Uhhh, wait,

first it was . . .

and now it is . . .

hmmm, wonder what it will b tomorrow?!?

(with much love always Dr. Chopra).

Peace

I am at a loss to understand the point that Dr. Chopra was trying to make in this short article.
Is he saying that genetic inheritance do not explain the traits we find in human beings?
Scogos.com

Everything is a contributing factor to what one is. That is what creates each individual, the sum of contributing factors, which is the whole entire universe, which contributes to your existence.

The question is, does one create all the contributing factors to produce the sum effect of one's created self. Is one creating the self, via creation of contributing factors and not through direct operation on the self, which is the intangible observer. The observer cannot be operated on because it is in fact the operator.

The whole entire universe creates you. You are actually doing nothing. You simply happen.

You are not making decisions; you are only witnessing the decisions being made so it appears that you are making them; further convinced because you also witness the thoughts behind the decision.

There is nothing to worry about then, because there is nothing you can do. What you think of you is simply an observed result.

So your sitting there reading this right now, you could make a decision to stop reading.

Or can you?

You can make a decision to get up and do something?

Or can you?

Or is something else causing the decision? What triggers a decision to be made and how is it decided?

You feel thirst, you drink some water. What cause you to drink water you or your thirst?

What created the thirst? Was it not this that created the action to drink the water?

Why would you bother to satisfy a thirst? It is simply a set of electromagnetic signals you could simply ignore.

Why should pain hurt?

The phone rings, the universe has captured your attention, offering up some new stimuli.

Perhaps

Feel the small tension arise, and a thought, you move to relieve the tension. What created the tension? A knowing? From where is the knowing?

Watch the events around you, look for the signals, the placement of things, I AM there behind the scenes.

Silly scientists they call this a mechanical effect, a physical force, but look for yourself, what they say is the origin. Virtual particles and what is the cause and effect behind the virtual particles? or in the quantum realm? The scientists are confused it seems.

There is nothing solid.

What element is missing from the big picture, the element that is reading?

In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force exerted between separate objects due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects. This is sometimes described in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, due to the mathematical form of one possible way of calculating the strength of the effect. Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicron scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. Indeed at separations of 10 nm — about a hundred times the typical size of an atom — the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa).

The simplest form of the Casimir effect was predicted in 1948 by H.B.G. Casimir and consists in the attraction between a pair of neutral, parallel conducting plates placed in the vacuum. This attractive force has a purely quantum origin and cannot be obtained using the classical description of electromagnetic field since it is a direct consequence of the existence of Zero-Point Fluctuations: a turmoil of virtual particles that come in and out of existence and that can violate the energy-momentum conservation of the system for very short periods of time, as described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The fluctuating virtual particles exert a "radiation pressure" on the plates which on average is greater outside the plates than between them - as shown in the diagram.

Click my name below for the article.

Is it the nice pair of jeans she is wearing or what is underneath?

Everyone wants to hook up with a good set of genes and a good pair of jeans does advertise a healthy set of genes.

Are jeans a deciding factor? What decides? The genes?

So it wasn't your genes that made you do it, it was her genes.

Memetic engineering task force broadcasts, have been picked up, rewiring brains for an improved and enhanced reality

Use your infinite play decoder ring for clues, the prize is always at the bottom of the cereal box. Did you wait or dig it out?

The Brass Monkey Mystery

Dear Deepak jee,
It will always remain a debatable issue as to what can be done with our effort,and what comes our way because of our genes,or Karma.
I am reminded of an interesting Hindu tale,and would like to share it with other members.I have been told that brother of Ravana,Kumbhakaran had taken an oath to replace Indra from his throne.For this purpose he did lot of penanace,so that Gods would be pleased to grant him this boon.The Gods were impressed with his effort,but did not want to give him throne of Indra.The trick they played was that when it came to crunch,one of the Gods made himself so small so that he could sit on tongue of Kumbhkaran.When asked as to what he wanted,Kumbhkaran said that he wanted Indra Asan(Indra's throne),but because of God sitting on his tongue,it sounded as Neendra Asan.It came true,and therefore,Kumbhkaran would keep sleeping most of time.
A S Rai asraiips@gmail.com

Hi Dr Chopra,

This certainly is an interesting topic. Often times we find ourselves making such statement like “I get my smile from my mother” or, we see a baby and we label the child as the combination of "great" genes. The old age tradition of marrying within the same family line (cousins marrying distant cousins) existed to save the families hereditary interest. The practice is one that still remains prevalent in certain parts of the world...But to what degree can we go to combine a set of "good genes" and does that guarantee a successful combination....hmmmm too much to think about.

And finally KARMA....how much of it is karma...the idea that we from a spiritual perspective, have chosen to live within our existing gene pool is hard to accept and grasp.

Your question certainly gives something to think about…..and wonder….and remain wondering….“am I my mothers daughter?” (with a puzzled look)……

Jamie-

yeah, yeah, make love, not war,
gotta ask a question tomorow to a Indian lady, how she would translate the difference between that Atman/Brahman, thing,

that's a princess, lol, ltz, love, passion,
marek

But seriously, that's a good question, Dr. Chopra,
wouldn't it be for my parents, i would blame, sue,
spiritualy, but that would be..;)

So, they gave a gift of that Louise Hay quote, that, she said; '.. you choose your parents in advance..'

ooh.. well, then, enough said, different world, different ..(fill in the blanks..;)

so, that leaves me, sure, polish pierogie, wherever, i go, but it just doesn't taste..

love, passion,
tucking, in,
marek

Deepak,

Just my humble opinion, but I think that all babies are born with very distinct personalities. I have 4 siblings and if you look at all our baby pictures, they showed the personalities. I am outgoing and loud--my baby picture has a huge smile with arms thrown out. My middle sister is very quiet and socially a little awkward--her baby picture shows a somewhat stressed, unsmiling look and her arm seemingly trying to bat away a shadow from a tree falling on her sitting in her baby carrier. The same holds true for all the other siblings baby pictures. I think where nurture comes in--well parents have to love their kids for who they are and try to help them deal with their individual indiosyncracies. But I don't think parents can change their kids' personalities. Genes certainly play a role but I don't think that they cause "personality". I don't think parenting causes personality either--maybe karma does or something.
Personally I think in this day and age their is too much emphasis that parents can "shape" their kids. My parents had flaws in their parenting, a lot of flaws actually but oddly enough as I said if you look at our baby pictures we have the same personality type as seen as babies--one outgoing and bold, another shy and introverted and stressed, etc. I think being a good parent is very important but with the baby Einstein and all that people think oh they can "mold" their children--I think that's horse manure.

Oh one other thought, if an individual is "stressed" or "depressed" etc. well you can blame it on early life experiences or less than great parenting but I wonder too aren't there other factors? that never seem to get factored in in these studies? Like intelligence?
What if a person has high intelligence? Aren't they more likely to be a little stressed or more sensitive? As I look around me at others I can see that to be true. But of course no one factors that into these studies. Again it is the blank slate theory. Indivudal + good parenting= well-adjusted adult. What about if that person is very intelligent or artistic or sensitive? Maybe they won't be as perfectly adjusted as another person who is just frankly not as smart.
Or what about empathy? Maybe a person with a lot of empathy could be more stressed than others? Does that mean their parents were bad that they instilled empathy? Because I think that I have a lot of empathy and it sometimes stresses me out. But I don't blame my parents. In fact I don't even know if my parents are the ones who gave me empathy or if I just am an empathetic person.
There are a lot of oversimplifications in this day and age. Where if every person just gets enough hugs then they will turn out perfect? Is that true? I don't know.

Also, in this day and age parents are encouraged to give their children constant praise and be very careful that their children's self-esteem is never wounded.
Here's a little tidbit: my mother did not have time to constantly "praise" us, and in fact rarely did. But as a child I had good self-esteem and self-confidence because I pushed myself in difficult athletic contests and would win them. Or I became the best swimmer in the neighborhood. Etc. You get the point. The self-confidence came because I actually mastered something or actually won something or actually achieved something. Or because I actually finished reading a book. My father would then praise me. He would not say hooray you read one chapter. He would say finish the book--read the whole book.
Self-confidence came from actually achieving something worthwhile.
Not because my mother praised me constantly. In this day and age every kid gets a trophy and there are no more "contests" to win even at town get-togethers, only inflatable jumpy things for the kids to jump on. Now, I think that is a shame.

My final belief: people are born with their personalities. This doesn't mean they won't have troubles or difficulties due to bad parenting. But I honestly don't think that "good" parenting creates a sociable person like that study said. I was born outgoing and that's how I basically remained. One of my sisters wasn't and she remained not outgoing. My parents had nothing to do with that.
Science cannot explain the complicated basis of a person's personality.
And also, even the Mozart on a desert island idea--I bet he would at least learn to sing, you know what I mean? It's like--people are born very much who they are I think. There are blues artists--B.B.King who claims to have learned his craft with a guitar he made out of a screen door. From what I remember reading he did not have anyone coaxing him, teaching him. He just wanted to sing the blues and so made a guitar with a screen door.
If parents are responsible for all of the bad, then they are also responsible for all of the good which I don't believe is true. Parents cannot take credit for everything good about their kids. Like if their child turns into a nice person, they can't say "now my child grew up to be a nice person 100% because of me, because I was such an incredibly wonderful parent." However, parents can be blamed for some things--like if a parent is a terrible parent and raises a child who turns into a mean person I think they should receive some of the blame. But overall it is more complicated than that. OK now I'm done giving my opinions.

Interesting....

Nature/nurture, genomena/phenomena (my coined words), ultimately Newton's action/reaction are all complementary. They take the story of all and everything including us humans from big bang to big crunch

Dear Harb, Deepak and all,

Could it be that Nature has given us a natural protection to be able to handle this process of action/reaction ourselves?

By this i mean without interference of another at a certain age of a human being?

Just like it is the case with animals.

I have been pondering about the following:

When a baby is born, father, mother, child are a unity (a symbiosis), just like you see with animals, that has to last a while in order to build the foundation and trust a child needs to further develop itself.

And then comes another stage in which the parents can become slowly more and more the observers of their children. So let the children themselves discover.

And then, at a certain stage (and it is my believe this is already in the beginning of the adolescence), the parents should let go of them and let them discover life on their own and take the role of advisor only when they ask for it.

We as parents can only lay a basis, isn't it?

What should then be the role of society, school, etc.?

Should we change things in our school system, and if so, what?

Just a few remarks to built up the discussion :)

Love, Mieke

Just a few remarks to build (instead of built) up the discussion.

Sorry for the typo,

Mieke

Hey Richard Thomas:

You have raised very disturbing points.

It appears that when we really get deep down that we're not responsible for what happens in our lives because it is the Universe (aka God) acting through us.

For the Christians or religious people this would be a way of saying that "God is in control".

But is he really?

Supposing I feel thirsty but I refuse to drink water, as the Universe expected me to do, then what happens?

And supposing for refusing to drink water for months, eventually I die, then what happens?

Is the Universe still in control?

Have I not refused taking actions which determined my fate, which became my death?

Could the Universe have forced me to drink water against my will and live instead of dying?

So, I very much doubt that the Universe is in complete control.

I think the Universe is in control with our assistance.

We also have the freewill to co-operate or oppose the will of the Universe and face the consequences for either of our decisions.

Without us, there would be no Universe because we're the photons, quanta or energy particles that make up the body of the Universe (or God)
Scogos

Oh by the way, can anyone throw some light on the relationship between genetic inheritance and karma?

Is genetics = karma?

Is karma one of the major factors that determines the type of body and genes that we inherit and what we become in our lives?

Or, to be more direct, is genetics our scientific word for karma?

I need to get some clarity on this, so I would appreciate some input from everyone.

There is so many riddles in this Existence; the more you know, the more you know there is even more to know.
Scogos

Scogos,

You write: "there are so many riddles in this Existence; the more you know, the more you know there is even more to know.

Yet to me it is always curling back to oneself and to the perfect order there is in Nature.

I have been reading a bit about the latest discovery of science about DNA and that what is called Epigenetics. They are the two parts, or the alternating current or aura our body-mind is made of.

DNA, the hard inheritance
Epigenetics, the soft inheritance

DNA, Epigenetics
Karma, Love
Male, Female
Intellect, Intuition
Electo-Magnetic
Action, Reaction

It is always an interaction. And it is the stuff we all have inside, male or female we all have both of it.

So both hold part of the truth. Uniting them will give the whole truth.

Only my simple explanation that karma is genetics but only one side of the coin.

The other side is epigenetics or Love

Mieke