswered prayers have a basis in our own awareness, what creates the difference? Here, I think, the religious explanation leads to serious difficulties. If you pray to be healed, for example, and the healing doesn’t come, religious thinking puts the blame on you. God has not granted your prayer, the reasoning goes, because you don’t have enough faith. Or you didn’t surrender to his will. Or you have secret sins in your heart that you haven’t repented of. These are time-honored explanations, and the problem with them—as with the existence of God—is that they can’t be proved one way or another. Does God hate you? Is God simply unfair? These are questions that have no basis for a valid answer.

The Mysterious Realm of Cause and Effect
On the other hand, consciousness is undoubtedly real. How to explain its origins remains a mystery, but we all think, and one mode of thinking is to intend for something to happen. If this something is within physical reach, you can reach for it. Grabbing a pizza, starting the car, getting out of bed in the morning—our choice to connect cause-and-effect in these cases is considered normal and natural. Other intentions seem supernatural because the link between cause and effect is invisible.

Yet the reach of the supernatural is actually quite arbitrary from culture to culture. An airplane might easily seem supernatural to an aboriginal culture, or the action of aspirin to eliminate pain, or the ability of a bullet to kill a deer. Before labeling this as a primitive reaction, consider that in modern society we have no explanation for where thoughts come from or how the invisible quantum field gives rise to the appearance of solid, tangible objects. We simply accept that some line of cause-and-effect exists, which will be clarified by future scientists. This article of faith breaks down when you ask the obvious question: Where do cause and effect come from? Ever since the quantum revolution of a century ago, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle disabused physics of naive realism, the notion that reality matches what our five senses tell us.

We live in a universe that is radically different from what our eyes and ears perceive, and one major difference is known as “non-locality.” Even though a rose bush growing in your yard looks isolated, alone, an intact, it is actually an outcropping of the quantum field at the microscopic field, and its position in time and space isn’t local at all. The quanta from which matter arises are at bottom only probability waves, extending infinitely in all directions. At an even finer level all matter and energy vanish into the quantum vacuum, which is a field of pure potential which would appear to the naked eye as a void. So the rose bush is nowhere and everywhere at the same time.

Physics remains baffled about how the non-locality of quantum events turns into the obvious locality of a rose bush, which sits in your yard, not on Mars or the Andromeda galaxy. For a long time the scientific mind resisted the possibility that quantum behavior might apply in everyday life. Reality was divided into two compartments, one for quanta, which are allowed to act as strangely as they like, and one for rose bushes and other “classical” objects, which act in the normal cause-and-effect way. But the notion of two realities is uncomfortable, and in recent decades a genuine effort has been made to find the link between quantum and classical, so that we can have a single reality whose laws and rules are united at some deeper level.

What Happens to Prayers
This brings us back to prayers. Let’s say that a prayer is a classical event, or feels like one. You, a unique individual, have a particular request, which you voice in words that no one else is speaking at that instant. What if this classical event gets processed at a non-local level? The notion isn’t far-fetched, because it seems that the mind-body link does consist of fluctuations at the quantum level. If this is so, then any thought, not just a prayer, has quantum implications, and if that’s true, suddenly we have taken a trip into the realm of the non-local.

Your prayer will be answered, or not, depending on events happening out of sight—but not out of mind. By expanding our definition of mind, we can account for answered prayers, and even set down their behavior. Once a prayer is allowed to leave the classical world, it doesn’t become supernatural. It enters another level of Nature, and what happens there is fascinating.

View Here

Source: Chopra

Exploring Reality with Swami Sarvapriyananda

A magical lie ~ Deepak Chopra

Published on Jun 24, 2018

Deepak explains that experience seems to take place in time and space. In actuality they are fluctuations or on-ing and off-ing of consciousness in a timeless and spaceless eternal now.

A Spiritual Mystery: Does God Listen to Prayers? By Deepak Chopra, M.D.

Without taking a poll, it’s safe to say that people who believe in God also believe that he answers prayers. If he didn’t, one would be left with an indifferent, distant deity who pays no attention to human affairs. This alternative is hard to reconcile with faith, and so believers are left with a God who seems to answer prayers selectively. It’s as if there’s an invisible telephone line to Heaven, and when you call, sometimes God picks up and sometimes he doesn’t.

I’ve simplified the scheme—the theology of prayer gets very complicated—because for most believers, praying is simple. You entreat God to do something special for you, and you take your chances. For every answered prayer, millions go unanswered. God must be a selective listener, or else there’s something wrong with the person who is praying.

Despite this frustrating and irrational setup, who hasn’t turned to prayer in times of greatest need?

To get to the heart of this question, we should start with a blank slate. Set aside your image of God as a father sitting on his throne somewhere above the clouds. Such images differ from one religion to the next and are clearly projections of the human mind validated only by cultural myths and traditions. Second, lose the notion of the invisible telephone line. If God is omnipresent, there is no distance between you and the one you pray to. Finally, strip God of all human attributes, including gender. Whatever God is, the reality must be superhuman, however you define the term.

Mundane Intentions Versus Deep Desires

In the Indian spiritual tradition, these first steps were taken thousands of years go. The slate was completely clean, and therefore one could ask the most basic question: Why does any desire come true? For a prayer is essentially a desire or intention. It differs from mundane intentions like wanting a candy bar or intending to do a good job in one thing only: the desired object seems out of reach. We invoke a superhuman power when human powers fail.

This is where the Indian sages had a brilliant thought. What if mundane intentions are not different from prayers? This possibility defies the logic of prayers if you think you are telephoning God. What links all intentions, no matter how extraordinary, is that they happen in consciousness. So the mystery of prayer turns into a more fundamental investigation into how consciousness actually works. Clearly the intention to eat a candy bar or to do a good job at work brings the mind into contact with reality in such a way that intention is connected to outcome. So why isn’t this true when you pray for a friend to recover from cancer or for peace in the Middle East?

Samyama

The answer, according to the Vedic rishis, who explored consciousness more deeply than anyone else, comes down to three aspects that enter into any intention, indeed into any thought.

1.How deep into the mind is the intention coming from?
2.How steady is your focus?
3.How fluid is your intention?

In Sanskrit these three elements are known as Samadhi, Dharana, and Dhyana, and when all three are fused, the entire mechanism is called Samyama. There’s no need to dwell on these terms, only to point out that the success or failure of an intention depends on the effective use of one’s awareness, not on a request to a deity who may or may not be listening. Samyama basically means to bind or hold together, and when all three of these components are unified, that’s what makes for the strongest intentions. You have gone deep enough into your own self-awareness that you can affect what happens in the outer world; your intention is one-pointed rather than scattered; and your mind is steady while remaining fluid and flexible.

The Obstacles in Prayer

If this explanation is correct, it describes unanswered prayers as the product of a mind that is restless, shallow, conflicted, or unable to focus. All of us suffer from these obstacles.

Answered prayers, on the other hand, represent a kind of total clarity that may come at any moment, like the sudden parting of the clouds, and at such a moment the mechanism that fulfills intentions works smoothly. Although Samyama is identified in the tradition of Yoga as a high attainment, it seems reasonable to say that the same mechanism exists in everyday consciousness. After all, to live is to carry out intentions.

Once you understand how the mechanism works, you have a choice. You can meditate or pursue other spiritual techniques that bring the three elements of intentionality together. The results will not be the same on every path. Some people will experience a prayer coming true, others will be able to live in the present moment, and others still may feel that they are connected to God.

As straightforward as this description of intentions is, it gives rise to its own questions, which we’ll explore in the next post. To be continued …

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: