goldisheavy

I think you don't have a clue. No offense. You must not understand the full implications of Dzogchen's intent. Dzogchen uproots convention 100%. What do you think "mix your mind with the world appearances" mean? What do you think tigle is, if not insanity, from ordinary POV? A tigle is a vision that appears as real as anything in the world while you are awake. While tigles appear as limited bubbles at first, you're supposed to spread them out and mix them with the world, thus making your entire world appearance like that visionary tigle. Of course the world is already 100% visionary, but this Dzogchen practice lets you see the meaning of that. So, if a person's mind is firmly structured/conditioned by convention, then clear convention-breaking appearances will be felt as pain and suffering. The person will be scared of losing their mind. On the other hand, if the person's mind is already soft and flexible and one intuitively knows that the world is an appearance, then such person doesn't need Dzogchen as a book or as an initiation. This person, in fact, lives the truth of Dzogchen and doesn't need togal either. Why? Because this person is either at, or very close, to the end result/fruit of what Dzogchen aims at with togal. So my point is very simple. I don't want to scare anyone. I am against secrecy. For example, I can buy a book on how to prepare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid, and then maim myself with it, if I am not careful. Or hell, I can buy a book of matches and set myself on fire. But the matches are on sale, and that's good. Instead of keeping the matches secret, we explain to people the dangerous of matches and show them how things burn. This allows people to use potentially dangerous things like matches, acid, bullets, dynamite sticks, kitchen knives, needles, glass bottles, toothbrushes (dangerous if you foolishly attempt to stick one in your eye or rear end), and so forth, with care and responsibility. A teaching on togal should be openly published together with the explanation of the ensuing world-vision. Then people should be offered an option of something like a diluted togal so they can get a taste of it. I think limited post-hypnotic suggestions can work here. So you can suggest to yourself that the next time you hear the noon bells, you'll see a vision of a strange demon eating a human eyeball and surrounded by rainbows. See if that's scary or not. If not, then try a vision of the Earth splitting in half. If still not scared, then proceed with togal. Maybe prior to togal one should try to do chod in the scariest cemetery of wild place you can think of. If this is perfectly agreeable, then go on with togal. In other words, there is a gradual progression that's possible. There is no need to dive into the pool. You can first stick a hand into it and see how you like it. If people are explained about the pool and are explained how to stick more and more of themselves into it, there is no need to worry. Then people can do so responsibly. I would say that mostly the post-togal vision of the world is a very happy one. However since you're dealing with limitless appearances here, it's best to be ready for anything. That's why Dzoghcen tantras have texts like "a dzoghcen practitioner wouldn't be scared even if molden lead were poured into their throats in the deepest of hells". There is a reason for that. While generally the visions will probably be beautiful and wonderful and all that, one has to be ready for anything because the mind becomes more open and less structured, more flexible, and thus more appearances becomes possible, some of which can be scary to people with narrowly fixed mindsets.

Renting knowledge is what happens when you feel that what you know has been imparted to you by others. So if you feel that your parents taught you language, and that the society taught you what you know about the world, then you are renting knowledge. A person who rents knowledge likes to hear something being said, then writes it down or memorizes it, and begins to repeat it. There is no need to understand what you are doing. The modality of renting is characterized by mindless perpetuation. People like this become the traditionalists, the ones who fear to lose something, the preservers, etc. It's like someone who lovingly dusts a book and preserves it, without actually knowing what is inside its pages. These are the renters of knowledge. Renters identify with a particular part of the story. Since they do not feel they have written the entire story themselves, they feel it is too audacious and too inconceivable to be free to identify oneself however they want. So what the renters do is they identify with the part of the story that's consistent with what they believe to be an accurate retelling of the story. Since the emphasis is on retelling and not on creativity, there is no wiggle room for change or creativity with regard to identity. So renters see themselves enmeshed in the story as one of the characters and do not see themselves to be altogether beyond the story, which is what an author of the story, an owner of knowledge, would experience. Renters retell the story. They do not feel free to write the story or to modify it. Owning knowledge is what happens when you feel that all knowledge has been and is being birthed by oneself, the owner, ongoingly. Owners see themselves to be beyond any particular expression in the same way that a book author sees oneself to be beyond anything they write about in the book. This means you know yourself to be the mother and the father of all knowledge and you feel you have taught the world what the world is, rather than the other way around. Owners have utmost command of discourse, since they feel they have made the territory they now navigate, so that nothing can surprise them and all kinds of passes and maneuvers unavailable to renters are available to owners. Owners feel free to write stories and not just to retell them. Owners feel free to tweak the stories they hear. While owners may have a habitual pattern, they do not feel owned by this pattern, but rather feel they own it, and because of this, they are free to modify this pattern at any time and do not have any more allegiance to the pattern than a pen owner feel an allegiance to the pen. Owners see knowledge as a tool that is at their disposal. Owners of knowledge are the ones that can use hammers to cut paper because they are not self-constrained in the same way that renters are. Renters feel that creativity with regard to information is unwarranted or even dangerous. Owners feel that creativity with regard to information is live-blood of well being. To own concepts is safe and good. To be owned by them is dangerous and bad. That is my opinion.

I like this a lot too. I was a little surprised. I'm looking forward to more, if more is coming. It's still a little hairy because Lewis splits God from man, or at least, discusses God as a separate entity. One should then ask, if God is separated from men, what then allows the prayer to cross from man to God, and if such medium exists, wouldn't it be ontologically superior to both man and God, and to pre-exist both? Etc. In other words, all kinds of philosophical problems would arise from separating God and man. I wonder if Lewis recognized this or not.

Indeed. Our entire realm is based on renting knowledge. Owners of knowledge are currently the exception and not the rule. Owners are often reviled because renters feel that any modification and creativity with information is unwarranted and even dangerous. When you're a renter, you have your landlord as an authority. So you say, "I am renting from Such and Such, that's why I am entitled to this knowledge." Owners do not rent though, and are self-entitled rather than being entitled conventionally from an external source. Owners of knowledge simply make a claim and defend it. They don't wait to be handed down a deed of ownership from outside. Of course conventional property ownership where you must be recognized as an owner by society is more like renting in my analogy. In that case the property "owner" is really renting that property from society and has to pay taxes, and abide by social agreements (there are some legal limits on what you may or may not do with your property). I am talking about owning in a spiritual sense, which should not be confused with legal or conventional ownership. Pretty much all the people who received handed down knowledge and who act to preserve it and practice it are renters and not owners. There is no creativity in what they do, but only preservation. And these people get extremely offended if one of their students teaches a modified form, for example, because they see it as a perversion. It's impossible. You have to understand what is language first. A tree is a word. A rain drop is a word. A taste is a word. All phenomena are symbolic by nature. A mystical experience is also a word. The same is true in reverse. Words are mystical and unfathomable. What does "is" mean? What does "blue" mean? You might think you know, but if you investigate, I am certain you'll discover you have no solid and reliable idea what anything means. Clouds floating in the sky are words floating among words, verbing their way through. This is why in the Bible it is said, "In the beginning there was Word, and the Word was with God." It's a very potent line, but pretty much no one understands its meaning. It's a pointing out instruction with regard to the symbolic nature of all phenomena. Concepts are distinctions. How do you know that a mystical experience is in fact mystical? You make a distinction! So a mystical experience is still a conceptual experience. But concepts are also mystical. I am posting a summary of what I understand. To understand it I had to think it over and let myself feel it, over a period of time. I realized that making distinctions between conceptual and non-conceptual ways of knowing is a purely conceptual modality. At the same time, there is nothing conceptual about concepts. Then I realized how much power and magic exists in words. I realized that words are not just what's on my tongue, but they are in my bones and are everywhere and everything is made from words. In the beginning people make a distinction between experience and language and they spurn the language while prizing the experience. But if you contemplate for a long time, that distinction doesn't last. Distinctions tend to lose importance in contemplation. Distinctions become ornamental rather than essential. What's important about language is that it's YOUR language. Just like you cannot become enlightened in someone else's bones, you cannot become enlightened in someone else's language. The language is your bone and muscle. You can change your language, but you still only have your new, changed language and not something else. Language is not an obstruction. Language is a vehicle of enlightenment the same way that a human body is. You can contemplate. Ask yourself questions, like "When someone looks at me, how do I know they are looking at me?" "Did my parents teach me that?" Nope... They did not. Yet you know, eh? "How did I learn language at all?" Think it over. It might take many years to fully feel out some domains of understanding, but it's worth it. When you contemplate, allow yourself to think freely. Don't limit yourself to only acceptable/traditional answers and ways of thinking. Above all, don't assume you have rented anything. Feel what is in you. Have you rented your inner core being? If yes, then who are you? Take responsibility! Don't run away. Pay attention. I agree. If I didn't think that was the case, why would I bother presenting this information? I only say this because people have an option to become creative owners of knowledge, and personally, I would like for people to exercise it, at least sometimes, if not at all times.

So you don't see yourself as the mother and father of language? As the birth place of language? That's too bad then.

Nothing is lost. Just understand that phenomena are conditioned and also not conditioned. Second, understand how to change this conditioning. To say that phenomena are conditioned means we perceive that there are certain relationships between phenomena. Understand these and feel them. To say that phenomena are unconditioned means we recognize that all relationships are subject to change and that also, at the highest, most holistic level, nothing external or inherent makes anything what it is. This means you understand that the world is void of substance. So the first understanding gives you a picture and the second understanding gives you a way to paint that picture and to change the painting at any time. In order to operate on phenomena in a way that is thought to be miraculous, you have to produce a miraculous intent first. In order to produce such intent you must first raise your mind above convention, because miracles are simply unconventional happenings. Just like moving your arms is a manifestation of your intent, so is everything else that you can imagine. The difference is that you accept without question that you can move your arms. Other things -- not so. And intent is very subtle and gentle. You cannot intend to do something that is contrary to your highest intent, and your highest intent is what maintains convention in the first place. So first you have to become aware how you keep convention in place. How you keep the world the way it is. Then you can change it too. But to change it, you must have willingness. If you are unwilling to lose your world as you know it, with all the limitations that are old, familiar and seem comforting to you, then you can't move across the experiential space freely. All this is in you. It's not lost. If you just pay attention, give it some thought, you'll realize all this and more very soon.

Funny you ask me that question. Don't you know your own feelings? Pay attention! If you pay attention you will know why you're afraid. But since you're a lazy ass who wants to be told why you feel the way you do, I can tell you why. The situation there reminded you of the transitory nature of things/situations and you felt an unwillingness to lose the world as you know it, and by "the world" I mean YOUR world... or what you think your world is. You think when things appear a certain way, it's your world, and when they don't, it's not your world. So you don't want to experience what you think is "not your world". That's high level. More concretely it means you don't want to sustain injuries to your body. You don't want to meet a snake for example. It means you don't want to sustain injuries to your mindset either, so you don't want to meet a crazy person in the forest. You don't want to suffer, so you don't want dangerous ticks dropping from the branches above. You don't want to get lost (unable to retrieve the experience you are familiar with). Etc.... All those feelings manifest as one overall feeling. They don't have to be separate. There is a general feeling of not willing to experience anything and everything. You are selective. We think that in order for us to feel comfortable we have to be in certain pretty specific conditions. At the same time, in the back of our minds we realize those conditions cannot always be maintained, and we also realize that sometimes they have to be absent completely too. And yet we feel an unwillingness to enter into that new condition freely, and this creates the feeling of fear. We think that a certain condition is comfortable and the other condition is not. It's like if you think that tomatoes are tasty and olives are foul. Then you don't want to eat an olive and you hope your tomatoes never run out. But at the back of your mind you know that tomatoes will run out and you'll need to eat olives. And you don't want to. Really don't want to. That's fear. If you open yourself to anything and everything (and this really means anything and everything) then you become fearless.

Brings back the memories. Gratuitous opinions follow. Namdrol has some good insights, or at the very least, he has a decent taste in teachings and can explain them well. However, he is indeed a fundamentalist and is mentally inflexible. When Namdrol stays in his domain of knowledge and comfort, he can be a useful resource, but he lacks the holistic view of phenomena, so if you take him even slightly out of his favored domains, his signal to noise ratio drops dramatically. I think it comes from insecurity. He think the Dharma is so precious that if he doesn't defend it now, it will die forever. He's attached himself to what he perceived to be Dharma. He doesn't understand that it's an illusion. Yes, even Buddha is nothing but an empty phenomenon, equally empty as a toothbrush. The fact that someone gives Buddha more importance than to a toothbrush is just a peculiarity of the mindset, and not necessarily a good one too. It may be good. It may not be. It depends. Overall e-sangha is a very stifling and unwelcome atmosphere. It's way too easy to say the wrong thing, and unless you don't say anything interesting at all, it's almost impossible to say anything right. Plus, there are some members on the forum that pretend to be masters, but who are actually morons in disguise. I am itching to name a few, but I will spare their egos this time. But they are well known and well respected people (unfortunately, because people should not respect them as much as they do). They construct this ingrained and crusty personas, they try to move slow like elephants to give themselves an aura of gravity, and they manifest behavior that they think makes them elephant-like, but when you ask them easy questions, they have no answers, and they are hopelessly lost. They go around advocating "standard" Buddhist approaches, but if you question those approaches, they are gone. They can't answer. In other words, what's happening to these fake masters is that they rely on the Buddhist methods in a very mindless and passive manner. They just follow them without owning them. If you own something you know how to destroy it and make it new again. If you can't do that, then you're renting. Lots of pretend-Buddhist-masters are renting Buddhist knowledge. They don't own it. And it shows if you ask them a pointed question. In the past e-sangha was more openly readable to all too, but I see they've been making it more and more private. More and more forums require registration now. That's another thing that I don't like. I guess they don't want the world to see how ugly Buddhism can be. It's very unfortunate, because Buddha had a few good insights, but they are getting drowned out in the sea of dogma, fundamentalism and mindless repetition of rituals (of which meditation is one... yes, it's a ritual, and often mindless one too, just something you "supposed" to do as a Buddhist). That's right. This priest was a human being before he became a priest. How dare he forget that fact? What a moron. Kick him in the balls.

Are you turning on sexual magnetism? That could be why. On the other hand, if you're not consciously turning your magnet on, and you still smell this, this might mean that your conscious mind is not fully in touch with your subconscious mind and that your subconscious mind is knowing and doing things you don't quite know consciously. In that case you should work toward integration. Your conscious should not be separate and distinct from your subconscious if you want to have a spiritual life. On the other hand, for ordinary life it's best to keep them separate because subconscious is too weird/strange/free/uninhibited and becomes scary to a very structured and habituated conscious mind. I hope everyone understand I don't mean any literal or physical magnets here.

What happens to the mind during a fast? I think that should give you an idea, if you examine it. If fasting makes your mind more sensitive, then all the previously dangerous meditations become more dangerous. If fasting makes your mind duller and less alive, then all the previously dangerous meditations become safer. At the same time, you have to distinguish different kinds of sensitivity. Is it just irritability or is it insightfulness? If sensitivity comes in the form of irritability, it makes everything less safe. If it comes in the form of insightfulness it makes things safer. Also when the mind is less alive, is it less alive due to lack of insight? If so, that makes it more dangerous. If it's less alive due to more peace and having less work to do, it's safer. As you can see there is no straight answer, at least, not from me. I don't think there can be a simple answer like "this is safe" and that's it. You have to use your own good judgment and rely on some sound contemplative principles to examine the issues. That's how I would approach the issue. I don't think I would be happy with a mindless prescription like "this meditation is safe, and this one is not". I would want to know why? Why is it safe? Why is it dangerous? I would want to become an owner of knowledge instead of just a user of second-hand knowledge. And in order to possess knowledge I have to know how the knowledge originates, lives and dies and what makes it tick. I can't just receive it in the form of a recipe or series of step-by-step instructions.

Instead of asking what is the southernmost water and what is the northernmost water, what you really need to know is how to swim north and south. In other words, when you ask about right and wrong, do you already have any idea of what they might be? What is right and wrong day to day for you? If not, then you have no idea what you're asking about, since you don't have a reference point with regard to right/wrong. On the other hand, if you have some idea, then all you need to progress from small/pragmatic/personal right/wrong to the ultimate right wrong are the tools of contemplation. These are simple: relatively quiet mind (but not too quiet), and the ability to ask penetrating questions without instantly trying to answer them. So take one instance of right that you understand. Then ask "why is it right?" Don't answer. Just let the question hang there and be sensitive. Allow yourself to feel. Be slow. Don't rush. Eventually a decent answer may come to you. Then you may want to follow it up with another question. That question you should also not answer right away. Allow yourself to taste the questions and to feel the repercussions of the question's presence in your mind. As you continue this leisurely, slow, quiet questioning process, make sure that questions move toward the key concern. Toward something more fundamental. Toward a central issue. Toward the trunk and away from the leaves. Toward the roots and away from the top of the tree. What this allows you to do is to get a personal experience of your moral range. Your moral range is an abstract space where your moral concerns are "plotted" from pragmatic/personal to ultimate/universal. As you contemplate, you will become familiar with this space. It's not that simple. As you continue this process over the years you may notice some very subtle but profound changes. Eventually you'll become a master. When you become a master, you'll never have a moral question ever again. At the same time, you won't be even the least bit dogmatic either, and that's no contradiction. When you discuss this with others, only use that as a supplement of contemplation and not as a replacement.

I have watched this interview and I was so impressed with George Xu that I can't help myself but to share this with you. http://neigong.net/2009/06/21/george-xu-biggest-mistake/ Above is the interview that amazed me. There is also this interview too: http://neigong.net/2009/06/21/george-xu-secrets/ I didn't find this second interview equally amazing, but I am posting it for completeness' sake, since they are both George Xu interviews.

More videos here: http://www.susanamatthews.com/taichi-secrets.htm

There is a commonly voiced complaint about an FBI warning on many DVDs. Why do people complain? Because they are flashed a warning against all kinds of illegal behavior when they watch a DVD. They paid for the DVD and they have no intention of doing anything illegal, and yet there is this obnoxious and nasty warning that you cannot skip or fast forward. So people feel like they are treated as potential criminals, even those that have no intention of breaking any rules. So this thing I am discussing is not something I just made up. It's a subtle law of behavior. You don't warn your guests, even if you mean to keep your home in order. Even though I mean to keep my home safe, I don't install a metal detector in my door, because that would put people off and it would also showcase my own insecurity and my own opinion that a metal detector is necessary to stay safe where I live. This is the last time I will mention this. If you refuse to understand the subtle psychodynamics inherent in blanket warnings, that's your choice. I've done my part. I've alerted you to what can be perceived as a rude and unwarranted behavior on behalf of a host (being a bad host). If you choose not to see issuing all your guests a blanket, loud, and excessive warning as a problem, that's your right and the consequences of that choice will be yours as well. Also, imagine a martial artist who can only sleep in posh beds costing 10,000 dollars or more? Why kind of coddled martial artist is that? At the same time, if you argue this is for the students, then I will say that those students who expect to be coddled should not study martial arts. I wonder what kind of bed spreads they install in Tibetan caves there for yogis.

I don't know about you people, but when I start something or invite people somewhere I don't hit them with a giant warning as the first thing. I assume everyone is good-natured. A few people are boisterous and more playful than usual. I don't take this to mean hostile. A few people like to criticize everything, and I don't take this to be hostile either. A few people like to call others names, and I think those people are great for training patience and ultimately I don't think they are hostile either. As long as people have a sense of measure, it's OK to do anything at all. It's OK to call someone names, it's OK to disrespect someone, to argue, to do whatever you want. It is playful and is the spice of life. The only time I would rid myself of someone is if that someone had no sense of measure and was utterly obstinate and somehow managed to completely derail my intent. So far this hasn't happened. I've dealt with extremely irritating individuals on IRC and a few times I came close to wanting to quit or to seek a ban against someone, but I never reached that point and ultimately lived through the irritation to become a better (in my opinion) person. If the first thing you do, when you invite a guest, is to give them a STERN WARNING like that straight in your face, that in itself is very rude! Imagine this... Imagine I invite you to my house for tea. I smile but then my smile vanishes and I get a scowling face expression and then I say, "Oh, but if you dare come in without taking your shoes off, or if you piss on the floor in the bathroom, or if you try to steal anything from my house, or if you try to fondle my wife's boobs while I am not looking, I will kick you out without warning!" Then my smile returns and I say, "So feel free to be yourself now!". How does that feel? Imagine then 5 minutes later I say, "Oh but don't worry, no one has pissed on the floor so far, so you most likely have nothing to fear!" And how does that feel? I feel like before I even opened my mouth I am already a suspected criminal or something, eh? I don't feel free to be myself. I feel constricted. I also feel that people running the forum have no tolerance at all, which speaks extremely poorly of their spiritual training.

This used to happen to me a lot when I was newly in love with some chick. This phenomenon went away after the passion cooled off or entered into a steady (as opposed to blazing) pace. I think if you are feeling sexy and are acting as a sexual magnet, you might also experience this. It's not that strange. If you just know yourself you'd understand this without having to ask. When this happened to me I knew why without asking anyone.

I think if the teacher has faked his own death, he needs to stop being a baby and accept the consequences. One consequence of faking your own death is that people actually think you are dead. On the other hand, I believe copyright stretches beyond author's death, but don't quote me since I haven't cared about copyrights in a long time now. But if you want to take a legal angle, why even talk about death? I guess I am confused.

Hmm....

It's good in the same way that a ball and a chain are good when attached to your leg.

A Taoist treatise on politics is called "Wen Tzu". I highly recommend it. I think the word "presuppose" is a little too strong, but I also think it's false to claim that Taoism is utterly unpolitical. Taoist way of life does have some political implications, as discussed in Wen Tzu.

Humans always think their body is like a machine and if they just chemically pull the right lever on it, everything will be fine. Well, knock your socks off. It won't work. Good luck. You are not a machine and you cannot be fixed in the same way you fix a machine. But go ahead and try.

Then, the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "Noble sir, how does the bodhisattva follow the way to attain the qualities of the Buddha?" Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, when the bodhisattva follows the wrong way, he follows the way to attain the qualities of the Buddha." Manjusri continued, "How does the bodhisattva follow the wrong way?" Vimalakirti replied, "Even should he enact the five deadly sins, he feels no malice, violence, or hate. Even should he go into the hells, he remains free of all taint of passions. Even should he go into the states of the animals, he remains free of darkness and ignorance. When he goes into the states of the asuras, he remains free of pride, conceit, and arrogance. When he goes into the realm of the lord of death, he accumulates the stores of merit and wisdom. When he goes into the states of motionlessness and immateriality, he does not dissolve therein. "He may follow the ways of desire, yet he stays free of attachment to the enjoyments of desire. He may follow the ways of hatred, yet he feels no anger to any living being. He may follow the ways of folly, yet he is ever conscious with the wisdom of firm understanding. "He may follow the ways of avarice, yet he gives away all internal and external things without regard even for his own life. He may follow the ways of immorality, yet, seeing the horror of even the slightest transgressions, he lives by the ascetic practices and austerities. He may follow the ways of wickedness and anger, yet he remains utterly free of malice and lives by love. He may follow the ways of laziness, yet his efforts are uninterrupted as he strives in the cultivation of roots of virtue. He may follow the ways of sensuous distraction, yet, naturally concentrated, his contemplation is not dissipated. He may follow the ways of false wisdom, yet, having reached the transcendence of wisdom, he is expert in all mundane and transcendental sciences. "He may show the ways of sophistry and contention, yet he is always conscious of ultimate meanings and has perfected the use of liberative techniques. He may show the ways of pride, yet he serves as a bridge and a ladder for all people. He may show the ways of the passions, yet he is utterly dispassionate and naturally pure. He may follow the ways of the Maras, yet he does not really accept their authority in regard to his knowledge of the qualities of the Buddha. He may follow the ways of the disciples, yet he lets living beings hear the teaching they have not heard before. He may follow the ways of the solitary sages, yet he is inspired with great compassion in order to develop all living beings. "He may follow the ways of the poor, yet he holds in his hand a jewel of inexhaustible wealth. He may follow the ways of cripples, yet he is beautiful and well adorned with the auspicious signs and marks. He may follow the ways of those of lowly birth, yet, through his accumulation of the stores of merit and wisdom, he is born in the family of the Tathagatas. He may follow the ways of the weak, the ugly, and the wretched, yet he is beautiful to look upon, and his body is like that of Narayana. "He may manifest to living beings the ways of the sick and the unhappy, yet he has entirely conquered and transcended the fear of death. "He may follow the ways of the rich, yet he is without acquisitiveness and often reflects upon the notion of impermanence. He may show himself engaged in dancing with harem girls, yet he cleaves to solitude, having crossed the swamp of desire. "He follows the ways of the dumb and the incoherent, yet, having acquired the power of incantations, he is adorned with a varied eloquence. "He follows the ways of the heterodox without ever becoming heterodox. He follows the ways of all the world, yet he reverses all states of existence. He follows the way of liberation without ever abandoning the progress of the world. "Manjusri, thus does the bodhisattva follow the wrong ways, thereby following the way to the qualities of the Buddha." Then, the Licchavi Vimalakirti said to the crown prince Manjusri, "Manjusri, what is the 'family of the Tathagatas'?" Manjusri replied, "Noble sir, the family of the Tathagatas consists of all basic egoism; of ignorance and the thirst for existence; of lust, hate, and folly; of the four misapprehensions, of the five obscurations, of the six media of sense, of the seven abodes of consciousness, of the eight false paths, of the nine causes of irritation, of the paths of ten sins. Such is the family of the Tathagatas. In short, noble sir, the sixty-two kinds of convictions constitute the family of the Tathagatas!"

Right. Good question. Who?

That's a very good quote. This is why mystics should understand science on science's terms and vice versa. There is no need to ride the coat tails of anything/anyone. No need to try to bolsters the respectability of anything. Mysticism is a path toward a more lively, more dynamic experience, with fewer predictables. QM is a cool toy and requires a certain state of mind to maintain. In particular I have the correct state of mind right now to observe QM. But should I want to, I can put an end to it, and make it disappear. I can create an appearance of a universe where there are no laws of QM. Of course to those who are reading this, you can't understand it, because you think I am a part of your world. Then you think, "How is it a part of the world is making statements about the whole of the world?" You can't imagine that I am you and that you are all that exists. You probably think I have independent identity, but actually everything I am depends on everything you are, and all the stars depend on your mind too. So if you want to know at the deepest level what I am, you have to know what you are first. QM allows us to have these computers. They are cool and fun toys. Don't you think so? I think so. But our mind can make more and better toys. There is no need to cling to QM for anyone, especially for people who want to consider themselves spiritual.