File 029509

Images

Text

From: Deepak Chopra
Sent: 6/6/2018 11:32:09 AM
To: Jeff Epstein [jeeyacation@gmail.com]
Subject: Lunch with Deepak I: LSD, Quantum Healing, and Plato I Psychology Today
Importance: High
FYI
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psyched/201806/1unch-deepak-i-lsd-quantum-healing-and-
plato?amp& twitter impression=true
Lunch with Deepak I: LSD, Quantum
Healing, and Plato
A skeptic and a mystic seek common ground. Part one of four.
Posted Jun 04, 2018
In March, I attended a debate on the proposition "The more we evolve, the less we need
God," With Michael Shermer and Heather Berlin for the motion and Deepak Chopra and
Anoop Kumar against the motion. The next day I published an account titled "Do Not
Debate Deepak Chopra" (subtitle: "He's not even wrong."). Soon after, Chopra reached out
to me and invited me to lunch. In April I met him in his office at Deepak Homebase in
Manhattan, we had lunch downstairs at ABC Kitchen, and returned to his office. This is a
nearly full transcript of our two-hour conversation.
This is part 1 of 4. Here are parts 2, and
Matt: So, I'm curious why you invited me, what you wanted to talk about.
Deepak: I read your article, "Not Even Wrong." [Laughter.] That's been my label for a long
time from a lot of people, so I thought I'd give you my perspective on what I think reality is
and see if we can expand the conversation.
Matt: So the debate, it seemed like it was ships crossing in the night. The two sides were
talking about different things and so I think it was clear to___or everyone else had one
conception about what the debate was going to be about: the usefulness of the idea of God as
conceived in monotheistic religions. Whereas the two of you were___it seemed like you were
avoiding that debate and talking about something else.
Deepak: So let me give you a little background to that. The first time we were invited to the
debate by the organizers____I didn't know who they were___the topic was, "As we evolve do
we need religion?" So I called the organizers and I said, "Let me rephrase that if you don't
mind. Can we say, As we evolve do we need religious experience?' So they said "We don't
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 029509
know what that means." I said, as I look across the religions of the world, the common
features I see are: Number one: transcendence___as a religious experience, not the dogma,
not the ideology, not the institution___but transcendence, going beyond subject-object split.
Number two: the emergence of platonic values as a result of that experience, like the desire
to know the truth, goodness, beauty, harmony, love, compassion, joy, equanimity, gratitude
and humility, wonder, curiosity. It's very human but it gets overshadowed by everyday
experience. And number three: a loss of the fear of death, because that happens to
experience, not to the consciousness in which that experience occurs. I think they didn't
understand that, honestly, so they rephrased it as "Do we need God?" So I said, "Listen,
before I even go there, can we have a conversation?" So they were very gracious. We all got
together with the board or whatever and we had a conversation. I said, "Honestly, God is a
very loaded term and if by God we mean some imagined deity or some dead white male in
the sky then it's not something that we can even address because we don't have that
conception of God as an imagined deity."
Matt: You mean that's not something you personally can address?
Deepak: Yeah I can't address it, nor can my partner. They said, "Well if you make that clear
up front, then it's fine, but we still want to maintain God in the title." So I was keen to have
this conversation because Michael and I have been going back and forth for 30 years now,
and I thought, Michael's come to a very good place with me personally. So we agreed to the
title. But if you go to the Eastern wisdom traditions___Buddhism, Vedanta, Shaoism, all the
Eastern traditions___then God is pure consciousness, period. So the debate, you're right, they
were talking about the mythical God and we were talking about that which is inconceivable
as consciousness but makes every concept possible.
So I can give you a background on that because monotheistic religions are at war all the time
amongst each other, and all of the problems in the world right now are a consequence of
that. But nobody talks about "What is a religious or spiritual experience?" Hundreds of
millions of people across the world don't have that idea at all that the monotheistic religions
propose. In fact, if you go deep into the teachings of Buddhism, etc., the word God is not
mentioned. Only consciousness is mentioned. Vedanta, only consciousness is mentioned.
And it's a very different take on consciousness. So, if you'll allow me for a moment to
explain that. So when I was a kid, I grew up in India with a father who was agnostic or
atheist, who was trained in England as a cardiologist. He went on to become a very famous
person. He discovered high altitude mountain sickness. When the Indian and Chinese army
were fighting in Tibet he was putting catheters in people's hearts and measuring their
cardiac pressures. He described high altitude pulmonary edema and hypertension. My
mother was what you might call a Hindu. But even when she told us stories as kids and she
talked about all these mythical gods and goddesses, she emphasized the fact that these are
mythical, imaginary, symbolic expressions of deep aspirations in human consciousness to
understand reality. Now she was also, by the way, she wasn't a very educated woman like
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 029510
my father was. But she had enough ideas in her upbringing to say that the world you
experience as everyday reality is not real. She would say that probably because she had
heard it an amount of times. But when you're a child, that sticks with you, that the world
you experience is not real. So that's my childhood background until I went to medical
school. Medical school, I embraced everything that my father had taught about reality being
physical, material. He was actually more than___he was almost like Michael Shermer in the
earlier days when I was growing up.
Matt: How did your parents get along?
Deepak: Oh he was a very loving person.
Matt: Completely different philosophies.
Deepak: Yeah but he was an amazing person in terms of being a physician. I mean this is
long before technology. He could listen to a heart with a stethoscope and tell you, which you
may or may not know, the PR interval, which means the difference in microseconds between
the atrial and the ventricular beat, which you could verify on an electrocardiogram. He was
astonishing as a diagnostician. He trained with Wallace Brigden in England who was one of
the earlier pioneers in electrocardiography. He was a consultant to the royal heart hospital to
the queen at one time before he came back to India, the British army. So, he was an amazing
person but he was also very compassionate. On weekends he would see patients free of
charge, and my mother would cook food for them and make sure they had enough money for
their bus or their train. So there was a very compassionate aspect to him, but he didn't
believe in religion or anything like that.
So then when I went to medical school I totally embraced my father's constructs. Except for
one or two experiences during medical school, which was in India by the way. And it was
one of the newer medical schools after British independence, called the Indian Institute of
Medical Sciences, and it was funded by, amongst other people, the Rockefeller Foundation,
and so we had lots of international faculty. So in my fourth year of medical school, when the
Beatles were in India___that's George Harrison behind you, by the way, in a turban sitting
next to me. So that is a later picture but the Beatles came to India in 1969, when I was
finishing my medical school. I didn't know these guys at that time. But Sergeant Pepper's
had come out, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, and we had four medical students as visitors
to our classroom for the summer from Harvard. And they had with them a bunch of LSD. So
my first experience was___and I was just near 18, when we had the first LSD experience.
And then another one. Twice. And suddenly what my mother had been saying all these years
about the world being an illusion was in the way an epiphany to me, at the age of 17. I mean
I saw that the construction of___dissolving of boundaries like this, this, this and melting
away. And then just colors and shapes and forms and sounds. And then a vast nothingness
with no boundaries. But I was there. Not as a body, not as a mind, not as anything I could
identify with, but just totally boundless. It was totally life-shifting at the age of 18 years. But
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 029511
then what happened is the medical school is very busy. You have to study, pass exams, this,
that. And I put that aside, that experience side.
Then at the age of 22, I came to the United States, and I had to do a lot of hardship to get
here. My father wanted me to follow in his footsteps and be an academic. He was a
professor, too, of cardiology. So I worked hard. India wasn't encouraging people to leave. I
had to go to Sri Lanka to pass my exams, I had to borrow money to get a flight to the United
States, I passed all that, I had to spend a year in New Jersey at a very ordinary community
hospital, hard-working, and I got a residency in Boston with various hospitals with
academics. So, Harvard, Tufts, BU, internal medicine, hard work, no thinking about
consciousness whatsoever. Just passing one exam after another, getting one fellowship after
another.
And then I came here in 1970, July 1, basically as an intern in a hospital that no longer exists
in New Jersey, MuhlenbergHospital, but then in the next year I got into all these academic
institutions in Boston and went from one to another. I trained in internal medicine. And then
I had heard vaguely of a discipline called neuroendocrinology, and I had also heard vaguely
of this new revolution in medicine at that time, which was looking at peptides in the
circulation. And the peptide that was very popular at that time was something called opiates,
which are now popular again, and the opioid receptor, with somebody called George
Solomon in Washington, who was an expert in that, but I discovered that the number one
guy in the world in neuroendocrinology at that time was a professor at Tufts New England
Medical Center, and his name was Seymour Reichlin and he was a legend. Okay, so, if you
found a snake in his garden he would dissect it and look at the hypothalamus and identify
receptors for opioids, serotonin, this and that. I'll show you his photo recently. I just met him
the other day at the consciousness conference, which is bizarre because I hadn't met him in
all these years. He's 94, and he was giving a lecture on serotonin and mystical experiences,
at the age of 94, and he came to my lecture, and he was one of the most amazing guys in the
world, actually. It was a real joy to meet him. This is him, let me show you. Anyway I'll
show you his photo in a second. He's 94, he gives talks on serotonin, but he was a legend.
I got a fellowship with him, and through him I met somebody who is no longer alive,
Candace Pert, who had actually discovered the opioid receptor, and she and I met at a
conference. She later became the chief of brain chemistry at the NIH. And she told me these
molecules that we're talking about, serotonin, opiates, oxytocin, dopamine they are the
molecules of emotion. So that's the first time I've heard that expression. I said, "You should
write a book about it." She did. I wrote the foreword and it was for me one of the milestones
of my life. And so I applied to Reichlin's fellowship and I got it, and it was like the most
prestigious thing you could get.
But then I had my own issues with medicine. Is this interesting to you? So I had my own
issues, including the fact that I was seeing patients and I can see that the response was not
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 029512
predictable. You could give two patients the same disease and they had completely different
outcomes. So at least in human beings, we didn't respond predictably. As does always occur,
the bell-shaped curve, which there is to everything now. So, I started getting interested in
mind-body medicine, and I would say I probably coined the phrase. In 1985 I wrote a book
which nobody would accept, no publisher would accept, so I published it on my own,
called Creating Health: Exploring the Mind-Body Connection. The book then was picked up
by Houghton Mifflin and became at national bestseller. And I wrote another book
called Quantum Healingwhich was vilified by the medical establishment because I was
basically proposing, long before anybody was talking about entanglement, I was talking
about the entanglement of mind, body, neuropeptides, molecules of emotion, etc., etc., from
my own experience. But the books did very well with the lay public. The New England
Journaldid a good review of Quantum Healing in 1988, but basically I'm still ridiculed for
it by the regular medical establishment.
Matt: Were you talking about quantum entanglement
Deepak: I wasn't using the word quantum entanglement. I was talking about the fact that
thoughts and molecules are inseparable, basically, and that between a thought and a
molecule there's a gap, and that gap is consciousness. It's now 30 years since the book, and
Rudy was my co-author. He's a neuroscientist at Harvard and the head of neuroscience at
Mass General. He wrote the foreword to the reissue of Quantum Healing, which I'll send
you, but it's almost now quaint with all that we know of now. But I used that word which
annoyed a lot of people, including Richard Dawkins, who ridiculed me, and I said, "Listen,
I'm using it as a metaphor."
All science, I was saying, was a metaphor anyway, but it was then that I also got very
interested in meditation. And then I went to India, and I spend about 10 years in India
talking to these teachers, basically, of consciousness, where consciousness is fundamental
reality, it is beyond thought or experience, and the word they use is pure consciousness. So I
went through an experience with a teacher of meditation who basically asked me questions
like I can ask you right now. What is this? [Matt: "It's a glass."] And what's this? [Matt:
"Flower."] And what's this? [Matt: "A candle."] What's this?" [Matt: "A Sharpie."] "What's
this?" [Matt: "A hand. Did I get them all right?"] So far. I said the same thing. But I was
having a conversation with somebody, and he said to me, "Those are human
constructs." And I was trying to tell this person, who was a meditation teacher, I was telling
him about the molecules of emotion. Serotonin. He said they're not real.
So that got me thinking, okay, and I seriously went into wanting to experience pure
consciousness, which they all talk about, as transcendence, beyond subject-object split. So,
this person that I had this conversation with, he said, "If you were a baby and you had no
language, not exposed to any language, this would not be a hand. This would be a shape, a
form, a color, maybe a smell, a texture, a sensation, as an activity of consciousness. But then
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 029513
you would be told, This is a hand, you have a body, and then you would have an
interpretation of that experience, which you would call a thought. And then you would also
be told, This is your body. You have a mind. You're Indian. And you come from a Hindu
family.' All social constructs. Fundamental reality is sensory perception, which is an
activation of consciousness, and its interpretation is thought. The rest is a story. Mind, body,
and even universe is a story." Well, that was pretty mind-boggling for a young person at
the age of 35. I'd already trained now, here. Slowly, that lead to how one construct leads to
another construct. Okay, so this is an iPhone. It's matter. Well I have now reified sensory
experience in consciousness, an activity of consciousness in consciousness, with a construct,
iPhone. Then I reify it further, made of matter. And now this is very convenient. I can study
it. It's made of molecules, made of atoms. So one construct leads to another construct,
particles. Then you get ultimately to possibility waves and then you're stuck again.
Okay [laughter], but along the chain, one construct built to another construct to another
construct to another construct. Very useful. New York City is a construct. Latitude is a
construct. Longitude is a construct. Time is it construct. Money is a construct. Wall Street is
a construct. Religion is a construct. God is a construct. Universe is a construct, which you
call a model, Okay. So, this led me to consciousness, exploring consciousness. Where now,
you have___you know I just came from this conference, on the science of consciousness,
where you have physicalists, you have dualists, you have panpsychists, you have idealists,
and they're all arguing about the constructs.
So the physicalists are now in a difficult position, because they're trying to explain
consciousness with the construct of physicality, and you can't. Because physicality itself is a
construct. Then you have the idealists going back to Plato who are saying it's all mental. But
even mental ideas are constructs. Then you have the dualists, Descartes, the two are
separate, mind and body. But then how do you explain their interaction? It violates simple
laws like thermodynamics. If mind is separate and body is separate, how do I lift my arm? I
start with a thought so I do this. How do I speak, how do I walk, how do I do anything? So,
dualism doesn't make me happy. Idealism doesn't make me happy. Physicalism, I don't
know what matter is anymore.
I interviewed the Nobel laureate Wilczek, physicist from MIT. So I said, "What is
matter?" "It's particles." I said, "What are particles, subatomic particles?" He says, "They are
little things." I said, "But then everybody says that's a wave potential, that's in Hilbert space.
What is that? Where is Hilbert space?" He says, "It's mathematical." "What is it?" "It's
infinitely dimensional or zero dimensional." "Where is it?" The usual answer is "Shut up and
calculate," right? So I realized that the entire new paradigm of multiverse, superstrings,
eternal inflation, whatever, is all in mathematical imagination. Hilbert space is in
mathematical imagination, the wave potential is in mathematical imagination. I said to
Wilczek, "What is matter?" And he said, "We're still trying to figure that out." [Laughter.] I
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 029514
mean this is coming from a Nobel laureate who discovered a particle, you know. So I
ended up where I began, which is non-dualism, that there is only consciousness.
Matt: Isn't that idealism?
Deepak: Idealism comes out of non-dualism.
Matt: So there are two types of monism [non-dualism]. There's materialism and then there
is idealism. [Each holds that] there's only matter or there's only consciousness.
Deepak: Okay then we can say idealism is closest to non-duality. They don't use that word
in the East. Let's go for lunch. [We head downstairs.]
Deepak: With idealism one usually relates to Plato in the West or to Bishop Berkeley and
all those guys, you know. But basically, what idealism espouses, it's mental. But non-
dualism says even mental is a construct. When you say mental you have words. As soon as
you have a word for an experience it's no longer fundamental.
Matt: Non-dualism is a construct too.
Deepak: If I have to use words, yes.
Matt: There's no getting away from constructs.
Deepak: No, there is a way of getting away from constructs. It's called transcendence. Shut
up and just be.
Matt: We never stop filtering experience
Deepak: Every experience is filtered through given constructs. There is no getting away
from it. But then we start looking at consciousness____let's find our table. [We find our table.]
Deepak Chopra MD
Chopra Foundation
Jiyo
Chopra Center for Wellbeing
www.discoveringyourcosmicself.com
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 029515