3bob

Obviously there is a 180 degree dichotomy between Buddhism and Hinduism on key doctrines of which one can not realistically embrace both... although common ground on certain things can be embraced but again not on the key or major aspects. and I think if "one" tries to do so it can or probably will blow the mind in a negative way. Btw. It can not be said that Buddhism (per the historic Buddha's teachings) sees any other path besides itself (or what is in effect saying the same thing) as being fully viable and leading to enlightenment or whatever term we want to play around with; does anyone wonder about that while seeing that posts about other paths are often outnumbered by Buddhist based ones ?

well cool, we can see through the eye of Self as aware-ness, not unlike how we can also see the world through the eyes of a young child....

Hello Silent thunder, With room related for other definitions - I'd say my definition of awareness is that it is a given - like an element. And in that sense it is already existent thus not a requirement that is needed to be met. (although clarified and reaching full potentail)

L. Luke, From what I've studied there is definite and indisputable evidence of the separation between "chronically mentally ill" and "organic brain disease".! Many of the powers that be in psychiatry would have us believe otherwise and they have been desperately trying to prove so for many decades without actually doing so - and there is reams of detailed data with observations and analysis to back that up - (in earlier said book) Now a big catch to this is the induction and causation of organic brain disease by chemically blunting or melting the connections to the frontal cortex with anti-depressant's and then the powers that be saying or pointing to such brains damaged by those means as their proof for an organic condition. ! (which should scare the hell out of everyone) Anyway those with organic brain diseases are in a whole other realm of causation with very little or no correlation to those suffering from mental and emotional problems.

some stats have been used to reasonably deduce through lots of records as to how many new and "medically" induced cases with serious, crippling and even deadly outcomes have taken place over various decades after the use of anti-depressant's began...I have some numbers along that line but not right at this moment, it was something like triple after such were introduced!

just in case which bugs are neutral ph ?

its not news to me either expect in coming across much greater details counter to thinking there must be some balance to anti-depressents, btw. if there is some kind of balance it would be 99% against and 1% pending. I appreciate your contributions and those of everyone else in this thread. Btw get a haircut and a shave we can hardly see you under all that hair

I know you mean well Brian but: "chronically mentally ill" labels and disempowers persons that could be fully or greatly healed through non-destructive methods, while those with organic brain disease which is not of nor caused by mental/emotional states are in a different category. That term is more of the propaganda to link mentally/emotionally suffering people with organic problems thus attempting to justify needing chemical treatment for same. (which generates billions of dollars along with power for certain people over others)

Stosh, Considering how reasonable you are it stands to reason that now you might want to get the book and see for yourself what a highly respected Dr.of psychiatry (with 30 whatever number of years in practice) saw, did, and researched to the 9th degree of detail concerning the effects of anti-depressant drugs on the human brain and human beings.? If not you can also relax.

the "right" drugs to blunt or kill connection to the frontal cortex, thus blunting or killing depression via loss of higher brain function is not something I would classify as a miracle. or a real solution or cure

revealing studies show that 60 years of very good and constant propaganda on these drugs is a major reason people have often developed reasonable pro and con ideas about them, yet I submit that if most of those reasonable people knew or had more information they would not touch the stuff with a ten foot pole !

anti-depressant's were released on the public starting around 1954. Whereas mankind has been dealing with depression for tens of thousands of years with many, many viable methods that do not blunt or sever the frontal cortex in any way....Taoism is one of those. (although watch out for using certain types of alchemy compounds improperly or in some cases at all)

we hear about all sorts of chemical type processes and things going on in the brain - it is a major, major field of study, but again the chemical severance or lobotomy - to whatever degree - of the frontal cortex and higher brain/mind functions is not a cure and never will be, for killing depression in that way is not the same as solving it for the person and always leaving them with their brain/mind fully intact. So getting back to all the other areas of brain study and its importance is great but imo should not be lumped in with chemically blunting and in countless horrible cases damaging connection to frontal cortex - per my understanding.

That idea of possible chemical cure of a supposed chemical imbalance in a supposed diseased brain was raised in the book many times and after 60-70 years of data and study it has been shown that the chemicals in anti-depressants never cure, they only blunt (or worse) the connections between the frontal cortex and the rest of the brain. Granted there are certain organic type brain diseases with chemical imbalances where people have never been on anti-depressants, but to turn around and say and correlate that depression is caused by chemical imbalance is something that has shockingly never been proven in any kind of study - although we have been fed that disinformation for decades!! There is also a great deal of genetically based speculation that has desperately tried to correlate depression with genes to justify that theory that ends up disproving itself!

Taomeow, That was a very scary reaction! Thankfully no one was hurt!

agreed depression is not being a bit sad at all and can be life threating but chemically blunting higher brain function for a very dangerous form of relief is not and never will be a cure per my understaning. For the very cure so to speak is through the use of higher brain/mind function that reaches into and understands all the painful mental and emotional things going on within us! (and then how best to deal with same using all the tools that that very being of mind and emotion can use)

I suggest you read the book, it is not far flung or reactively freaking out - nor am I in response to such implied content of the material ....the book is written in a very understandable and erudite way, being that is super well and deeply researched by a doctor of psychiatry with many years of direct professional and personal experience. We have been fed disinformation for many decades about what has been going on and it is a horror story.

in some contexts that would be funny but not in this one where many have lost their loved ones to induced mental horror.

if these types of drugs which are designed to chemically blunt connections to the frontal cortex thus higher brain function and related mind function to give relief from the awareness of severe mental and emotional pain, and then in addition have been shown to chemically INDUCE that which they might have given some relief to earlier it stands that people are really no longer being helped but being induced with related and or further types of suffering in a very viscous circle which higher brain function and reasoning are needed to overcome but which are being blunted on a daily and long term basis! (per my understanding)

Thanks for sharing that experience Kar3n, I'm glad for you in getting off the drug in just two days! Btw. I recently went to a short and open group meeting at a decent medical clinic wondering if I could find out more about "meds" .I was kind of scolded and then corrected by one of the clients there when I used the term drugs instead of meds. Later on and after studying the material I have I will never call such drugs - meds again, which gives imo a very false and benign type of connotation to them, for in my understanding they never cure and in countless cases have been shown to cause harm. I think this short example shows one very small aspect of how drug companies and psychiatry influence how people term these drugs.

Anyone with experiences along these lines would be welcome to share their story and knowledge.. My experience is only second hand in the sense of trying to figure out what is or could be happening to my dear family member.

Cold, I bought the book at Barnes and Noble. The read is as scary as hell but also very medically scientific and erudite as written by an author and doctor with vast and direct first hand experience!

I can relate to that Jeff and Spotlessin the sense of a being primarily radiating a lot pure energy instead of having to often take various energies in. So if one is primarily radiating they are already in or near an instantaneous state of being that in a way automatically deals with what is ultimately and only apparently outside them. (like a localized matrix of light in an Ocean of light)

We often hear about getting a good or bad birth... but that is iffy in many ways is it not? For instance: without hard lessons and struggles to overcome is a good birth really all that good, or is a bad birth really all that bad if one learns hard lessons through struggle? I'd say not learning and repeating or being stuck in certain ways could be labeled more as bad and with the converse of that as good. So we have the big and smaller picture to go along with this subject, Also should we assume that a bad birth always means that we didn't learn and are repeating mistakes? what if an advanced, well learned being chose an apparent "bad birth" to whatever extent or option possible for other reasons and in effect the picture getting even bigger?

Another thing is that reincarnation for all beings seems to lumped into just one framework, granted there may one overall framework but I think (since I don't know) that there are probably several sub-sets of laws to it depending on the Beings.... ...of course speculation along these lines could become a "poison arrow" type of hang up but then again it wouldn't hurt to have general information or concepts given by those who really know. (just as having general information and concepts about cosmology doesn't hurt as long as we don't beat it to death or are inflexible to further learning about it being that most everything has a time and place)