> I recently saw something about Vedantic philosophy compared to
> Buddhism. It was Deepak Chopra (yeah yeah I know) and Robert
> Thurman. Deepak said that vedanta addresses the first cause of
> suffering as being "not knowing the true nature of reality." That
> reality of course is that atman/brahman thing.

> The way I view Buddhism is, frankly, as an improvement to this,
> because it doesn't concern itself with "reality," which is just
> something people argue about...

> On Oct 21, 8:03 pm, brian mitchell fishing.net> wrote:

>> Tang Huyen wrote:

>>> brian mitchell wrote:

>>>> Tang Huyen wrote:

>>

>>>>> If you really believe that physical reality...

> Dave K yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>> So what would be your reading of the famous "not wind,
>>> not flag, mind is
>>> moving"? Do you think "mind" here refers only to the
>>> disputatious
>>> thought processes of the two arguing monks?

>

>> One reading might be that it points back directly to what
>> Tang just
>> said. "Matter and the material world have nothing to do
>> with
>> salvation." Who cares about the wind or the flag? What
>> does that
>> have to do with liberation?

>
> It could have a lot if one was trying to grasp objectively
> something ...

> Mother Teresa had some experiences, of a type
> traditional in Christianity. She hanged on to them,
> had a massive nostalgia for them for the rest of
> her life, and her Catholic advisers lined themselves
> up to them also. She and they took them for real,
> as something objective to attain to. They were
> their equivalent of the atman/brahman thingie in
> Hinduism -- something out there, objective,
> independent of them, for them to adjust themselves
> to, period, end of story. She and her Catholic
> advisers had no wiggle room about it.
>
> She and her Catholic advisers uniformly didn't
> consider the Buddhist-Stoic approach, of attaining
> peace with oneself, independently of anything or
> anybody outside of oneself. Of course such an
> approach would bypass Christ and the Catholic
> Church altogether. But that also would be its
> saving grace, namely its economy. Buddhism and
> Stoicism don't need anything or anybody outside of ...

>> Mother Teresa had some experiences, of a type
>> traditional in Christianity. She hanged on to them,
>> had a massive nostalgia for them for the rest of
>> her life, and her Catholic advisers lined themselves
>> up to them also. She and they took them for real,
>> as something objective to attain to. They were
>> their equivalent of the atman/brahman thingie in
>> Hinduism -- something out there, objective,
>> independent of them, for them to adjust themselves
>> to, period, end of story. She and her Catholic
>> advisers had no wiggle room about it.
>>
>> She and her Catholic advisers uniformly didn't
>> consider the Buddhist-Stoic approach, of attaining
>> peace with oneself, independently of anything or
>> anybody outside of oneself. Of course such an
>> approach would bypass Christ and the Catholic
>> Church altogether. But that also would be its ...

> Now, you're being an asshole. High propaganda with nothing behind it. Words
> on a screen typed by an empty shell of a man who hasn't come to terms with
> his own mortality against the canvas of the...

>Mathematicians go dreamy eyed over fractals

> Peter Olcott wrote:

>> http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
>> Research at prestigious Princeton University provides a
>> scientific basis for this claim.
>> Their studies have shown that people can alter the numeric
>> values produced by hardware random number generators by an
>> act of the purely mental will alone. These results have a
>> very high degree of statistical significance.

>
> This lab closed at the end of February.
>
> < > decades, a small laboratory at Princeton University
> managed to embarrass university administrators,
> outrage Nobel laureates, entice the support of
> philanthropists and make headlines around the world
> with its efforts to prove that thoughts can alter the
> course of events. ...

> On Oct 21, 3:49 pm, Tang Huyen
> gmail.com[remove]>
> wrote:

>> If you really believe that physical reality exists only
>> in the mind, my classic suggestion is for you to climb
>> on a skyscraper and jump off. When you hit the
>> ground, you'll know for sure whether that ground
>> "exists only in the mind".
>>
>> Tang Huyen

>
> The citation of the ESP lab doesn't suggest a solipsism.
> Our
> perceptions of reality define a great part of what we know
> as "mind,"
> however.
>
> The potential for the wetware/hardware nature of the brain ...