An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question:
Polls routinely show that 75 percent of Americans hold some form of belief in the paranormal such as astrology, telepathy and ghosts. All religions contain beliefs in the supernatural. Is there a link? What's the difference?
In general, it's fair to say that the popular belief in the paranormal falls outside the official picture of reality. The official picture is grounded in science, rationalism, and materialism. It takes a definition of "natural," after all, before "supernatural" can exist. God was natural in the medieval world, and thus miracles, healings, apparitions of the Virgin Mary, stigmatics, and so on, were considered natural. At the moment, it doesn't matter how many people believe in the supernatural. Until the official picture changes, astrology is bogus, astronomy is legitimate. Ghosts are bogus, apparitions of the Virgin Mary are -- well, that's the rub. Religious people are allowed to cling to a different model of reality, tolerated by the official gatekeepers but not believed in. This gives rise to the curious phenomenon of religious scientists, who manage to hold on to two totally conflicting worldviews at the same time.
Any of us can hold conflicting viewpoints at the same time -- it's called compartmentalization. If the various compartments are tight enough and separated by thick walls, a whole range of phenomena can be believed in without making them consistent. I can imagine a cell biologist who is Catholic, has seen a UFO, reads the astrology column in the newspaper, and hopes to go to Heaven when he dies. It would be far better, however, to promote a consistent worldview, one that allows the walls to come down so that official reality might open up to unofficial reality. And vice versa, since popular belief in certain kinds of totally unproven folk cures, for example, can do harm, just as the official insistence on pharmaceuticals and surgery does its own brand of harm at times.
The only consistent worldview that I've ever discovered places all phenomena, natural and supernatural, on the ground of consciousness. The noted Australian neurologist Sir John Eccles pointed out a truth that materialists, including both scientists and ordinary people, don't remotely grasp. There is no sight or sound 'out there' in the world, Eccles declared, no touch or taste, no beauty or ugliness, no sensation of light or objects. All these things are created in subjectivity, which is to say, they exist only in consciousness. The fact that your hand seems solid is an illusion. A neutrino passes through the entire Earth without encountering an obstacle. Every atom in your hand is 99.9999% empty space. Measured in proportion, the distance between the electrons and nucleus of an atom is greater than the distance between the Earth and the sun. At the next level of reality, atoms disappear into energy waves and then into pure potential, the ghostly state of so-called virtual reality. Only perception makes a hand solid. and perceptions are interlinked to create the world you and I inhabit, so that color, light, sound, smell, solidity, etc. all fit together.
In my view, paranormal events are neither fringe nor unreal. They are simply things not yet admitted into consciousness by our official belief system. Reality has this curious habit of keeping certain things under wraps until the human mind is willing to look at them, and then all at once they appear, changing the world when they do. Germs and gravity were once waiting in the wings but now stand center stage. In ancient India, astrology was center stage and now has retreated again, for the coming and going of phenomena works both ways.
Even so, consciousness never retreats. In the darkest ages, people know that they are aware, and from that basic premise they create a personal reality, and when enough individuals agree, then collective reality comes about. Trying to base common reality sheerly on material objects has been wildly successful in the West, but that means little about ultimate reality, which transcends individuals and groups. In the ultimate reality there is only pure consciousness, which can be conceived of as the modeling clay or box of paints that Nature provides, adding the simple instruction: Use as you please.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/deepak_chopra/
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
Simply consider Krishna's words in Bhagavad-gita 15.19:
(http://vedabase.net/bg/15/19/en)
"Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Me, O son of Bharata."
If someone knows Krishna, everything else can be easily understood.
One may ask how to know Krishna, and He answers this question in Bhagavad-gita 10.10:
http://vedabase.net/bg/10/10/en
"To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me."
I had read about it in a psychology book somewhere, and now I can't references to it on the internet. Anyone ever heard of this?
I keep all these experiences in view until there are better explanations and understanding of these phenomemons. I do not discount them because I have seen them myself nor do I accept them. The most important point is to keep in view of those you don't understand and not let them disturb you. Just like people who belived thunder were created by gods and fearful of the heavens or people who think fairies lived in the moon it is because people at that time did not have access to knowledge.
Until we do let us have peace of mind. If you know the answers then you don't believe. To believe in something is because you don't have the answer for it. Ignorance is the fuel of believe.
UFO? Flying head? Akualele? Unless I catch one of these otherwise I won't accept any of these label. Good to know such thing exist elsewhere though. Thanks for the information.
Then sometime in the 80's or 90's an oil platform near Newfoundland got hit by a rogue wave, it got measured at somewhere around 80' ( I'd have to watch the show again) and suddenly there was proof that rogue waves existed. Suddenly, then a computer model was formed that showed how these waves happened, and then suddenly again scientists found them all over the world.
This mocking of people's experiences because it has not been measured by science is the hallmark of what goes on right now, but just because it hasn't been measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Quantum physics can explain a lot of paranormal events, in theory (they have proven I think 11 dimensions) but they cannot as yet measure it. As science advances the proof will come, but in the meantime lack of measurement does not mean that people's experiences are not valid.
What you are describing, although you are apparently unaware of this, is the inertia of paradigm shifts. But so what?
See, here's how science has worked historically (and is meant to work) :
Over time, the body of scientific knowledge grows and develops - rules and laws and theories are established and accepted by the scientific community. Suddenly, a new idea appears - rogue waves, Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics. And of course, scientists resist the new idea. This is as it should be. Until a new idea PROVES itself, it would be wrong and foolish for scientific community to embrace it as valid.
But when the weight of evidence (i.e., observations, experiments, logical explanations) is shown to support the new idea, then science ADOPTS THE NEW IDEA AS VALID. Science is not closed to new concepts. But science does resist new concepts until they prove themselves.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding made by people who wish to denigrate science. They paint science as rigid and immutable. But nothing could be farther from the truth. Science is plastic - unlike faith or belief, which is rigid and dogmatic.
Plus, you're conflating the unexplained with the paranormal. The existence of dark matter and the extinction of the dinosaurs are unexplained. Gods, fairies, and ghosts are paranormal. See my posts on this topic, below.
What would Einstein think?
Ghosts can be explained by energy being in another dimension. How do we measure what is in ten other dimensions and how do we know when or if they intersect?
Like the sailors say about the rogue waves, you might not believe it until you see it yourself, but anecdotal (coming from Greek meaning 'not yet published') evidence is what gets studies started many times.
There are so many recent example of western science only turning on a dime when they can measure something rather than when they observe it. One example being how DNA is starting to show how differently people respond to medications or toxins. They have studied acupuncture with good results many times but cannot say how it works (no western scientist is going to believe invisible energy lines - until they can find a way to measure it).
I know more about biological sciences than other sciences and I get very frustrated with it at times.
Many times the truth-in-fact is plain to see when understanding how to problem solve, the nature of Religionist are born out of mostly the base nature of *Man* (as opposed to women). his jingoism and low selfesteem shines before him like a beacon, warning all of that base ugly nature.
It is the hight of male denial to keep such truths from the problem address their antiquated views on this issue/subject.
And I have tens of thousands of equally strong arguments which support the argument against any God paradigm being based in anything except mythology to support scared little *MEN's* insecurities and larger than life ego's.
No one that perpetuates such irrationally obtained concepts of the lizard brain's base nature can be said to truly care what is best for Humanity and our fellowship. It can only be understood as the rhetorical fallacy it indeed is, born in forums of ego and ignorance. The road to man's self made hell is paved with such good intentions. Agape.
When I was a child, I thought as a child, when I grew up I left such foolishness behiend.
Yeah, as a child (and even occassionaly as an adult) I suffered from a condition known as Alice-In-Wonderland Syndrome. Don't laugh - it's a real condition. When an episode would occur, everything in my visual field would appear to recede - walls, floors, even my own hands, would appear to be miles away from my eyes. This would last for about 30 minutes or so. Rarely, my hearing would also be affected - more often it would be accompanied by slight headaches.
I could never explain this sensation to anyone while I was a child (I only learned that it had a name a few years ago). But I never mistook it for a paranormal experience. It was clear to me that it was a physical response that my body (my brain of course) was having to stimuli. First, it usually occurred when I was very tired and trying to read. Second, once I had got over my initial fright, I used to perform experiments - how was my visual field actually effected, could I do anything to change or end the episode. One day in typing class, I realized that I could actually watch my hands and the text I was copying at the same time.
Too often, human beings jump to supernatural or paranormal explanations to fill the gaps in their understanding. I guess it comforts them.
However, you have come to a conclusion, and I question whether there is enough evidence to support your explanation of your OBE. Does that make sense?
It would be dishonest to pretend that your experience did not happen, but is it logical to come to a definitive conclusion as to what that experience was and means? If one is willing to accept that one does not yet have the answer, is that so terrible?
For myself, I am open to listening to religions and philosophies, but I have not come across any explanations that are entirely logical, only intereting, and maybe vaguely plausible. Someday, humans may be able to measure and test the things many of us have experienced. For now, I think it is enough to be open to the possibility that the universe is capable of surprising us, even with things that we have no better words for than OBE, ESP, telekinesis, etc.
I think many of us long ago decided to accept what we experience, without trying to name it.
BTW, can you imagine what would have happened to you 300 years ago if you had said what you posted here? Ever hear of the Salem witch trials? I hope we never see such things again.
I am of the opinion that we are all where we are supposed to be, anyway. When people are ready, they will experience and understand.
you took the words right out of my mouth....
I have had quite a few meaningful experiences - enough for me to believe there is something more out there than what we can see or feel. Coincidences - perhaps, but they have been to dead on (so to speak) for me to think otherwise.
I believe some of us are more open and responsive to it than others...is it a gene, is it our life experience - I'm not sure...but I DO believe there is a reason for everything...and while we have choices - those choices lead us down the path we are supposed to follow.
Quantum mechanics alone provides us all the mystery -- as we work to understand it -- we need, without imagining spirits or resorting to spoon-bending and other trickery.
There's another advantage. As far as I can tell, nations and peoples don't go to war over differing theories of cosmic origins, explanations for the nature of light, theories of magnetism or other scientific issues. That's not true for our many conflicting "spiritual" ideas, which never seem to run out of "reasons" for us to kill each other.
I believe that there is a great deal that we experience that we do not understand, that we do not know the reason for, that we don't even know how to define or describe. That does not mean that we do not experience it, or as Mr. Chopra would say, that we are not conscious of it.
Without going too far into specifics, I believe that there are so many anecdotal cases of "paranormal" experiences, that to declare that they did not exist is to be dishonest. My own understanding of the scientific process includes the idea that even as we have learned a great deal about the world we live in, there is so much more to learn that what we have learned so far is like a drop of water in the ocean.
Just as I am leary of being a proponent of the paranormal, I am humble enough concerning our accomplishments so far regarding understanding the universe, that I am likewise very leary of being overly skeptical of the existence of the paranormal. In other words, the word "paranormal" can be used as a convenient word to describe that which we do not have sufficient knowledge of to even ask questions about, but which our experience tells us exists in some non-understood fashion.
The experiences you think of as "paranormal" are merely those for which an adequate explanation or cause has yet to be found. Miracles are temporary. Belief in the supernatural is just mental caulk for the holes in our current level of understanding.
You write : "I believe that there is a great deal that we experience that we do not understand, that we do not know the reason for, that we don't even know how to define or describe. " But here you are confusing the unknowable and the unexplained. The unexplained refers to that for which an explanation has yet to be found. The unknowable refers to that for which no explanation is possible. Dark matter and the origin of life are unexplained. Gods and the paranormal are unknowable.
It is important to remember that the human brain is one of the most complex entities that we know of. That we sometimes see "ghosts" or convince ourselves of the Loch Ness monster, is no surprise. That doesn't make them real.
Thus everything you think you of as supernatural falls into two categories : REAL phenomena for which you have yet to supply an explanation (visions, miracles, and the like) or INVENTED notions of what you HOPE the supernatural actually consists of (god, uber-mind, etc.).
For a supposedly enlightened being, it is shocking that you do not realize this. Instead of relying on some indefinable chimera as the source of your "knowledge", try using your rational mind. That is what it truly means to be human.
When you leave the door open for one paranormal explanation, all the others must rush in - no matter how insane. This is because, lacking the scientific method which you so often deride, there is no way to measure the worth of any one supernatural explanation - they are all equally valid. Thus if I believe that we are robots, or aliens in human suits, or the figments of a cosmic dreamer, my views must be afforded equal weight to those of every religion. What a dangerous Tower of Babel that is.
I believe in the Scientific Method. But I also accept the possibility of paranormal phenomena. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. Remeber that "failure to prove" does not mean "it is disproven."
Back in my teens, I occasionally "heard voices." These were *always* associated with some life-or-death situation. By acting upon these warnings, I saved myself several times and other people ocassionally. Was there some "scientific" rationale for this? I have no doubt. Do I know the "science" that explains it? Not yet. And Man may not yet know it. Still, I experienced the events and know them to have happened. I can happily speculate, but as long as I don't claim that which I cannot prove (e.g., spirits of dead loved ones warning me), I am happy to accept them as "currently unexplained paranormal" events.
Note: That doesn't mean I have to accept every/any supernatural explanations or unrelated phenomena. We do not live in a Binary World.
You are, I think, confusing an equation with a conditional. True, the medieval peasant wouldn't know how a light bulb worked, but that does not imply that the light bulb is supernatural. To be more specific : the supernatural is (and must remain) unknown, but the unknown is not necessarily supernatural.
It goes to my two categories : things that we call "miracles" are, in fact, simply real-world phenomena for which we do not yet have an explanation. Your peasant may think of the light bulb as a miracle. But in truth, it is simply a phenomena for which he does not have an adequate explanation. In time, he will understand. Miracles are temporary.
As to your life-or-death situations, several ideas occur. First, can you be sure that you did not simply pick up on real-world cues that gave you warning? Second, can you be sure that these situations would truly end in death if unheeded? Third, how many times did you have premonitions that turned out to be unfounded? Fourth, on the day you do meet your end (I hope it is in the distant future), will that be evidence that your voices left you? Your evidence is way too subjective to sway anyone but yourself.
Thank you for being brave enough to describe what you have experienced. It is not easy offering ourselves up for public ridicule. The anonymity of the internet is very welcome, no?
What you have described in your experiences is the first time that I have ever found someone to admit to experiencing things that have helped them to avoid disaster. I have never "heard voices", but have had hundreds of instances of involuntary "visions", always of the future. They have helped me to avoid unpleasant, even life threatening, situations.
We tend to think that when something is not measureable, it is not quantifiable by today's methodology, but to deny that it has happened is dishonest. Since no one today is suggesting burnings at the stake, perhaps it is becoming safer for scientists and ordinary people alike to admit that things happen to us which we can neither explain, nor deny.
In my case, it is seldom "voices," but instead visions, and other things. I will go so far as to say that I am afraid to get angry. It is impossible for me to deny visions that recur for thirty years, that explain things that have absolutely no relevance to a life of thirty years ago (and more), but then, suddenly, the people and situations in the visions become relevant. Should we pretend that these things do not happen?
Liviing a life hidden away is not fun.
----
I've always enjoyed reading this sort of thing. First, you weaken the definition of "solid", then you claim it doesn't exist. Good science uses terms like "solid" with a definition. There is no reason to wait for perception to "make a hand solid" before using the knowledge that you can pick up something solid with your hand. What you pick up won't fall through the "99.9999%" empty part of your hand. We live in a macro world, and solid is real. At the quantum level, you can argue that the hand is not solid. But then, when did you last try to pick up a neutrino? Perhaps non-physicists should discuss their feelings and thoughts, and leave the real world science to those who live in it. Science is the search for knowledge about reality, and not an attempt to expand ones imagination about what it might otherwise be.
But, that does not mean we should by any means stop there or refrain from using what science has found to extrapolate more.
No one would claim that science has all the answers yet. What people like Mr. Chopra seem to claim is that science cannot ever has all the answers. This I cannot accept. That is to say there are things that cannot be known in any way. It may be that our human minds will have limits to what they can understand, but luckily science doesn't even require us to be able to visualize what it is explaining. We can describe and 'understand' 11-dimensional models of the unvierse, or even just 4 dimensional spheres, without being able to visualize them. Thats the power that mathematics gives us. And it is mathematics that really underlies all science, and I believe, the universe itself.
But that also means, that there is more to the world than what science currently gives us. There is no reason everyone can't discuss their ideas and hopes for reality with whatever level of understanding of science they have. Mr. Chopra likely has a deeper understanding of consciousness than many scientists and the scientific community needs to stop discounting this knowledge as irrelevant just because it cannot yet be expressed in partial differential equations.
Over the past twenty-five years I've been gradually absorbing this information via the astonishing series of Seth/Jane Roberts books that I view as a new "bible" for our times. Every reread through a volume marks it up more as I highlight amazing insights into the nature of reality that I couldn't previously grasp. I treasure the prospect of rereading these books for the rest of my life :-))
---------------------
Reality keeps things under wraps? You seem to be ascribing an intelligent consciousness of purpose to "reality"--an assertion you have no evidence for. You cite germs and gravity as examples. Well, those are thing that science can observe and test scientifically and repeatably--they are indeed part of reality. Then you equivocate by suggesting that Astrology was/is such a thing. It is not. There is no evidence that Astrology has any predictive value nor is there any known mechanism why it should. You are trying to conflate science with pseudo-science. Reality with wishful thinking. Natural with supernatural. It is a premise which fails and fails utterly.