Lucky7Strikes

For healing individual blockages, I assume that really depends on the seminar. If more than twenty people show up, I'm not sure much individual attention can be given along with teaching the material. I just don't want to pay 880 dollars to learn mco circulation, hand postures, or focusing on the breath meditation, or basic qi gong hand movements. Opening the third eye and the center of the brain likely isn't going to be taught in D.C. but much more basic stuff. And if I want to progress through those levels, I would probably have to keep in mind future visits to Minnesota. By the way, people who have gone to level 3 don't seem to have experienced what you have. Your progress doesn't sound like what people in Chunyi Lin's system normally experience. I've watched those interviews of practitioners and no one mentions anything about fasting 10 days without food, prolonged full lotus meditations, or third eye openings...they are more in line with, "I feel it, then use my hands to guide it, and I feel great! or I did this and I wasn't sick anymore!" So...I'm guessing either you are doing something beyond spf qigong, or these people aren't revealing certain aspects about their practice.

880 dollars!!!??? For two days? Teaching something that can be learned from his DVD. Ok Drew, make your case on why any of us should consider attending the seminar. What type of transmission should we expect. Is this a seminar just for health purposes or for higher goals? I want to be convinced. .

And for a little visual break to this meaninglessly wordy discussion: http://willaemjw.tripod.com/weekdaystargazers2.html

Are you kidding me? It seems like you are too busy to give a full answer. Take your time, I don't mind waiting a day or two for an answer. But come on man, this is a bit ridiculous. I ask for just an example from your "direct experiences" (which you say is how you experience reality all the time) that's not inferred by preconceived associations, and you give me quote by someone dead almost 2000 years ago? Woooow. How indirect is that answer for someone who experiences everything just spontaneously a directly from moment to moment. I don't get it! Why can't you just give me examples from your own awakened state? Hahahahaha! And this is even more strange. "Words mean nothing to me...blah blah blah" So someone who thinks words mean nothing to them writes a 450 page book on how words mean nothing to him? :blink: And to point out another bit of insight you might have glanced over: Is experience of something entirely separate from one's knowledge of it? Because it seems like you are saying the experience of sound is different from knowledge of that particular sound. I don't think this is the case. When I hear a bell ring, along with that sound, my mind immediately filters that sound through all the knowledge I have of that bell (like whether that's an alarm clock, or just one telling the hour, whether it's in the living room or the bedroom). If that didn't happen, we would all be freaking out at everything happening around us.

Yes...and emptiness is empty is also empty which is also empty..and so on. It's is a nonsensical statements that turns and rejects itself and goes on ad infinitum. And that Namdrol quote is just stupid, I'll explain below. As for your interpretation of this being an antidote: But this can easily be turned the other way! For example: a "deluded" (in your pov at least) person doesn't need to negate non-self view, because he has already long been "awakened" in his self view. And how do you know if a plant has a sense of self or not, or even if it is aware? Do you know what it's like to be a plant? And if a plant is aware, it may not already have a sense of self. I sure haven't seen a plant tell me it's got an ego. So has that plant realized anatta? Is your aspiration to be "awakened" like a plant? As for your dopey santa claus analogy that keeps coming up (you must've really taken it bad when your parents told you there was no santa claus ) whether that statement of "there is no santa claus" makes sense to the kid or not really depends on how he perceives the world. He could for instance reject that idea of santa claus, because he believes only in what he witnesses. However, if he is aware of potentialities outside of one's immediate empirical capabilities (like the existence of "snow" for an African kid), he would consider the possibility of this santa claus' existence, and maybe go on to question the man claiming otherwise, basically tracing the causes that have led to this claim. If there are inconsistencies or deficiencies in what led this man to come to the conclusion, the kid might as well say "oh, I don't know, perhaps there is a santa claus." You see, it's not mere nonsense to the kid as the statement "everything is illusory and this is the truth" is. When you negate something, it is also a form of affirmation. "Is" and "is not" arise together like two sides to a coin, or "left" and "right." So when you say there is no "Is or is not," that that is the deluded way to perceive, then you are basically saying "is or is not," is not, which introduces the idea of "is or is not," is. Again, an infinite loop logic that happens because you are denying the very statement you are making. And what is the difference precisely, between "something real" and the "view, idea of something real"? And if there is no difference, isn't the view that something is "unreal" also a view, no matter how consciously or unconsciously it is stated to oneself? You can stop repeating what you believe. I am here to question how you came to that belief and why you think this is a realization. Yes, I am saying that if you are going to say something is an illusion, you better have something to call real. If you don't, the whole meaning of the word goes down the drain. This is the case with all language that arises from relative definitions, or anything really. But in your case, there is an additional problem as I mentioned before. You are making a negating claim about a totality, i.e., everything. I'll give you a more classic example: A man in Crete says, "This is the truth: everyone on this island is a liar." You see, that statement just sabotages itself. It cancels its own legitimacy. And how exactly do you investigate a stream of cognition with stream of cognition? Can you see that a river is flowing as a stream of river flowing within it? This is like standing on earth and trying to see its rotation by just merely standing and looking at one's feet. Only by contrast, duality, do we know the definition of something, and not only the definition, but its identity (this is a very good argument against solipsism by the way, but that's besides the point). But more to the point...your "investigation" method has so far been , "just look!" "just look and see!". That's the only genuine backing you have had for your so called "truths." I don't really see any investigation or contemplation. And how does someone in a trance know he is? He doesn't. That's why it's called a trance, absorption. . Slight joking aside, there are basically two kinds of trance states. A shallow one where you know you are in a trance and remember the normal state. And a very deep one where you think the trance world is the norm. You might just be in the latter? Who knows? People believe and see and feel all kinds of stuff. To me it seems like you decided that the sense faculties were more real and "direct" than your conceptual mind and forgot to use some basic analytical skills on your own mind, namely vipassana stuff. Hahahaha! So it comes down to, "Come on! I'm telling you! I know! I've seen it! It's the truth!" ...I am speechless. Whoever said anything about one/universal awareness or a separate awareness? Look, I am not suggesting to you some idea you should believe in or be converted to. If you remember, I didn't engage in this discussion because I was trying to convince you that there was some universal knower, or this One Awareness, or a cognizer. I never said any of these things...I wanted this discussion to be solely about you and all this nonsense in your rhetoric you seem to just glance over being dutiful to Buddhist ideologies and Thusness you grew up with. Now I am not saying Thusness is wrong. I've never had a conversation with him. But what I do observe is that your process of insight is not faithful to the definition of an "investigation" and the way you present your so called "enlightened stages" is deceptive to these "zen" masters who are too ingrained in Buddhist linguistics like "emptiness" to consider their meanings sensibly. It reads nice on the outside, but as someone who has considered your ideologies genuinely and have devoted a long time to understanding and implementing them, IMO they are very incomplete and certainly lack enough credibility to be called "the truth" or "the nature of reality." p.s. I've also noticed and now pretty sure that you often revert to quotes, resort to authority, when you can't seem to explain yourself. Your position just goes to "uh...I don't know, Thich Nhat Hanh said it, so it must be right." You have not once presented your positions in a sound logical manner. It's just been a lot of declarative statements, appeal to authority, and most annoyingly, "hey look, I see it! it's the truth I tell you!" crap.

Uh, no. That is not an example. You are just merely stating convictions. Give me an example, unless you really think when hearing there is just sound vibrations. Modern science would look at you with a lot of disbelief. I mean, where is, um, the ear, and the brain interpreting it, etc.

Mhmm, and it also negates itself. If the Buddha truly thought that, he must've really cut back on his insightful abilities (let's hope he wasn't, but imo, I can see how that line of thinking can be utilized as a tool). This is just logical fallacy 101 where the statement denies or contradicts itself, but believes it's making a claim. You can't say "I haven't uttered a single word," why? because you are uttering words to say that! You are being completely ignorant of the meaning communicated by the action, and the action itself. It is like a perpetual circle of reasoning or a nonsensical statement like "I am walking forward towards my back." . You also cannot deny a statement without suggesting another form of affirmation, or a basis of your own affirmations to support that denial. It's being unaware of one's own positions and ideas and how they have been formed. Ok, I was trying to make sure this is what you were saying. If you were saying otherwise, we would be in a deeper hole of nonsense. What you say above is supported with absolutely no basis. Why? Because you explained it yourself below, that "when explaining it is always in comparison - it is only when you have false view of substantiality that it makes sense to talk about the absence of substantiality." But note that this is not only the case when explaining, but also when understanding, there has to be a sense of falseness and truthfulness: Illusion is only an illusion based on the idea of non-illusion, of something real. However, when you say "cognition is illusory" there is no longer a basis for that claim because the idea that "cognition is illusory" is just another cognition. It is self-denying. Well, what you call meditative equipose, I can easily see as trance. And just because it is like an illusion, it does not mean it is. Uh, when did I ever say cognizance was inherent or substantial, or having a core like some "thing"? What I am saying is that the process in which you came to the conclusion seems...faulty, like what you wrote below. It's just really a careless insight into what it means when something is "inherent" or applying sound logic. The analogy falls apart in that in the case of awareness. Where have you experienced awareness elsewhere besides all these diverse appearances, the "flow"? In the example of the river, we see the action of "flowing" all the time in other forms, like in the ocean, or in our sinks, or the movement of a body. It's a label we put on a type of action that is very generally seen in other phenomena. So if the analogy is to be accurate: the "flowing" of the river would have an identical meaning to river, and be only seen in rivers and in no other phenomena. Same with wind. "Blowing" is just a very general terms that happens outside of wind. Where have you, or anyone else, experienced manifestations outside of awareness? What is the generality of the term "manifestation" that exists outside of awareness? Likely none! So you have no basis for saying awareness is not inherent to experience, since there has never been an experience without awareness. As for your weather example, if all those things labeled weather is merely conventional, what isn't then? If you say indeed, everything is merely a label, we come back to square one, don't we? Back to the nonsense self-denying statements without basis. No, you are then just talking about sense experience. And I'm saying your realization is very very full of contradictions and nonsense.

So give me an example besides saying that it is direct. Just because one does not consciously label an experience does not mean that it is direct. We went over this when we talked about people who live with a habitual sense of self without labeling themselves as "me, me, me" time to time. Seems like the best you did in the above reply was, "spontaneous" and "unexpected." Unexpected just means something happened out of the normal sequence of habitual actions. If you have "unexpectedness" all the time, that takes away from the very meaning of the word. That's just like saying "abnormality is the norm."

Ugh, I see you clearly haven't looked enough at these states. When someone pokes you with a needle, it is never just "pain." There are all sorts of associative experiences that happen with it, like the location of the pain, the seriousness of it, if there are any further threats of it to the body, previous notions of being hit with a needle. (Conceptual and indirect does not mean that your feelings are formed into sentence structures in the brain, but rather that the experience is framed in a preconceived manner or when experienced, is being framed into a certain way of personal experience, a filter so to speak). Before a needle hits you your anticipated response to the event changes how the needle's pain is experienced. Have you ever had something painful happen expectedly vs. unexpectedly? It's very different. So even before the needle hits you, how you experience it is altered by all kinds of indirect factors. It's like having a whole sea of unconscious mind below the conscious mind when you are reacting to an event or surroundings. Same with the sunset. If you are delighting in the sensuousness of it, just the brightness or the warmth, you are basically looking at the brightness and the warmth of the sun. Maybe you are not calculating the distance of the sun from where you are, but that too is another experience of the sun. Just because you are not using your brain to experience something, it does not mean that it is somehow a "direct experience" of something. You are just experiencing it through another medium, such as texture, temperature, shape, movement. In fact, what we call a sun is a composite creation wherein each of these experience of it form the idea of the sun. Remember the snake metaphor? There is no such thing as a snake to be directly experienced. Snake is an indirect idea. In fact the ideas that form the idea of a snake can also be seen as indirect ideas.

Uh, no. Something other than that. Those are not examples but your own definition of what a direct experience is, just other labels you choose to put on them with just slight variations for each. Instead of these labels, PCE, NDNCDIMOP, I AM, I would like you to describe a direct experience that does not have any non-conceptual or inferred quality to them. Something we can readily relate to, a practical example. Haha! And I also notice that you defined "direct experience" as...direct! Or immediate! Which might as well be just listing synonyms Woooow. How insightful. Basically your reply here is, PCE (as an example, of course) is direct experience. Direct experience is PCE. For example, like experiencing a sunset. How do you exactly experience a sunset directly without any associations that goes along with that sunset, like it's brightness, the knowledge that it is the sun, its warmth, or something as basic as your spatial relationship to it, etc. Or if you are looking at it rays and seeing it spreading in the horizon, how do you experience it without any concepts framing that experience in your mind? Since you are not going to reply to the rest of my replies beforehand, I'll just reply to the past two lengthy posts later tomorrow. .

I want you to reply to my last post before I post in reply to the past two of yours. But I want to stick a question here that I think needs answering. Can you give me an example of "direct" experience of something that is without inferences? For example, having a vision of a table would not be a direct experience since you have associative notions of what a table is to be able to recognize it. It's not a direct experience.

So...the only support you have for your realization to this "ultimate truth" is that "I saw it!" It seems you basically cannot support your ideas beyond this. Your realization is therefore merely an experience, a personal one at that. You often criticize other seekers for reifying their peak experiences and seeing it as the truth, but it seems like that's what you are doing too assuming that your version is somehow more soundly supported through the right insight and contemplation. I simply don't see it. To me it is apparent by this discussion that you seem to have glanced over a lot of issues. The funny thing is even in your own paradigm your realization is self-contradictory, it does not make sense to itself. For instance, since "everything is illusory," nothing is legitimated or how there is nothing to be realized about something, since you deny all sense of duality and just stick to "just suchness arising." Not true since understanding isn't necessarily a linear process. I try to understand the I AM presence, what it means, how my awareness came to discover that sense of vividness and luminosity, and how that fits into a larger picture of how I tend to see and experience reality. I try not make conclusive statements merely based on appearances or observations of appearances. I have a mind that can link varying experiences together to form a relative picture, so I choose to, right or wrongly, rely on that ability. It's similar to splitting meditation of shamatha (observatory) and vipassana (insight/contemplation). Well, then it seems you are not using logic correctly. Logic, imo, should be used like a compass or a map being filled in as you explore new territory to see that you are not lost, or even more importantly, prevent you from believing that you are already at your destination when you are actually somewhere totally different. It's not supposed to point to you where to go, but just to let you check your location to see it connect with where you've come from. The santa claus is an extreme example relating an idea of how your convictions can change with seeing the flaws in how you came to that conviction. It happens all the time, especially in the scientific world when someone points to an experimental error. Now you are just making grandiose statements about your own experiences without good evidence. And I am being critical of what you call non-inferential seeing and pointing out a lot of contradictions in the lines you draw between realization and experience, illusion and delusion, direct cognition and inferred cognition, beliefs and truth. You have a lot of your definitions contradicting each other, and the lines you draw between them are just nonsensical. I think the problem is simple. You did not contemplate enough into the process of realization because Thusness more or less handed it to you and you accepted it without enough incentives to criticize it, since your upbringing had been so conditioned in Buddhism.

Not at all. I'm trying not to steer this into a debate about Buddhism, but approach Xabir's ideas from a secular perspective.

Let me put it this way, it is nonsensical to say "everything is illusory," because that negates the very statement itself which is included in "everything." It is like saying "there is no writing" or "there is nothing." It is a statement including a totality, "everything," and negation, or an invalidation, of the totality. That statement itself is a contradiction of its message. At best, it says absolutely nothing. I don't think you understand what I meant. You cannot say cognition itself is empty or illusory. You simply have no reference or basis for doing so. We can say something is illusory based on our experience of degrees of illusoriness that leads to an idea of non-ilusoriness, of substantiality. Simply put, you can't have an idea of a quality without something to compare it to. In the case of cognition, we cannot imagine a state of non-cognition because it doesn't come in degrees. There are many states of cognition, some are more vibrant, other hazy, and some, in your view, deluded and others undeluded. However it cannot be cognizant of non-cognizance. The best idea we can have is that of being cognizant of nothingness, which is still a form of cognition. An apt comparison can be made with trying to hear saltiness, an experience that happens beyond the ear's capacity, and is basically a non-audible quality. That's what I meant by the fallacy of stating that cognizance itself is illusory. You have nothing to compare or contrast its substantiality to, or if we apply the metaphor of the mirage, it would be a case where you cannot imagine or have experienced something that is not like a mirage, hence the mirage cannot be said to be false, but true, therefore not a mirage at all. The word loses its meaning. Because without the duality of a congnizer and the cognized, there is no basis for you to assert the apple that is seen. The apple cannot be said to be in front of you to say "there is one way of experiencing this apple, and another way of experiencing this apple." In such a case, there is no "this apple." If there is no duality, then there is just the experience of appleness, or just a mere stream of images that resemble an apple, which I believe is what you are saying. And if there is no apple there in the first place, and just a vast arrays of experience giving a rise to the idea of an apple, how can you say "there is a correct way of experiencing this apple and an incorrect of experiencing this apple." Similarly if you deny the cognizer, you cannot purport a deluded or an undeluded way of cognition. There would be just a stream of experiences, and the deludedness or undeludedness would belong to moments instead of a being or a something. And since all experiential appearances are illusory in your point of view, how can one moment be more or less deluded about itself than any other moments? You can only draw a line between illusion and delusion if by illusion you describe the nature of all appearances, and delusion to mean the perception of those appearances. And the latter requires duality of a cognizer, which you reject. If else, ther is no need to have to distinguish the two terms: If all experiences are illusory and insubstantial without a perceiver, whether an experience is deluded or not is completely relative and irrelevant, a mere label. So not only is it nonsensical to say "everything is illusory," the consequences of that statement denies the validity of any further conclusions including itself.

Is there truly a divide between conceptual realization and a more direct realization of the way things are, or is it just a matter of application? Namely, simply because conceptual realization involves words and reflective analysis of something that is experienced it does not make it indirect. This so called non-inferred realization is only experienced as if it is direct because it is applied to oneself, one's own way of experiencing life, and its effects are felt directy without reflective analysis. But the process by which both happen are very much the same. The mind observes and then makes a conclusive conviction of that which is experienced and alters its future ways of experiencing accordingly No, that's a different case involving the depth of conviction. If someone comes to the conclusion with great conviction that "everything is impermanent," his way of experiencing will also be directly affected. But you are thinking of conceptuality as shallow mind games, which in most cases are, but not always. And what backs your enlightened framework other than logic and personal observation? The permanency of a moment's effect is universal to all moments according to your dependent origination. Of course the belief in santa claus can be believed in again! Santa claus is an idea, and as long as the potentiality of santa claus resides in the mind, he can be experienced. You can still very much dream about a world in which santa claus exists. Or we can trace back to how you came to learn that santa claus did not exist, i.e. how you saw your parents wrap presents one christmas, or some guy on t.v. saying so. But upon reviewing the evidence, you can still conclude how it's not enough to deny the true existence of santa claus, and believe in him again! You are simply stating your convictions. You are relying too heavily on personal experience to be drawing universal conclusions while claiming that's what other people do. I am not very interested in that. I am more interested in how you came those convictions, as in what process led you to stop believing in santa claus, because I think your insight is very lacking in that regard.

Xabir, the Dalai Lama or Namdrol quote doesn't add anything to the discussion. . You are capable of putting those similar ideas together for yourself. I really don't care what the Dalai Lama said or what Namdrol said because they are not here to have a discussion with me. I'll care about what they said if I am curious about their perspectives. This thread started out as me sharing my observations of your reasoning and your path, so I care mostly about what you say.

It's probably Christmas Eve there! Merry Christmas!

What exactly is zero point energy? I don't understand the actual physics behind the term, but seems like people use it casually to mean something more abstract.

Yes, yes I understand what you mean, although it is very poorly explained, because rightly explained it is quite the nonsense. Let me point it out to you why so, but before I do so, I need to clarify what you wrote above so we have an understanding. When you write "cognition is illusory" you mean "cognition of experience as illusory" yes? Because if you literally mean that the cognition itself is illusory that makes absolutely no sense unless you are referring to a specific state of cognition. If cognition itself is illusory, then it points to how non-cognition is not-illusory and there is no way for any mind to cognize non-cognition, it's like trying to be aware of not being aware. Ok, if that's the case, I'll go on. So basically you are saying the world is a certain way (all appearances are illusory, and this is the truth). And that there is the correct way of cognizing this world and an incorrect way of cognizing this world. (This suggests there is the world and someone or something cognizant of it in a wrong or right way). But at the same time you deny the agent that cognizes the world. There are just momentary and disconnected experiences. So if there is no cognizer, how can there be a a correct way or an incorrect way to cognize something. Wouldn't there be just mere experiences/appearances? And if there are mere appearance and experiences, you say they are all illusory, and all empty. So why are you purporting a correct way to cognize something over a false way of cognizing something? That's only conventional, right? Isn't it all illusory? But when you write "Illusoriness of something implies that inherent existence pertaining to something is false, and that its Emptiness is the Ultimate Truth, so saying 'everything is illusory' is not saying 'nothing is true' because 'illusoriness' or 'emptiness' is precisely THE truth, as a matter of fact correct cognition is the cognition of the truth of illusoriness," you are referring to the illusoriness of something whether it is perceived as illusory or not. How can this be when there is no one to perceive it in one way or the other? No agent to cognizes it, therefore there is only the experience of the illusoriness of something or the experience of the non-illusoriness of something both of which are, under your view of the TRUTH, illusory, insubstantial, and without foundation? And if that is the case, then that does in fact translate to as "everything is false." You cannot cognize an illusion or cognize a non-illusion and at the same time call both an illusion, because that negates the very meaning of cognizing a non-illusion. Your logic is just caught in a perpetual loop.

Yes, but you also agreed that realization is an experience. Perhaps you are thinking of how wrong it is to equate mundane experience with realization. But realization is an experience after all, it happens to you doesn't it, just like any other moment of experience. I mean if it doesn't then you didn't experience it. So what makes this moment of realization any special? That it is about your observations of other moments, their so called nature? But then now we have a moment in which two elements are contained, wherein one moment, other moments are considered. But more importantly we have a reflective moment, both of which are contained in the same medium. If they weren't there would be no way to compare two or more things (an example of this is comparing sizes of apples. You either have to see both in one frame of vision, or remember both in a linked conscious stream, i.e. they must be contained in some unifying element) But you deny the duality of such things, no unifying element underlying moments. So what exactly is you idea of the experience of realization? You forgot a few more entries in that definition of the meaning of substantial. From M-W dictionary. a : consisting of or relating to substance b : not imaginary or illusory : real, true c : important, essential 2 : ample to satisfy and nourish : full <a substantial meal> 3 a : possessed of means : well-to-do b : considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage> When we say something is substantial we usually do not think of a core, but its effects. And this is also how we define "real." A waking state's experience is real and the dream experience is unreal simply because we usually experience the waking state more consistently and more viscerally, the waking experience has more substantial consequences. A dream state, if it began to impose on our waking state (let's say the same monster reoccurs every night to scare the person to wake up at consistently the same hour) it will also be seen as "real." Reality doesn't have to do with searching for something's inner core, but rather its degree of influence in our day to day lives. So imo, you have simply given a very strong conviction and substantiality to the "idea of non-substantiality" which to me merely seem self deceptive and uninsightful. You have basically chosen to give a particular observation of life combined with an experience of life in that way, and given it an ultimatum.

Ok...so is the realization that everything is illusory also illusory? I'm just putting your anatta realization in a different context. So realization is also an experience. It's a bit different in that realization seems transformative, it's like turning directions or making a decision. But then what is the difference really between a realization, making a decision, making a conclusion, or just normal habitual experience besides the degree of effect they have on the future? ( Wouldn't you say that that is really the only difference, the relative importance one weighs on one moment vs. the "realization" moment of experience? That has to be your conclusion since you propose that there is no one there to realize something, that realization itself is also a non-dual occurance like direct experience of the apple. (If you say realization of the TRUTH, then what says that your realization is more true then some other person's realization? If you say that you have direct experience, how do you know the other person doesn't have a direct experience of another type of realization?) If realization is only a moment in experience (a very transformative and influential moment at that), and since moments of experiences are appearances, therefore also illusory and empty, how is any realization permanent in itself unless it is given a permanent authority, that your mind labels it as "truth," as in fact "not-illusory"? Or do you mean that the effect of the anatta realization is permanent? But then really every experience can be said to be permanent since they all have an effect of future outcomes. This again blurs the line between realization and experience.

Right so there is just appearance of the "cognition of truth." If cognition is an appearance, then you are saying one is a false appearance and the other is a true appearance. If cognition is "of" an appearance, as in the example of the apple as the appearance. Then you are saying there is a separation of the apple as an appearance and something having the ability to be cognizant of that apple in a deluded way or a wise way. But you deny this model, so it seems be the former. If it is the former, then you are saying there are true appearance and false appearances without any basis but preference, since you also say that all appearance are illusory. If conventional truths are false but if it is observable, in its effects and powers to change, as a dream, why does that make it any less real?

Gagh, this is such a disappointing answer...your abilities in the dream are just as limited as in the waking world. Of course lucid dreams have limitations, the very dream itself, the fact that you are playing with the "sky" is a form of limitation isn't it? Just because one has more boundaries than the other, or the quality is different doesn't say anything about whether one is a projection and the other is not. Perhaps the field of influence varies. A teacher of mine once said that the mahasiddhas simply switch their dream world for the real one and that's how they can perform what we perceive as miraculous powers effortlessly. Is this an appearance? If yes, then by your standards it is illusory. So why is this anymore real than the mirage? You know people who believe in a "self" don't go around saying to themselves, "here I am! this I, "me" interacting with "him." They, like you don't purposefully ascertain a self or a non self. I sure didn't before I delved into spiritual stuff. If people did they would be far more aware of their egoic tendencies than they are most of the time. It is a matter of habit, ways of being. They forget why they live that way though, what is at the basis of that habit, the beliefs that have spawned it. Your case is no different. You just have another way of experiencing life that's all. It's no more true or false than anyone else's experience. You are being too irrelevantly wordy and repetitive and simply continue to reassert your position. You are not engaging in a discussion with me but talking at me. Instead of replying to my post word by word and taking phrases in their own out of context narrowness, let us both try to reply to the ideas and question we have here concisely. So I'm going to just try to dig out your main points. Isn't perception of truth a cognition? Do you not have an experience of it in the mind? And you say this is true than other cognitive states. One an awakened state and the other a delusional state. How is this not giving reality to a certain mode of cognition over another? Furthermore, what is the difference in the mind when it is labeling a certain experience as "truth" and something as "substantial"? Isn't it mere semantics? When we say something is substantial, it doesn't necessary mean something has a core to it, or an identity to it. It very much means that we take it to be real, that it is unfixed in its affect on our livelihood. The degree of something's "reality," as in its shades or rigidity, is also another factor in how the mind perceives. I don't think really understood what I wrote in that phrase. I'll try to be more concise replying to the post below.

...well, now we are really off topic. But I like it. I think at the core, the energy of compassion and creativity are really one and the same. It's just applied in different human contexts, one may be for people and we call it compassion, and the other may be for art, which we call creativity or artistic passion. It's when we begin to possess it that it becomes an obsession. Ok, enough word play I guess.

Then what's the difference between lucid dreaming and waking states? By the way, way to keep it concise. . So...that's a yes. Let's look a bit deeper into this "recognition" of an illusion. How do you recognize something as an illusory appearance? By having an idea of something that is non-illusory. And there is no agent either yes? So in your paradigm that recognition of something being illusory arises with the condition of recognizing something as true. It makes no sense to have something be false, without an opposite context of something being true. But you say everything is mere appearance. And that appearances are illusions. IMO, there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because you are giving legitimacy to a certain experience calling is wisdom over another way of experiencing which is delusional. But that so called "wisdom" is seeing everything is illusory and baseless: Nope. I'm not saying that at all. In fact it seems like you are without even recognizing it. If the dream tiger is real in your mind, it will also bite your dream body in the dream world and give you dream pain. If in the dream there is the arising of through that it is "not real" then there will be dream peace of mind, in a dream safety in the dream world. Which one is illusory tiger and which one is the illusory safety? On the contrary that is what you are saying. You give reality to one experience over the other, saying one is wisdom and the other is delusional. It's not "things" you are giving reality to, but modes of cognition and states of mind. As we agreed on the snake analogy, really there is no difference between "things" and "states of mind." So your "true" falls under "false." What you are basically saying above is True is "false," therefore "false." And since False is False, it is then True. This is a blatant logical fallacy and obliterates the point of distinguishing True and False. Haha! What? You don't make too much sense towards the end there do you. Let's examine a few things you said here: "Correct cognition" or "false cognition"...of what? Of reality? Cognition "of" reality indicates dual perception which I thought you don't have. You just have arising perception, which is not really perception, but more an experience and appearance. What reality are you cognizant of as "false" then or true, unless you label one type of appearance more real than some other way you are aware of through memory. Uh...this is totally random. Why are you bringing this up? Do you have trouble feeling truly compassionate for others? I just don't see why you brought this up..