The Tao of physics Book

I have had this book in my possession off and on over the years, ever since I worked for the author, Fritjof Capra, when I lived in Berkeley in the late 70s. I only knew then that he was a physicist, not realizing that there was such a thing as quantum physics, which I was not introduced to until 2000.

Fritjof was a really interesting person, that is, what I knew about him, which wasn't much since I was only his housekeeper. Cleaning homes was how I got through college.

Seeing his home, I realized that I got the job because I advertised myself as being meticulous. Fritjof was meticulous. And I loved his house. It was a brown shingled one on a street in Berkeley. It was obvious that he loved nature. His hardwood floors were covered with grass mats that were not easy to clean because you had to vacuum under them as dirt fell into the holes in the design. He had photos on the wall of John Lennon and Yoko Ono, then of his doing Tai Chi. On one of his tables he had the I Ching and a book titled How to Meditate. I borrowed the latter book and read it. He gave me a stack of Brain/Mind Bulletins that I loved and wish now that I had kept. I went out and bought my own copy of The Tao of Physics, read the first chapter and decided it was not any book that I could understand. I now see that I was correct.

As to meditation, I took TM back then, paid $350 for it, which I now realize was a ripoff, and I never used it. Still, the few times I had, but only when with my teacher, my mind expanded somewhat, and I found that peaceful, but I also found it interesting that there was another state of consciousness.

I joined the Vedanta Society in early 2000s, and a man named Dave DeLuca came to the temple in San Diego and gave a lecture on The Four Yugas. He had a section in it where he talked about Quantum Physics. Much like Capra's book, he used the teachings of Quantum theory as a way to compare it with Hinduism. I liked his lecture so much that obtained his lecture and still have it. It wasn't the comparison to Hinduism that I liked, but the way physicists saw the nature of reality. (I didn't last in Vedanta, but that is another story.)

I listened again to DeLuca's lecture to see what I remembered, and to write this in my review as it say, this is why I love quantum physics, even though I don't understand it.

He began with saying, "All things are temporary manifestations of God." Then he mentioned the great physicist, Schodinger and Deepak Chopra's book, Quantum Healing.
Chopra had said that that the molecules that are in us today can be in a tree or another person tomorrow, and the molecules that were in the moon a month ago could be in us today. He stated that this is not figuratively but literally. But much of this was lost on me, but the idea of our molecules flowing in and out of our body was fascinating.

DeLuca, like Capra, spent a somee time on comparing quantum physics with the Upanishads, but Capra also compared it to what Buddha had said about the nature of reality. While I could see what they both were talking about, I was not so sure that it could be applied in such a way because what the Buddha and the Upanishads had said were too vague to me.

Then DeLuca quoted from another quantum physicist, Max Planck:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

So what did I get out of reading Capra? Not much. He had some chapters on Hinduism and Buddhism that I understood since I had been in both religions. I saw where he was coming from in regards to his comparisons. But then Capra brought up a vague notion of karma, and I, personally, do not believe in karma. Perhaps the way he sees karma is not the way that it was taught to me by these religions, which end up sounding much like Christianity in that if you do what is wrong you will end up in some hell, and yes, Buddhism and Hinduism both have hells. I think the idea of karma developed over time, as it was not mentioned in the early Vedas that I am aware of, as I had looked, and when it finally was, it was vague. Then one day, a new Upanishad is written and, well, th
ere is hell in all its glory. I

I also really liked what Schodinger said about Consciousness: "There is no framework where we find consciousness in the plural." And this, to me, says what the Upanishads have said about the nature of reality, "All is one," and this is what some who have meditated have experienced'
a oneness with all.