Todd

While it may be true that the "Buddhist" concept of emptiness does not exist in "Taoist Philosophy", the concept of emptiness does exist in the Daodejing. Chapter 11

If it doesn't work on multiple levels, it is partial, it is divided light. It is the thing that you were denouncing in another thread, when you said that we cannot take one half of the duality, such as good and try to emphasize that as if the bad does not exist. That denies Wholeness. Undivided Light is not separate from divided light. Divided light exists within Undividied Light, and Undivided Light exists within divided light. There is no separation. This is not a merging or a unification, or even a One, though that word is just as good as Undivided Light, which is just as good as the Dark. Are you familiar with those Mandlebrot set pictures? What you are calling Undivided Light, the way that you are focusing on it, is like the black area in the center of the picture. That area represents all of the solutions that are equal to infinity (if I remember correctly). There is another area around the outside, which is relatively simple, just layers of colors representing different values. At the border of the two, the colors representing knowable values, and the black, representing infinity, is where all of the interesting stuff happens. One might say this is where the experience of life happens. In that area, one can zoom in and zoom in and zoom in, and as long as one continues to zoom in toward new edges that keep on appearing, then one can continue zooming into ever evolving complexity indefinitely. This is another kind of inifinity. Now this experience cannot exist without the relatively simple outside or the black inside, and also all of the values in the whole picture are included in the black infinity, but if you focus solely on the infinity, then you miss the potential that is inherent within it. The infinity is necessary, but so is the finite. The infinity is meaningless without the context of the finite, since it is actually the sum of all imaginable finite things. Now that is just an analogy, and it has its problems, but it is also instructive. I understand the drive to know the Undivided Light and the desire to point others in this direction. You have decided that since when you were solely focused on the divided light you did not know the Undivided Light, then that means that the divided light hides the Undivided Light, or is somehow a mistake, or at least not preferable (am I wrong in this?). But in the experience that you recounted of your introduction to Undivided Light, it did not have to be separate. You returned to the experience of divided light, without losing consciousness of Undivided Light. You experienced both movements in the space of a few hours-- going and coming. BOTH are essential. Trying to just go, even to Undivided Light, is silly, and freezes you in unhelpful ways. The key is to find the Undivided Light within the divided light. This is not accomplished by choosing one side of the duality. Any compulsive cutting off/ignoring of aspects of existence is trying to choose one side of the duality. The falsehood that we need to see is that anything needs to be cut off, even falsehood. In seeing this, there is the space for realization. Duality resolves to Undivided Light and Undivided Light resolves into duality. Do you think that dividing light was just a mistake?

This is good. It is not just substance of wood that is construed, but the substance of an "I" who is looking at wood. You included it in your example, "Aha, I am looking at wood." I think this is another viewpoint that "in seeing, just the seen" can loosen, and I think that this is the main reason that Xabir refers to it. The negative aspect of this is that such an absence can be reified. I enjoyed your pointing out the other aspects of the phrase.

I applaud your taking viewpoints beyond human-centric, but if it were not for your human-centric exeprience, how would you have recognized something non-human-centric? Real understanding works on multiple levels, not just the absolute. ---- I've downloaded the book. It might be awhile before I get to it though.

Erasing? Or? Or pulling out a dream of being attacked, noticing the malevolent presence still there, and then opening to it and it revealing something beneficial. I don't know that I can recommend it, but it has happened in my experience. I think it was partly conditioned by a recognition of lack of ultimate reality in the malevolent appearance. The appearance wasn't fixed in my mind.

One could say that the movement of Yang is dissolution, diverging, exploding, thus giving rise to Yin and that the movement of Yin is compression, converging and imploding, giving rise to Yang. The analogy with penises and vaginas is squirting ejaculation at the moment of climax from the male vs contraction of the open channel at the moment of climax in the female. This is the traditional way of dividing things up, but it is a central aspect of yin/yang theory that they cannot actually be separated. The statement is not that dissipating and destructuring are warming, but that they are an aspect of warmness (it tends to dissipate and destructure faster than coldness does). In living systems this doesn't necessarily follow, though. There are appropriate middle grounds between cold and warmth, where both structuring and destructuring can go on in a way that maintains the expression of life. Both structuring and destructing are necessary, and neither can operate efficiently if there is too much warmth or cold. If there is too much cold the structure of that particular experience of life is lost and is replaced by the structuring of solidity/crystalization. If there is too much warmth the destructuring processes of that particular experience of life are lost and are replaced by the destructuring of chemical combustion or more extreme forms of destructuring. I do like the viewpoint of space as Yin and form as Yang, though this in no way negates the opposite view to me. It is more like there are inner and outer meanings. Some Yin/Yang diagrams represent this: The diagram below the red circle is an example of this. At one level it is Yang, and deeper it is Yin and then deeper it is Yang again, and deeper still it is neither. This might be a representation of a post-heaven state of affairs, since it shows an opposition of Fire and Water, instead of pure Yin and Yang. I say that it shows an opposition of Fire and Water because in the Yijing, the fire trigram is made of two Yang lines surrounding a Yin line, and the water trigram is made of two Yin lines surrounding a Yang, which is what we have in the diagram, with Fire on the left and Water on the right. I like that the center is not white or black in this diagram. Some diagrams have the center as white, which I assume to be a reference to "True Yang". I think its ridiculous to call the center either Yin or Yang, since they always contain one another, just as it is ridiculous to say that it is either still or moving. But there is a point at which there is no differentiation, where one cannot say if things are one way or another, so it makes sense to have this center that is neither Yin nor Yang.

The assumption that I made was the the buddha knew what he was doing when he used the analogy he did. It is an assumption, and I cannot defend it other than by showing a way that this might be true. I am not sure exactly what your assumption was, but I think it was something like the buddha didn't really know what he was talking about or doing when he used this analogy. There are probably reasons that you make this assumption, but it is an assumption. Assumptions are not a good basis for knowing truth, and one would be better off not hanging one's hat on assumptions when there is a better option. At least consider alternate assumptions and see if they might offer more understandings. I'm not invested either way. I like your narrative and I like mine too. I think they both have something to offer. Yours is a cautionary tale, also removing barriers to curiosity, and mine expresses appreciation for the subtle ways that an effective approach to truth can be evoked.

Its only stretching if you're committed to your view of things, or think that the two views need to connect. They start from different assumptions. This criticism would be more valid if the Doc was not also the patient. If you criticize the doc/patient's ability to access expertise, then you are damning knowledge and intervention as a whole, which is the opposite of your initial position.

In some ways the fact that the arrow is poisoned strengthens the narrative. Poison speaks of something deeper than the surface, something that can only really be seen in its effects, that keeps working though the obvious initial cause has been removed. To resolve it requires accessing knowledge of both the poison and the antidote. The buddha suggests that the physician knows these things already, and by extension the monk knows these things already. He must look deeper and act deeper, but both are already accessible to him. He already has the knowledge that he needs to act (whether through the teachings he has already received, or via his own faculty of investigating and knowing).

All the physician needs to do is look. The arrow is right before him. He does not need the patient to give him a verbal description of what he can see with his own eyes. Presumably, if he knows enough about the different tribes (assuming there even are different tribes in this example) to know what antidote to use for what tribe's poison, then he would recognize the different arrows that they use as well. The only point that I am trying to make is that there is another way of seeing this narrative as basically empowering the disciple, showing him the necessity of seeing things for himself instead of receiving verbal descriptions of them from others, and making him aware of both his power and responsibility in terms of resolving whatever essential difficulties he may have. Presumably the monk had been hanging around long enough to become frustrated that his questions weren't being answered, and yet his essential difficulties had not been resolved. The buddha might be suggesting that the reason that his difficulties had not been resolved by this time is because he was waiting for verbal answers, instead of taking the attitude of the physician who takes stock of the situation and responds as best he can. The point that anti-intellectualism makes enemies of our own minds, and can keep us from recognizing the nature of our minds (which is not other than our nature) is well received here. I appreciate that you make it. I know. I was being provocative.

These are interesting points, and I am not at all well versed at all in Buddhist sutra/thought, but just going on what is contained in the story above, there is another view that might be interesting. I find the structure of the story quite interesting. The buddha tells of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow, and then a physician comes and starts demanding answers to a lot of questions before he will consent to treat the man. I was a little confused by this structure, since it did not seem to fit with the situation of the disciple demanding answers to a lot of questions from the buddha. I basically wrote it off to poor logic of people 2500 years ago until I read your post. Then it became clear that there is another way of seeing it, and that the structure of this story could be intentional. By having the physician be the one demanding all the answers, the buddha is placing the bulk of responsibility for the ending of ignorance on the disciple. If the analogy is symmetrical to the current situation, the disciple is the physician, with the power to alleviate suffering, but he refuses to do so until he receives answers. Further, the person afflicted by the poisoned arrow is the buddha. This helps to dissolve any perceived separation between the asker and the buddha. Beyond this, the basic message appears to be "First things first". There is a way to end suffering and receiving answers from another to certain metaphysical/existential questions is not that way. It is not that these questions should not be considered, but that received answers to them are A: not actual answers and B: not the thing that can end suffering. The implication is that one can consider these questions later if so desired, preferably in one's own experience (since received answers are not actual answers), but there is something that can be done immediately, which is much more vital than demanding and receiving answers from another. In Christian terms, "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, and his righteousness, and all things will be added unto you."

Hi Steve, I'll play. I like the general structure that GIH proposed in the other thread, that reality is neither only discontinuous nor only continuous. The perception of continuity or discontinuity is really just a matter of point of view, or the thought construct that one happens to be interpreting through or communicating with or manifesting reality with (once again, depending on your point of view). A good analogy is light. Light appears in different circumstances to be either a particle (discontinuous) or a wave (continuous). Which is it? Neither and both, depending on your point of view. There is more to light than particle qualities and there is more to light than wave qualities. To have a fuller understanding of light, none of these qualities can be ignored or given precedence. Rather than trying to narrow it down to one quality, to come to a fuller understanding of light, we are best served to look for even more qualities, more ways that it can be seen than we have imagined to be possible. I find this to be all the more applicable to reality, since my interest in light is really only a subset of my interest in reality. All well and good, you might say, but what is my experience? The thing that is continuous is not awareness. The only continuity is not touchable by the mind and I cannot give it any qualities, as much as I might like to from time to time. The reason that I say that there is something that is continuous is that there is experience, and even if any given aspect of existence cannot be said to be continuous, even awareness, I cannot say that experience has ever ended, nor am I conscious of a time before experience. Experience can be conceived of as the tendency to manifest. The reason that I say that awareness is not continuous is because I have noticed gaps in my awareness. For example, sleep. I have had limited experiences of awareness during sleep, even dreamless sleep, but this awareness is not continuous in my experience, so how can I go around calling it continuous? This begs the question, "How do you notice gaps in awareness?" I can't answer that. And you can say that the awareness that you were referring to is that which notices the gaps in the awareness that I am referring to, and I can say "Maybe". I just don't prefer the word awareness, since it calls up an image in my mind, of something separate from that of which it is aware. Thats why I chose the word "experience" when I was describing why I say that something is continuous. This is equally problematic, in that there are "experiences" of "non-experience"! And I can ask the question, "How do you experience non-experience?" You handled this by locating the continuity that you call awareness outside of mind. That is a decent pointer, since, as we have seen above, no satisfying description of that which is continuous can be found within the mind. However, I cannot really call it continuous, because I cannot separate it from that which arises. And the way that experience appears to arise is instantaneously. It is almost as if it never really arises. It appears and disappears so quickly that it can't really be conceived of consciously. (That is to say I cannot conceive of it consciously; I can only intuit it.) The reason that I say that it appears and disappears more quickly than can be conceived of consciously is because when I examine my experience, I cannot find even the tinniest little thing which persists for even the tinniest fraction of time. And yet there is the appearance of things, so I cannot discount that things arise. And since things appear to change, then they must also appear to be passing so that new versions might appear. This experience leads me to call manifestation discontinuous. So we have a continuous tendency to manifest, or potential for manifestation, and a discontinuous totality of manifestation, which cannot ever be separated from the tendency to manifest. In other words, a continuity that cannot be separated from a discontinuity. Why do I say that it can't be separated? Because I could never know the potential to manifest if it were not for that actual manifestation. Experience, though it has no fixed qualities, remains experience. This is a good jumping off point for Mila's post about how the thread of "time" constantly feeds into the now from both the past and the future (and I would say the now also feeds into both the past and the future), and about how there are infinite other threads in other dimensions also feeding (and being fed) into this now, whose every manifestation is a singularity. This is implied by the qualitylessness, and hence infinite potential of experience, but I am curious about the experiences that lead her to say this. Mila, what are some of these other dimensions and what inspires you to mention them? I am interested in a broader view. I am also interested in other ways that reality can be seen to be discontinuous or continuous, or perhaps more interestingly, things inbetween. This has been a long post, so maybe Steve or others might expand on the options. Todd

Does it ever exist within tension?

Thank you for the discussion. I wish you well.

Where is the "nice" feeling?

Gold, look deeper. Try to understand the things that people say and not just your own thoughts about what people say, or should say, or really meant to say. What I said was "'Ignore' is your word! I never used this word, nor did I use "stop thinking" until you inserted them as your interpretation of what I was saying. Even then I only used them to say that they were not what I was saying! Check it out, if you don't believe me." Notice that after "I never used this word" there was a comma, not a period. I followed the comma with a "nor", which includes the statement before the comma in what comes after, then I said "until you inserted them as your interpretation of what I was saying. Even then I only used them to say that they were not what I was saying!" I have noticed a strong tendency of yours to respond to clauses in sentences, or sentences in paragraphs, divorced of the context that gives them their intended meaning. This leads to a lot of misunderstanding. My challenge to you was "If you find me saying this, before you said it, then I will apologize. If you cannot, then I hope that you will apologize." Give that one a shot and get back to me.

Kate, I'm glad I asked because I had no idea what you were referring to with "it". Are you speaking in general, or is there some reason that you feel that I need to hear that it isn't helpful to blindly apply the method of turning down one's thoughts in all uncomfortable situations? I would like to know, because the only person from whom I have heard the suggestion that one ignore thoughts wholesale is in Gold's mistaken interpretations of what I have said. I am much more of the wu-wei school, since when it is properly understood, it can manifest any method, including applying methods from the outside, investigating beliefs, taking action long term, acting immediately, etc. And it is the only method that doesn't lead to misapplication of methods (again, when properly understood). I say go for the wu-wei as soon as possible. Those who deny wu-wei are likely to feed you dogma, because they don't trust it. They trust their formulas more. Those who do not deny wu-wei can use formulas effectively. Not sure that wu-wei is the best term, since its so culturally specific and not of our culture. Can you think of a better term, or way of describing it?

I like this idea. I'm not going to do it as an exercise here now, but I will strongly consider using it in future debates/discussions. I think it will have a great effect of loosening tightness.

I'm going to try one last time, because I do not believe that someone can actually be as dense as you seem to be. I have an unreasonable faith that you will actually consider what you and I have been saying and see the error that you are making. I will only address the issue of whether or not I advocate for ignoring/stopping thoughts. The rest is actually interesting, but it seems to confuse you when I discuss more than one thing at once, so I'll try to be as clear as possible about this one thing. If this still fails, hopefully I will be disabused of my erroneous belief and stop responding to you. I hope you are joking. I precisely meant to put the "not" where I put it. This is an example of what I am talking about-- me saying I am not advocating something and you hearing that I am. Ok, I see one thing that I said that might have thrown you off. I said that the most powerful thing that I have encountered is silence. Immediately after that I said "This is not the silence of stopping thought." Everything that you have been describing and arguing against is the silence of stopping thought. The silence of which I was speaking is the silence of looking for a self and not finding one, or actually of looking for anything stable and real and not finding any thing there. It is the silence revealed when deeply assumed beliefs are no longer fixated upon and melt away under direct observation of the nature of experience. It exists before, during and after thought passes through mind; before, during and after the maintenance of any belief; before, during and after any stopping of thoughts or artificial silence. It is quite similar, if not identical, to the spirit or void that you mentioned. The key point here, which I hope that you can acknowledge, otherwise there is no point in continuing to talk, is that I do not advocate stopping or ignoring thought in the manner that you have described. I have never advocated what you have interpreted me to advocate. I made subtle points that you then interpreted rather unsubtly. You then started arguing against your own interpretation, which had little or nothing to do with what I said. "Ignore" is your word! I never used this word, nor did I use "stop thinking" until you inserted them as your interpretation of what I was saying. Even then I only used them to say that they were not what I was saying! Check it out, if you don't believe me. If you find me saying this, before you said it, then I will apologize. If you cannot, then I hope that you will apologize. A tip for future interactions with people. If you say something about what somebody else means when they say something, and they disagree with you, do not wait for them to disagree with you several times before considering that you might have misinterpreted what they were saying. You can go back to what they said and reread it in light of what they maintain they meant, or if that is too troublesome, or if you still can't help but interpret it the way you do, then share what your interpretation is and ask for clarification. Do not continue to argue against the interpretation that the other person denies. Clarify the interpretation first, then consider arguing. You might find that things go more smoothly for you in the future and you might learn a thing or two, or uncover a belief or two in the process. For an example of this process in action, recall the time in this conversation where I misinterpreted you as saying that the mind is nothing other than beliefs. It was nice how that was resolved, when I found the quotes that inspired my misinterpretation, realized that they could be interpreted in the manner that you suggested, and corrected my mistake. I suggest you do the same.

How do you see it as a source of immobility?

I am noticing the same pattern. The issue is that you are not taking my experience and self-report into account. You somehow have it hooked up in your head that me stating that I am not advocating for stopping thought is somehow a denial of your experience that stopping thought was not helpful for you! I wonder how this is possible, since I have stated that I do not advocate stopping thoughts on several occasions, and yet you still are convinced that this is what I am advocating. I do not see any reason to try to restate this in a way that will be clearer to you, since I have already done my best. Everything that I say you just reframe in a way that suits the conclusion that you have already made. This is the aspect of our conversation that I find the most troublesome, and if you cannot see that I do not advocate ignoring thought, except as a temporary measure while one considers other aspects of one's existence, just as you ignore surface thought to consider core beliefs (which is not actually ignoring, but including the deeper level), then I see no point in continuing the conversation. Please re-read my last couple posts and see if you can let go of the assumption that I am advocating for things that I specifically state that I am not advocating for. If you still cannot, then I will thank you for the conversation that we have had and wish you well, but I will not continue the conversation.

I don't suggest turning the discursive mind off. The volume might go down. This can be healthy, or it can be the outcome of more control and not healthy, except in a very limited sense. For emotions, something that I have found helpful is to ask myself the question "Is it true that anything can obscure reality?" It isn't really abstract, since I usually ask it when some state that I interpret as negative or unsatisfactory is arising, and it is a real question (not an assumption that nothing can obscure reality). It has a wonderfully transformative effect, since it gets at the core belief that something will be better, when. That something needs to change. That something needs to transform. That states are somehow what this is all about.

If you want to limit the discussion to those six points, fine. I do no disagree with any of those six points, though the first one should read "psychic" instead of "physic", and the sixth one is incomplete as I explained above. Another point that you have been making, which I have surmised that you do not intend to discuss, since you never respond when I bring it up, is that your method is 100% guaranteed to work. I suggest that this is only true if it is engaged in with honesty and integrity, and that it can be harmful if it is not engaged in with honesty and integrity. I respect your right not to discuss this. There is no need to respond to my post above if you do not enjoy responding nor find it helpful to consider what I suggest. I find considering what you suggest to be helpful. For instance, when I explored my experience to come up with a response to something you suggested (don't remember what), I realized that one of my favorite methods of the moment was actually helping me to become aware of and reduce commitment to a core belief that I access through the verbal phrase "Something can obscure reality". My method is to ask myself the question, "Is it true that something can obscure reality"? Thank you for that.

No, I have never said that simply abandoning verbalizations abandons commitment to the structures that give rise to them. Your argument has been with an assumption of your own making. I do not make the distinction between phenomena and the observation of them that you assume that I make. My argument is for including the whole, which includes the observer and not merely the observed. When I mention the observer as distinct from the observed, this is only to bring attention to it, and is in no way meant to cut out the observed. If I were to mischaracterize what you are saying as you have mischaracterized what I have been saying, then I would say that you are advocating for focusing all attention on surface verbalizations, because you diminish what arises when they are forcefully stopped. I would also say that this is not a productive path, or else all the people in the world who are focusing on surface verbalizations would be developing profound wisdom with every thought that they committed to and believed to be true. In the rather long view, this might be true, but then what use would talking about methods be in such a view? When I advocate for turning attention from discursive mind this is only for cases where the discursive mind is being engaged in unhelpfully, and the turning away is intended to include more of the whole and not to cut off any one part of the whole. To make this more concrete, imagine you have been staring at only one word in this message and repeating it over and over. Would it be advocating ignoring of this word and cutting it out of the message if I were to suggest that you turn your attention from this word in order to take in the rest of the message? When you, Gold, advocate for not just relaxing, not just directing attention to things other than surface thoughts, then you are also advocating for this only in cases where relaxing and stopping thoughts is being engaged in unhelpfully. This is clear, since you mention that you also use relaxing and directing attention to things other than surface thoughts (such as core beliefs) in your method. When I mentioned turning attention from discursive mind, I tried to give the context that this is only for some situations, which can be seen even in the quotes that you took out of the broader context. I have bolded such context in the quotes below: Personally, I feel that the thinking aspect of your description can be misleading, since one of the most important aspects of contemplation is silence and receptivity, often in combination with a question, but this question does not necessarily need to be voiced. ... ... I agree here. When the discursive mind is silent, there still can be thought. This is the type of thought that is particularly useful in contemplation. The discursive mind doesn't need to be quiet for this thought to go on, but it sure does make it more obvious. ... ... If so, then I'll have to define interpretation as conceptual addition to bare experience, where concepts are defined as mental chatter that one can communicate to another person using words. ... ... Discursive thoughts reflect beliefs in some sense, and can distract us from beliefs, so I can see how that might seem to hide true nature as well (even though it doesn't), now that you bring it up. ... ... How exactly does suggesting that someone move their attention from the discursive mind, which previously was the place that they constantly looked to tell them what they and everything else is, to what they actually are (or even to anything else at all, for that matter!) is introducing some new limitation? ... ... If it is interpreted as ignore the discursive mind in all situations, then yes, this is a new limitation, even though it might be freeing on some level, but if it is, "Hey, there is something other than your discursive mind going on. You might want to check it out, really!", then please, tell me how this is introducing a new limitation. I hope by now that you recognize that I am not advocating for stopping thoughts or wholesale ignoring of discursive mind as you might have imagined. The discursive mind is very useful in the right situations. Well, look at it this way. You say that beliefs do not disappear, but continue to exist in potential. Since potential is infinite, then all possible beliefs exist within this potential. Since this potential is not separate from us, then we all have all possible beliefs. If there are such things as contradictory beliefs, then we all have contradictory beliefs. So the primary determiner of whether or not we suffer is not the presence of lack thereof of contradictory beliefs, but our commitment to some of those beliefs. So, reflecting on your example using this discussion, it is not my belief that commitment is the most vital thing which matters, but rather my commitment to that belief. You have the same belief, but you are less committed to it. I did not say that perceptual limitations are harmful. This is another mischaracterization of what I have said. I said "limits perception in ways that are harmful to health." I could have also said "limits perception in ways that are healthful". It is not the limit to perception which is harmful or healthful, but the way that perception is limited that harms health. In this case, the way that perception is limited is by fixated commitment to beliefs, which is harmful to health to the extent that the fixation overrides sensitivity to the changing needs of the moment. I am sorry that I have expressed myself in ways that inspire frequent mischaracterizations. I agree. But the key point, which I haven't yet made clearly, is that the main obstacle to our beliefs approaching healthful coherence and harmonization, is a fixation of commitment that causes seemingly contradictory beliefs to be committed to at the same time. It is important to have contradictory beliefs, since it can't be avoided, as we discussed above, and they also give us more options. Different beliefs are appropriate for different situations, and there is a natural rising and falling of commitment to particular beliefs as the situation varies. If we are fiercely committed to a particular belief, then we do not allow the natural waning that would normally occur when the situation calls for a contradictory belief to be committed to. This is the source of the inner turmoil and suffering that you mention. There is no mechanical way to deal with this fixation. Paying attention to conflicts between beliefs that we commit to is one good option. Finding the beliefs that we are committed to that generate fixation, and then diminishing that commitment through questioning and awareness is another good option. Engaging in practices that encourage a general relaxation of fixation is another good option. Simply recognizing and letting go of fixation is another good option, to the extent that it can be done. Every single one of those methods depends on the ability to distinguish fixation from non-fixation. This ability is what I sometimes call honesty and integrity, and I think you sometimes call it the fruit of contemplation. The funny thing is that this fruit is present before any contemplation has taken place, but it is accessed through contemplation, and makes contemplation more effective. Without this fruit, no contemplation can succeed. What I have suggested at times here, which is to direct attention in a way that reveals a perspective beyond the vast majority of beliefs (or perhaps all beliefs, if it goes deep enough), also depends on honesty and integrity, while at the same time it affords access to honesty and integrity, since this perspective is not defined by the beliefs that seem to compromise honesty and integrity. Any method that increases access to honesty and integrity will be of benefit, and any method that is engaged in without honesty and integrity will be harmful. It is not actually the method which does this though. It exists before the methods and it utilizes the methods. For different people it will utilize different methods. If a person engages in a method that is appropriate for them, then honest and integrity will seem to increase. If not, then they will seem to decrease. Do you see this? Not being able to see this is the source of a lot of dogma.