Xangsamhua

Perhaps this kind of thing shows just how little we realize that we all participate in a shared universal consciousness.
But it seems to be only twins, a few reincarnates and highly attuned spiritual adepts and teachers that realize it and tap in to it.

Sydney man Craig Gurney was lucky to discover a life-threatening tumour after his twin brother asked him to participate in study that included a brain scan.

http://www.abc.net.a...g-study/4024584

I'm getting mystical in my old age.  Maybe this topic is not appropriate to the Buddhism forum.

All things are possible.  Thought, prayer, yogic consciousness, call it what you will ... it really can work!

Scientists in the United States have enabled a paralysed woman to lift a drink to her lips with a thought-controlled robotic arm, boosting hopes quadriplegics may regain their independence.
The robot bypasses damaged nervous systems and restores some mobility.
On April 12 last year, 58-year-old Cathy Hutchinson made history by using only her thoughts to get a robotic arm to grasp a flask of coffee on a table, lift it and hold it to her lips for a sip, the researchers said.
Fourteen years earlier, a stroke had left her paralysed and unable to speak, making her completely dependent on a caregiver.
"This was the first time in nearly 15 years that she has been able to pick up anything solely of her own volition - and the smile on her face when she did this was something that I, and I know our whole research team, will never forget," neurologist Leigh Hochberg said.

More at http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

Mind precedes all knowables,
mind's their chief, mind-made are they.
If with a corrupted mind
one should either speak or act
dukkha follows caused by that,
as does the wheel the ox's hoof.

Mind precedes all knowables,
mind's their chief, mind-made are they.
If with a clear, and confident mind
one should speak and act
as one's shadow ne'er departing.
(Dharmapada, Ch. 1, verses 1-2)

Having for the moment given up trying to make any sense of the doctrine of anatta/no-self, I've been looking at Advaita Vedanta and, more recently, the Bhagavad Gita.

The latter talks about "realization"/vijnana as the attainment of moksha or nirvana: "going beyond the conditioning of maya - time, space and causality", "complete extinction of self-will and separateness; realization of the unity of all life", "total integration or unity [with Brahman, "the supreme reality underlying all life, the divine ground of existence, the impersonal Godhead"].

(Quotes are from Eknath Easwaran's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.)

While reference to a Godhead and a divine ground of existence may be unpalatable to Buddhists, the idea of the fundamental non-duality of existence, and of nirvana/nibbana as beyond conditioning (hence "unconditioned") and constituting extinction of self-will, struck me as rather similar to the way in which Buddhists speak of these things.  It's indicative of the close relationship between the Brahmanism of the Upanishads and the Buddhadhamma, despite their parting of the ways.

I was also thinking of Rocky's concerns over the use of the term "enlightenment" as not quite right for "awakening" or "being awake", terms used by the Buddha.  "Realization" indicates a state of awareness or becoming aware of something that has always been present, but not realized.  If we think of nirvana/nibbana as not so much a state to which we aspire and train for, but something that is in fact within us and all around us, but just not present to our awareness, that to me seems a bit clearer.  

If we think of nirvana/nibbana, however, as the outcome of a process, thereby attained as the result of action and effect (karma and vipaka), someone like me can't help but think of it as a future state, like heaven, that we reach by clearing the rubbish out of our minds and doing the right thing.

When I sit on my cushion in the evening, I think it is helpful if I try to be aware that nirvana/moksha is within me and all around, even though I have to go beyond perception to realize it, and thereby be united with it.

I think, in fact, the Zen masters I read and listened to were trying to tell me that, but I just didn't get it.

Interesting short piece and some lovely photos of the whimsical Wat Rong Khun.

Near the city of Chiang Rai, in northern Thailand, shines Wat Rong Khun, a Buddhist temple poised to become one of the most stunningly beautiful in the world. Painted all white for purity with glittering glass for the teaching of the Buddha, the temple is designed by the Thai Buddhist artist Chalermchai Kositpipat, and is expected to be finished in 2070.

Wat Rong Khun is rich with symbolism derived from Buddhist and Hindu traditions, as well as some more unorthodox sources. Inside, Wat Rong Khun contains the expected statues of the Buddha, but the Buddhist artist has also included images of Superman, Batman, and Neo from The Matrix who he believes further the Buddha's message.

More at http://www.huffingto...html?ref=topbar

Came across some interesting data this morning in a recently published collection of essays on the ongoing political crisis in Thailand.  (Bangkok May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand, ISEAS Singapore and Silkworm Books, 2012)  

The National Statistical Office conducted a survey in August-September 2009 of 4000+ households around the country to gather data on the socio-economic circumstances of people who self-identified as “red”, “yellow” or “neither”.   The objective was “to answer broad questions relating to economic inequality to the political divide that affects Thai society”. (p. 65)

The authors note that much of the general understanding we usually have of the demographics and motives of the yellows and reds are gained from participants in the disputes.  The survey, however, captures the views of people around the country who may have a preference for one or the other disputing camps, but do not participate actively.

In addition to matching socio-economic relationships with yellow or red preferences, the survey asked for respondents to choose 3 answers of a possible 16 “causes of the current political conflict in Thailand”.  The illegality of (yellow) protestors’ acts, unwillingness to accept election results and unequal treatment/double standards were significant in “red” respondents’ choices.  Incompetence, self-interest and corruption among politicians and unwillingness to compromise among people were widely chosen by yellow supporters.

With regard to the demographics, here are some findings:
1. Older people tend to be neither red nor yellow.  Younger people have a slight tendency to be yellow rather than red.
2. There is a clear tendency for better-off people to be yellow; hence Bangkok people across all income classes are more likely to be yellow.
3. Poorer people generally are less likely to be either red or yellow.
4. Red support appears to bear no relation to income; red supporters are equally likely to be rich or poor.
5. Those who feel their living conditions have improved are less likely to be red; by contrast, those whose conditions have deteriorated are more likely to be red.  However, strangely, those whose economic circumstances have deteriorated badly are more likely to support the yellow camp.
6. Occupational status (self-employed, business owner, or employed) has no effect on whether one is likely to be yellow or red.
7. Gender has no effect.
8. Except for Bangkok, where people are more likely to favour the yellows (in Aug-Sep 2009), “there is very little specifically regional support for the Reds or the Yellows”. (p. 67)
9. “In particular, the identification of the Reds with the poor is a myth”. (p. 67)

I found findings 2 and 4 contradictory and can’t work out what they mean.  I also found finding 8 quite extraordinary.  I know that not everyone in the Northeast is red and not everyone in the South is Yellow, but the voting patterns are strong.  Do reds in the South and yellows in the Northeast vote contrarily to their real views because they are intimidated or bought, or what?  I’m not in a position to question the validity of the survey method, so must assume the findings are valid, but they seem counter-observational to me.