deci belle

Goatguy, who amazes me with his abilities, really wants sin to be understood for what is it. He absolutely refuses to soften it up the slightest bit at all by calling it ignorance. But what he has unveiled in his brilliant disposition on the gospel of Thomas might as well be the eastern teaching that it, in fact, is. Sin, in terms of Thomas' gospel, isn't the sin of action, it is the sin of existence. Sin, is ignorance of one's inconceivable nature. Taoism and Buddhism both consider having a self the main issue confounding realization of selfless nonorigination, which is the effective equivalent of the Father. goatguy said in response to me on his thread: So goatguy has made it clear that it is necessary to realize, firstly, and then subsequently admit of one's own very wretchedness in order to enter into the path of the light. goatguy? ed note: add "be" in 1st sentence

Well~ I see that goatguy and I got in a few licks in too!!

hi dawei~ I've been to (what the cat said)… but I'll quote a few words from Hongzhi to start… Since one has the function from the start within the light, arbitrarily seeking to keep this light protected from the conditional, one instead creates isolation in the midst of unity, and one is then no different than those protecting circumstantial identities within the temporal. That others have no mind for the inconceivable, doesn't limit their culpability within it as the inconceivable isn't different than karma. Only one's ability to see through phenomena is turning the light around. Seeing through phenomena is turning the light around since you are now not following the identity of the conditional, only dealing with the ramifications. Since the light is itself the identity of reality, your awareness of the light is the identity of selflessness: this is enlightening being. Whereas ordinary worldlings only see their own personalistic identities relative to creation and are therefore bound within the rounds of creation. The light is the same in any case, so there is no reason to avoid the conditional or act like you are somehow different than creation. Why? Not in order to absorb potential as it is only a way to talk about what is natural for those functioning in terms of enlightening being— all people have this mind already. That is why. That's why I say if you then seek to keep enlightenment from the polluted realm of ordinary situations or see yourself as different than deluded ignoramuses, it is unreality. The only difference between worldlings and enlightening beings in terms of authentic openness and sincere humanity, is that one is seeing through the totality of affairs from the start and the other is caught up in the illusion from the start. Reality is the same~ the difference is in terms of seeing it as it is without bias or inclination. So one just accepts (and thus discovers) one's function in the midst of ordinary affairs. This is using the temporal to purify the real. There is no other way to live effectively and fearlessly other than by true vulnerability. True vulnerability is truly able to absorb potential since energy is involved. If you act on the form of energy in terms of desire, fear or are otherwise unconscious of the karmic cycle you are embedded in, then energy is transformed into the phenomena of going along with changes. If by seeing reality and having no intent invested in ramifications relative to personalistic views of self and other, and are able to subtly stand aside by observing Change, then the potential of immaterial energy is absorbed and stored to constitute the unrefined elixir, instead of changing into cloying momentum of circumstantial energy. Accepting the conditional without conditions and having no mind for considerations of outcomes based on a speculative relationship with phenomena while dealing with the situation on its terms is being the guest. Going along with creation without activating the deliberating mind habituated to private interests in affars IS absorbing potential. Since one has not done anything with one's own allotment of karmic potential embedded within the situation itself, energy reverts to its essence. So one must be fully integrated in karmic evolution to absorb the immaterial real potential energy of essence. While others go along with changes, enlightening beings unite with the essence of Change itself. This is potential. So one either goes along with changes unawares or one absorbs the essence of Change. The energy is the same. Becoming transcendence is a matter of having the same function from the start. Every new cycle is a new opportunity to practice the firing process from start to finish. In the I-Ching this is called having a start, but no finish, since each cycle in terms of enlightening being is already returning to the source of beginningless unity— which is just another name for this immaterial essential potential energy observed secretly by real people in the course of ordinary affairs. This whole preface is referring to what I had in mind from the start, that is, Hongzhi's statement thus: "The eye that engages the fluctuations and the body that voyages over the world are empty and spirited, still and illuminating, and appear extraordinary among the ten thousand forms. They cannot be buried in the earth's dust and cannot be bundled in the cocoon of past conditioning. The moon traverses the sky, the clouds depart the valley, reflecting without mind, operating without self, becoming radiant and benevolent. This is how everything is perfect, cast off fully and functioning freely. This is called the body emerging from inside the gate." Here I say that although one has the benefit of wisdom and some discipline of tradition, unless one is utterly vulnerable to conditions themselves, and is able to function freely in terms of those conditions, one's skill is not yet perfected. ed note: add last paragraph

A bum PM'd recently: Hi. I was just looking at some of the writing on your web site and I noticed a trend. You have a really beautiful writing style, with a nicely varied vocabulary, and complex sentence structure, but you don't use many concrete images. It seems like you mostly discuss things in a sort of ephemeral, abstract way. I'm wondering, is that intentional? Do you feel that the 'inconceivable' can't be related to through day-to-day experiences or discussed in a mundane way? So this was my response: Thank you for the nice comment, mon ami❤ It is dictated by the subject, itself~ not so much as a device, so to speak. To deal with essence, it is necessary to deal with it directly, without intermediary. This is the art. So yes, there is no way to name it— that is the fact. Immortalists can turn it to their advantage. The inconceivable is like anything real— what else is? Can you really say why you love someone? The created tangible aspect is what's unreal. It isn't separate from the real though, and vice-versa. To be attached to one or the other is delusion— that applies to those who, having seen their buddha-nature, become attached to the absolute. When this happens, they are unable to enter the polluted, and so become trapped in the delusion of a separate "pure" nature, outside of reality— this too is polluted. Only Complete Reality is the Middle Way, the Great Vehicle of sages, saints, adepts, buddhas and immortals without beginning. Recently, I can't remember who was saying… it was about referring to seeing potential, and the point was that when you experience a sense vulnerability (or a "gap") in the situation or one's vulnerability (of a gap or as a gap) in terms of the evolution of the situation, the point was that what one recognizes as potential is the intangible aspect. When recognizing the real, one does not then dare venture further to name it). That would be arbitrary. In alchemical terms, this is sealing potential away without leaking so much as a spark (void of intellectualism). When we seal it away and maintain a subtle consistency of concentration (awareness) not so much on what we seal away but that we have sealed away, potential is naturally refined into elixir. It doesn't require thought, just a subtle attention. Attention is the quality of concentration that warms the unrefined elixir in the pot pairing fire and water. It is a natural process, like when you eat, the food is digested without thinking about whatever the ephemeral physical body does with it. When potential is sealed away in the empty vessel, the real immaterial body purifies the unrefined potential to create the basis of the future immortal in the Center, which has no location. If you recognize it (such that it is in fact intangible), that's what it is. It has never been otherwise. So seeing the intangible in terms of a sense of vulnerability, which can't be nailed down either, is recognizing the real. Just the knowledge itself is the gathering of potential. When one cultivates a vulnerability to the times of gathering, or seeing gathering (not that anything is actually gathered), it is the result of self-clarification (self-refinement) to the degree enabling the sensitivity to do so. Why do people do this? It is possible to do so, that's all. I believe it was in the same thread that I answered the question in terms of gathering. Why? Because not doing so is going along with creation, that's all. To do so is the practice of enlightening being, that's all— it's just the way it is. Enlightening being is in not going along with creation. It's just the way it is. I liked your question…❤ So I will go a little bit further. One actually abstracts ordinary existence itself, such that one develops a sort of impersonal relationship with phenomena. It starts out artificial, but it becomes real. The real relationship is seeing through phenomena without denying characteristics, gathering potential in the midst of situations unbeknownst to anyone. It's just there for the picking, if you can see it. There is a Chinese book called the Master of Demon Valley (Kuei-ku tzu) written in the 4th century BC. In the chapter on "Excitation and Arrest". The 10th section states, "When you use this on people, it starts out unreal but comes to be real". Like a conversation with someone you've just started dating and it eventually develops into a real relationship. The real is the intangible, non? ed note: typo in 2nd paragraph

My response to a PM concerning what someone attributed to a religious affiliation. I don't discuss self-refinement in terms of any one tradition. Reality has no name including Quanzhen. If you are an acolyte of such an organization or study a particular course-work, that's your issue, not mine. I speak in terms of secret impersonal adaption in ordinary situations by virtue of anything you need to call it. I don't do organized anything (religious organizations, formal meditation practice, etc)… so since I already saw my unattributable nature over twenty years ago while studying the Complete Reality tradition of the Southern and Northern schools of Complete Reality (particularly the Clear Serene Branch), and have a pretty effective vocabulary and practical basis of experience in terms of the application of subtle operation in the aftermath of the sudden— and have broadened that to include Chan and Soto, as well as studies of Padmasambhava's teaching, even though i don't talk like a quanzhen-ist~ I have so been there and been doing that which applies to having already shattered space and entered the tao in reality. Its application in the midst of ordinary affairs is where selflessness constituting reality resides for me. That's all I've been talking about since the school of Nina (I've known this bum since before TTB). I was previously silent for over fifteen years. Experiencing nonorigination wasn't my selflessness, since I'd ceased to exist— and (thank god), I eventually realized this is the absolute— yet I do not cling to one or the other— to do so is the working definition of delusion, whether it be the absolute or the conditional. Selflessness is the order of aware nature, from its perspective. No one knows this, so naturally I had to be no one to see it. Selflessness needs no cultivation as there is nothing else other than its impersonal immaterial aware nonbeingness already. Real knowledge is being, yet unborn, unknowing and selfless. Just this is your mind right now. This is selfless, and this is utterly open. The heart of nonorigination is a sincerity of intent. This intent is the impulse of life. It has no location. It is the Center, without inside or outside. Perhaps it is love. Tao is the incipience of knowledge that doesn't know, so I can not-know too. This not-knowing is purity. One uses purity to ride the energy of potential. The fuel is karma itself. This is the Great Vehicle of Suchness. It is the Virtue of the Receptive. What I've always been talking about in terms of the source of any authentic teaching on this planet is not in cultivation for the purpose of getting to see it, but for the application of integrating the light which is neither ordinary or holy already. Therefore sudden realization is not prerequisite to its application in ordinary situations by anyone. Having seen this, just this is the norm at the check-out at the food-store. It doesn't look any different for you because there is only one mind. Seeing is not the sense-organ. The bottom line is that it is not taoism, buddhism, Padmasambhava-ism or anything-ism for me anymore. It's Complete Reality, the science of RIGHT NOW, because that is precisely where it resides. It has never left the cusp of immediate presence. It might as well be sex. Presence is its point of incipience regardless of one's perspective or practical emphasis in terms of teaching discipline. Either one sees this or not in the midst of ordinary affairs. One's clarity is the deciding factor in terms of selfless vulnerability beyond any tradition. Knowledge derives from this. Though we can all contribute to keeping the knowledge alive, the mystery is too huge for a hundred-thousand realized enlightened lifetimes. A tradition can help, but not necessarily. Your own approach to meet the challenges of self-refinement is what is the critical factor in your journey. If your practice is effective, you may very well arrive at a beginning, after all. Ultimately, the end is is in endlessness, therefore you also arrive at begininglessness as well. All that matters is that you see your nature, essence, original face, totality of your self, or whatever any of the many authentic traditions have come to call it. Having transcended myself and subsequently learned subtle spiritual application of the light, I endeavor to describe its enlightening operation in everyday ordinary situations because doing so is the way I arrived at its realization in the first place. The aftermath of realization and gradual practice before experiencing the sudden was the same for me and continues to be so. Therefore my teaching is just turning the light around to shine it back on its source in the only way I know— which is by impersonal adaption. It is neither inner or outer because I see. As far as I'm concerned, you might very well be making someone a fine disciple. And as far as you are concerned, I might make a fine guide for someone, if ever. But don't ask me. I don't know.❤

oh dear… sumbody's on a roll!!❤❤❤❤ in other news… bob said: Sounds like I nailed your ass again, bob. I don't say it for your benefit though, only because you can't benefit by my clear description of reality. I'm using you for others' sake …so don't mind me.❤ Ignorance is delusion when you don't know it's you. When you know it's you, you also know you are not it. This is because when you know you are not it while its selflessness is the totality of your self, there is no you— and that's enlightenment, mon ami. When you know not-knowing it's the same selflessness. There are no two minds, bob. In other words, when you know ignorance for what it really is, it is the same as enlightenment. There are no two minds. The light is the same. There are no two minds. Your mind is Buddha. So what's with that kooky soul thing, huh? It simply never was— just like that idea that you exist, it just ain't so. Testy is what teachers do, bob— to people like you who wanna camp out on my thread. This is where you come to get this. Nobody asked you to post on deci's thread, right? So do drop your stupid mechanical allusions, realize your ignorance, really admit it (to yourself), and endeavor to see your nature. Because until you do, you will never have the eye to see mine. Now stay (here) after school, if you like~ because my sassy corset is verrry tight.❤❤ haha!! ed note: add ode to bob

i wanna sm00chez-vous!!❤❤ Aware and awake without dwelling or sticking (following) the phenomenal content of mind is unminding in the face of phenomena. This is seeing through phenomena without denying characteristics. Unminding is equanimity. This is why reality looks the same as delusion. There is no other mind. Unminding is not to be taken to mean everybody is happy (or should be), or lovey-dovey-nesses in flowing robes on Maui is the way it is supposed to be. Both 3bob and 4bsolute actually tried to trap me with that kind of shit this week. You can't kill a buddha that way!! When you kill a buddha, the buddha doesn't know either. KILLING A BUDDHA IS JUST YOU KILLING YOUR OWN IDEA OF SELF, OTHER, GOOD, BAD, BEFORE,AFTER. It is just now. It has never been other than just this. Now is the incipience of inconceivability. Just jump in and forget yourself for an instant— for all time. When you get here, there is no buddha in the three kalpas who can touch you. It just means seeing reality as is, killing buddhas on sight, killing ignoramuses the same way with blazing independence. So not-knowing is not using the mind to follow creation. This is "turning the light around to shine back on its source". The source is selflessness already. It doesn't take any time to reach reality. When the light is turned around by not-knowing in the midst of ordinary affairs, this is itself the immediate Unborn Dharma-eye of enlightening beings, the efflorescence of the Golden Flower of the light of awareness. There is nothing else to it. ed note: spice it up a bit

Look at the king of the trolls with his new clothes!! This one doesn't feed them— he FEEDS off of them. Let's call this one Jabba the Glut. It's 20,070 little happy-meals for the king, and counting!!

Happy and true is not a cave; it is a happy and true illusion. So stop borrowing words of a western philosopher. The reason you cannot see eye to eye with me is because you do not have the eye. Right now is all there is. I do not discuss allusions— you do. I only describe reality. That you discuss allusions is due to the fact that you do not see reality, bob. If you did, you would not bother with the allusion of happy and true because your sinking sucking energy is anything but. This is why I do not discuss religion.

I got this from the Mountain thread with your comment, dawei… deci belle, on 25 Oct 2013 - 21:01, said: "Real practice is a force passing through stillness and movement without accruing any distinctions between self, other, time(s) and location(s), in order to spontaneously maneuver through delusion while functioning naturally in its phenomena by adapting to evolving situations." dawei said: It is the whole situation; one's whole practice of endless transformations. Openly, sincerely not-knowing is the essence of stillness transporting selfless adaption. I could say it is mountains are manifestly changing over water's unfathomable depths of causeless support. But I don't like that at all. Not-knowing is seeing yet not saying. Not discriminating, not defining, not limiting oneself to mundane considerations while entering into situations. Vulnerability is a matter of social contract, societal mores, one's relationship with people and the entire world, yet one is always ready to detach in the midst of the hubbub according to the situation itself. Reality is a constant on-off alternating current (or not). Enlightening function is no different, yet it seems to rectify the energy to a non-fluctuating energy of direct current (please, bob, please spare us your 2¢). This is a way to look at what it means to not go along with changes or not follow creation unawares. So detachment isn't breaking away~ it's just not going along. So detachment is not abandonment of others or oneself. Detachment is the expression of the impersonal nature of being; of knowing unreality and therefore not being carried along by karmic bonds unawares. One must be fully integrated in karmic evolution to absorb potential, which is the means of transcending Change. So as 4bsolute says, "How can it look any different?" is saying it doesn't look any different, yet here one does not follow appearances with the mind even though one adapts to the requirements of a natural response to the situation's timing. Not knowing is the grease allowing continued involvement in naturally unreal evolution (karma). In terms of "leading on", this could be construed as identifying with outcomes, yet since one does not attach to desire, form or formlessness, one just absorbs potential. There is only seeing East Mountain walk on water. ed note: fixed spacing under dawei's quote

deci said: This is why I don't discuss religion.

goatguy said: What Thomas said seems (to me, thanks to goatguy's contributions here) to be the same as found in buddhism and taoism at root (in terms of describing a functional spiritually-aware relationship of the conditional and the absolute). It's a shame it is so heavily veiled by the inside puns and other culturally-bound elements. Neither does it offer any real program for personal exploration. Still, in the hands of a gifted worker like goatguy, I am able see what is being described. What goatguy has been clarifying in his work here on TTB totally works for me in terms of Gnostic tradition— which is Asian. Conventional Christianity it isn't. In current geo-political terms, Israel is West Asia. Also, indiginous (non-European jews) are considered Asian jews. I don't feel a literalist bible-based section is warranted on this forum. Bible-study is bound in a historical/spiritual symbology that has long been imbedded with an eternalist symbology that seems never intended to be used to unlock the mystery of people's own inconceivable nature. Never is it said (openly) that one can realize god-knowledge oneself, whereas the Gnostic documents and the other asian traditions all have highly-held auxiliaries that do challenge the individual to do so. The Asian tradition of Buddhism has no god and for good reason. Taoism, being an ancient prehistorically developed and ultimately home-grown proto-Chinese phenomena that has come to define the Chinese mind (along with the other two mainstays) has its underpinnings in the shamanic tradition, therefore exhibits a bit more wiggle-room as regards a "god" —though never treated even remotely as in terms of a deification of the human ego characteristic of the vengeful, fire-breathing demiurge of the Jewish/Christian/Muhammedist monotheistic tradition. When you see god and its you and you don't exist either… don't need no stinkin' christian section around here.❤

hahahahhaa!!❤❤ Brian, i though of saying last night (I stayed up waaay too late) that this thing requires a falling into, to activate its function in the phenomenal process which has no separate reality outside of noumenon. So, ya~ entry is really in just taking it up fully, by doing nothing, essentially— in terms of responding to the inevitable on occasion. As we do, the whole scene just opens up of its own accord. The critical thing is to avoid entertaining views as a strategy just to maintain the unified pivot of aware equipoise enabling clarity without bias or inclination. The wonderful thing is that our involvement, however circumstantial, isn't about us. But since creation doesn't know, we get the full brunt of the insanity. Or, maybe the insanity isn't any more or less, it just seems out of context with our interest in the outcome of any given situation, which is nonexistent. Not that we don't fight at critical junctures. Depending on the time, everything is appropriate. Even for me, after years of accepting the function, seeing essence and still letting go in the midst of situations for years afterward, it still took words just like these (Hongzhi's and then eventually Dogen's), to more accurately and deeply understand the function in terms of neither one nor the other nor both; so now it is somewhat easier in that I don't have to meld them together (noumenon+phenomenon). Either one or both constitute eternity. The writing I have done on stepping over eternity is in essence forgetting them both forever. It's just now. Oh yeah, when I first brought up this sutra years ago, mr M did get the musician right… but missed the song.

I tried to introduce the post above as a chronological or developmental flow in terms of a thought or the cycle of an energy event, not getting into the firing process thing. Even so, the inconceivable permeates the entire view.

Oh thank you, dawei!! A real thought, thoughtfully presented and actually about the topic and not the self-consciousness (or unconsciousness) of the poster. How wonderful! Yes, I believe that was Dogen— I ought to know, (and I do) but I'm just a bit too gun-shy around here after the past two days of dealing with creepy bums to just nail it. This is a thing that is so multi-leveled. My first post on this forum about five years ago was just this. It is titled Mountains. It can be wrapped up or released by the koan by Yunmen. "East mountain walks on water". It cannot be grasped. But that won't do either. Dogen's opening statement: Of course, the "stages" usage and the many other associations held in Dogen's sutra are essentially a fractal, this proclamation is most basic and pure. To say Mountains represent stillness, rest or stable sanity and the waters represent dynamic, chaotic action and danger is just sensing the iconic elements from a literalistic distance— and missing the brilliant stage set by Dogen's device. So when we first see this and hear this distance, it is due to separateness as characteristic of creation. This is neither reality nor unreality. Separateness is the idea. Knowing is an idea too. Creation is an idea in flux. To enter the realm of ideas without incurring karmic debt involves not entertaining the first thought. Ideas are to be dispensed with. So… In terms of entry, it is just not entertaining views of what is "mountain" and what is "water"…as it is what it is without distinguishing aspects relative to self. These just are, and mutual arising is "actualization". That the Buddha way is indicated, is characteristic of Reality itself. That buddhas are this function does not depend on Buddhism. This is just Suchness as is whether or not one sees. The dharma-eye is another name for the function of enlightened qualities which are Mind itself. It is what it is anyway as it is relative to the time. One simply does not choose to decide what the time is, as one finds out in the end (of the cycle). As seeing entails noting the arising of the first thought, One witnesses Change. Those who see the changes, are not carried along by Change. Those who only entertain the distance aspect throughout the creative cycle, never see that mountains are not mountains, and so never see "East mountain walks on water". This is "Mountains and waters right now are the actualization of the ancient Buddha way. Each, abiding in its phenomenal expression, realizes completeness." Completeness is neither still nor moving, "abiding in its phenomenal expression". Realizing this is "actualizing the ancient Buddha way" by seeing reality as is without being seduced by one's conditioned mentality. "Abiding in its phenomenal expression" as is, one is not moving. Completeness also neither being still is "the actualization of the ancient Buddha way". "Because mountains and waters have been active since before the Empty Eon, they are alive at this moment" is pointing to Causelessness. Why do enlightening beings take over creation and see changes to master times? Because they are alive at this moment. Life is "before the Empty Eon". Those who know the Empty Eon, know that there is no beginning, no reason or cause and no idea of entering creation in terms of the absolute. In terms of the created, this is just "because mountains and waters have been active". There is no precedence for going along with conditions. Creation's action is beginningless already, so to act on account of the causeless is to incur karma. This is the error of delusion imagining the separateness of stillness and movement. "Because they have been the self since before form arose they are emancipation realization" is nonoriginated being. Knowing this is being this in all times and places without beginning. This is not some other time and place. Emancipation realization is the self-same freedom of Buddha-nature, untrammeled by conditions because they are not different than the source of conditions "since before form arose". When I say knowledge, sometimes I mean the same as the knowledge of seeing— both the power of the dharma-eye and one's use of its insight to adapt impersonally in everyday ordinary situations. I sense your usage of the terms knowledge and knowing refer to conventional perception and that seeing is not really seeing unless it is by seeing through conditions as one who has no attachment nor self-reflective relationship with karmic evolution. I know you can simplify this long response in your own words effectively. I may have missed a point you were trying to make, so please let me know.❤ ed note: mispelled "stable" below quote; add 11th paragraph

I wish people would just clean it up, take it away and spare me. I wish I could at least be a tyrant on my own threads to the invulnerable ones. That would be cool. The invulnerable ones. Nothing invested. Nothing to lose. Seeing as how I am almost exclusively on my own threads, it is pretty sucky to have to entertain (or worse, ignore) the one(s) who can take anything I write and turn it into a spurious free-association that ends up (hopefully) on the "religion of dishwashing". Don't believe me? I saw it there a few hours ago.

That soma isn't a mushroom is an old ax to grind when they still had axgrinders. This is a distinction of pedants, turtle. The point is its exalted position in the great Sanskrit tradition. If you are familiar with the classic document I am referring to, the tone is one of opulent songs of adulation. The thread is about the drug. That's soma by any other name, if its about the reality, not the name contested by endless permutations of "milkweed" by clueless academics since before even last century, non? I would not start with amanita, even as it is a common variety in the lands of birch and pine. Psilocybin and/or the cactus Don Juan respectfully referred to as Mescalito, would be my first forays into psychotropics, if Ricardo is ready in terms of a healthy psychology and a mood of sobriety and wonder.

Mushrooms are very natural. I recommend them highly, as I do Peyote. Have you ingested psychotropics before, Ricardo?

I have already seen my nature, bob. I only use the vocabulary of the ancients to aid in describing advanced practice of subtle operation to those who are ready. The only reason I apply the teaching traditionally saved for the aftermath of the sudden illumination is because I experienced the sudden myself as the result of the turning around of the light of selfless adaption to temporal evolution. This is another reason why I don't discuss religion, nor do I have any particular interest in studying yours anymore than I have already (for now). Remember, this is my thread. If you'd like to discuss your religion on someone's thread about why she doesn't discuss religion, please start your own thread and then PM me to invite me over to hang out there. I hope that sounds reasonable, because it is.❤

The Rg Veda is a huge homage to Soma, the Amanita Muscaria. The proto-taoist traditions migrating through the land of birch and pine are a seminal point in the evolution of shamanism on this planet. The mushroom has no peer. I would not necessarily limit my interest in psychotropics to a single species— or even mushrooms. Psilocybin, Peyote and Ayahuasca ought to be considered if appropriate for your psychological state. Yay!!❤ ed note: add turtle's quote

Oh~ haha! Non, that was the impersonal you, monsieur bob.❤ I get tired of using "one". In fact, I went back and forth a few times on that one line on account of that pesky "you", as it felt a bit more contemporary to include it. "One" seems so ancient in the classical sense~ not that I don't go there enough in my tonal usage… it's a good word too. In the absolute sense, "one" is interchangeable with any of the references naming the source of religion: i.e., spiritual traditions' naming. One refers to transcendental unity pervading the totality of nonorigination including creation, then again, it just means you too, and that in both senses of temporal and transcendent depending on the context. Actually, the multifarious contexts of the terminological pallet of the alchemical device is to thoroughly require the practitioner to juggle all the various meanings of countless such technical terms clearly and decisively all at once without letting even one stop or drop from the suspension of concentration. This device develops the capacity of one's empty vessel of nonpsychological capacity for the purpose of subtle operation in the midst of ordinary affairs. Mystery is our own participation in terms of Unity. There is no end to mysteries. This is another reason I don't discuss religion. All the authentic teachings are geared to keeping the knowledge of the recondite capacity of our aware nature alive, but none are equipped to teach the profundities outside of the "formative moralities" concerning subtle operation of enlightening being's inconceivable activity within karmic evolution. Reality is unfathomable. Reality, Mind, enlightening being, Tao, whatever~ none of this has one iota to do with any spiritual tradition. These are just traditions to keep the knowledge alive. The point is, when you can see, you are free. This is the import of the Chuangtzu's "On Freedom" We are free. We have no identity. We are awake. We have heaven. Look around in wonder as there is nothing to know. We all die too soon to witness all its wondrous and terrifying mysteries. If one has the means to meet its boundlessness, yet refuses to go beyond the culturally bound observation platform of teaching tradition into the vast wonder of it all due to a misconception of, reliance on and dependency for teachers, teachings and traditions, this is just trading the delusion of not knowing of one's ignorance for the sickness of clinging to the absolute in terms of the teaching device. Ultimately, none of it is reality. Once you know reality yourself, you can keep the knowledge alive yourself. The whole point of transcendental knowledge is to be free to be naturally whole, then one can be free while tied to a stake. It's true. This is Mind alone. This is good news! We are free. There are no end to the mysteries. The Way is not taoist, or buddhist, or derivative of any culture. The Way is endless. However wide our horizons of conscious awarenss, a 360˚ circle of vastness and unfathomability surrounds us. Enlightenment is entry-level. This is why I don't discuss religion. The selfless self has no shred of "supersoul" as the overarching basis is in terms of nonorigination. The uncreate cannot have anything, but in terms of potential— and this it IS. Our essence is awareness itself. There is no being, becoming, knower, known. Our own mind is the knowledge of aware nature right now. When you hear a donkey, that knowledge is immediate without deliberation. When you just know and no rational discrimination is employed, only the sense-object, knowing is just this mind. It is possible to not change this mind into illusory states. This is the work of self-refinement, where the deliberations of habitual discriminatory consciousnesses no longer dominate the organism. Tao is unknowable, this is inconceivability, yet its virtue is the power enabling enlightening beings to transcend the times of the critical junctures within each yin-yang cycle we are destined to undergo karmically. The taoist science of essence is the way of clarifying the mind to see its essence while its science of life is the teaching of endless transformations of yin and yang enabling you to live outside of creation. The classic buddhist imagery is the lotus growing out of a bog. To do so is immortalism. Mastering the sciences of essence and life is the consummation of the teaching of the southern and northern schools of Complete Reality of Chang Po-tuan and Wang Che from Ancestor Lü's lineage. Laotzu was only a thousand years prior. That's a wink of an eye. What the ancients taught was to see reality as is. As such, reality as is, is not derivative. It is causeless. This is why I don't discuss religion. ed note: add "naming" in 2nd paragraph

Please PM me, 4bsolute, if you wish.❤ He may be referring to the opening line of this thread… But, otherwise, it doesn't look any different (but yet it does).

It is so wonderful to hear your opening up of this teaching, goatguy…❤

Soul is a concept attributable to eternalism; something surviving throughout endless time. There's no soul for those who function in terms of enlightening being right now, is what I meant in the context of my statement— not in terms of the absolute. Even so, no~ you ain't got no soul!! haha!!❤ There is no intermediary. Nothing to cling to. There is nothing that is not oneself right now in terms of selfless adaption to ordinary circumstances. So enlightening beings have no soul nor is the concept of one necessary. This is because sameness' lack of distinctions in terms of the function of Suchness, is inconceivability. And I wish I could make that sound less spiritual, bob— so I'll try. It is simply a fact that one has no intrinsic identity outside of appearances and the ego complex serves this well. That most people and the totality of sentient being has been going around and around like this for ever is proof of this. But there is a secret that has been left behind for those with the predilection and the will to see it and enter into its mystery. Those who enter do so by seeing their true selfless aware nature, not that the learning of subtle adaption depends on the sudden. Gradual and sudden are one. Nonbeing essential nature is nonoriginated. This is what constitutes reality. Creation looks separate, but this is an illusion. It's not good or bad, just an illusion. Since reality is unified and sameness is nonoriginated in spite of the mystery of creation's ephemeral quality, where is this soul? Soul is a concept that works to a certain degree no different than ego is a concept that works to a certain degree. It works. But to activate enlightening function, one does not employ the perspective of ego because ego's realm is part and parcel with the created. Whereas enlightening being is the nature of reality which is not created (there is no separate reality). In the same way, soul serves no purpose for those who function in terms of essence itself. Where instead of following the light of the created, the same unified light is operated in reverse to attain the functional basis of the unattributable within the realm of the created. This is Suchness. This is the teaching of Complete Reality. Thusness being the realm of tathagatas. The Middle Way, the Great Vehicle of enlightening beings is miraculous. It is just this Suchness in terms of transcendence not entertaining separate identites which operates within the particulars of ordinary affairs without attachment to outcomes— only adapting to the time. The Middle Way is neither ordinary or holy, so it certainly is not a concept bound by morality— much less convention. One simply does not stick around for anything. Why? Because there is no thing. Not even soul. Soul is attributable to eternity. Eternity is attributable to creation. Earth, sun, multiverse, karma, dharma, mind, love and true desire are all created. If you will function in terms of enlightening being, these are all illusion, temporary, unreal, circumstantial elemental things which Unity pervades. This is essence. When you see essence, the homeland of nothing-whatsoever, this is the nature of awareness. This has no identity. The source is you, you are not it. Soul is superfluous, of no account. All I can say is either you are losing your inate reality in fascinations with the flow of created eternity or you have the audacity to step right over its entirety and assume the unity of essence in the ultimate and operative sense. In the temporal you adapt impersonally and let creation go by while operating subtle awareness in endless transformations outside the matrix of karmic evolution. I tried, bob!❤ ed note: add 1st line, a "that" in the 4th paragraph; a "whereas" and "there is no separate reality" in 7th paragraph

Everything… Eternity is under the rubric of the created and not above it in terms of the absolute, so yeah… no time outs~ haha!! Let's return to the topic, shall we? Unless people have the natural affinity and very light karmic burdens, or have studied seriously for many years or are born knowing the subtle operation of selfless adaption whether before or in the aftermath of the sudden, and have the wherewithal to clearly absorb the knowledge of the ancients or these instructions and are therefore ready to practice the Science of Life of Complete Reality, or the Great Vehicle of the Buddha, there is little point in pursuing a dialogue on my threads or otherwise obstructing the tenor of my content. It is enough to observe without comment, or provide insightful queries via PM rather than automatically assuming that one's approbative, pointed, or even casually off-topic intellectualism should be tolerated as on most other threads on this forum. Believing that my content is derivative or simply an over-complicated treatment of the concepts re-hashed on the many other never-ending (not all, mind you) threads on this forum, is proof one does not yet have the wherewithal to contribute on my threads. If one does not yet have the faith that enlightened mind is the only mind one has to begin with, and one does not yet know that one is ignorant of this mind in spite of there being only one mind, unborn, selfless and miraculously aware, endeavor to observe it yourself. It is all anyone can ever do. It is all anyone has ever done. On the other hand, if one is aware of one's ignorance of the mind of buddhas, then one should see its aware selfless nature. Paul Bowles once said that it is very difficult to invest one's life with meaning. This has nothing to do with compulsions or entitlement issues justifying one's rationale for cheap talk. Everyone has this enlightened mind; yet its description is a rare opportunity. Understandably, those who have no faith in the miraculous quality of one's nonoriginated essential nature and do not see reality cannot believe that anyone else does so, or has done so. Yet these same people may very well extoll the virtues of the ancient classics, as if they were not written by people who themselves knew the source directly beyond words— and therefore insist that the classics can somehow be understood intellectually, or that they can understand the inconceivable by clinging to the teachings, teachers and traditions of the various schools when it is the clinging mind itself which is itself the obstacle to passing through the gateless gate. This is why I do not discuss religion. Your own inner teacher awaits you on a gradual and subtle rise. ed note: typo in 3rd paragraph