Why Does the Universe Fit Together So Perfectly

This topic contains 19 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Deepak Chopra 3 years ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #4499 Score: 1

    Deepak Chopra
    Moderator
    60 votes
    @deepakchopra

    In this video I am reading a few passages from the chapter “Why Does the Universe Fit Together So Perfectly? and answering two questions.

    Question 1:
    “Discussing the workings of the brain, you write that its chemistry is completely predetermined, while thinking is free. In understanding how the two relate, you believe that a great universal secret can be revealed.
    What is this secret and can it help us understand and better navigate the freedom-determination aspect of our life?”

    Question 2:
    “Even if I know that I am the consciousness or awareness that creates experiences in space and time, how do I get insights on handling those experiences? Because our mind has a limited view and it seems that decisions made using brain logic or mind is like playing blind.
    Or, is it that consciousness ‘unconsciously’ influences the brain that we are not aware of? Then why do some of our decisions go wrong?”

    Let me know what you think!

    Love,
    Deepak

    This post has received 1 vote up.
  • #4522 Score: 1

    Kent Van Cleave
    Participant
    6 votes
    @kent-van-cleave

    The question is posed, “Even if I know that I am the consciousness or awareness that creates experiences in space and time, how do I get insights on handling those experiences? Because our mind has a limited view and it seems that decisions made using brain logic or mind is like playing blind. Or, is it that consciousness ‘unconsciously’ influences the brain that we are not aware of? Then why do some of our decisions go wrong?”

    Pt. Chopra states that awareness is what creates mind, body, and universe, that mind, body, and universe are awareness in disguise. He further states that when our decisions go wrong it is because they come from the mind, and not from a deep level of awareness. He further states, “in the universe everything is correlated”.

    I start my reply with a basic premise, drawn from my study of the self. Stripping everything away, going to the lowest common denominator of being, I believe that there is a God principle that underlies all. Everything, from subatomic particle to galaxy, is driven to seek connection. Subatomic particles connect to form atoms, and by doing so, they reach a higher state, a state of enhanced meaning. Atoms connect to form molecules, thereby attaining a still higher state.

    It is necessary to broaden the foundation of my argument, so as to support it well, and this requires a topic shift. In my study, experience, and reflection on self, I came to believe, as did the Greek philosophers, that we are triune beings, body, mind, and spirit. This is not incompatible with Pt. Chopra’s taxonomy of body, mind, and universe, particularly if one acknowledges Jung’s beliefs on the unconscious.

    The word spirit comes from the Greek spiros, which means breath. I equate spirit with the God principle, the drive of everything to ceaselessly seek connection. As humans, we seek connection because it is the source of all meaning, and we must find meaning, both without and within.

    Jung divided the psyche into three parts. The ego he equated with the conscious mind. He also posited a personal unconsciousness, roughly analogous to long term memory, things known but not presently in our consciousness. The third part of the psyche, he stated, is the collective unconsciousness, a universal knowledge born into each of us, representing the distilled wisdom and experience of all of humanity. And there is now emerging evidence to support a collective unconsciousness.
    Recently, scientists have been able to write terabytes of information into synthetic DNA, then retrieve and reconstruct it to its original form, indirectly providing support for the idea that we might pass on our experiences through our genes. More recently, direct evidence has shown that we do, in fact, write experience into our DNA. And if that information is there written in our genes, we must have some means of accessing it.

    When we mediate, Jung felt, we shift focus from conscious mind to unconscious self. The personal unconscious is our conduit, our means of connection with, the collective unconscious, and the means by which we access that universal knowledge, that universal being. In more prosaic terms, we are accessing the wisdom stored in our DNA,

    This is compatible with the Hindu view of our selves. We are ego, or jiv-atman, living in a world, or maya. From our conscious perspective, we view others as separate from ourselves. But jiv-atman is really only a an extension of, and a connection with atman, or the universal consciousness, the universal being. And when we die, we awaken to the understanding that we were, from the beginning, God. “Namaste” roughly translates to “the God in me recognizes the God in you.”

    What I am trying to do with these statements is support the proposition that spirit is the same as the universe. The God principle, connection, is spirit, and is present in and determines all. It is the correlatedness that Pt. Chopra speaks of.

    Synthesizing this, and responding to the question, Pt. Chopra is right – decisions go wrong when they have not accessed our deeper knowing. Through mind only, we can only connect the surface constructs of our consciousness. Maslow said that we do not have a vocabulary for communicating on spiritual matters. This is why logic-based decisions are more fallible. Truly, we make the best decisions when they are informed by our spiritual wisdom.

    This post has received 1 vote up.
    • #4537 Score: 0

      Aurora Carlson
      Keymaster
      110 votes
      @aurorac

      Hi Kent,

      I read your comment with much interest and I love the way you connect Dr. Chopra’s reply with the Greek philosophers, Hindu principles, Jung and Maslow.

      What drew my attention most was your view on what you call the God principle. You write:

        Stripping everything away, going to the lowest common denominator of being, I believe that there is a God principle that underlies all. Everything, from subatomic particle to galaxy, is driven to seek connection. Subatomic particles connect to form atoms, and by doing so, they reach a higher state, a state of enhanced meaning. Atoms connect to form molecules, thereby attaining a still higher state.

      If I understand you right, you see the God principle or Being as a drive to connect and you believe that by connecting, simple forms create complex forms in higher states with enhanced meaning.

      I am reminded of the perspective of some scientists, that simple life forms evolve into higher forms and that biological complexity eventually produces mind. Do you share this perspective, and if not, in what way does your perspective differ?

      Another question I have is what your view is on the perspective that consciousness is a state of unified existence from where all forms, simple as well as complex, arise, and in which all forms are already fully connected? To put it another way, what if seeking connection is an illusion, as everything is in reality the unified Whole?

    • #4541 Score: 0

      Kent Van Cleave
      Participant
      6 votes
      @kent-van-cleave

      I am reminded of the perspective of some scientists, that simple life forms evolve into higher forms and that biological complexity eventually produces mind. Do you share this perspective, and if not, in what way does your perspective differ?

      Yes, simple life forms do evolve into higher forms over time. As for consciousness, that to me is a definitional issue. Who is to say that a human has consciousness but an ant does not? Ants are known to act to preserve their own lives, as well as the life of the colony. Does that require consciousness? As for mind, I believe mind to be an emergent property of the brain. Consider the case of a developing infant, and I am struggling to write a book about all this, at what point does mind make itself known? Babies are born tabula rasa, excpeting some things that are hard-wired through DNA. They have no control over their bodies, no perceptual abilities, really, no mind. As the brain develops through myelination and experience, mind emerges. I think perhaps mind emergent is fully evident when the baby achieves object permanence – knowing that things continue to exist when they are no longer visible. And about the same time, the infant realizes that she is not the same as mother, and the self is born. The paradox of the birth of self, which includes self-awareness, is that it thrusts us into a life of dualities. So we evolve internally from unity consciousness to self consciousness, and then we will spend the rest of our lives trying to resolve our dualities in order to return to the state of unity consciousness.

      …what your view is on the perspective that consciousness is a state of unified existence from where all forms, simple as well as complex, arise, and in which all forms are already fully connected? To put it another way, what if seeking connection is an illusion, as everything is in reality the unified Whole?

      I touched on this, above, and in the discourse to which you replied. We emerge from a unity consciousness, then spend our lives trying to reconnect to it. The drive to connect, however, does not require consciousness. It is an inherent property of all things, hence the God principle.

    • #4548 Score: 1

      Aurora Carlson
      Keymaster
      110 votes
      @aurorac

      Hi again Kent, thank you kindly for your response. I think you will find You Are the Universe interesting, it touches on so many things you bring up here, including the mind as emergent property. It will be nice to discuss the ideas presented by Deepak and Menas with you, and see what you think of them, coming from your perspective.

      I remember when I studied Piaget and developmental psychology, arriving at the subject of object permanence I was puzzled. Why? Because Piaget ignored a crucial issue. There is no evidence possible that an object exists anywhere other than in the consciousness of the observer. We simply cannot know if something is objectively out there, outside of our consciousness, because everything we observe is in consciousness.

      So object permanence “out there” is a philosophically unresolved issue, at least from the point of view of physicalism. On the other hand, if an object is an aspect of consciousness, then it will present itself again and again as consciousness collapses into that pattern of timespace, energy and matter.

      There are scientists who consider that the world is objectively out there, and there are scientists who consider that the world is a projection of consciousness, in consciousness. It’s an interesting discussion… and the very subject of this book and forum! 🙂

      Something I wonder about is: when you say that a baby has no mind, do you consider that it has no conceptual structures, or no awareness?

      This post has received 1 vote up.
    • #4910 Score: 0

      Judith
      Participant
      @judith

      Funny, this may be just a matter of semantics, but i would refer to the Self in all as the Highest Common Denominator.

      “I start my reply with a basic premise, drawn from my study of the self. Stripping everything away, going to the lowest common denominator of being, I believe that there is a God principle that underlies all.”

    • #4913 Score: 0

      Aurora Carlson
      Keymaster
      110 votes
      @aurorac

      Wow Judith, thanks for drawing my attention to this quote from Kent. I think what you are both saying is so important and one of the best ways to realize who we are. We can call it the lowest or highest common denominator, or maybe the deepest common denominator, what we are all saying is that there is a common denominator to us, beyond the perceptional and conceptual layer.

      When we meet each other we can either relate from the perception of separation (I am this body, you are that body), or from the conceptual level (I think and believe this, you think and believe that)… OR we can go to the highest/lowest/deepest common denominator, which is the level of unified being. This is the awareness that is aware in and as us all.

      We all have access to all these layers but are most often used to relate from the surface. Going deeper in every meeting has been, for me, a great way to see through the illusion of separation and also to help me understand who/what we all are.

  • #4553 Score: 0

    Kent Van Cleave
    Participant
    6 votes
    @kent-van-cleave

    When you say that a baby has no mind, do you consider that it has no conceptual structures, or no awareness?

    The infant has not yet developed perceptual abilities. Everything happening around it is meaningless, mysterious. There is no awareness of self. There is no concept of cause and effect. Language will not be developed for some time, and most people “think” in words. The neonate does not even have control over its limbs. So, no conceptual structures, no true awareness.

    • #4561 Score: 0

      Aurora Carlson
      Keymaster
      110 votes
      @aurorac

      Hello Kent,

      thank you for the clarification! I am happy to understand your point of view better.

      I am not sure what your concept of awareness is, but for me, a new born is aware from the first moment, but lacks conceptual frames and so its experience is of wholeness instead of awareness “of something”. It is this awareness “of something” that is fixated with the conditioning of the mind into the socio-cultural system the baby is born into. This process also belongs together, in my view, with self-awareness moving from wholeness to separation, as the self identifies with that particular “something” of the body plus the intersectional labels and forgets its wholeness.

      It will be interesting to discuss our many different views on these issues when everyone has read the book, so we can refer to the ideas and arguments presented by the authors. I am looking forward to it! Thank you again!

  • #4565 Score: 0

    Kent Van Cleave
    Participant
    6 votes
    @kent-van-cleave

    Thanks, Aurora. This one insight is worth the effort to participate here: “…its experience is of wholeness instead of awareness ‘of something’.” It was right there in front of me, all along, but I had to read it to grasp it. Until there is a realization of “self”, at which time one is thrust into a life of dualities and seeking to resolve them, the experience would be of wholeness.

  • #4593 Score: 1

    Deepak Chopra
    Moderator
    60 votes
    @deepakchopra

    In reality there are no parts, only a unified wholeness as awareness. Parts are human constructs bases on snapshots of experience. The God principle is pure consciousness prior to subject/object split.
    Love

    This post has received 1 vote up.
  • #4597 Score: 0

    Kent Van Cleave
    Participant
    6 votes
    @kent-van-cleave

    Pt. Chopra writes, “The God principle is pure consciousness prior to subject/object split.”

    This is compatible with my view that the God principle is connection. If there is only a unity consciousness, and bits of it differentiate, then the connection drive would be a resistance to separation that is caused by differentiation. When one raises a stone off of the ground and releases it, the connective force draws it back to the ground.

  • #6081 Score: 0

    Vikram Chauhan
    Participant
    11 votes
    @vikram-chauhan

    Hi Deepak,

    You beautifully put that every thing in the universe are thoughts (that is, awareness, consciousness). But you very rarely go a level beyond.

    Thoughts are nothing but thoughts in potential – that come and go out of existence.

    There are infinite, eternal thoughts in potential.

    There is universal consciousness that collapses potential thought into actual thought.

    And that marked the beginning of our universe.

    Once we had an actual thought in our universe, the construction of our universe began. And we finally extrapolated our universe to the big bang.

    Maybe you will write about this in your next book…

    With Love,
    Vikram

    • #6088 Score: 0

      Aurora Carlson
      Keymaster
      110 votes
      @aurorac

      Dear @vikram-chauhan , it was nice reading your thoughts!

      Deepak very often makes the point that what we call “the universe” is simply what he sometimes calls SIFT, meaning Sensations, Images, Feelings and Thoughts- in consciousness. He does not equate consciousness or awareness with thoughts. In You Are the Universe he and Menas Kafatos write:

      …thoughts, sensations, images, and feelings […] are the contents of the mind. Remove the contents and what remains is pure consciousness, which is silent, unmoving, beyond time and space, yet filled with creative potential. Pure consciousness gives rise to everything, including the human mind. (2017, p. 243)

      I don’t think there is a single book among the many he has written in which he doesn’t point to the transcendent source beyond thought, to what he sometimes calls the field of infinite potentiality. There is much written about this already 🙂

      Another thing you might enjoy reading in You Are the Universe is the authors’ view on time. We are so used to considering our universe in terms of linear time (with a beginning of the Big Bang type and evolution of species, etc.). But the only real time is the present. All else is mental stories. I think you might enjoy reading that chapter 🙂

  • #6105 Score: 0

    Vikram Chauhan
    Participant
    11 votes
    @vikram-chauhan

    Thanks Aurora, On answering my question. A very insightful answer. I will get Deepak’s book this weekend and start internalizing it 🙂

    Thanks,
    Vikram

    • #6129 Score: 0

      Aurora Carlson
      Keymaster
      110 votes
      @aurorac

      I think you will find a lot of beautiful and interesting thoughts there @vikram-chauhan! Feel free to share any new arising insights and questions with us all! 🙂

  • #6108 Score: 0

    Vikram Chauhan
    Participant
    11 votes
    @vikram-chauhan

    @question
    Time started as soon as the first thought was born in the universe. It didn’t start with the first thought that was born in the universe – it started with the first thought that was born in the universe, that could think about time. Time does not exist. Only thoughts exist.

  • #6441 Score: 1

    ziewatt
    Participant
    16 votes
    @ziewatt

    @question: Why do we go through duality here on this plane of existence? when in our own true state there is no duality. Are we living a spiritual existence to discover that there is no duality or are we living a human existence with spiritual experiences and duality to remind us of who/what where we are?

    If the world and us in the world of existence is a world that is perfect why do we create such duality upon this level of existence on the earth?

    In my meditations I feel calm, at one, sometimes I break through to no thought just at a place where there is just being. Why do we come here to such an experience when we all are actually whole and from such a consciousness that there is no time, no struggle, just pure wholeness.

    Suzie

    This post has received 1 vote up.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

X