deci belle

Yascra said: The point is that to accomplish the basis isn't a matter of people. The master isn't putting people down. It is an attempt to clarify for people that mind isn't the thinking apparatus …which not only comes up with things like television, but feeds it and feeds off of it. This is the self-perpetuating mechanical mind— not the true human with no status.

There is the school of no thought. plebian refers to the gradual and sudden. These are one without beginning. The epiphany is not relative to the person. What is significant is that in the aftermath of the sudden, one then learns to express the void in terms of chaos in everyday ordinary situations unbeknownst to anyone. As before, one uses the world to refine potential. So there is a return to the gradual path in the aftermath of the sudden. The void is a term for the absolute. Chaos is creation, the world right now. ed note: typo in 2nd paragraph

Yet there is going without coming; returning without having gone. As for ants and people, mind is not two. The master has it right. Ants don't entertain the consciousness of television. The consciousness of television is eternity, which is stepped over resolutely by the intrepid. ed note: add bit about ants

A certain mega-poster, insisting that the inability to see reality is a survival skill …is therefore somehow an acceptable status quo~ hahahhahhahahhahahahhaaaa!!! Ones such as this haven't been properly naked and/or scared (and loving it) in far too long a time~ something I recommend highly!! This from a thread on the subject of the nature of awareness in the taoist section that has been in a state of occupation for some time. It is simply (and none other than) using the essence directly with no intermediary. There is no way to work with essence unless one has activated the nonpsychological, which is not within the perveance of relativistic perception. It is direct perception of reality as is. This is nothing other than immortalism in the taoist sense, and the Great Vehicle in the buddhist sense. Unless one is willing to let go of self-reflective (selfish is the word, without any emotionalist values) attachment to a speculative relationship with phenomena, one simply lacks the basic qualification to enter into the inconceivability of the Way. The same mentality which abhors stripping itself of an ego-reinforcing intellectualism in the face of phenomena also cannot face the prospect of a selfless quality that also strips phenomena of its speculative potential. In order to acknowledge and assume the function of enlightening unity, one must oneself already have no ulterior motives or conceptual notions pending to create separation where there is none to begin with. Most people would rather die than give up their imaginary concepts and also positively fear that they might just miss out on something— something they don't yet know. When one relinquishes this conceptual fear, they are admitting that there is, in fact, nothing to know— therefore nothing to miss out on. And that, evidently, is too much to bear/bare. This is being totally vulnerable to what is. Intellectualism is basically the dishonest way to hide from reality as is while attempting to observe it /appear to understand (unsuccessfully) otherwise. Another thing the recreational intellectuals fear is realizing anything, which would then disambiguate them from any further speculative pastimes and require the INDIVUAL to assume the totality of his experience without the veil of what passes for (in the sport of recreational speculation) an inconsequential objectivity. Essence must be dealt with directly without intermediary for one to assume its enlightening function. Evidently, these intellectualists are much too selfish to allow that… heehee!! These are people who have never abandoned themselves en total~ not even to the present. And that is missing out on something …without beginning, the present is the most exquisite, terrifying, wonderous, erotically freeing moment there will ever be. ed note: italicize "inconsequential" in 12th paragraph

Me tooz!! haha!!❤

Taoist immortality includes material and immaterial. It is a matter of one's function in terms of depth of affinity and power. Unity has no questions or options. Presence is perpetual. Questioning is a condition of the mechanical intellect. It isn't an issue to ponder in terms of the real, by real people. Knowing is a matter of Suchness, as is. Unity, even in terms of enlightening being in the world, isn't a matter of before and after. I suppose it is possible as NOTHING is not possible. For immortals, there is no crossing over. For the deluded, there is, because one doesn't know there is nothing to cross over. Or, rather, seeing what is to cross over, one simply crosses over. Crossing over is accomplished by seeing. It is a matter of awareness, being aware of nothing to cross over. I do say "stepping over eternity", but this is in reference to transcending fascinations with questioning; considering things as existent. Not considering things existent, seeing this …really seeing this, one is done with it all at once. In the same way, immortality is knowing that there is no thing and proving it in actual affairs without bothering to tell anyone. In other words, the function of immortals does not depend on death of the physical body. Immortality depends on having a body outside the body, in terms of attaining accord with Complete Reality beyond appearances, self, other. Immortality is knowing that death and birth has never come into being. Seeing the uncreate accomplishes transcendence to the degree one's capacity for development of Virtue has fulfilled its potential. The Way is endless. I apologize for being so cold, but, even immortals die physically before their spouses …what about that? Immortals are not separate to begin with, in terms of there not being anything other than the light, itself, unborn.

❤!!

Oh thank you, mr P!!❤ I just came back to add one more thing to that one…

Furthermore, the map that the OP makes reference to is just the course of one's gradual approach leading to the sudden. But the gradual and the sudden are one from beginning to end. In the aftermath of the sudden, since one has not gained anything by this absolute singularity, one is no different than before. Because all beings are just this as well, and have always without beginning radiated this singular conscious awareness, one is no different than others. The gradual path in the aftermath of the sudden is no different than before, only now one's compulsions are eliminated. After seeing one's essence, one knows there is nothing whatsoever to know. At this time, one can abandon fascinations and take the single step forward and accept one's function amidst the teeming marketplace. Here one can trust one's luck and begin to share oneself completely with creation. Holding or releasing are up to oneself alone. Abandoning fascinations is just stepping over the whole of eternity without effort and entering the authentic path of prior illuminates for the first time. It is simply a matter of knowing there is nothing to know; realizing it is impossible to miss out on anything. One has already long since forgotten speculative relationships based on circumstantial interpretations. Enlightenment is the entry level experience, not a destination. It may be the end of the road of delusion, but it is the trailhead for buddhas lying just beyond the fascinations glinting in the profound depths of the beginningless trickling stream of eternity. Just step over lightly; the path is well worn. Prior illuminates await you on a gradual rise.❤ If one begins to see in this way, regardless of mystical experience, one enters the path automatically without having to wait for entry-level experience to express the function of enlightening being; the sudden arrives of its own accord as a sympathetic resonance of one's authentic affinity with the Way. ed note: add last sentence

It may be an exclusive experience, but upon seeing one's nature, it is none the less affirmed in terms of the knowledge of impersonal awareness that there has never been anyone who wasn't already just this mind, this experience beyond the buddhas of all three times. Shakyamuni Buddha also said this and also said that absolutely nothing is gained by complete perfect enlightenment. The houses of Chan say that they have nothing to give anyone. The map is unique to each and every individual with the will to enlightenment. Inasmuch as just this mind is enlightenment itself, and there is no other mind, one need only turn the light of one's own mind inward to illumine the source of the experience of all prior illuminates.

It is no metaphor. Open sincerity does not come and go relative to the person, so the "Central Court" spoken of in the 52nd hexagram, Mountain, is neither conditional nor absolute identity neither removed nor activated. The function of one's own aware nature is in identity being selfless. Though unity be an intellectual abstraction, its function is most real and carried out in difficulty and ease. It is not carried out by one's own power. This is the touch-stone of enlightening activity. It is also the working definition of "selfless". "Selfless" is not a matter of diminishing anything in terms of its function. It is the Great Vehicle of buddhas, adepts, saints and wizards. The diminishment of self in terms of identity of personality is another subject matter entirely, and one, the recreational philosophers and other wimps, cannot penetrate. If you can penetrate this, this is entry into inconceivability. Those with the will to enlightenment have unbending intent, simply because they have not gained entry. When I mention "wimps", it is in reference to those who make excuses, a priori, couched in terminology extolling the virtue of abandoning the will to enlightenment~ as if it is some sort of natural, instinctual survival-skill. Survival of the facetious ego-identity perhaps, but this is lost in death anyway. Enlightenment is the discovery (and the power) of the knowledge of the non-existence of death (and birth). This is the reason for the buddhist reference to the "matter of life and death". "The will to enlightenment" is "applying this to yourself". "Jumping off a cliff" is entry into the inconceivable. Yunyan said, "East mountain walks on water". This neither comes nor goes, not removed, not activated. East mountain walks on water is not metaphoric. "Us", much less "doing" is not it. I want you to avoid rational explanations. In the course of ordinary affairs, it gets interesting when one arrives at "responding without responding". This is abiding in selflessness; adapting to conditions by seeing through phenomena, not denying characteristics. What's NOT easy about this is that though the world DOESN'T KNOW, the karmic matrix requires you to abide in the creative, and a lackadaisical easy-come, easy-go attitude won't cut the mustard not just because taking over creation and stealing potential is only within the parlance of those with the power to do so, those who have already entered the inconceivable, but because this knowledge is spontaneous, deriving from the situation itself. Meeting potential and matching it with creation to transcend Change is not a matter of going along or not. It is actually using the erotic within selfless awareness in terms of the situation itself to somehow stand outside the process while meeting its energetic pattern. One must needs be wedded to the evolutionary aspect of any given situation; committed and vulnerable to its energetic and psychic properties, to be in the position to enact the subtle operation. Getting to the function of east mountain walks on water is operating by virtue of the essence of awareness when one has long since ceased entertaining speculative complacency in circumstantial relationships, i.e.: profiteering. Virtue blooms of its own accord when the most subtle pattern of profiteering is forgotten, died, abandoned. The Yin Convergence Classic, an extremely ancient document, touches on this. ed note: tweak 4th paragraph; add "rational" in 10th paragraph

Dongshan and the Teaching of Suchness Taigen Dan Leighton The story of his first meeting with his teacher Yunyan involves Dongshan's questioning as to whether non-sentient beings could expound the Dharma. The story, as presented in Dongshan's Recorded Sayings, is extensive and rather elaborate, and is distinctive and even eccentric in how it emphasizes the issues of the nature of Dharma, or reality, and the strategies for conveying it. The story can be summarized as follows. Dongshan first inquired about this question with the great teacher Guishan Lingyou (771-853), who was to be considered founder of one of the other five houses of Chan. Dongshan repeated to Guishan a story he had heard about a lengthy exchange with a student by National Teacher Nanyang Huizhong (d. 776), who maintained that non-sentient beings did indeed expound the Dharma, constantly, radiantly, and unceasingly. Huizhong states, perhaps ironically, that fortunately he himself cannot hear the non-sentient beings expounding, because otherwise the student could not hear his teaching. The National Teacher provides a scriptural source for the expounding by non-sentient beings from the Avataµsaka Sûtra (Flower Ornament; Chinese: Huayan), citing the passage, "The earth expounds Dharma, living beings expound it, throughout the three times, everything expounds it." After narrating this story, Dongshan asked Guishan to comment, and Guishan raised his fly-whisk. When Dongshan failed to understand and asked for further explanation, Guishan averred that, "It can never be explained to you by means of one born of mother and father." Dongshan would later refer to such non-explanation with appreciation. Guishan finally suggested that Dongshan visit Yunyan for further illumination on this question. When Dongshan finally arrived at Yunyan after leaving Guishan he asked who was able to hear the Dharma expounded by non-sentient beings. Yunyan said that "Non-sentient begins are able to hear it." When asked if Yunyan could hear it, he told Dongshan that if he could, then Dongshan could not hear him. Then Dongshan asked why he could not hear it. Yunyan raised his fly-whisk, and then asked if Dongshan heard it yet. When Dongshan replied that he could not, Yunyan said, "You can't even hear when I expound the Dharma; how do you expect to hear when a non-sentient being expounds the Dharma?" Dongshan then composed this verse: How marvelous! How marvelous! The Dharma expounded by non-sentient begins is inconceivable. Listening with your ears, no sound. Hearing with your eyes, you directly understand. "It is not reached by feelings or consciousness, how could it involve deliberation?" —from Dongshan's The Jewel Mirror Samadhi. ed note: add last quote of Dongshan's and made title possesive

Black boxes are all well and good in terms of subtle operation, but concerning the matter of frequency filtering~ virtue is a decade box!! I left my heart in San Magnetisco… well, somewhere in Marin❤ I like it when Brian Setzer swings his Gretch past his blonde's 212 to spike a li'l feedback for the hell-of-it!! ed note: add responses of both Guishan and Yunyan to Donshan's question.

She'll be riding six white horses when she comes; she'll be coming around the mountain when she comes…❤❤ haha!!

trés toroidal, cheri… heehee!!❤ torus.gif ed note: add link

Oh, I don't know about that, mr P~ it is not a matter of removing self at all… so whatever difficulty there is is in not seeing that much. Nor is it a matter of a lackadaisical attitude such as Nungali is suggesting. The effect of self AND other aren't so much removed by nonpsychological awareness in the midst of ordinary affairs, as much as it is awareness itself which is not moving, so conditions (which exist by karmic momentum) are neutralized, sublimated within nondifferentiation in the subtle operation of enlightening activity as it is called reversal of the light or turning the light around. No one has ever stopped awareness. Awareness itself has never moved. There is nothing to it, as well nothing inside or outside the totality of reality. Where could unity itself move? This is the uncreate. I keep saying it is your own mind right now… because it is. Seeing essence is seeing just this. Just this much is reality as is before you own eyes right now. What Nungali is suggesting is that one is just coming and going as one pleases (that is THE definition of delusion) and this is not the case at all because one MUST effect a complete vulnerability to the situation one finds oneself in in order to transcend its conditional karmic killing energy in terms of the complete cycle. Ya gotta give up your life in order to find it anew every step of the way. One must go through fire to refine the potential of Sages. This is called planting lotuses in fire in endless transformations; sublimating oneself physically and spiritually and entering the Tao in reality— not coming and going as one pleases. Transcendence must be accomplished by risking everything on the situation's terms, otherwise one is not a buddha. This is because there is nothing outside oneself that isn't inside oneself. This is no different than awareness. Why? Awareness is one's nature. Awareness is the true identity, not the conditional false psychological identity that wimps claim to need to protect in order to survive. Now do people realize what I'm (not) referring to when I talk about what a wimp can never accomplish? This is REAL. It is not a joke or a game. This is entering the tiger's lair or the dragon's cave to steal the pearl of immortality at every turn according to the time in terms of the cycle of each karmic situation. This is immortalism right now carried on by adepts in broad daylight without anyone knowing. It is the matter of life and death entered fully into by acceptance of your enlightening function and taking the forward step (and going off the cliff). It's not that the light is altered by stepping off the cliff (it is, in fact its enlivening, in terms of one's enlightening being), but that enlightening activity is a matter of personally not going along with psychological momentum while adapting impersonally to conditions as you find them is the firing process. Enlightening being is the effect of not-seeing or seeing through karmic momentum in the very midst of affairs. Reality is not different; it is cogitation relative to conditions that creates them (assumes karmic potential or enters into creation). So abiding in the nonpsychological effects the spiritual potential within the situation itself; therefore one does not go along. In not going along, one transcends the cycle of yin and yang comprising the karmic pattern's mass/energy/momentum. Not using (going along unawares or ignorantly entertaining a speculative relationship with) this much created energy is gaining this much potential one naturally stores in the central chamber void of intellectualization. In alchemical terms this is called taking over creation and stealing potential. It is also referred to as subtle operation of enlightening being. Buddhism refers to this as seeing through phenomena without denying characteristics. ed note: add 2nd sentence

Thanks youz for posting, you guys❤❤ Nestentrie brought up agreement and humility. By the way, that is a wonderful bit of writing on examples of (mostly) insentience expounding the Dharma. There is another kind of insentience that is the function within the relative by impersonal means which, while agreeing with the characteristics of phenomena (as moss and earth do by way of the humility of emptiness of self as described in the poem), therein is something to discover by abiding in terms of the real (as illustrated by moss finding the moisture, earth naturally accruing high and low, and space being essentially the knowing readiness for potential. All this is relative insentience expounding the selfless Dharma. This is not beyond one's essential nature. What is missed by the vast majority is that this essential nature is what makes it possible to enter fully into the way of selfless potential no different than moss and earth and space do naturally, impersonally and unknowingly. This is what the ancients knew and this is the knowledge that the enlightening classics impart if one forgets the needs of the intellectual apparatus by assuming the virtue of insentient awareness as a matter of course in everyday ordinary situations. When I say a humility of emptiness of self, it is not a moralistic reference in the parabolic sense at all. It is the effect of not having a sense of self-consciousness, nor instilling co-responsitivity of self-conscious otherness in terms of situations, that is the working context of the term, emptiness of self. It is just an arbitrary grasping and twisting by the intellectual apparatus upon hearing such transcendental terminology that destroys any potential for those so inflicted with the disease of literalism, and perpetuates the hackneyed (subconscious and unconscious) responses that kill the potential for enlightening self-refinement in the ignorant. Humility and agreement do not refer to the person (though it is fine if the writer of the poem meant it that way). Humility and agreement is the way to describe the functional unity of selfless creation. Moss and earth have no-mind, and people have this no-mind too. There is only one mind, not two. No-mind is the true mind, no different in buddhas and ignoramuses. Those that learn to function readily by virtue of no-mind in difficulty and ease become buddhas. The effect of self AND other aren't so much removed by nonpsychological awareness in the midst of ordinary affairs, as much as it is awareness itself which is not moving, so conditions (which exist by karmic momentum) are neutralized, sublimated within nondifferentiation in the subtle operation of enlightening activity as it is called reversal of the light or turning the light around. Awareness never having moved is no-mind. This is not the same as the mindlessness of moss and earth, yet it is not different. Why? Awareness is the essence of unity, impersonally aware. Life has never had its beginning; awareness only knows no-mind. Who can revert to this? No one has ever stopped awareness. Awareness itself has never moved. There is nothing to it, as well as nothing inside or outside the totality of reality. Where could unity itself move? This is the uncreate. I keep saying it is your own mind right now… because it is. Seeing essence is seeing just this. Right now, it is not some other reality. Just this much is reality as is before your own eyes right now. What is it? ed note: add everything below the heavy hearts; change "of" to "by" in 8th paragraph's 1st line; typo in penultimate sentence

The point being that wimpy vicarious intellectual interpretation of the words of the classics is not even valid in terms of of gaining a real rapport with the celestial mechanism by virtue of applying the subtleties spoken of in the classics. This means that one must trust oneself and find out what the classics are based on in fact. The ancients didn't sit around and make up shit, nor did they consider what might seem reasonably logical. They endeavored to describe the unspeakable, not to explain it. They left the secret of enlightening being for those with the audacity to discover it within themselves for themselves. If one does not know the source of the classics, one does not know one's own mind right now. If one is ignorant of one's essential nature, then it is hardly acceptable for this to be a basis for justifying one's ignorance of one's essential nature. In other words, unless one knows the source of the wordless wisdom of one's own being aware, how can one go and say that ignorance of one's essence protects one from reality? It is chicken-shit, absurd, specious discourse— not the roar of those with the will to enlightenment. If this applies to you, then apply it to you. Otherwise~ go jump off a cliff!! hahahhahahhahahhahahaa!!!!❤❤

Now that's what this whole thread has gone down for!! I appreciate concise posts like that from you~ Merciii, mon Capitain❤

That's cuz yer special, dear❤

Inability to accept reality as is is refusing to see reality as is. Turning the light around is as easy as turning over your hand. Nungali, the wimp is unable due to a refusal to change— it is not fear. This is the lie. At any rate, fear is an excuse for the inability to change oneself. The fear is existential. Remember, if you hadn't taken this into consideration already… the wimp is one with over 20,000 posts and makes his living on this forum speculating on the core material of the traditional taoist canon. Who are you pimping? I am finished discussing this rhetorical point with you.

Just to bring the OP into the mix a bit, one must endeavor to realize that Moorish culture presided in political hegemony over the Iberian peninsula longer than Spain has been a country. Spain only united in terms of the Hapsburg court in 1492. The preceding 700~900 years were the domain of peoples of all the North African cultures under the umbrella of the advanced and progressive Califate in Iberia— and it is reasonable to state categorically that none of its influence is attributable to anything remotely Egyptian. Northern/Anglo europeans just refuse to see that fact in the true scope of the insanely long history of human occupation and ancient worldly migrations. If it's not Rome or Greece or Egypt— it ain't good enough. Hah! Before the Moors (who also happened to whip the daylights out of the Tuareg tribes in their Mohammedan zest) re-stabilized commerce across the vast reaches of the Sahara after the Roman era was eclipsed by the Teutons' expansion in the so-called "dark-ages", there were and still are the very ancient Berber cultures that reach far into the past of North African occupation. Lo and behold, by virtue of the Moorish (arabic) NOT Egyptian, influence, at least certain parts of northern Africa (and what eventually became Spain) were spared of the European disease of filth and ignorant squalor for many centuries and became the home of an earlier and very much enlightened age (a fact which is curiously left out of ALL the European/Anglo/North American history books). Lets endeavor to be mindful of reality in terms of the real people inhabiting the times and places that Harmonious Emptiness has focused on and not have the knee-jerk reaction to bury the insights clearly portrayed in the OP with stale renditions of institutional (European) indoctrination perpetuated over the past 500 years and counting. Please review that piece in the OP with fresh eyes and ears.❤

Absolutely, Nungali, when the wimp determines to posit that inability as an instinctual survival skill-set AND has also never considered entering into any other functional property of mind; meanwhile extolling the imaginary virtues of an absolutely common and conditional set of parameters which only re-inforce the false-identity that only thrives in terms of words, thoughts, and the concept of thinker as existent. This is a fallacy of the first order. What classics is this wimp reading? Perhaps he should actually endeavor to study them and stop talking about the words they use to make their description of completely wordless reality neither holy or ordinary nor outside the totality of one's self. The refusal to consider entering into the recognition of unity of awareness of nonpsychological proportions in order to have this conditional identity survive is the ultimate of wimpiness. There are no survivors. A wimp is one who makes it a pastime to talk about spiritual realities as described by the classics without ever admitting that they are beyond the scope of understanding itself— and also conveniently failing to turn the light of awareness within to discover for oneself the same source of the classics of which the ancients speak. How people can go through a whole lifetime talking about the words in the classics without ever considering that the words are not even based on the meaning of the words. The source of the classics is the nature of the self, unattributable but by awareness no different that one's own mind right now. It is necessary to abandon a mere pastime in order to discover the source of the classics, and not just feed off the joys of interpretive discourse. Why? Because life is short and the originators of the classics went beyond understanding to see reality for themselves and gave us clues to keep the knowledge alive. Just talking about it and hiding behind the literalist's concept of some theoretic "survival instinct" to NOT see reality as is is utterly abusing the intent of the classics themselves by way of excusing oneself from the will to enlightenment as a virtual death-wish (that it is the effective truth is beside the point). Didn't Jesus say that everlasting life (that would be immortality) is attained by giving up one's life? This is making the source of the classics, being one's own mind, a triviality that one admits to fearing. What's not wimpy about that? Moreover, to make up the notion of the necessity for the survival of the thinker as some basis in fact is the epitome of specious discourse— and the hallmark of recreational philosophy. As I said above, to actually realize anything is tantamount to social suicide for those whose pastime it is to "shoot the breeze". ed note: change "frame" to "posit" in first sentence; add last two lines

Avoid attaching to these experiential states in terms of novelty. This gives one's psychological entity(ies) more weight in one's affairs that it (they) already deserve. Just endeavor to leave this aspect of otherness(es) out as would one would consider an uninvited guest. Your situation is much too tender psychically to be opening up by your own efforts. Stop. Back up and take another tack for the time-being. Ultimately, there is no one. Ultimately there is no thing. Don't give in to this morbidity. It is a ghost-reality. All these experiences arising out of meditation states are natural for someone enabling an unvirtuous aspect of mind into the meditative mix. Try stopping meditation for a while and just settle into an open serenity in all times and affairs. This is the ultimate meditation anyway. I never did formal meditation. You are probably going too far too soon. Meditation is not to be entered into lightly. The ancient traditions don't allow the initiated to go into meditative states unsupervised at all, and when allowed, it is after more than a few years of study into the nature of the psychological/emotional body. Take a break. There is no good reason to let this go on. Break it off asap. Something may be gaining entry due to your immature meditation approach. It is much more desirable to enter into open serenity whereby the vibrational energy is activated without dragging the psychological/emotional body into the mix. Innocence is natural. Be open to your own pure nature and forget about (set a conscious boundary) in terms of these other recurring experiences for a long time. In other words do nothing to induce them. Lucid dreaming is a cheap trick. Don't let these seduce you any further. It is your life. You set the tone.❤ ed note: typo 6th paragraph

Someone said… Intellectualism is the concretized inability to rid habitual patterns of self-reflective identity from essential awareness in everyday ordinary activities. This is not emptiness~ so what's to be afraid of? (Besides, emptiness is not outside the nature of conditions and appearances anyway.) The unknowable is oneself in a selfless discourse with reality as is whether one knows it or not. Of what consequence is the unknown? Obviously, that depends of circumstances. Ultimately, the unknown doesn't matter. Why? Because nothing matters. That's a fact. So the unknown is inconsequential until it's otherwise. In other words, it is outside of the ability of anyone to control. Nothing is wrong with the unknown~ forget it. What is essential to realize is the unknowable. That it is one's essential nature is so for no reason and no one knows why. Don't be such a wimp. True emptiness outside the absolute is oneself not thinking good or bad in the midst of ordinary situations. Action based on true emptiness is spiritual, transcendent enlightening activity beyond the realm of those who insist on equating reality with selfish relative views based on ratiosynchretic patterns, i.e.: intellectual notions of conceptual understanding of what inconceivability could possibly be (or not). IT IS INHERENT IN FORMS BEFORE ONE'S PHYSICAL EYES AT ALL TIMES YET KNOWLEDGE IS NOT VISIBLE. Hasn't one seen the admonition that one is not to use what is seen and is to use what is unseen? Knowledge is immediate, not requiring any deliberation. It is not a matter of employing the thinking apparatus. If one sees essence, reality looks no different than for one who is habituated to selfish views relative to self and other. So what is this trumped-up instinctual self-preservational compulsion attributed to? One who cannot see reality as is by virtue of an inability to operate subtly within essential unity thinks this convenient invention up to justify one's fear. Insistence on this habitual pattern is being locked in existential fear. What is this if not clinging? Again— as if this one had a choice in the matter. The term "wimp" is absolutely kind as used in this context. Impostor is closer to the truth. THERE IS NOTHING TO UNDERSTAND SO THERE IS NO NEED TO BE A WIMP. There is a bit of insincerity lurking in broad daylight here when one has no intention of abandoning one's exclusive dependence on an ego-propping use of mind. The true intent of the immaterial body of awareness is unity. Insistence on bobbing along within duality in terms of one's functional relationship with creation is just a stream of bad checks on your karmic account. That's what keeps the cycle of birth and death whirring. Do you think there is actually a point to the classic documents of taoism and buddhism? Just what has intellectualism accomplished in attaining the Way of Sages, hmmmm? Until one can function in terms of nonpsychological awareness as a matter of course in ordinary situations, intelligence is just the seat of the false identity. It offers nothing outside of what is already a perpetuation of a whistling selfishly blythe ignorance of reality— AS IF, AT THIS POINT, ONE HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. As it is, there seems to be the practice of intellectualism en lieu of authentic self-refinement. I don't suppose THAT ever enters the realm of serious intellectual activity… much less actually accomplishing it. Then what about waiting for the time, which is, furthermore, beyond the realm of the intellectualist's sleigh-of-hand involving the glib use of an ineffectual device to guarantee being left out of the party that has been raging since before your parents were born. "Intelligence offers us…" Who wants to buy a used philosophy from this one? INTELLIGENCE OFFERS NOTHING. IT IS THE BEING THAT IS GOING TO DIE WITHOUT ITS FINE INTELLIGENCE THAT IS THE CONCERN OF THE WISDOM OF AGES. I, for one, do not see the import of the intellectualist's survival strategy for dependence on intellect on this vital account. Death is the ultimate unknown, yet it is not unknowable. Sudden enlightenment bears this up quite effectively. Buddhism calls this the matter of life and death. That last line in the quote is suuuuuch a intellectualism and sums up succinctly what I am referring to as the ultimate statement exposing the insincerity of the wimpery of intellectualism. As for using the word "us"… do endeavor to speak for and otherwise refer everything to the self, alone. I say this because the intellectualist's wimpy squeek amounts to squat in this void of reality— whereas the roar of selfless unity is something ya just gotta crash through to get down. ed note: insistence not" insistance" in 8th paragraph