Most of the eastern spiritual traditions teach that despite the appearance of
separation, everyone is part of an unbounded, unlimited field of intelligence.
For example, the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu describes this field in his beautiful work,
the Tao Te Ching: "There was something formless and perfect before the universe
was born. It is serene . . . infinite. Eternally present. It is the Mother of the
universe.
For lack of a better name, I call it the Tao."
And in ancient India, the Vedic teachers understood thousands of years ago
that we all live, breathe, and move in a unified cosmic body.

Quantum physicists today are beginning to recognize what the wise seers realized so
long ago: We aren’t just onlookers peering out at the unified field. We are the
field – infinite, eternal beings unlimited by time or space. As you sit reading this
article, all of the thoughts going through your mind are creating a wave in the
nonlocal domain, rippling through the layers of ego, intellect, mind, senses, and
matter, radiating out into the universe in all directions and affecting everything
in nature.

We usually aren’t aware of the subtle changes our thoughts are producing everywhere
because we’re bounded in our awareness, confined to the waking state. Yet these
changes are constantly unfolding, even if they’re hidden from our consciousness. As
we become aware of the intelligence underlying all creation, we realize that nature
is as alive as we are, and we develop a deep reverence for it. We feel the unifying
force that flows through everything on the planet, animate and inanimate, and a
desire to harmonize with the natural flow of life spontaneously emerges.

From this state of expanded consciousness, it becomes impossible to knowingly make
choices that will harm the environment or anyone else. Instead, we seek thoughts and
actions that nurture ourselves and our extended body, the universe.

One of the ways I’ve chosen to support this process is become involved with an
organization which I mentioned last time: Namasté – care2.com. I serve on the
advisory board of this global networking community, which supports planetary health
and green lifestyles. The beauty of their site is that you can donate to these
causes simply by clicking on the link and the sponsors will contribute on your
behalf. I encourage you to read more about Care2 in a letter from the executive
producer of the group’s Living Green Channel, Annie Bond.

I also offer you these words from the Yoga Vashistha:

Whatever is in the mind is like a city in the clouds.
The emergence of this world is no more than
thoughts coming into manifestation.
From the infinite consciousness we have created
each other in our imagination.
As long as there is “you” and an “I,” there is no liberation.

Dear ones, we are all cosmic consciousness assuming individual form.

Love,
Deepak

I can see why so many mention this mind.

"From this state of expanded consciousness, it becomes impossible to knowingly make
choices that will harm the environment or anyone else. Instead, we seek thoughts and
actions that nurture ourselves and our extended body, the universe.
"
I believe this part to be incorrect.

Since the time of the telling of tales mankind has known the tree of knowledge.

and we have free will.

Some would walk in that expanded state and allways strive for choices which will advance us.

Others would walk in the same state and attempt to hold us back.

Well stated

something tells me this will be definite food for thought warring to get into my stillness in my mornings meditations.

Ive had these thoughts for some time now, that there is much more going on than we are consciously aware of. That the universe is like a gigantic brain with its own consciousness, maybe thats what god is. Perhaps the universe evolved to become aware of itself. And we are the consciousness of everything observing itself. The general nature of all matter to evolve into more complex forms suggests to me a greater knowledge behind everything. And we are still evolving. Perhaps the creator evolved in a similar way, and at the end of our journey we all create our own universe. I'm not sure this is what I'm really trying to say, but its close.

Check this out...

Bruce Lipton
Spontaneous Evolution

I disagree with this philosophy on logical grounds which I will not get into at this time. I would however, being attracted to Taoism, like to comment upon it's reference...

"If words can describe it, it is not the Tao."

Knowing that foundational element of Taoism, I find it impossible for one to believe in the Tao, or profess in that line of thinking while simultaneously defying it's very foundation.

If one holds to Taoism, one does not attempt to describe the Tao.



Spinoza, Kant, Einstein, and so many others have realized that attempting to use epistemic evidence in any attempt to describe the true nature of the universe is inherently slanted by the vey fact that all we know is had through sense perception and therefore our knowledge - no matter how accurate it is - of aobservable phenomena, is unreliable to perform the task of setting about to know the thread that runs through the Tao.

This is Deepak Chopra..who actually practices Hinduism. Perhaps he was attempting to put this into terms others would understand..

Perhaps.

Forgive my cynicism, but it is disturbing to me that anyone should assert that they are depending, in any way whether it be quick reference or an in-depth false analysis, upon Taoism to describe something that Lao Tsu specifically wrote cannot be done with words.

The idea of inter-connectedness has it's benefits though. I like to think that it helps to impart a sense of responsiblity and empathy. To me, it is just beyond reprehensible to write about an idealogy, such as Deepak does by using references to other beliefs and some knowns in a way that distorts those very concepts into something that is not true, simply for the purpose to sell his ideas.

The interconnectedness idea is a good one overall, I do believe. So, please do not feel that I am dumping on the idea. I am just allowing anyone who cares about the validity of the Taoism reference to se that Deepak misuses it, and in doing so, completely goes against what it does say.

I forgive your cynicism...I have read your posts...

I understand what your saying, I just am not offended by his usage.

I am quite fond of Deepak, not to say I believe everything he teaches,

however I find him to be a very conscious person and won't hold this

against him.

edit to add..he does say, "for lack of a better term'

That is actually Deepak quoting Lao Tsu in an English translation of the Tao Te Ching. He just left out the most important part.

which part is that creative?

Yes, I believe that this is in fact the only reasonable thing to conclude as Deepak points out:



What else could we be if not the essence of the universe itself?

That not only makes logical sense, but there is truly no other conclusion that can even be had. For if we are not this universe what else would we be?

Having studied modern physics my entire life I'm in complete agreement with Deepak when he states that quantum physics supports this view. It most certainly does.

This Eastern Mystical pantheistic view of life is the most logically sound and reasonable view of reality that we have to date. No one can deny this view on grounds of 'logic' unless they also wish to deny quantum physics and modern science.

Just as a side-note I'd like to add that this Eastern mystic view that Deepak so wonderfully describes and teaches, is also supported by various Celtic teachings not the least of which is taught by Christopher Penczak from the vantage point of various witchcraft and shamanism traditions. Those traditions may seem a bit "mythological" to many people, but then so is Buddhism, Yoga, and Hinduism if you get right down to it.

Those mythological facades are just that. Façades in all cases, IMHO.

It's the underlying teachings of the quantum non-local aspect of the universe and the power of psychic synchronicity that is at the root of both the teachings of Chopra and Penczak. The religious Façades are just the mythological archetypes and pantheons. But the foundational philosophies are the same.

Deepak Chopra fan here!

Christopher Penczak too!

They both make very good sense.

The earlier quote which I gave - from Lao Tsu himself - that specifically states that if words can describe it, it is not the Tao(the nature of the universe). Had Deepak included that part, which constitutes the foundation of Taoism, he would have been quoting the truth. That being that Taoism and Lao Tsu do not, in any way, support the idea that we can know or describe the nature of the universe.

So, if Deepak has read Lao Tsu past the first few statements in the Tao Te Ching, he would have known that Taoism does not support his cause. In fact, it denies it.

Therefore, if I presume that Deepak is intelligent enough to read and comprehend the Tao Te Ching, then I must also conclude that he knowingly used a select quote from it in a manner which clearly violates one of the foundational principles of the ideology itself. He could have also unknowingly used it in a manner which violates it's principle beliefs. In that case, their is a responsibility to the reader of his material for him to provide accurate and reliable information which he is not performing.

He clearly has no business misleading, whether it be deliberate or not, the unknowing reader in such a way that if the reader believes him, s/he would also walk away(unknowingly and wrongfully) believing that there was some corroboration between the two systems. Thatwould be Deepak perpetuating a false belief. That is the inherent problem that I see here with Deepak's wrongful use and reference to Lao Tsu.

Only those who have not read Lao Tsu, or have read him but not understood, would not know any better. That is the disturbing part. The guy deserves no respect for his careless measures in this, no matter what the true cause is.

For I hold that it is quite reasonable to conclude that Deepak knowingly and wrongfully used Taoism in an effort to warrant justification of a belief that Taoism somehow supports his writing and belief. Those who have read and understand the foundational principles of Taoism will recognize two things. The first being that Deepak is selectively using a quote(completely out of context) from the Tao Te Ching in an attempt to promote himself and his 'works'.

The second being the problem in the fact that Taoism does not support any idea of describing the nature of the universe. If Deepak knew this, then he is wrongfully manipulating things for his own personal reasons. If he did not, then how trustworthy is any reference to another well-established belief by him?

Getting something that wrong unknowingly is grounds to question the validity of his other claims. Purposefully and knowingly using Lao Tsu's words in an attempt to convince an unknowing reader to support an ideology which the Tao Te Ching clearly denies, is misleading at best, and completely deceitful at worst.

Either way, Deepak loses reliability, and is therefore held as an unreliable source of jibberish who would say anything to make a buck off of spiritual people.

I would like to offer my personal view that I see nothing misleading or deceptive about Deepak's use of Lao-Tzu teachings here at all. On the contrary I feel that it was precisely appropriate within the context of the rest of what Deepak offered.

Even Taoism recognizes that the universe sprang into existence from this unknowable Tao.

So Deepak is well within the scope of rational teachings to reference this as the unified source of creation. Especially alongside his reference to scientific context of the unified field which is also unknowable and cannot truly be described.

The Tao and the Quantum Field have very much in common, which I believe was Deepak's main point. They are both unknowable and unnamable, yet they both are said to exist and they both have names.

I personally feel that Deepak's reference to the Tao in the context of also referencing the Quantum Field is right on target.

So in defense of Deepak, I for one, feel that he was perfectly justified in demonstrating the similarities here. To accuse him of being misrepresentative is a totally unwarranted and uncalled for accusation, IMHO.

"If words can describe it, it is not the Tao."

Lao Tsu

Well whatever it is worth they both get enough attention that is for sure.

I thought it was a nice letter...I surly didn't want anyone offended by it...

I like Deepak, I think he's a spiritual genius..

No worries.

I, as someone who knows better, wanted to let anyone else who may care enough about whether or not Deepak gives reliable reference to sources such as Taoism, know that the Tao Te Ching does not in any way support Deepak's agenda of describing the nature of the universe.

Personally, Deepak may be a great guy with all the best intentions, but he is wrongfully using Lao Tsu's words in a way which goes against what the man taught.

We all have our own reasons for placing confidence in different people's words.

I will leave you now, respectfully...