Critical Difference, Buddhism vs Vedanta

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Buddha Story is a Myth.
It is not likely in real life, that a prince destined to be king and all its power during that time would simply give up his throne and family.

What count are the critical principles from that myth.

It is the same with the battlefields in the Bhagavad Gita which are mythical and are presented to extract life principles for the better.

[Eodnhoj7]

Distinctions can be blended under certain contexts.

The self is a process thus has no constant form as there is continual change. However the continuous nature of there being a process, i.e. one thing is directed to another, is a constant form. Both schools end in paradox.

Obviously, i.e. shades of grey is a reality.

In this OP we are focused on the obvious distinctions, i.e. Black is not White, putting aside greyness.

As to "God": "God" is nothingness as God is beyond being and there is nothing beyond being. God can also be observed as the "highest power" with this highest power being the totality of being itself. This totality of being however is the same as nothingness due to the fact it has no comparison (and comparison is necessary for form) otherwise if it were to have a comparison it would not be 'the total'.

How can you attribute any realness to a God, when you have not verified and justified God is real within a human-based FSK?

You are merely making as ASSUMPTION God exists as real.
You can even assume a square-circle exists for whatever the reason.

1. But with the discriminating mind contradictions result as the distinctions observed result in one phenomenon standing apart from another. Yes you can look for distinctions, no one is stopping you or anyone else, but this results in contradiction with things making less sense.

2. If all truth is subject to a human FSK then you are elevating human observation to be the highest power which in turn follows under one of the definitions of God. In other terms you are making the human FSK God.

2a. If all things are relative then the human FSK is relative and under these circumstances it cannot be found to be the sole nature of truth as it is false or true depending upon context. If it is not relative, but rather absolute, then you are acknowledging absolute truth and contradict not only the relative nature of things (and an FSK is a thing as it has boundaries) but making something to be God.

2b. God is a word and as such is a definition. If the definition of God is "everything" then you cannot doubt God's existence unless you doubt everything exists. However if you doubt "everything exists" then God is effectively no-thing, God is an absence of thingness.

2c. How can you attribute any realness to the FSK when it is dependent upon another then another then another thus leaving its nature indefinite?

2d. I just said God is Nothingness and nothingness cannot be proved or disproven as to prove or disprove nothingness is to prove or disprove nothing thus leaving proof/disproof as meaningless.

3. The square and the circle are both one under the context that all forms are loops, it is all dependent upon context. Dually there can be a square circle under an infinitely rotated square or an infinite set of squares that are each rotated individually around a center point around eachother.

[Eodnhoj7]

The Buddha Story is a Myth.
It is not likely in real life, that a prince destined to be king and all its power during that time would simply give up his throne and family.

What count are the critical principles from that myth.

It is the same with the battlefields in the Bhagavad Gita which are mythical and are presented to extract life principles for the better.

So what you are saying is that the sole motivator of people is power over others? Is that how you view your discussions with others? If it is a myth you have to prove it under an FSK.

[Iwannaplato]

The Buddha Story is a Myth.
It is not likely in real life, that a prince destined to be king and all its power during that time would simply give up his throne and family.

What count are the critical principles from that myth.

Including the critical principles that desire is a problem and that he had to leave his connections with others to reach the goal state. And that when he returned, he returned not as their husband, son and father, but as their teacher. They now had master-disciple relationships.

It's the same with the Ten Bulls. You have to leave people, that is emotional connections, and when you return, you return as a teacher. Not friend, lover, father, son, daughter, mother, but as a teacher who will teach others to lose their attachments to (amongst other things) other people and their desires.

It is the same with the battlefields in the Bhagavad Gita which are mythical and are presented to extract life principles for the better.

But good to bring up, again Hinduism. Both Hinduism, though in slightly different ways, pathologize the emotions and desires. Despite them being part of neurological patterns in the brain, they do not take those patters as objective moral facts or as necessary parts of being human.

There is a clear decision to create a jailer/jailed dynamic between one part of the self or between one part of the brain and other parts of the brain (and the neural nexuses around the heart and in the gut.

And part of the process of cutting off the natural expression of emotions is to isolate yourself from your connections to others.

Now both Hinduism and Buddhism allow people to participate in their family lives and to take a dabbler role in meditation and the other practices and paths of the tradition. But the idea is that in later rebirths or reincarnations, one must eventually sever these ties until one can be a teacher/guru.

Of course in Buddhism, generally, but not always, there is no self to be reborn, but there is still a pattern that needs to get release. The pattern, not a self, is reborn and sooner or later, to actually do what is best, one must take over completely the expression of emotions and having desires guide you. Even the desire to meditate or gain enlightenment is seen as a problem.

The judgments of the limbic system and the heart and gut nexuses are extreme and this of course is reflected in what happens in Buddhist communities.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Buddhism NEVER command that all Buddhists, enlightened or otherwise, must be detached emotionally from the members of their family, kin and society.
Even the Buddha himself exuded very subliminal emotions and high intensity compassion for individuals and humanity.
This is evident from the fact that he was so intense in imparting the necessary wisdom to all individuals and humanity to enable them to manage their sufferings [dukkha] optimally within their existing constraints.

It is true, there exist within the Buddhist community, where individuals in spiritual training are expected to be emotionally detached from the family, kin and society. I believe this was optimal to the existing conditions at one time and even at present.
At present, since conditions had changed and changing positively, such emotional detachments should be avoided; there has been a decreasing trend on this practice.

The general maxim of Buddhism is,
individuals should be in control of their inherent and unavoidable emotions
rather than letting their emotions control them.

[Iwannaplato]

Buddhism NEVER command that all Buddhists, enlightened or otherwise, must be detached emotionally from the members of their family, kin and society.

I said that above.
That is not the point. They do say that if you want to achieve enlightenment you will need to do this. No one will force you or command you, but it is necessary, and that's why it's in the life of the Buddha story.

Even the Buddha himself exuded very subliminal emotions and high intensity compassion for individuals and humanity.

You're just making up these 'very subliminal emotions'. Yes, Buddhism urges compassion, a kind of detached well wishing to other life forms. This has nothing to do with the love and friendships and passions we share with others we love.

This is evident from the fact that he was so intense in imparting the necessary wisdom to all individuals and humanity to enable them to manage their sufferings [dukkha] optimally within their existing constraints.

Sure, he believed his solution to suffering was the only one.

It is true, there exist within the Buddhist community, where individuals in spiritual training are expected to be emotionally detached from the family, kin and society. I believe this was optimal to the existing conditions at one time and even at present.
At present, since conditions had changed and changing positively, such emotional detachments should be avoided; there has been a decreasing trend on this practice.

How do you know that? Link to studies?

The general maxim of Buddhism is,
individuals should be in control of their inherent and unavoidable emotions
rather than letting their emotions control them.

And notice that in the formulation...your emotions are not you. They are external to you. You have to control these things or they will control you.
In Buddhism your emotions are disidentified with, in the extreme. They are not seen as you.

Most 'things' in Buddhism, you can just observe, but emotions, those need to be controlled.
Desires also.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whilst Hinduism* is p-realist in majority while Buddhism is essentially non-philosophical_realism; both are geared towards the management and modulation of primary impulses.
* there is atheism [+ non-theism, even evil practices] in Hinduism.

The idea and view of cutting off impulses [e.g. primal and emotions] from one part of the brain is false [empirically erroneous] and if believed so, it is detrimental to continual self-development.

Analogy of a Violent River System
It is more effective to view the various impulses of the primal, limbic and neo-cortex as an analogy of the violent river system [e.g. Yangtze] and the necessity of DAMs to inhibit, modulate and manage the flow of water to prevent floods while reaping whatever utilities from such a system.

In the case of the brain and mind;
The primal ["reptillian"] part of the brain, embedded with neural algorithms that has a history of 3.5 billion years, is like having the forces of the Upper Yangtze Rivers with great potential for good and also damage.

The limbic part of the brain [250K million years] which is equivalent to the lower-upper part of the River also has strong impulses in terms of primal emotions.
As such we need to built many inhibitors [DAMs or brakes] within the limbic from planning functions from the neo-cortex [>250K years ago] to inhibit, to modulate and manage [not 'CUT-OFF' totally] the necessary primary forces [3.5 billion years] so that they are not full blown at the crude conscious levels that manifest as evil acts and terrible sufferings.

The 3.5 billion years primary forces within the brain are very much stronger than those from the limbic [250K million years] and the 200K years neo-cortex of humans.
If the primal sex drive is not inhibited, modulated and managed, it will manifest as uncontrollable lusts ending with rape and perverted sexual acts. This is very evident.
If the 'fight' or 'kill or be killed' instinctual drive is not inhibited, modulated and managed, it will manifest as uncontrollable violence and evil acts ending with all sort of killing of humans, e.g. violence, murders, genocides, and the likes.
If altruism and compassion is not inhibited, modulated and managed, it will end up with many people blindly risking their own lives [without calculated risk] to save perhaps one person or even a dog.
The above lost of control is very evident in humans throughout its history.

This is why meditation [samatha -concentratino, vipassana - mindfulness] is common within Hinduism and Buddhism.

• While Samatha composes, steadies, and concentrates the mind, Vipassana is about achieving greater insight and vision. Vipassana, which can literally be translated as “insight”, refers to a clear awareness of exactly what is happening in the present moment.

The effective of either Samatha or Vipassana is relative to the psychological state and proclivities of the individual. I believe the combination of both as in the Noble-8-Fold Paths [where one is capable to doing both] is more effective.

'Cutting off emotions'?? Yuck!

The above enable clues to objective moral facts in terms of physical neural algorithms and their potential to modulate evil to enable its related good.

[Iwannaplato]

Whilst Hinduism* is p-realist

No way. I mean, Hinduism covers thousands of offshoots, but no way. Most everyday adherents of a religion do not grasp the more mystical side of their religions - and this sure as hell counts for Buddhists also, who can be theists, realists believers in reincarnation (not just rebirth) and more, nah.

Just google Hinduism and Idealism, for example.

in majority while Buddhism is essentially non-philosophical_realism; both are geared towards the management and modulation of primary impulses.
* there is atheism [+ non-theism, even evil practices] in Hinduism.

I think you'd be better off say Buddhism is philosophical non-realism. If you say non-philosophical realism it means it is a realism, but one that is not philosophical. IOW it sounds like you are saying it's a realism for those without a philsophical background or something like that. I don't agree that we can place Buddhism so easily as a non-realism, but if that's what you mean, I'd change the order of those words.

The idea and view of cutting off impulses [e.g. primal and emotions] from one part of the brain is false [empirically erroneous] and if believed so, it is detrimental to continual self-development.

It is embedded in the process of just observing emotions (and desires) rather than expressing them. The natural flow from felt desire/emotion to movement and sound is cut off. The practices train this - if you are into Mindfulness, take a 5 day Vipassana retreat, you'll find this out in a matter of minutes and after those five days, you'll know it in your bones. And it's true for Buddhist practices in general. True in practice, true in theory.

Analogy of a Violent River System
It is more effective to view the various impulses of the primal, limbic and neo-cortex as an analogy of the violent river system [e.g. Yangtze] and the necessity of DAMs to inhibit, modulate and manage the flow of water to prevent floods while reaping whatever utilities from such a system.

Nah, though you're already conceding a lot by showing your belief that emotions are violent if not dammed.

In the case of the brain and mind;
The primal ["reptillian"] part of the brain, embedded with neural algorithms that has a history of 3.5 billion years, is like having the forces of the Upper Yangtze Rivers with great potential for good and also damage.

The triune brain theory is not considered viable any more. And you are only reinforcing my point that Buddhists have all sorts of judgments of emotions.

The limbic part of the brain [250K million years] which is equivalent to the lower-upper part of the River also has strong impulses in terms of primal emotions.

Ibid.

Note: Buddhism chooses to suppress or dam in your metaphor.
Other paths choose to integrate.
You lock someone in the basement, they will be pissed when they come out. You lock them down there long enough, well they die off.

As such we need to built many inhibitors [DAMs or brakes] within the limbic from planning functions from the neo-cortex [>250K years ago] to inhibit, to modulate and manage [not 'CUT-OFF' totally] the necessary primary forces [3.5 billion years] so that they are not full blown at the crude conscious levels that manifest as evil acts and terrible sufferings.

It's not just Buddhism that has this hatred of and judgments of and fear of emotions. However Buddhism actually has the tools to permanently cut off emotions.

And again, if one goes through Buddhist communities, talks to master and monks and nuns, or dedicated adherents in Western Buddhist communities, it's instantly recognizable. Spend a week in Italy afterword and you see all the emotions those Buddhists are sitting on.

Of course, that's what some people want. To cut off or dam up their emotions. If that's what you want, well, go for it. But I'm not going to pretend it isn't anti-life.

The 3.5 billion years primary forces within the brain are very much stronger than those from the limbic [250K million years] and the 200K years neo-cortex of humans.
If the primal sex drive is not inhibited, modulated and managed, it will manifest as uncontrollable lusts ending with rape and perverted sexual acts. This is very evident.

We have emotions of fear. We have empathetic emotions, as you have been pointing out for years.

Sure if you just release the sex drives and cut off empathy, fear, social desires, there can be a problem. But this is cherry picking.

Integration is the key.

If the 'fight' or 'kill or be killed' instinctual drive is not inhibited, modulated and managed, it will manifest as uncontrollable violence and evil acts ending with all sort of killing of humans, e.g. violence, murders, genocides, and the likes.

Ibid

If altruism and compassion is not inhibited, modulated and managed, it will end up with many people blindly risking their own lives [without calculated risk] to save perhaps one person or even a dog.
The above lost of control is very evident in humans throughout its history.

There's a simple solution which your own examples, especially since they include the last example, reveal.

This is why meditation [samatha -concentratino, vipassana - mindfulness] is common within Hinduism and Buddhism.

• While Samatha composes, steadies, and concentrates the mind, Vipassana is about achieving greater insight and vision. Vipassana, which can literally be translated as “insight”, refers to a clear awareness of exactly what is happening in the present moment.

Without emotional expression. I challenge you to take a Vipassana retreat and express the emotions that come up during that retreat. My guess is your only experience of Buddhism is via books. In that retreat you will be triggered, your emotions and desires will be triggered again and again and again. And you will not be allowed to express those feelings or desires. That is a cutting off, a training in the cutting off emotions desires. Dabblers may modulate, because they are focusing for half an hour a day or whatever. But if you want to really do what Buddhism is after in Vipassana, you are cutting off emotions and eventually, permanently.

Modern people are distracted from their emotions. Unaware that they favor fear, say, over rage or the reverse. They barely know themselves. So some time away from distraction and anxiety to where they actually begin to notice themselves can help modulate emotions they weren't even aware of. Given modern humans and the state they are in. But that's not Buddhism. That's plucking on appropriated tool out of a larger system (as your post on the 8 paths shows) and also using that tool in a dabbling, minor way. It will take many lives (not of a soul, but of the pattern) to be resolved. The people actually doing Buddhism, aiming at achieving the goal of Buddhism in this life, are cutting off emotions, and one single 5 day Vipassana retreat will show you.....

They are not kidding around.

'Cutting off emotions'?? Yuck!

Well, I'm glad you don't like the idea. But here's the thing, it's a slow cutting off the emotions and desires, so slow it's like the mythical frog in the slowly heated up water.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is so stupid to insist that dams in rivers will cut off the water flow permanently.
I have already stated very clearly the term, modulating and managing the flows of water or emotions. I had used the dam and brakes analogy.

The term Anti-"philosophical_realism" or non-philosophical_realism has to be specifically related to philosophical_realism [one word] because there are many types of realism.
What is reality is critical for humanity, but the p-realists had hijacked the term 'realism' to represent 'reality' when in fact their claim of 'what is reality' [mind-independent] is grounded on an illusion.
Philosophical-realism one time known as material-realism.

In another perspective, [said many times] a realist can also be an idealist.
Kantian philosophy is empirical-realism while at the same time, in another sense, is Transcendental Idealism.

• The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist.
  Kant: CPR A370

That is why the term ANTI-philosophical_realism is critical meaning against the ideology of philosophical_realism.

Not all emotions are violent.
Happiness is an emotion, and like any other emotions need to be modulated, managed and directed optimally for the well being of the individual.

There are many methods of vipassana from different schools [Goenka -10-days, Myanmar, Thai, etc.]. I practice my own technique of vipassana in alignment with the original teachings of the Buddha.

At this stage, I am fed up with all the strawmaning, misrepresentations of my views, having to explain basic information, etc.
No more such responding except there are very critical and significant issues for my own personal interests.

[Iwannaplato]

We can look at it this way:
The U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600 IU of vitamin D a day = the Western dabbling in Mindfulness
Taking 60,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity = the goal practices of Buddhism.

Yes, as I've said several times, small doses of mindfullness can be helpful, especially given the specific toxic problems Westerns already have in place. But that isn't Buddhism. Too much of what works ok for us, what is entailed in serious participation in Buddhism with the main goal of Buddhism, is anti-life. You are then cutting off emotions and desire. Desire is seen as the root problem and is treated as a toxin in Buddhism. Emotions are also, even at beginner stages, cut off from expression. Sure, you can calmly say things about your emotions, but really only observation of emotions is permissable.

If your goal is aligned with this, great. Mine isn't.

It is so stupid to insist that dams in rivers will cut off the water flow permanently.

If only I'd said that.

I have already stated very clearly the term, modulating and managing the flows of water or emotions. I had used the dam and brakes analogy.

Yes, you have asserted this again and again, even disagreeing with 'suppression' of emotions.

The term Anti-"philosophical_realism" or non-philosophical_realism has to be specifically related to philosophical_realism [one word] because there are many types of realism.

OK so you did mean a kind of realism.

What is reality is critical for humanity, but the p-realists had hijacked the term 'realism' to represent 'reality' when in fact their claim of 'what is reality' [mind-independent] is grounded on an illusion.
Philosophical-realism one time known as material-realism.

Which is just a substance position within realism.

In another perspective, [said many times] a realist can also be an idealist.

It can be a certain kind of idealism, but not the Hindu version, where everything is actually just the dream of a deity, say Vishnu. Not separate selves, no things, no separation at all, just this unified dream. That is not realism..

Kantian philosophy is empirical-realism while at the same time, in another sense, is Transcendental Idealism.

• The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist.
  Kant: CPR A370

Which has little to do with Hinduism.

That is why the term ANTI-philosophical_realism is critical meaning against the ideology of philosophical_realism.

Look, if you want to ignore a native speaker of English telling you that " ANTI-philosophical_realism" will confuse your readers, well, feel free to. But if you write ANTI-philosophical_realism, it means that it is a realism, but a realism that is anti-philosophical. Whatever that would mean. Antirealism is clearer. Or a 'non-realism.' If you google ANTI-philosophical_realism your post comes up. That should be a warning sign. I see they use it within legal philosophy, but they do not mean what you intend there.

Not all emotions are violent.

Never said they were. In fact my post was using the knowledge that not all emotions are violent to counter your assumptions.

Happiness is an emotion, and like any other emotions need to be modulated, managed and directed optimally for the well being of the individual.

And you don't need to build any dams (as a dabbler) or cut off (as a real Buddhist adherant) to do. If the limbic system is integrated and not in competition or strife with other parts of the brain and information is coming to it and all emotions are allowed free flow, it will be modulated without dams and cutting off.

There are many methods of vipassana from different schools [Goenka -10-days, Myanmar, Thai, etc.]. I practice my own technique of vipassana in alignment with the original teachings of the Buddha.

Sure. And it sounds like you are dabbling. The science article you've posted a few times is aimed at and focused on non-buddhists dabbling in mindfullness, not Buddhists.

At this stage, I am fed up with all the strawmaning, misrepresentations of my views, having to explain basic information, etc.

I haven't said that YOU have the positions I have been saying. I have been talking about Buddhism. I haven't strawmanned you once. Sometimes people, including myself, will point out what a belief entails if it is true. Which may be incorrect, but is not strawmanning. I don't think I've even done that in this context. But here you made claims about Buddhism. If you merely said mindfulness (as practiced by Western dabblers (from a Buddhist perspective) that would be a different story. And you certainly do not have to explain basic information. It's pretty clear that you have next to no direct experience of Buddhism, but rather have experienced in only through books and your own practice. The information, such as the 8 paths, is old news. YOu just lack the overall context of Buddhism and conflate the plucked out mindfullness with Buddhism as a whole and what its goals are and what is considered necessary in Buddhism to achieve these goals.

No more such responding except there are very critical and significant issues for my own personal interests.

Obviously you're free to do as you like.

[Atla]

I wonder if VA is from Japan or maybe from a Southeast Asian country. Those people often seem to be endlessly fanatically minded for no apparent reason.

In my opinion, modulating fanatical emotions mainly by disassociating from them, re-channeling them, DAM-ing them, suppressing them, cutting them off etc. is by itself a pretty bad approach. The emotions will continue to rage under the surface or somewhere at the edge of the mind.

What should be done primarily instead, is weakening the emotions until they can be integrated and modulated in a fairly "human" way. Doing "emotional release" meditation, where the emotion is kept, but its strength is released into the wind until its strength becomes normal. Toning down the overactive amygdala.

[Iwannaplato]

I wonder if VA is from Japan or maybe from a Southeast Asian country. Those people often seem to be endlessly fanatically minded for no apparent reason.

I wouldn't call VA fanatical. Stubborn perhaps, but I would say we all are about at least some thing. And no I don't think he's from Asia, though I can't be sure. In any case he used to be Christian I believe and while he's left his theism behind, he retains, I think, many facets of Christian models of the self in his ideas.

In my opinion, modulating fanatical emotions mainly by disassociating from them, re-channeling them, DAM-ing them, suppressing them, cutting them off etc. is by itself a pretty bad approach. The emotions will continue to rage under the surface or somewhere at the edge of the mind.

I think they can atrophy, if one is diligent enough, as the masters and long time dedicated adherants are. I agree with you. It's not for me. If he and others want to practice it, that's their business, but I don't think we should hesitate to call Buddhism antilife and a kind self-hate discipline.

What should be done primarily instead, is weakening the emotions until they can be integrated and modulated in a fairly "human" way. Doing "emotional release" meditation, where the emotion is kept, but its strength is released into the wind until its strength becomes normal. Toning down the overactive amygdala.

Now we go in separate directions. Integrate, yes. But I'm into expression.

[Atla]

Now we go in separate directions. Integrate, yes. But I'm into expression.

I didn't say that we shouldn't express them, but some people have such strong emotions that expressing those strong emotions could ruin their lives.

[Iwannaplato]

Now we go in separate directions. Integrate, yes. But I'm into expression.

I didn't say that we shouldn't express them, but some people have such strong emotions that expressing those strong emotions could ruin their lives.

Well, I am not suggesting that everyone just let every barriar and caution down and run around expressing all their emotions everywhere without regard to context and who is there. First, it's nearly impossible to make a change like that. Second, it's important to be in contact with one's fear: there are people and situations where it is dangerous to express emotions and if you are in contact with your fear this can aid you in choosing. If one chose to value expression as I do, then it begins with oneself, alone, and then with people who share a similar value. Any emotion that you yourself have judged as negative and should never be expressed can be explored alone. I mean, that in itself can be scary for people who are backed up or have strong family/societal judgments that have held this in place. And these habits and judgments are not easy to remove, generally taking years to make a real shift - meaning: beyond occasional explosions of catharsis under exploring or because one simply can no longer hold it in. IOW to a place where the emotion can express long before it is backed up.

And some people are really toxic or montrous so I have little interest in them learning all sorts of things.

[Atla]

Now we go in separate directions. Integrate, yes. But I'm into expression.

I didn't say that we shouldn't express them, but some people have such strong emotions that expressing those strong emotions could ruin their lives.

Well, I am not suggesting that everyone just let every barriar and caution down and run around expressing all their emotions everywhere without regard to context and who is there. First, it's nearly impossible to make a change like that. Second, it's important to be in contact with one's fear: there are people and situations where it is dangerous to express emotions and if you are in contact with your fear this can aid you in choosing. If one chose to value expression as I do, then it begins with oneself, alone, and then with people who share a similar value. Any emotion that you yourself have judged as negative and should never be expressed can be explored alone. I mean, that in itself can be scary for people who are backed up or have strong family/societal judgments that have held this in place. And these habits and judgments are not easy to remove, generally taking years to make a real shift - meaning: beyond occasional explosions of catharsis under exploring or because one simply can no longer hold it in. IOW to a place where the emotion can express long before it is backed up.

And some people are really toxic or montrous so I have little interest in them learning all sorts of things.

Sure but above I was just referring to fanatically minded people who can have such strong emotions that can break the mind. I wasn't clear. There is a limit to what the brain/mind can handle and some people are naturally above that.