Deepak Chopra delivered a talk in Guatemala on Friday of last week that was a fascinating insight into why he is simultaneously lauded and reviled as one of the planet’s most famous commentators about spirituality and wellbeing. At its best, his lecture was an accessible and riveting introduction to human bio-chemistry that succeeded in fulfilling science’s original role of illuminating profound issues of existence. At its worst, the event promoted a commercialised form of spirituality that conflated robust scientific observation with meta-physical speculation.
That Chopra inhabits such inherently contradictory personas as scientist and mystic, as sage and salesman is perhaps a result of the opposing forces he attempts to reconcile in his work. Commerce and empiricism are unlikely symbionts of divinity and the soul. Despite Chopra’s un-doubted talent, aspects of his approach appear antithetical to his ultimate goal of a transformation in human consciousness.
That said, Chopra can be compellingly interesting in how he attempts to bridge potentially impossible divides. The strongest part of his spoken contribution to Friday’s event was early in his lecture when he drew on his background as a medical doctor and endocrinologist (a specialist in hormones and related glands and tissues).
Chopra spoke about neuro-peptides, proteins in our bodies that are created and modified in response to our thoughts and feelings. The scientist and holistic medicine writer Candace Pert - whose work seems to be the basis for this part of Chopra’s talk - dubbed neuro-peptides “molecules of emotion.” One might expect that these chemical expressions of consciousness would come into being solely in the brain and nervous system. Intriguingly, neuro-peptides apparently appear in numerous other places in the body including one’s heart and digestive system. Hence to say one is “feeling something” in one’s heart or gut may be as biologically valid as it is symbolic true. So it becomes a little easier to conceive of mind, body and consciousness as a holistic system rather than competing republics.
Having thus used bio-medical research to help frame a more unitary view our existence as individuals, Chopra then provided an intriguing material basis for a spiritual belief in our inherent connectedness to every other living thing.
Chopra explained that in our physical engagement with the world through breathing, eating and excretion we incorporate new atoms into our body and expel old ones. In essence we are in a state of constant regeneration with 98% of the atoms that are
in our bodies right now not having been resident there a year ago. This is the basis for Chopra’s view that we should think of our body as “a process not a structure.” Furthermore, the rate at which we incorporate at expel vast numbers of atoms makes it almost certain that right now in our bodies we have atoms that once belonged to every other entity that was once or is now alive.
To demonstrate the point, Chopra outlined that with each intake of breath we incorporate 10 to the power of 22 atoms into our bodies and at least one of these atoms will have been in the corresponding exhalation of any human being you care to
mention. The mathematical model behind this (explained in detail here) is commonly known as Caesar’s Last Breath, but unsurprisingly Chopra uses more spiritually resonant figures to demonstrate his point - “right now in your body, you have 1 million atoms that once belonged to Jesus, one million atoms that once belonged to Buddha.” Given that atoms themselves were forged in exploding stars in distant parts of the universe, a personal conviction that there is a universal connectedness to all things is in this sense a physical reality, not just an idealistic wish.
This introductory part of the lecture was a real delight as it both respected the intelligence of the audience and provided some substantial food for thought. Chopra then guided the audience in a meditation using the mantra “I Am” (or “Yo Soy” for members of the audience using headphones with a simultaneous Spanish translation) - words chosen because the are without “karma” (ie they exist purely in the present and have no historical baggage). I had an un-expectedly profound experience of mind-body awareness during this meditation, something I must credit largely to the quality of the talk that preceded it and the skill with which Chopra introduced his ideas.
However, it was roughly just after this high point that the wheels began to come off Chopra’s train of thought. There were two main problems with what followed - one was what appeared to be a dubious blurring of the line between science and speculation and the other was Chopra’s apparent preference for making statements rather than asking questions.
Chopra began to speak about some of the theories about aging, consciousness and spirituality that he says are based on the branch of physics known as quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics describes the arena of existence in which the rules
governing small things like atoms and sub-atomic particles are often entirely at odds with the “common sense” laws of physics that we can observe in our daily lives (for example whenever we throw a ball, bump into another person or get onto a plane). This branch of science is often so head-bending and counter-intuitive that even the renowned physicist Richard Feynman liked to say “if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics!“
Therefore, as a non-physicist, Chopra set himself a rather ambitious task in basing so much of his theories on a challenging discipline that many physicists would say he neither properly grasps nor accurately represents. For this reason one might have expected Chopra to feel it appropriate to issue some cautious and scholarly qualification along the lines of “this is just a theory” or “a possible conclusion that one might draw is….” when outlining ideas developed with a non-expert understanding of this tricky discipline. Instead, Chopra used authoritative phrases like “science tells us” when introducing his interpretations of quantum theories, including his embrace of a highly disputed reading of the “observer effect” that suggests that something does not come into being unless there is an observer there to witness it. This confidence continued even when making the rather giant leaps of creative imagination necessary for some of his most interesting ideas.
In expanding on his ideas about quantum theory, Chopra encouraged us to think of the universe as being pulses of energy and information that switch on and off like a light-bulb. The observable universe - ourselves, the plants, trees, planets, stars, etc - correspond to the light when it is on, whereas a light-bulb in its off state symbolises a “discontinuity” in existence. Chopra then told the audience that this discontinuity “is where God is” and the seat of human consciousness. Furthermore, he said that the physical realm of the “on-switch” is called into being by the universal consciousness that exists as the “off-switch.”
These ideas represent a creative and intriguing way to think about consciousness and spirituality, which makes it all the more infuriating that they were introduced as qualification-free statements at the end of a line of argument that had originated with “science tells us.” Why does Chopra do this? Why would someone with scientific training and an obvious love for knowledge so casually conflate observation and conjecture? Why would someone viewed by many as a spiritual guide offer pre-packaged theology rather than a series of searching questions?
Obviously it is no more possible to know for certain the answers to those questions than it is to ascertain if God exists in the discontinuity or if our physical selves are continually called into being and re-engineered by our conscious selves. However, when looking for answers it is worth considering the bleak but brilliant thought of Ernest Becker. Writing 36 years ago in his book Denial of Death, Becker asked “why do brilliant thinkers become so flaccid, dissipate so carelessly their own careful arguments?” Becker’s conclusion is that for someone to properly acknowledge in their work the complexity and contradictions inherent in the human condition would render their “whole thesis ambiguous - and what revolutionary wants that?…who can expect him to do that?”
The revolution that Chopra is calling for is in the realm of human consciousness and it may be that it is in pursuit of this goal that he cedes his scientific identity to that of “poet-prophet” and simplifier. Confidently filling in the gaps for his audience (even dubiously so), may enable Chopra to reach larger numbers of people than would rally to a cause that asked them to embrace ambiguity or to do the hard work themselves. After all, there is fairly compelling evidence (much of it collected by Ernest Becker) to show that human beings tend to transfer their responsibility for engaging with life in all its fearsome complexity to people or belief systems that appear more powerful and confident than they are. However, it is worth asking whether a combination of intellectual laxity and spoon-feeding his audience new axioms is helpful to achieving Chopra’s long-term goal of a transformation in human consciousness.
To understand the precise nature of the transformation that Chopra has in mind, one must first attempt to decipher the language he uses to describe his vision. Chopra talks about consciousness in a manner that tends to favors magic and metaphor over the clinical terms of psycho-analysis (which is no bad thing in itself).
Freud’s model of the the “psychic apparatus” had three components - the id (the self-interested part of our being that craves food, sex and pleasure), the super-ego (which maintains our sense of what is moral and socially appropriate) and ego (the executive function that is charged with making decisions that mediate the conflicting calls of the id and super-ego and our perception of the external world).
In contrast, Chopra’s description is comprised of two parts: our ego self (the part of our being that holds our self-image, that desires separateness and that craves the good opinion of others) and our real-self (a part of the “universal consciousness” in which we can find joy, creativity and connectedness). Chopra advocates that we should move the balance of our consciousness from our ego-self to our real self, which stripped of its poetry seems to be a recommendation to become less fearful, more spontaneous, more self-aware, less dedicated to individualism and self-interest and more nurturing of connectedness to our bodies, to other people and to creation more generally.
This prescription seems like a common sense approach to personal development and happiness. However, there is a contradiction at the heart of Chopra’s entire approach which should serve as a warning to anyone who views Chopra’s generally good advice about wellbeing as also providing a template for meaningful spiritual enlightenment. The strategy Chopra has chosen to help free people from their self-obsessed egos is at its core the essence of self-interest - specifically the production, sale and consumption of commercial products.
Chopra pursues his mission principally by selling products that include books, music, DVDs, lectures, teas, spices, health supplements, clothing and accessories, yoga and meditation programs, toiletries, candles, incense, oils, home decor, jewelry and art. Chopra is himself one of the most valuable brands in the multi-billion dollar holistic health industry. In the run up to the event in Tikal Futura last week, Chopra’s image surveyed Guatemala city from many of the prime billboards in the capital, helping to convince perhaps 500 people (my estimate) to pay between $50-$200 each to attend the talk. Once inside the venue for the event - hosted by AGG, the Guatemalan Managers Association, audience members could buy “Deepak” caps and t-shirts, sample wine and canapes and experience the promotional wares of the event’s corporate sponsors.
When viewed as an author, commentator and business person Chopra deserves to be given credit for his enormous success - every year he provides millions of people with ideas and products that they find useful. However, the concept of entrepreneur as spiritual guide deserves some careful examination. As a contrasting frame of reference, it is worth reflecting that Christianity established itself as the religion with the world’s greatest number of professed adherents (somewhere between 1.5 and 2.1 billion people) while having as its central icon an image of grisly torture. The crucifixion of Jesus transcends the horror of its imagery because central to its message of sacrifice is the archetype of the hero - in Joseph Campbell’s words “someone who gives their life to something bigger than his/her self".
Stories of sacrificial heroism have long been used as invitations to individuals to embark on private spiritual journeys in which they surrender themselves to something that transcends self-interest. Times change and it is arguable that Chopra’s endeavor to combine his own heroic mission (a transformed global consciousness) whilst still making millions of dollars is perfectly in keeping with an era in which the tallest buildings in a city are now commercial rather than religious structures. However, it is probably worth asking whether true spiritual transformation (whatever that nebulous term may signify) can be achieved largely through the private consumption of products aimed to enhance one’s own personal wellbeing.
Chopra argues that a radical positive shift in human consciousness, achieved one individual at a time, will ultimately cure humanity’s deepest afflictions like war, disease and poverty. There is an undeniable logic to that assertion - greater numbers of happy, self-aware and less-fearful people can only be good for the species. However, this line of argument is also potentially dangerous as it can be used by unhappy people to convince themselves that keeping their focus on their unmet need for personal fulfillment is simultaneously an act of global philanthropy.
It was striking that when giving his context setting “when we look at the world today” introduction to his talk, Chopra kept his focus global and general and thus safely removed from the immediate circle of influence of his audience. Chopra did not refer specifically to any of the starker problems currently facing Guatemala - a country with one of the worst criminal justice systems in the world (a 98% impunity rate), an education system largely abandoned to an ineffective private sector (2/3 of the population do not complete high school) and a political culture that is deeply corrupt and intertwined with narco-trafficing and political murders ("seconds from midnight from being a failed state” in the words of the German Ambassador).
Perhaps Chopra did not see it his place raise uncomfortable questions of an audience largely comprised of Guatemala’s economically and politically privileged. Yet, avoiding such challenging topics strengthens the impression that Chopra is stronger in addressing the individualistic needs of the “ego-self” than in nurturing a global consciousness of interconnected responsibility. A further irony is that it is possible to find some inspiration about healing the world in Chopra - but in aspects of his character that he appears reluctant to highlight. Chopra’s drivenness (as author of over 50 books, he is obviously a man who likes to keep busy), his drive for specialness and separateness (he has made “Deepak Chopra” a globally recognized brand) and his ability to use self-interest to get things done (an entrepreneur who has built a globally successful business) are all traits that emerge from the “ego-self” yet could also be seen as potential assets for a person wishing to make a positive difference in the world.
Deepak Chopra presents many paradoxes. There is plenty of powerful good in the work that he wishes to share with the world - it just comes with a price tag attached. When attempting to make sense of some of these glorious and maddening contradictions, it may be helpful to consider the following parable from Paolo Coelho:
The disciple approached his teacher. “For many years I have sought illumination,” he said. “I feel that I am close. I want to know what is the next step.” “How do you earn your livelihood?” asked the teacher. “I still have not learned to earn my own living, my mother and father help me. Anyway, that’s an insignificant detail.” “The next step is to look at the sun for half a minute” said the teacher. The disciple obeyed. When that was done, the teacher asked him to describe the surrounding countryside. “I can’t see it - the sun has blinded my eyes” replied the disciple. “A man who only seeks the light and leaves his responsibilities to others will not find illumination,” said the teacher. “A man who keeps his eyes fixed on the sun will remain blind.”
XML Feeds
