Thank you for the clarification.  I had wrongly assumed that you put Dan Winters and the Dalai Lama into the same category - uncomprehensible and possibe dis/misinformation.

Which of course was confusing to me because I find the Dalai Lama, as you say, wise.

In any case, it was a good lesson showing the dangers of assuming - and points up how easy it can be to get clarity from someone, if you simply ask.

I appreciate it.  Thanks.

Christine B.

Winter is extremely hard to follow, and the question is - is he hard to follow because he knows so much that we can't even approach his level of intellect? Or is his use of language an empty product of psychosis?

To answer this, take one initially incomprehensible paragraph of his, and do the same for Michael Topper, then get out your dictionary and search engine and pick both apart until their complicated form unravels and the core content is revealed. You'll see that in most cases, one has substance and the other does not.

You can also ask the authors themselves to explain something you don't understand in clear language - if they really understand what they're talking about, they should be able to help you understand as well, and once you do, then you have it in sight to tell whether it's a valid idea or not.

There is a quote by Martin Fischer: "Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification."

Look at the words of wise men like the Dalai Lama - their words are understandable, simple, make sense, and hit home deep within you. Then look at the words of purely intellectual people like modern philosophers and those in academia - writing volumes and volumes of complicated dissertations that ultimately amount to little.

I'm unable to find the thread in which you made a comment along the lines of "throw in Dan Winters" and we'd have a real laugh.  Someone had said something like "between you and the Dalai Lama, we'd have a laugh."

I wasn't sure how to interpret that exchange because until your recent post elaborating about Dan Winters, I didn't know what you thought of him.  Now, it's pretty clear.

Whew.

Anyway, I've tried reading Dan Winters and found it nearly impossible.  So, I didn't even bother to dig deeper into what he was saying.  I just figured he was trying to be purposefully "high-flown" sounding.

The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, has excellent interpreters/translators and is a piece of cake to understand and has become almost "mainstream."  I've read several of his books which haven't been broadly published and even the more "difficult" subjects are understandable.  (Death/Dreams).

I don't know what the C's might have said about the Dalai Lama but I did read Laura J. go on (endlessly) about "Darkness Over Tibet"/Illion - pounding home some point.  The upshot of which, I believe, is that There is Darkness Over Tibet.

I'm not convinced that the Dalai Lama is a bad hat at all (not that you said he was, mind you)...rather I find he has
brought a great deal of the East, to the West.  Granted it's become quite commercial, but who cares?  At least many people now acknowledge the possibility of living again - rather than dead is dead...or dead is up to heaven.

Could you, Tom, expand why you said "add Dan Winters and we'd have a real laugh." 

Would appreciate any insights on this. 
Warm regards,
Christine