Cool, so you'll summarize it on a short webpage for us when you're done?

Post #438,294 by drook 2/1/21 8:46:09 AM 2/1/21 8:46:09 AM Reply	Cool, so you'll summarize it on a short webpage for us when you're done? -- Drew
Post #438,853 by Andrew Grygus 4/6/21 10:29:04 PM 4/6/21 10:29:04 PM Reply	Not quite so short Web page now available. All the reviews of Ms. Maureen's book I've seen complement the book greatly on the first half, describing the Subtle Body theories of all the religions and philosophies, and don't mention the second half. I consider the second half, Physics and Philosophy in the 20th and 21st centuries, to be by far the more important. Given, it's certainly not easy reading, and probably quite unfamiliar to most people into Tantric Yoga and stuff like that. For folks here, I particularly point out my 21st Century section. Subtle Bodies Given her critique of recent philosophers and the like, I have come up with a motto for Ms. Moureen, "I ask no quarter, and I give no quarter".
Post #438,854 by boxley 4/6/21 10:40:29 PM 4/6/21 10:40:29 PM Reply	succint and hit the high spots, thank you "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #438,859 by drook 4/7/21 1:05:10 PM 4/7/21 1:05:10 PM Reply	How much - if any - does secular politics enter into this? Vajrayana ("Tibetan Buddhism"), thought by some to be a variety of Mahayana. Given that Mahayana is "Chinese Buddhism", is this Chinese hegemony insisting that everything Tibetan is really part of China? typos: "As above, so below, but in different form" - needs ending comma to Kether (the Crown) - needs period She maintained here writings - s/here/her the laws of physics. too messy. - capital T or change the period to colon with one caviat. Her writing is clear - caveat, and I'd make the period a colon -- Drew
Post #438,863 by Andrew Grygus 4/7/21 2:39:08 PM 4/7/21 2:39:08 PM Reply	Thanks for the typos - and . . . . . I don't think politics is involved in the Tibetan vs Chinese Buddhism thing, the people giving these opinions are not Chinese or Tibetans. This argument has been going on among students of religion forever. The majority opinion is they are different enough to be separate forms, even though Chinese Buddhism probably was introduced from Tibet. Of course, since the opinions we are likely to see are from non-Chinese, if there was political bias, it would be toward separate forms. If the opinions were official Chinese, it would be to discourage any religion.
Post #438,866 by drook 4/7/21 3:46:50 PM 4/7/21 3:46:50 PM Reply	"... to discourage any religion ..." After first claiming that no, Chinese Buddhism did not come from Tibet, they copied it from us, and stop it anyway. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!