The advice is usually good advice. I often agree with him about how people should/can change their lives. I have done many of the things he's suggested. Somehow I've come to this from a completely different point of view. This is my problem: Chopra is intellectually dishonest and he lies about the world. Here are some of my many many quibbles:
He flagrantly contradicts himself from page to page and chapter to chapter. One second “You” are extremely important and next second “You” aren't important at all. One second cells have “intelligence” and the next second its hormones.
He claims there is an embarrassing problem of people being unable to prove existence (which is ridiculous, but is something philosophers and religious people have insisted on forever) at then we confronts the problem of explaining how this can all be the imagination of every living thing in the universe he just dismisses it as not being a problem, there is no argument. There can't be, of course, because it's absurd to claim that the pigeons on my balcony, the grass behind my apartment, and I are all combining to create a false reality. He can't argue this because he doesn't have an argument.
He makes so many claims about what “Science” knows and what it doesn't know (as if Science were a person) but he backs none of it up. We have to take everything he says on faith, on his rep as a spiritual leader and a doctor. But that's all we have, his word. He does this in all his books (that I've read). I could spend weeks researching his claims and refuting them but I don't care enough. I know he's twisting facts to suit his own ends. I've caught him before. His great (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the observer effect underlies most of his claims about the nature of the universe (the claims are old, the defense is more recent).
He talks about entropy, but he doesn't understand the concept.
Scientists do actually have a reasonable guess about the end of this universe, it might not be right, but it's a better guess than Chopra's.
How can something so large its unfathomable behave like a person?
His chapter on evil is best. He understands it to a great degree, and I agree with him there more than anywhere else. Yet he doesn't offer solutions. Also, his understanding of evil is a lot more earthly and sounds at odds with the rest of the book.
He says he can't be alive if the whole universe isn't alive. This statement makes no sense. He is using life is such a wide sense that the word loses all meaning. According to him, atoms are alive. Really? I think that's what we all mean when we talk about life, we mean atoms. Absolutely, Deepak. Hit the nail on the head there. Does anyone honestly believe that the hydrogen atoms are living inside them but dead outside of them? What is this nonsense?
How does he know why time exists? How can anyone? He is guessing, but by telling us he knows for a fact, he is lying to us.
He says everything is connected, everything has a purpose, and so on. Then he uses a phrase like “pure chance.” If everything is directed, there is no such thing as pure chance. Yet the book is riddled with such mistakes.
It is an act of willpower for me just to finish this rubbish.
His comments regarding apoptosis are misleading if not wholly inaccurate. Just as with his concept of the universe, he imbues very small things (cells, proteins, genes) with human traits as well.
That's just a sample.