JustARandomPanda

Ah. That makes more sense. Will keep in mind this is a first-time, rough draft. Hah! A tautology if there ever was one. Every author and author-wanna-be says the same. Hate to say it but at least to Americans the parenthesis would come across as weakening the storytelling itself in the desire to convey a sense of living culture. The story might be able to withstand some limited parenthesis but not as many as the first draft has currently. Better might be to simply convey the culture's habits in a believable way and let go of the desire to educate your audience about its real-world name unless you can find a way to make each of those real-world labels also important to the story's plot or character dialogue. Can definitely understand the liking for evoking imagery. One thing I would add is that on subsequent re-drafts or edits try to find imagery that somehow is meaningful beyond just being imagery filler. The better you are able to aim for that goal with each imagery draft the more powerful the story will end up being. JRR Tolkien was pretty good at writing imagery imo yet a lot of people on Amazon complained they found his descriptions excessive, tedious, boring and were utterly unable to get into The Lord of the Rings because his imagery scenes were too much like reading paragraphs from geology/landscaping textbooks. Yep. You start the "info-dumping" from the very first page. I can kinda see you're trying to convey a sense of a living culture and its citizens but to a lot of non-Indians it will likely get old very fast. Especially since you are doing it a lot. Another idea you might consider and see if it strengthens subsequent drafts. I'd make the opening scene more interactive and try to liven it up. The first two chapters are almost exclusively telling, not showing. It's basically a long drawn out scene of how one culture extends courtesy to a stranger broken up by a very brief snippet of the villagers curious about the stranger's "profession". Well...that scene is common to any culture and doesn't need a novel to convey it unless it's important to the story's plot problem. Change the details here and there and there's nothing special about the first 2 chapters. It runs a risk of losing even readers who would otherwise find the story premise interesting. People value that which is scarce. Figure out a way to make that opening 1st chapter 'courtesy to a stranger' scene direct, immediate set up for the story's plotted problem. If you can figure out a way to do that you'll grab their interest FAST. So how do you make that opening scene with the stranger and villagers 'rare' or unusual in some way via action and/or dialogue so that it will hook your potential readers? That's a good way to 'show, don't tell' and do it in a way that hooks the reader from the get-go. And if it turns out you can't then consider alternative opening scenes that introduce the important characters and plot better. Keep up the writing!

Here's one suggestion that's a good rule of thumb for writing a story. Show, don't tell. The latter is easier to do but almost always makes stories boring. One thing in your favor is that I think you've probably got a character for what could really become a very good story for someone like me - but then, I'm always interested in subjects that have hints or spiritual truths hidden in them. I'm guessing this story is going to center around your "holy man" and maybe how he gathers some companions and/or students along the way as they overcome the story problems? Some other suggestions: too much unnecessary detail. And the kind of detail seems more fitting for a sociology textbook than a novel. Here's an example: Look at the first sentence. Look at "5 AM" and "before dawn broke". Which of the above is more important to advancing the scene, plot and/or breathing life into a character? My tendency would be to stick with the "before dawn" rather than the 5 AM unless that 5 AM figures in some important way to making a character's persona feel "true to life" or to advancing the plot itself. Otherwise it'd be getting the same idea across twice when neither plot, character or current or future dialogue calls for it. You could collapse those sentences into one and it'd get the point across: Sarojamma, Madappa's wife woke up before dawn and readied breakfast. Then again...I do not know what you are trying to accomplish by adding in the bits of info about archana samagri. It might add to making your characters feel "real" rather than like cardboard. Or you might end up boring your reader and having some accusing you of "info-dumping" them with details better fit for a sociology class rather than a novel. Without knowing if rituals done wrong, right or not at all somehow quickly becomes important to your story's plot I can't really tell.

Been reading it. Have suggestions but first I would like to know whom is your intended target audience for this story? Your novel seems to be targeted primarily, maybe even exclusively for other Indians (or at least other people who practice Hinduism) and is hosted on a site for Indians yet non-English words are explained in parentheses like your fellow Indians/Hinduists would not know these words?

Ok. I am looking for a good introductory/overview type book on Vedanta in particular but other Indian spiritual traditions as well. Some background: 1. I like to see the different angles and POVs that all the world's traditions have in passing on techniques/philosophies, etc of "ultimate reality" (for want of a better word). 2. My personal bias is that all these assorted world traditions are all fingers pointing to the same moon. 3. I am a huge fan of Bill Bodri, Ven. Master Nan Huai-Chin, Ven. Master Hsuan Hua and Yogiraj Gurunath Siddanath (I'm not really sure which Indian spiritual tradition Gurunath is from but I sure do like him and his teachings!) 4. I have always vehemently disagreed with Vajrahidaya's insistence that Buddhism is the "best" spiritual tradition ever discovered, taught, etc whatever else you wanna call it. Let me put it this way - a student/practitioner may have erroneous ideas about 'reality' - Tao/Brahman/Ein Sof/Absolute/One/Dependent Origination or whatever the heck else you wanna call it) but that doesn't mean we should lay blame to the word, tradition, etc. 5. Bill Bodri says Vedanta is essentially modern-day Zen. When I talked to Bodri (yes, I actually did get to talk to him personally) he advised against studying Zen first as the teachings/suttas/etc are from hundreds and hundreds of years ago from a society that was very different from modern societies and furthermore are in ancient, obscure writing that's difficult even for native Chinese to understand (ie all written in archaic Chinese). Vedanta he said on the other hand has many books written by gurus/living masters who wrote in English, and know and understand how to deal with the mental baggage and unconscious blindnesses modern students carry around. Bodri says to study and understand Vedanta first and only after a thorough grounding in Vedanta THEN go back and study Zen and you'll finally understand what the old Zen masters were getting at. So here I am...looking for a good intro book to Vedanta philosophy and practices but other Indian spiritual traditions are welcome too.

Can someone explain to me what the point is of dedicating the merit of one's actions to other beings? Where and when (in addition to why) did this practice start? What is it supposed to do?

There is indeed a method in Catholicism for going deeper but most lay Catholics are unaware of them these days. The primary method was centering prayer (ie focusing on the solar plexus chakra) while reciting Ave Maria (Hail Mary) or the Lord's Prayer with a rosary (aka mala) over and over until the mind quieted down and inner awareness opened up. You can see a page explaining how lay Catholics (and monks and nuns) used to do it at this web page. In the Greek Orthodox Church there's meditation practice called hesychasm. Catholicism had these things too. This kind of meditation is seldom done by lay Catholics anymore. I suspect only the most devoted know about and bother with it anymore. My mom is a Catholic and except for going to church 3 out of 4 sundays per month you'd never ever know she was "Catholic". In short, I consider her and most other "religious" people like her to be "religious" in name only. It's just a traditional activity she sets aside for a few hours most Sundays but from what I've observed has zero effect on the rest of her life. She doesn't even bother to read the Bible. Her actual, daily behavior is secular. I do know she is rather upset I regularly study Taoist, Confucian, Sufi and Buddhist texts. She has lectured me in the past about how much she strongly dislikes me getting involved in those "weird" (her words) religions and thinks they're harming me. If only she knew the things I practice from those "weird" religions are right there under her very nose in her own religion! They're the same practices just using different names. But the intent was and is still the same. But since nobody in her church actually DOES them (from what I can tell) nor teaches them she thinks I'm engaging in weirdness. What you just mentioned is exactly why I'm going on that 2013 'renewal' program. I spend too much time in my head and not enough in my heart and just let things be simply as they are. I don't think my studying those old texts is a bad thing...just incomplete. Next up is to actually put what they teach into daily practice.

Let's see... My program of self-correction for 2013 1. work on going for 40 consecutive days of meditation with no breaks 2. work on one-pointed concentration on my breath 3. work up to five minutes of zhan zhuong 4. work on bringing more neutrality into my life and responses to circumstances or people 5. work on being accepting with the way things are in my life - good or bad 6. get a daily planner and every day list that day's specific vices or any atypical virtues and work on diminishing the former and increasing the latter 7. work on diminishing my opinions on everything (gets in the way of acceptance of others and of being satisfied with what the tao already gives me) 8. learn a skill that's physical oriented vs. artsy or mental. I think that's a decent start.

Also...as I mentioned earlier people can still post about the subject of being a Bodhisattva and simply ignore Vmarco posts (or start a new thread) if they choose and just discuss the topic with each other.

Would agree with this. I think you are much further along the path than I am. Honestly I've got the hunch that the vast majority of TTBums are much further along than me. I do not trust my gut nearly as much as some simply because I've seen many times how I got it wrong when I did. And yup...I've met people who found that trait in me maddening and swiftly communicated their disrespect about it (to my face in once instance in an electronics store no less...ugh). Some general musings...this is not directed specifically at you -K-. It just got me pondering (a most un-pyrrho-like thing to do I might add and alas is doing precisely what the Buddha said doesn't lead to enlightenment)... 1. In the first case Epictetus would say 'getting annoyed' is something within your control. This is therefore a legitimate and worthy pursuit of daily practice because doing so would serve to make your subsequent days better. You actually do a pretty darn good job imo of not getting annoyed compared to many people on this board (including me I might add!). 2. The second - whether or not VMarco is unclear about what you are communicating is not something directly within your control. You can influence it but you can't control it. Epictetus would therefore advise to not spend time worrying about it. If VMarco 'gets it' - great, if he doesn't so be it. It is what it is. Even if he totally takes what you're telling him completely wrong what good does it do to waste even one second of your own time getting frustrated about it? What good has it done ANYONE in this thread to get upset with VMarco's tone in his posts in either this or any other thread? Has it actually changed him? No. So why are people wasting their time (and more importantly their mental health) complaining about it? He keeps frustrating people yet they keep staying riled - poking at the situation like a sore tooth they can't leave alone instead of realizing there are other things they could more profitably spend their time on. I've often wondered why people don't use the 'ignore' function more often. There are people on this forum I don't like, and they likewise feel exactly the same about me. I make it a point to not engage in their threads or have discussions with them. Works out better for both me, them and even other forum participants because you don't see squabbles breaking out and people demanding mods to step it (would always prefer that be a last resort imo if possible). 3. Third - "who says nothing, consents" is an example of exactly the kind of overreaching conclusion most human minds do that can (but not always) lead to so much trouble. Buddhism speaks to this, Stoicism speaks to this, hell...Pyrrhonism speaks to this also. The third is precisely one of the things I'm actively trying to break in my own daily habits. If other people think that my silence = consent that's their concern. It's not mine because it can't do anything to actively contribute to my own evolution upward spiritually. If I can not profit from their conclusion that I've 'consented' by my silence why waste my time on their opinions? At the end of the day whether they concluded correctly or incorrectly about me - alas - I'm still stuck only at the level I'm currently at. This is why I think there is profit in studying the Stoics right alongside Taoists, Confucians and Buddhists.

There is also this book I've had my eye on. It's one of only 2 books in print (that I'm aware of) that has Nagarjuna's Fundamentals as well as discussing it in depth. Nagarjuna and the Philosophy of Openess Interesting she translates sunyata as 'openess' rather than the more usual 'emptiness'.

I just had a weird thought. If what that Tibetan commentary says is true. uh... I'm beginning to wonder if Alwayson is more right than even he knows when he keeps insisting that direct realization of emptiness is a higher level attainment than anyone who posts at TTB (yes, everyone - including everyone in this thread!) has ever had. edit: Speaking of Alwayson The same guy who wrote The Heart Attack Sutra is the same one who wrote one of Alwayson's favorite books: The Center of the Sunlit Sky: Madhyamaka in the Kagyu Tradition (it supposedly gives a good explanation of Buddhism's 7 point chariot analysis) And the same guy will soon release a new book Mining for Wisdom within Delusion: Maitreya's Distinction Between Phenomena and the Nature of Phenomena and Its Indian and Tibetan Commentaries P.S. here is a free PDF of Nagarjuna's Fundamentals of the Middle Way

Hmm...well I admit that reply in post 58 was baffling but I just assumed that was because I have no direct experience of what this topic is about nor any of the paths, grounds, stages or whatnot that lead to it. I did however look up the phrase - Enumerations of Phenomena - and Google Books reported back the following: Heart Sutra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries Maybe the above is one reason why the Buddha steadfastly maintained there was a vast difference between being even a 10th Bhumi Bodhisattva and an actual Buddha? My personal approach is that a message or information often has value independent of how or whom is delivering it. If the information is good most of the time with enough digging around one can discover if that info is worth investigating further or dropping. Granted it's not a foolproof method. I could be led astray just like anyone else. But that's why I'm practicing - so that (hopefully) the day will come when insight and wisdom will be direct.

I'm not sure anyone can change anyone else's posting style at TTB. And while technically VMarco does sometimes have an abrasive manner of addressing others some of the things he mentions are in line with what Buddhism actually teaches. Apech pointed that out earlier. Perhaps it might help other thread participants to see how I've approached this thread? 1. Lately I've been studying Stoicism. There are some remarkable similarities between Taoism and Stoicism and in some cases Buddhism as well. One thing that Epictetus taught his students is to be 'non-flappable' regarding some one else's behavior. Particularly his or her behavior toward you no matter whether that person was rude and disrespectful to you nor if they were full of praise and admiration. To give credence to either is to still chain yourself to that which is impermanent nor able to give lasting happiness. 2. To my mind this has some similarities to what Buddhists are doing when they are trying to invoke Tathagata Immoveable. The Stoics were all about teaching that fighting against what is...is so exhausting...leads to dissatisfaction and makes you a slave to your own passions for good or ill. The virtue of heaven (the tao) is far removed from anyone who doesn't aim for equanimity in the face of a situation they wished were not so. A diligent Stoic practiced to become more like that Tathagata Immoveable. 3. Diogenes the Cynic (precursor school to the Stoics) would deliberately walk through the Athenian market and fora in the nastiest, dirtiest of rags simply to train in equanimity in the face of other men's outright disdain, mockery and ridicule. I suppose that's one way to really teach yourself how to not be swayed by other people's opinions or behavior toward you. If nothing else it'll drain you of Pride and Love-of-Fame in a hurry. He was a more dedicated, stalwart practicer than I that's for sure... While I would prefer a more...hmm...amenable or less 'in-your-face' approach from Vmarco posts at times on the other hand I realize it lets me see sticking points in myself that need work. I guess it's wanting VMarco to be other than what VMarco is... *shrug* Well if that doesn't teach why it's a good idea to practice meditation and try to uphold the Tao I dunno what is. I suppose someone could point out it's me excusing behavior that should not be excused. And maybe they'd even have a point. I don't think I have the wisdom to be able to distinguish such though - at least not yet. I know what my *passions* say - I would prefer a less in-your-face approach from VMarco's posts. But that's my passions acting. How can I be sure that if I actually were manifesting Tathagata Immoveable I would act/think/conclude the same? Maybe it'd simply be a non-issue (unless other sentient beings were being hurt)...? Hence Epictetus and the other Stoics teaching his students to practice being immoveable - i.e. equanimity. Some Taoists I'm sure will very much disagree with my understanding of the Tao (and Stoicism) - but I have found this approach helpful personally in my own life. There is one other possibility. 4. Anyone who actually does want to discuss Bodhisattvas could simply discuss it amongst each other in this thread and simply pass over VMarco's posts. There's nothing that really says anyone HAS to respond to his posts. You could all post about it and never react or comment on his posts in the least. I don't think TTB participants nor lurkers are so dumb as to not make their own conclusions as to what posts they find helpful and those which they don't.

English philosophy - and to a lesser extent Continental philosophy - was influenced by the rediscovery of Pyrrhonism - what is erroneously thought of as Skepticism, but there are subtle but distinct differences between Skepticism and Pyrrhonism. It helped give rise to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was definitely influenced by Sextus' text and the British in particular seemed very taken with the Enlightenment. I think you would enjoy reading Sextus' text on Pyrrhonism. It also has similarities to Taoism and Madhyamaka Buddhism.

Yes. I have very much considered either saving up to get that book or see if I'm lucky enough that my library has it. Kinda bummed out Amazon doesn't have a "look inside" feature for it as it does for most other books. That author's other books also look very good as well. I suppose it would be no great surprise to most people I'm a bookworm. Have been since I was a little kid. Always got my nose stuck in a book somewhere - these days often reading some sutra or commentary or whatnot. Whenever I find a book or other resource I find helpful or delightful I enjoy sharing it with TTB. Anyway...I am certainly no sotapanna nor arhat and definitely not a Bodhisattva. Heck...I haven't even reached Stream Entry. Yet this subject is dear to my heart because I genuinely aspire to be one someday. My only point of departure from your own position (assuming I understood you correctly - which I admit I may not have) is that I do see meditation as being helpful and I seem to recall a post you made wherein you stated that it was not necessary(?). I'm not skillful nor advanced enough in my practice that "everyday" life is my "practice". I mean...ultimately I hope to get to that point of course but I'm nowhere near close to that yet. OK. Actually if I were really advanced there wouldn't be anything to call a practice but whatever.... Here's my current hypothesis (yes...I suppose some might say a hypothesis is a belief...so be it. as I said..I'm not even a stream enterer yet...): I can not recall the exact sutra but I believe it was one where the Buddha was talking about dependent origination (ok there's probably tons of those but I can't remember the specific one I'm thinking of). When this arises that next becomes. But he also said that in order to realize the truth of what he was teaching one needed to still the mind. He then went on a discourse about how the 6 senses work along with dependent origination. When ignorance arises...name and form next become (If I recall correctly)...and so on and so on through all 12 links. The way out of this trap he said is to deny the senses the outlet they seek to contact. By denying any of the senses its point of contact (of whichever one you've chosen to focus upon with your practice) that sense will be forced to turn back in upon itself. And so the long climb back "up the chain" (to use my own phrasing) will begin. My hypothesis is this. That meditation is precisely this. It's slowly denying or cutting off the contact that "thought consciousness" normally seeks (it's manifested outcome being monkey mind). As one trains in focused concentration on the breath or sound (to use 2 examples) it begins slowly - then with increasing effectiveness - to deny thoughts their normal outward contact/expression. Ordinary consciousness is thus forced to 'turn back on itself' and as the Buddha noted when one sense is liberated all the rest are as well. Curiously...to my great surprise ...the Corpus Hermetica has some passages that agree with what the Buddha taught! It also talks about how denying the senses their normal outward contacts begins the process of turning around and ascending back to Supreme Enlightenment. Well it doesn't put it in exactly those terms but there was no doubt as I read those passages that was precisely what Poimenandres was describing! My thought is however that even should all 6 be liberated that still doesn't necessarily mean one is a Bodhisattva (I think...). I'm not even sure it makes one a Sotapanna just yet (Stream Enterer maybe...), much less a Bodhisattva of the 1st Bhumi. But then again...I have not studied this to a great extent yet. And I definitely can not claim to speak from actual personal experience (alas). I have memorized the Heart Sutra. It's short and easy to remember and sometimes I'll even recite it out loud as I'm driving to the grocery store or where ever. I've even been mulling over the thought of memorizing all 554 lines of the Shurangama Mantra - of which memorization and recitation is said to generate great amounts of merit. BTW - any of you who are interested in why Gurdjieff said that a person denied "impressions" can not last even 1 second before true madness sets in should get the latest issue of Ideas Discoveries. P. 56 It has an article on the brain science of REAL Silence and darkness (0 decibel laboratory) and the onset of madness. To date no one has lasted in such experiments longer than 45 minutes. Within a few minutes feelings of great terror and panic begin to arise followed by auditory and visual hallucinations. Such hallucinations come on even if only light is cut off but it's greatly amplified if all sound is cut off as well. Lack of sound seems to be even more ruinous than lack of sight. In short...Kwan Yin (can't remember the Sanskrit spelling) was onto something when saying focusing on sound is a good way to gain liberation.... If nothing else...you'd be able to survive the horrors of a zero decibel/zero light laboratory test or solitary confinement in prison. p.s. I suspect a Bodhisattva could survive such a lab test with no problem at all.

Glad you liked it. Here's another one I'm chomping at the bit to get. Vasubandhu's Treatise on the Bodhisattva Vow Vasubandhu (circa 300 C.E.) And here's what one Amazon reviewer said about the aforementioned book

And one other... Authored by Nagarjuna himself (called the 2nd Buddha by some).... Nagarjuna's Guide to the Bodhisattva Path Wiki page on Nagarjuna Edit: Sneaking in this next one too. I have the one above but am having to wait to get the next: Nagarjuna on the Six Perfections

For the benefit of all beings everywhere without exception... Bodhicharyavatara and Bodhicharyavatara online chapter by chapter study at bodhicharya.org 1st chapter PDF study of Bodhicharyavatar

In my opinion this is always a good thing to do if possible. Ultimately other people's threads, commentaries, shastras, etc are all 'beautiful stories' that don't do you a lick of good unless/until you do the work yourself. All Buddha (or Lao Tzu or Chang Tzu or Confucius, etc) did was hand his students a "map". He couldn't traverse the territory for them. Still...some "maps" are more useful than others imo. Yes. Russell has some amazing things to say! Definitely a mystic. Everything he teaches he learned while in mystical states (samadhi, dhyana, etc). I've got A New Concept of the Universe and it's just fantastic. Highly recommended. Would also recommend Itzak Bentov's A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness He was also a mystic. The cartoons that illustrate concepts in the text are delightful and actually helpful imo for understanding things that seem to come across better as a symbol or picture than as a bunch of words. Would also recommend people check out Rupert Sheldrake's latest book Science Set Free (US version) / The Science Delusion (UK version). Sheldrake's book will be an eye-opener of just how shaky the foundations of modern physics really is. No doubt physicists themselves are aware of it but until somebody comes along and offers a better, simpler, more accurate explanation that yet can still yield accurate predictions they all have to keep using what they've got in the meantime - even if they know it's really 'not all that' so to speak...

Wanted to post a side note: Please be aware when you make a post at Taobums it's putting things "out there in the wild" for everyone to see and/ or reply to as they will (within the bounds of the ToS of course ). That's the point of message boards after all. If you don't like that the possibility exists for you being quoted by other message board participants then don't post. Now.... Back to the discussion.

Folks! I have got to tell you about this! Coursera is offering a free (yes, free!) online university course on the psychology of mysticism...western mysticism traditions in particular! Perhaps you are aware of the Open Courseware movement? Universities giving online classes for free over the web? MOOCs (massively-open-online-courses) are like Open Courseware on steroids (hence the "massively" in the title). Here's an article that details one guy's experience of a MOOC course (mostly positive) and how it may someday change upper education (and maybe lower student tuition costs?). Edit: oops...the bit about changing upper education in the future is in other linked articles...not this one. pardon. And another article titled The Year of the MOOC edit: please read the 2nd article even if not the first. This second article details *exactly* what MOOCs are, how they operate and both the main negatives and positives. Anyway... Here's the link to the FREE Coursera MOOC course on Modern European Mysticism and Psychological Thought A blurb about the course: I've already signed up. The course is scheduled for sometime in 2013. No exact date has been announced yet. **** Just to give some personal insight I am taking a Coursera MOOC called Think Again: How to Reason and Argue. (you can still enroll in it too). So far I'm enjoy it! There's no pressure. Which means if you suck with sticking to milestones or deadlines you don't have anyone other than yourself prodding you to complete the course. OTOH - if that's not a problem or only a minor one for you - this is a fantastic way to learn new things and interact online with other students and (sometimes) tutors. Part of me is even tempted to say - even learning some things, however spotty, is better than nothing at all. Anyway...enjoy.

The one thing this board will never see et-thoughts do - refuse to comment on posts - especially comments on his comments Count down to another et-thoughts post in T-minus 5 4 3 2 1 ..... Message to et-thoughts: - no I very much don't want to 'dialogue' about it. The very fact of doing so misses the point *...SB wanders off to meditate'*

Interesting article -K-. Thanks for the link. Yeah it's interesting seeing just how difficult it is to break through vested interests. ****************** Also check out Itzhak Bentov's A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness The Amazon preview is pretty good. Here's another one for you as well: As the saying goes: "As Above, So Below" Introducing: Viktor Schauberger (the Walter Russell of natural systems): p.s. On a completely separate note: Wait till you see the post I'm going to make about the subject of Soul Mates and Relationships in the Hermetics forum...

To have an inkling of understanding Vmarco's "Undivided Light" it is necessary to know how Walter Russell explained it in A New Concept of the Universe. Unless you've read the works of Russell you won't much understand where VMarco is coming from. Basically it's Buddhism via Russell's description of the nature of light. Russell basically overthrows almost all (and I do mean damn near ALL) of modern day physics. And I'm not so quick to dismiss Russell as you'll soon see why. After having read up a bit of Walter Russell's science (combined with Sheldrake's [albeit he's not the only one] recent books and lectures exposing how modern day physics is the Emperor With No Clothes) I've come to think Russell was indeed on to something groundbreaking. Check out the following YouTube vids. First to see how damn shaky the foundations of modern day physics really are check out the following by Sheldrake. It's long...but if you can watch it all...it's damn good. A LOT of food for thought. And it will prepare you for follow up on Russell's science of Light For a second and very different but still withering blast critique of modern day "scientistic" mind check out this vid on Fora TV Science's First Mistake: Delusions in Pursuit of a Theory You can download the ebook for free (or buy the printed book) Now...you are ready to begin learning Walter Russell's explanation of Undivided Light The only difference in the above vid is that Walter Russell speaks that there was a Creator while Buddhists might speak of the Dharmakaya. Russell came from a Christian background and knew the majority of people studying his books would be only familiar with Christianity or at most Judaism. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Sufism were exceedingly fringe in the 40s and 50s. Hope this begins to help those who find VMarco posts baffling. Oh...and when the Buddha told that thief who was trying to rob him he'd have to stop first to catch him... Well if one goes by Walter Russell's Physics of Undivided Light (the fulcrum - the stillness which is Master of all - the Vajra mind that yet remains Unmoved (to quote a line from the Shurangama mantra ) ) then Buddha was indeed STILL (literally) and anything that changes (like a theif running to catch him) will never ever be able to "catch" up, "see", or know (or as Vmarco puts it "gnow") that which neither comes nor goes. Again..you need to have studied Walter Russell's Science of Light to understand VMarco's point (along with understanding Buddhism specifically of course).

Thought I'd share the following vid. The talk is given by Rupert Sheldrake and has to be one of the most interesting I've seen in quite some time.