Does this make sense to you?

New Agers get on my nerves, because I consider it an insult to my intelligence that they would have me take them seriously. An example from today's JREF Swift:

Q: What happens when you die, Deepak?

Chopra: What happens when you die, is you return to where you always are. If you realize right now that there's no such thing as a person, you'll be all set.

Q: What do you mean, I'll be all set?

Chopra: Then if you shift your identity to that consciousness that is differentiating as observer and observant, you'll know there's nothing to fear.

Q: You have no fear of death.

Chopra: No Sir! Why? Because I don't exist in the first place!

Q: Can you get reincarnated as a soul?

Chopra: [Sighs] Wisps of memory and threads of desire, which are specks of information, latch onto specks of consciousness and show up as recycled human beings. But in the bigger picture, the observer, the observed, the process of observation, is a single reality.

Q: So... Deepak Chopra, as I know him [questioner taps the sitting Chopra solidly on the knee for effect] my friend Chopra... doesn't exist?

Chopra: A transient behavior of... the total universe.

Deepak Chopra... waste of space.
It's all playing on words generally associated with a bit of quantum physics, "the observer, the observed", without ever actually saying anything.
Metatwaddle like this is dangerous, because people start believing they're thinking when in fact, it's all just "quack, quack, quack".
This is why critical thinking and education are important.

Also, from a simpler linguistics point of view, look at "[sighs]" when the word "soul" is metnioned. Here is the mark of someone who might actually be clever and has realised that there really is no such thing, and reckons that he has to go further with the weirdness to convince his fans that what he's got is the end-product of a long chain of reasoning.
Unless, of course, he's really talking major bollocks completely detached from any form of even (slightly) reasonable spirituality.