chopraji, what you are saying about devatas is ok in vyasti. In samasti, there are astral beings out there, the demi gods and goddesses and more. It's almost impossible to prove by logic. only sruti pramanam.
When you talkking about your hindu Gods or Godess.you saying that you don't worship them but just invoke them,But does that mentioned in your sacred book like a Veda I think not,because it says that God have no form no image he is pure bodyless no father and mother
then why its necessary to invoke them in form of any thing?
@strangerlover11 air is every where. but to run your car you need to pump it into the tyre. invokation of an aspect of divine is needed to manifest the force of tangible grace. it is one of the methods. not the only method.
@yogeshvarkarthik You right air is every where but if we put this example for soul it does not make sense lol as Allah said in holy book quran that I am close to you then your jugular vein then manifestations no need as if you buy any electronic things then you have a menu to use it and to understand it how to operate so the same God have sended his choosen peoples with his books to the peoples to understand who is god and what is his command.
@yogeshvarkarthik Why because I told you the truth and you do not want to hear the truth..hahahah if you are a hindu then its also mentioned in your book veda that God is so pure and he have no father and mother and he have no likness like him lol..hahah
The problem with Chopra is that he creates the illusion of a problem by combining real scientific knowledge with ancient superstition. For example, consciousness is a scientifc reality that is being researched by neurologists, but once you step out of the scientific approach to gaining knowledge and convince yourself that there are other ways to learn about what is true when it comes to scientific claims, you have already begun sliding down a slippery slope of irrationality.
I do not understand that the "ultimate state of consciousness" is "pure being" or "pure consciousness" No one does... Stop overlapping your philisophical view with reality. You need to understand the difference between facts and thoughts. Facts must lend themselves to be verified by the scientific method.
"gods and goddesses are symbolic expressions"...alright I'm with you so far..."of higher states of consciousness" ...and you just went off the deep end...please stop asserting things that you have no evidence for deepak.
What part in this video was unfounded? Gods and Godesses being our symbolic representation of more complex states of awareness that we cannot comprehend unless we embody them, sounds pretty logical. That's unless you are of the thought that consiousness can only be attributed to the brain and an expansion of awareness would only mean the further developement of the brain. This while being rational, when taken exclusively is not...
@tetsusaigaiy First, it is important to draw a distinct line between symbolism and scientific fact. Usually people who claim gods do so as a scientific fact. (including Chopra). But if it is symbolism, what does it then really symbolize? I believe your statement about "more complex states of awareness we cannot comprehend" says it all. It sounds as if it symbolizes your own personal incredulity. But I would say a symbolic god would allow for a rational debate over a factual god.
Please do expand on how "more complex states of awareness we cannot comprehend" hints at incredulity? I'm assuming that said that in the sense that the concept of 'higher states of awareness' in relation to the human brain is a purely speculative one, is that right? Allow me to give my add some level of reasonable credibility to that concept. Correct me where I'm going astray. I mean the correction part because I'm not at all well educated in the fruits of scientific method.
Let me begin. first, what is your position to the relationship between the brain and consciousness? Is the brain separate from consciousness, or are they the same? Once again, I have no right to claim to have any credible scientific knowledge, so I'll be assuming that you do. Trust me, I plan on being as rational as I can...
@tetsusaigaiy It sounds as if you are genuine about your want to have a rational discussion, and so I hope you take my replies in the same spirit. First, I would say you need to accept two things about the knowledge of reality. 1: It is okay to say "I do not know" or "science has yet to figure it out". It is not okay to say because I do not know something I will imagine something up to act as an explanation. The two differ in their root because one can be acted upon by evidence...
@tetsusaigaiy ..while the other seeks to replace it. 2: In reality only two worlds exist- The natural world can be acted upon by the scientific method to ascertain facts. The scientific method itself is the method that humans have devised over our whole history through trial and error, based on reason, to understand facts about the world. The other world is the world that is create by human imagination, which itself is a product of our own brain evolution. The difference again is..
@tetsusaigaiy ..evidence. Not anything can be considered evidence ofcourse...the only evidence that should be considered when deciding facts, is evidence which has passed scientific scrutiny, by a method that we have developed through our reason. So your question of is the brain separate from consciousness..already hints that you imagine a world outside of what science and reason has proved to us so far exists. Perhaps the idea of a human spirit or soul is what you imagine, but I..
@tetsusaigaiy ..would challenge you to look critically about where those notions arose from. Did they really arise through scientific discovery and discussion, or are they an extension of human's emotional or psychological need to grasp the unknown, or grapple with their own existence. Do not think they are equally valid in their approach to understanding what is real. Scientific speculation is based on a preponderance of scientific vidence, while imagining is not.
@tetsusaigaiy Lastly I would just add..do not think a world without spirits or souls or any other pseudo scientific states that Chopra would advocate is a bad or boring world .Instead,if you think about it rationally,you will find happiness and fullfillment in the knowledge that you understand what is true in the world and how to obtain that truth, and the sheer elegance and complexity about the real world around us. Not to mention there is still so much more left to truth to learn
@tetsusaigaiy Here's a straight answer about what I think about the relationship between the brain and consciousness. I think the consiousness is what we label the phenonomen of being able to think, which is a feeling that the brain is able to produce as an evolved organ which also means it followed in evolution's curve. So while while our brain evolved three times and ultimately added our higher brain functions and we are able to know our own indivduality
So, the abstract complex that constitutes all our thoughts (consciousness) is a result of a an organ that is complex enough in it's workings 'produce' complex thoughts right? So basically what you are saying that the phenomena of consciousness is a product of the brain's functions. Is it then logical to consider sum of all these abstract thoughts as a system? An abstract system one could say. That would mean that the brain is a physical system, that produces this 'abstract'...
@tetsusaigaiy You are incorrectly separating the physical system from your"abstract"system.The way I would accept your use of the term"abstract"is if it meant"complex and not yet understood".That would ofcourse mean the"abstract system" is just a "not yet understood physical system"and so our next step would be to improve our methods of learning about the brain and continue adding to the great pool of knowledge that humans have amassed,made possible by the very organ we're trying to understand.
...system. Now for any system to 'give rise' to another system, there would have to be a causal relationship. But if the system being created and affected is a system that can be described in parameters that are not physical in nature, then that would have to mean that the causality between the brain and this abstract system would have to be one that's not purely physical in nature. Now is this a premise that we can accept or is there a problem with bringing in the complication..
..of some 'trans-physical' type of causality. If this is something that amounts the addition of unnecessary unknowns, it would be the result of thinking that the abstract system and the brain are separate systems (even in terms of their parameters) that are a part of some causal relationship. If this illogical, then how can one call the 'abstract' thought a product of the physical events taking place withing the brain when a causality between them cannot be explained?
@tetsusaigaiy What "other" type of causality are you proposing other than the physical? I understand it is difficult to imagine how the brain works. I use "imagine" because we still have so much that scientists don't know about the brain organ and it's scope of functions. There are emotional functions as well as reason based functions, and also survival functions, and probably many more detailed ones.My basic point is that if we are to courageously face the challenge of learning about the brain
@tetsusaigaiy we should not give up and say "there is no rational explanation" we should only keep going and improving our science as we have been doing.
I really appreciate your response. This will be a fun discussion I hope. First, I must make clear that I if you read my earlier responses closely (my typos must have hurt my clarity, sorry) I was actually providing reasons why the brain and the mind are the same and not separate. I won’t retype that, but let me summarize what I was trying to say. But before that, let me explain what I meant by ‘abstract complex/system’. Our imagination is clearly not a random...
one, it’s simply a subjective experience of the various physical processes that define the brain. I was simply responding to your idea of the consciousness being a product of the brain. For if anything is a product of a certain system, even if it becomes a component of that system, it can be considered to be a separate system that is part of a physical relationship with the rest of the system that created it. Basically, if the mind was a ‘product’ of the brain, it...
...would have to be a physical system that can be considered separately (not in perfect isolation), more like the different physical components of the brain. However, the nature of the mind is such, that when one describes it is impossible to describe the mind in physical terms as a separate component- basically the best way to describe the mind in physical terms is to describe the brain. Before I end up being a bit to unclear, what I’m trying to do is make a point that the...
...brain and the mind are the exact same system and not two different systems working together. The question of ‘ectoplasms and spirits’ doesn’t come here because it is impossible to define the mind physically without defining the mind. However, the mind can be described in ‘abstract’ terms, like emotions and such. In the same way, one cannot define a brain in ‘abstract’ terms separately, because an attempt to define the brain in terms of emotions and...
...sounds and images would lead to the description of the mind. It’s not at all illogical to say that the mind is simply the abstract definition of the brain, and that the brain is simply the physical definition of the mind. What this does, is that it makes a physical causal relationship between the brain and the mind illogical, because they are the same system. The relationship that an ...
...object has with itself is not causal, but it is a parallel one. Before I continue with my argument for the inevitability of “higher consiousness”, I’d like to make sure that I have made my position clear with logic, please to give your criticisms, once again, due to my grammar skills, we may be stuck on this point until I can present this idea coherently, but I think the above meets the mark.
We can confirm that affecting the brain, affects the 'abstract system' of thoughts through experiments. However, if a causality between a physical system and an 'abstract system' can not be rationally explained, wouldn't it be more logical to consider an absence of causality and distinction, that the brain and the 'abstract complex' are one in the same thing? That the mind is the brain, that when the brain is affected, the effect on the mind is parallel. Is this acceptable?
Please do respond, and forgive me for my lack of grammar skills. But I do hope to reciprocation from you, in order to see if I'm really as rational in my ideas as I think I am. So consider it a chance to teach some 'stupid hippy' (or any other label of choice) what rationality is. I assure you, I won't mentioned the much abused term 'Quantum Physics' for I have no knowledge of anything related to it other than some layman levels of understanding.
The Merlin Archetype... I loved Deepak's book The Return of Merlin. I read it while I was in military prison for substance induced mystical experiments. Not recommended for most people, it's a slippery slope. I actually identified myself with a deity after misinterpreting my experiences. Vishnu. Yikes.
That book was a great inspiration when I was confused and my morale was low, Dr. Chopra. Thanks a bunch!
I love this, thank you! Archetypes are truly fascinating!
I also find/see God in animals. It is like animals are these specialized expressions, each with their wisdom, strength, beauty etc. Often when I am seeking an answer/guidance to something, a particular animal will start presenting itself to me and by aligning myself with it, I get guidance/answers through its medicine. It's amazing how much of God is in them and how aligning with them brings forth their medicine. :)
@TheWildflower1974 < Nothing is dangerous, every action has unconscious motive.
Kali is a great Goddess for transforming the unresolved or repressed emotions. When you marry Kali archetype with Saraswati, you become healer/psychotherapist. You could seek same externally also.
Great video Deepak, love your presence on the UT and on this planet right now.
@DeepakChopraGlobal Wow first time I've seen you comment so thanks for your comments as well! Don't supposed you'd reply to comments or emails? Well thanks and love anyhow.
Goddesses R related toLOVE, the very essence of kosmos...men R related to matter; Adam means: red blood, earth...red earth, ormenstrual blood. Adam, the one from the Bible...only means he was born from the Goddess...the Goddess is what we call God...
chopraji, what you are saying about devatas is ok in vyasti. In samasti, there are astral beings out there, the demi gods and goddesses and more. It's almost impossible to prove by logic. only sruti pramanam.
yogeshvarkarthik 2 weeks ago
I like these talks. They sound more secular than people make them out to be.
lovingsingleton 2 weeks ago
When you talkking about your hindu Gods or Godess.you saying that you don't worship them but just invoke them,But does that mentioned in your sacred book like a Veda I think not,because it says that God have no form no image he is pure bodyless no father and mother
then why its necessary to invoke them in form of any thing?
strangerlover11 3 weeks ago
@strangerlover11 air is every where. but to run your car you need to pump it into the tyre. invokation of an aspect of divine is needed to manifest the force of tangible grace. it is one of the methods. not the only method.
yogeshvarkarthik 2 weeks ago
@yogeshvarkarthik You right air is every where but if we put this example for soul it does not make sense lol as Allah said in holy book quran that I am close to you then your jugular vein then manifestations no need as if you buy any electronic things then you have a menu to use it and to understand it how to operate so the same God have sended his choosen peoples with his books to the peoples to understand who is god and what is his command.
strangerlover11 1 week ago
@strangerlover11 I am sorry.I did not know you are a muslim. I am sorry I wasted my time answering an incorrigible case.God bless you!
yogeshvarkarthik 1 week ago
@yogeshvarkarthik Why because I told you the truth and you do not want to hear the truth..hahahah if you are a hindu then its also mentioned in your book veda that God is so pure and he have no father and mother and he have no likness like him lol..hahah
strangerlover11 1 week ago
The problem with Chopra is that he creates the illusion of a problem by combining real scientific knowledge with ancient superstition. For example, consciousness is a scientifc reality that is being researched by neurologists, but once you step out of the scientific approach to gaining knowledge and convince yourself that there are other ways to learn about what is true when it comes to scientific claims, you have already begun sliding down a slippery slope of irrationality.
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
Purrrrrfectly beautifully explained ....thank you ...love S
SuperLight33 2 months ago
I do not understand that the "ultimate state of consciousness" is "pure being" or "pure consciousness" No one does... Stop overlapping your philisophical view with reality. You need to understand the difference between facts and thoughts. Facts must lend themselves to be verified by the scientific method.
RealThinkTank 2 months ago
"gods and goddesses are symbolic expressions"...alright I'm with you so far..."of higher states of consciousness" ...and you just went off the deep end...please stop asserting things that you have no evidence for deepak.
RealThinkTank 2 months ago
@RealThinkTank
What part in this video was unfounded? Gods and Godesses being our symbolic representation of more complex states of awareness that we cannot comprehend unless we embody them, sounds pretty logical. That's unless you are of the thought that consiousness can only be attributed to the brain and an expansion of awareness would only mean the further developement of the brain. This while being rational, when taken exclusively is not...
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy First, it is important to draw a distinct line between symbolism and scientific fact. Usually people who claim gods do so as a scientific fact. (including Chopra). But if it is symbolism, what does it then really symbolize? I believe your statement about "more complex states of awareness we cannot comprehend" says it all. It sounds as if it symbolizes your own personal incredulity. But I would say a symbolic god would allow for a rational debate over a factual god.
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
Please do expand on how "more complex states of awareness we cannot comprehend" hints at incredulity? I'm assuming that said that in the sense that the concept of 'higher states of awareness' in relation to the human brain is a purely speculative one, is that right? Allow me to give my add some level of reasonable credibility to that concept. Correct me where I'm going astray. I mean the correction part because I'm not at all well educated in the fruits of scientific method.
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
Let me begin. first, what is your position to the relationship between the brain and consciousness? Is the brain separate from consciousness, or are they the same? Once again, I have no right to claim to have any credible scientific knowledge, so I'll be assuming that you do. Trust me, I plan on being as rational as I can...
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy It sounds as if you are genuine about your want to have a rational discussion, and so I hope you take my replies in the same spirit. First, I would say you need to accept two things about the knowledge of reality. 1: It is okay to say "I do not know" or "science has yet to figure it out". It is not okay to say because I do not know something I will imagine something up to act as an explanation. The two differ in their root because one can be acted upon by evidence...
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy ..while the other seeks to replace it. 2: In reality only two worlds exist- The natural world can be acted upon by the scientific method to ascertain facts. The scientific method itself is the method that humans have devised over our whole history through trial and error, based on reason, to understand facts about the world. The other world is the world that is create by human imagination, which itself is a product of our own brain evolution. The difference again is..
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy ..evidence. Not anything can be considered evidence ofcourse...the only evidence that should be considered when deciding facts, is evidence which has passed scientific scrutiny, by a method that we have developed through our reason. So your question of is the brain separate from consciousness..already hints that you imagine a world outside of what science and reason has proved to us so far exists. Perhaps the idea of a human spirit or soul is what you imagine, but I..
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy ..would challenge you to look critically about where those notions arose from. Did they really arise through scientific discovery and discussion, or are they an extension of human's emotional or psychological need to grasp the unknown, or grapple with their own existence. Do not think they are equally valid in their approach to understanding what is real. Scientific speculation is based on a preponderance of scientific vidence, while imagining is not.
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy Lastly I would just add..do not think a world without spirits or souls or any other pseudo scientific states that Chopra would advocate is a bad or boring world .Instead,if you think about it rationally,you will find happiness and fullfillment in the knowledge that you understand what is true in the world and how to obtain that truth, and the sheer elegance and complexity about the real world around us. Not to mention there is still so much more left to truth to learn
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy Here's a straight answer about what I think about the relationship between the brain and consciousness. I think the consiousness is what we label the phenonomen of being able to think, which is a feeling that the brain is able to produce as an evolved organ which also means it followed in evolution's curve. So while while our brain evolved three times and ultimately added our higher brain functions and we are able to know our own indivduality
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
So, the abstract complex that constitutes all our thoughts (consciousness) is a result of a an organ that is complex enough in it's workings 'produce' complex thoughts right? So basically what you are saying that the phenomena of consciousness is a product of the brain's functions. Is it then logical to consider sum of all these abstract thoughts as a system? An abstract system one could say. That would mean that the brain is a physical system, that produces this 'abstract'...
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy You are incorrectly separating the physical system from your"abstract"system.The way I would accept your use of the term"abstract"is if it meant"complex and not yet understood".That would ofcourse mean the"abstract system" is just a "not yet understood physical system"and so our next step would be to improve our methods of learning about the brain and continue adding to the great pool of knowledge that humans have amassed,made possible by the very organ we're trying to understand.
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
...system. Now for any system to 'give rise' to another system, there would have to be a causal relationship. But if the system being created and affected is a system that can be described in parameters that are not physical in nature, then that would have to mean that the causality between the brain and this abstract system would have to be one that's not purely physical in nature. Now is this a premise that we can accept or is there a problem with bringing in the complication..
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
..of some 'trans-physical' type of causality. If this is something that amounts the addition of unnecessary unknowns, it would be the result of thinking that the abstract system and the brain are separate systems (even in terms of their parameters) that are a part of some causal relationship. If this illogical, then how can one call the 'abstract' thought a product of the physical events taking place withing the brain when a causality between them cannot be explained?
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy What "other" type of causality are you proposing other than the physical? I understand it is difficult to imagine how the brain works. I use "imagine" because we still have so much that scientists don't know about the brain organ and it's scope of functions. There are emotional functions as well as reason based functions, and also survival functions, and probably many more detailed ones.My basic point is that if we are to courageously face the challenge of learning about the brain
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy we should not give up and say "there is no rational explanation" we should only keep going and improving our science as we have been doing.
RealThinkTank 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
I really appreciate your response. This will be a fun discussion I hope. First, I must make clear that I if you read my earlier responses closely (my typos must have hurt my clarity, sorry) I was actually providing reasons why the brain and the mind are the same and not separate. I won’t retype that, but let me summarize what I was trying to say. But before that, let me explain what I meant by ‘abstract complex/system’. Our imagination is clearly not a random...
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
one, it’s simply a subjective experience of the various physical processes that define the brain. I was simply responding to your idea of the consciousness being a product of the brain. For if anything is a product of a certain system, even if it becomes a component of that system, it can be considered to be a separate system that is part of a physical relationship with the rest of the system that created it. Basically, if the mind was a ‘product’ of the brain, it...
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
...would have to be a physical system that can be considered separately (not in perfect isolation), more like the different physical components of the brain. However, the nature of the mind is such, that when one describes it is impossible to describe the mind in physical terms as a separate component- basically the best way to describe the mind in physical terms is to describe the brain. Before I end up being a bit to unclear, what I’m trying to do is make a point that the...
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
...brain and the mind are the exact same system and not two different systems working together. The question of ‘ectoplasms and spirits’ doesn’t come here because it is impossible to define the mind physically without defining the mind. However, the mind can be described in ‘abstract’ terms, like emotions and such. In the same way, one cannot define a brain in ‘abstract’ terms separately, because an attempt to define the brain in terms of emotions and...
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
...sounds and images would lead to the description of the mind. It’s not at all illogical to say that the mind is simply the abstract definition of the brain, and that the brain is simply the physical definition of the mind. What this does, is that it makes a physical causal relationship between the brain and the mind illogical, because they are the same system. The relationship that an ...
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
...object has with itself is not causal, but it is a parallel one. Before I continue with my argument for the inevitability of “higher consiousness”, I’d like to make sure that I have made my position clear with logic, please to give your criticisms, once again, due to my grammar skills, we may be stuck on this point until I can present this idea coherently, but I think the above meets the mark.
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@tetsusaigaiy
I'm basically arguing for the point that the mind cannot be a product of the brain, when the mind and the brain are the same thing.
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
We can confirm that affecting the brain, affects the 'abstract system' of thoughts through experiments. However, if a causality between a physical system and an 'abstract system' can not be rationally explained, wouldn't it be more logical to consider an absence of causality and distinction, that the brain and the 'abstract complex' are one in the same thing? That the mind is the brain, that when the brain is affected, the effect on the mind is parallel. Is this acceptable?
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
@RealThinkTank
Please do respond, and forgive me for my lack of grammar skills. But I do hope to reciprocation from you, in order to see if I'm really as rational in my ideas as I think I am. So consider it a chance to teach some 'stupid hippy' (or any other label of choice) what rationality is. I assure you, I won't mentioned the much abused term 'Quantum Physics' for I have no knowledge of anything related to it other than some layman levels of understanding.
tetsusaigaiy 1 month ago
god this guy's an idiot
MrDgaf12345 3 months ago
all higher science is simple
simplicity is created to learn
difficulty is created to unlearn
your brother of light gideon
gilliet1 3 months ago
Easy interpretations but not easy to understand & practice.? Sounds too simplictic to expalin away.
TRBhoopathy 3 months ago
I hope we have future access to recordings of your talks with Jean Houston on the Archetypes.....You are both such eloquent teachers! Thank you.
triathletetrain 3 months ago
The Merlin Archetype... I loved Deepak's book The Return of Merlin. I read it while I was in military prison for substance induced mystical experiments. Not recommended for most people, it's a slippery slope. I actually identified myself with a deity after misinterpreting my experiences. Vishnu. Yikes.
That book was a great inspiration when I was confused and my morale was low, Dr. Chopra. Thanks a bunch!
Monolith1618 3 months ago
I love this, thank you! Archetypes are truly fascinating!
I also find/see God in animals. It is like animals are these specialized expressions, each with their wisdom, strength, beauty etc. Often when I am seeking an answer/guidance to something, a particular animal will start presenting itself to me and by aligning myself with it, I get guidance/answers through its medicine. It's amazing how much of God is in them and how aligning with them brings forth their medicine. :)
1ballerina 3 months ago
@1ballerina LOVE YU for that ! :)
SuperLight33 2 months ago
@SuperLight33 :)
1ballerina 2 months ago
For me the feminine process from Venus to Madonna to Sophia to Maria. Unfortunately catholic church only adopted Maria :)
TheHeartphone 3 months ago
Great video Deepak, love how you explained what a God and Goddess is
AngeloNasios 3 months ago
beautiful!
coffeytalk 3 months ago
Thank you, i will medetate on that! Namaste
TheWildflower1974 3 months ago
Thankyou Deepak!
danceswithcrayons 3 months ago
I've embodied the beautiful Goddess...... all of my beautiful life, she and I are one.
lilyseymour 3 months ago
I feel connected to goddess Kali, is it dangerous o invoke Kali into your consciousness?
TheWildflower1974 3 months ago
@TheWildflower1974 < Nothing is dangerous, every action has unconscious motive.
Kali is a great Goddess for transforming the unresolved or repressed emotions. When you marry Kali archetype with Saraswati, you become healer/psychotherapist. You could seek same externally also.
Great video Deepak, love your presence on the UT and on this planet right now.
Zeno1999 3 months ago
@TheWildflower1974 Not if invoked as the mother & mother only.
If you are really interested then read the book by 'M' on Shri RamKrishna Paramhansa.
allzipy 3 months ago
in5d.com fans like this =P
StevenSandefer 3 months ago
@StevenSandefer Yes we do!
McCullough227 3 months ago
Thanks for your comments Love
DeepakChopraGlobal 3 months ago 2
@DeepakChopraGlobal Wow first time I've seen you comment so thanks for your comments as well! Don't supposed you'd reply to comments or emails? Well thanks and love anyhow.
Playitalready 3 months ago
Goddesses R the VERY SAME OF WOMEN
cosmos1478 3 months ago
Goddesses R related toLOVE, the very essence of kosmos...men R related to matter; Adam means: red blood, earth...red earth, ormenstrual blood. Adam, the one from the Bible...only means he was born from the Goddess...the Goddess is what we call God...
cosmos1478 3 months ago
Thank you Deepak Chopra for two lovely inspiring posts today :) I was so happy to see you on the frontline on 11/23 as were the crowds xxx
carrerinyes 3 months ago