deci belle

ok fatty~ About Me Whether or not I forego conclusions or shower you with heavy hearts if I am here at all It's not for approbation it's not for polite discussion it's not for the social repartee not for friendship or camaraderie nor for sharing understanding or exchanging ideas; I offer no explanation or analysis of Complete Reality. Having gone all the way myself I only point at the source of impersonal awareness so others will know it is the same as their own everyday mind and that the matter of life and death is the crux of awareness; long life and eternal vision must be discovered personally. I have nothing to say to literalists, rationalists, those entertaining recreational philosophy or methodologists clinging to formal practices or doctrines of religious, sexual or social convention except for an occasional bolt of ruthless compassion. If you think you have thoroughgoing understanding of the wonder I will reprove your understanding for you. If I send it back, forget it; you can be sure I do. If there is a thing you consider not yourself it is obvious you do not see the empty kalpa. Even if you do see, the vertical must be dissolved and leveled before you can make use of it.

Sliced.

To slice is nice and should suffice. Therefore those who do not even know they have been and insist are those whose status is crowed ignorance. I offer no apology for slicing fat men. It pays to be a thin man, non? It's is not possible to spoon-feed or describe reality to those with no mouth or ears for the inconceivable. The point is that these clowns have nothing invested in reality, nor in keeping the knowledge alive— nor in developing a peerless holistic topic of their own on threads independently, other than spitting out a speculative topic and saying "come on and get it", thinking this is the epitome of generosity. Facetious and insincere they approach me, I do not approach them. No one is entitled to reality. Investing one's life is the investment required for entry into selfless wonder. Philosophical speculation being untested by reference to the self is the definition of recreational free-thinkers. It's cheap. I slice. Get used to it.

Hi Spotless~ merci-vous! Reality is neither absolute nor conditioned. It is the same as the term Suchness. It is the world as yourself; this is your unconditional acceptance taking the forward step to meet conditions without reservation. Impersonal acceptance is the natural function of open awareness activated in terms of seeing reality as is without conceiving relative notions pertaining to the particular (creation). Taoism calls this matching one's inherent potential with creative evolution to become a partner of Creation, therefore outside the influence of change. It is a matter of mastering the third and fourth hexagrams where adepts ply the functional aspect of the endless alternation of yin and yang in terms of every created cycle. This is the celestial mechanism, taking over creation by working the firing process of spiritual alchemy wherein the timing of the yin convergence is strictly adhered to in terms of the levity and gravity of selfless energy. This is seeing reality no different than delusion, yet one does not go along with the polluted energy, the psychological momentum of situations, the matrix of karmic evolution. Seeing reality just means not going along with creation, that's all. Therefore there is no going along in adherence to the temporal in terms of convention by habituation to psychologically concretizing oneself as a separate particle amongst particles. Though one takes advantage of the logical benefits of ego function, one's identity is one's selfless function partaking of spiritual transcendence within creative evolution. Real identity is by virtue of the essence of awareness itself. Taoism calls this the Virtue of the Receptive. Assuming sameness within difference is going along with essence. This is the Changeless. Those who see reality assume the perspective of causeless nonorigination. Knowledge of the nature of changes is not subject to Change. Complete reality being an ungraspable (created) flux undifferentiated from inherent (uncreated) potential is oneself floating around in the center of the compass, where the pivot of incipient awareness is one's inconceivable perspective seeing through phenomena without denying characteristics. ed note: one too many "in terms of" in the 4th paragraph

In the PM, the point of "letting go" came up… Well, it's not really "letting it go" in a literal sense, because our own experiences in terms of events are by virtue of the situation, and we cannot have the attitude of being an innocent bystander, because there is no such thing as that. We have to take responsibility for everything. Why? Because the truth is that we are not separate. What you are referring to as "letting go" is, for the purpose of using situations for self-refinement, a matter of psychological detachment without manufacturing mental postures by ruminating in the aftermath of ordinary events. So even if we must make a full withdrawal from a situation— even it is a matter of blowing it away emotionally on account of some traumatic experience, it is imperative to not mull over the event and create a psychological posture because doing so only creates a false notion of separateness in terms of our own being by constituting a false relativity where the reality is absolute unity. To create a psychological posture and throw away the situation relative to it is to throw away the forgoing achievement of the actual experience, in terms of spiritual alchemy where absorption of the unrefined potential inherent in the situation is naturally processed simply by not dwelling on thoughts and feelings. Divorcing oneself from the situation is giving away your own potential. Losing your own potential in this way is what ordinary ignoramuses do routinely. Experiencing situations good or bad without creating views of self and other is the working definition of "self-refinement". We also do not entertain ideas pertaining to outcomes relative to our involvement in the context of situations. Eventually, we find out what happened in the end. Eventually, if our adaption to situations is sufficiently "impersonal", we can come to notice an imperceptible quality of freedom relative to the situation were we can come or go independent of former limitations without having let anything go. "Letting go" relative to the being that is going to die is actually a capitulation of sorts~ like "throwing in the towel". Spiritual alchemy is a matter of absorption of potential. Arbitrary capitulation is actually bondage to the flow of created cycles without knowing it. Real practice is a matter of holding firmly and then releasing according to the timing of the situation. This is up to oneself alone. So, in the interval of "holding firm" where we practice innocence in the aftermath of experience void of intellectualization, "letting go" is letting go of thoughts and feelings— not the unrefined creative potential. After we sense Changing, when the situation has transformed without you, you discover that there is now nothing to let go of. This is the time when the previously unrefined potential has become immaterial "spiritual elixir". Reality is nonpsychological. The trick is to adapt to situations selflessly which is just nonpsychological observation of situations during involvement and nopsychological storage in the withdrawal during the aftermath of experience. It is a matter of a certain kind of unconventional letting go in the midst of situations. This is a description of the firing process in terms of ordinary affairs.

Because the ineffable is knowledge of experience, not psychology, it is possible to describe, but not explain… so words are specifically ordered, not to make rational sense, but to describe the nature of reality in terms of reality as it is experienced. This is the logic of my writing. Experience is knowledge. "It is not beneficial to cultivate mental postures in the aftermath of experience because being is inherent in knowledge: to be is to know." If people do develop a taste for the alchemy of Complete Reality, not cultivating mental postures in the aftermath of experience occurring at levels corresponding with one's current depth of affinity is an ever-evolving process. This means that one's depth of practice and gravity of self-transformation is commensurate with one's measure of virtuous response. The point is, that by not intellectualizing (self-reifying) experiences in their aftermath, the power of potential (knowledge) is sealed away and not leaked. It is not something anyone understands, yet it is possible to carry out oneself in ordinary situations to save and amass nonpsychological energy over a long period of time by not minding. One just forgets thoughts and feelings relative to experience. It's like eating. You don't think about it~ and the body digest food naturally. In the aftermath of experience, the impersonal immaterial body of awareness absorbs the nonpsychological potential of experience naturally. This is how one enters the Way. Really it is just resting in the highest good of open sincerity and then the virtue of this selfless nonobjective intent becomes the space for the Way to coalesce.

The recognition of reality as the totality of one's self is abiding in the presence of an immediate and perpetual result without cause as is. This is not dependent on circumstances, it is proven by them. Simply believing this is not good enough. Proving it in actual affairs is clarifying the basis of potential in terms of each created cycle. If one accomplishes anything, it is not real. Passing through, things are as they are without making arrangements. This is because the basis is inherent in creation. In not going along, good and bad cease to exist. The proof is arriving at the result of inevitability over and over and over. When you find out what happened in the end, yin and yang have yet to act. This is sameness, neither lasting nor destroyed. It seems silly to mention this, but I still don't know. Who would have? Those who make a point of distinguishing eternalism and nihilism without being able to clarify the middle way independently of their own accord only borrow a purloined path leading to an impasse. Crooked businessmen and officials aught to be circumspect in this regard. If one accomplishes anything, it is not real. This is because Reality has no cause to effect. The perpetual result is mind itself; characteristics do not cling, only dependent on views. Seeing this is a recognition independent of creation without cause. Though there is the knowledge of reality, it is not different. If I actually had something to give, why wouldn't I? If one has the great good fortune to stumble upon this recognition of reality, it would be very foolish not to clarify the basis in calm stillness, open and serene, watching over the solidification of potential, neither material nor void. This is why I say belief is not sufficient. Though perfection is immediate, self-refinement is gradual. One's mouth should become moldy from lack of use. Forget words and guard it.

I have a link on my posts and also on my profile page to see the posts from here that I have put on my tumbler blog, but it might be more fun to just fish around here and see what pops up randomly.

Yes~ Thank you all!!❤︎❤︎ Harpoon~ hahahahhahahaahhahahhahahaa!! By the time one jumps into the pot, nothing's there anyway… hahahaha!! Then again, one must be fairly biG game just to see me. And thanks to you for the navigational beta, Apech…❤︎ ed note: remember to thank Apech too

While I like to say that inherent buddha-nature is simply one's impersonal enlightening function as it meets the perennial advance of the dharma, intellectuals are very quick to refute this observation and counter with resentments at issue with "claims of realization". This is what is referred to as the conceit of ignorance, which is patently irrelevant to one's enlightening function meeting the perennial advance of the dharma. Enlightening function has no position (Panda recently said that I and my threads have no position as a snarky comment I absolutely LOVED— and so she has subsequently removed it from the Recognizing Reality thread). Too bad that Panda, Taomeow and rainbowvein just love to hate this realized woman ~ hahahaa!! Enlightening function having no position is so because it is the antithesis of conditional identities that exist by virtue of relative position. Ego is a valid function itself, relative to the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die. It being absolutely empty of identity is naturally effective in terms of its purpose and capacity. That it becomes habituated to "positions" relative to identities of self and other is the root of deluded karmic imprisonment and is hence the focus of self-refinement in terms of the raison d'être of the authentic teachings, not to mention the selfless imprint of primordial awakening— Mind being the singular signifier attributing any relevance of an historic lineage of teaching tradition. Seeing your nature is a pretty major deal, beyond simply being an evidence of efficacy of one's practical achievement of self-refinement, in terms of setting up the potential permanent stabilization of one's application of aware potential in ordinary situations. Buddha's instructions were to refer everything to the self~ why would it be recommended to leave this particular experience out as "not that big of a deal", quoting Taomeow, who doesn't seem to be talking much about issues and challenges relevant to the application of subtle operation by virtue of having seen her nature. Touting enlightenment as not that big a deal is what Dogen referred to as "it-doesn't-matter" Zen. Even so, enlightening activity is not a matter of having already seen one's nature. Why? The reason being is one's nature is already thus. Everyone is already just this enlightened mind, but it is necessary to experience it for oneself to gain the power of unified awareness in order to apply it in actual situations unbeknownst to anyone. So, the selfless wonder doesn't require experiencing sudden enlightenment to begin to develop the perspective attributable to the application of inherent enlightened mind. Mind itself is the universal peerless teacher. One's own mind stripped of the human mentality is just this mind; just this teacher. As such, it is available to all with the discipline, audacity and selfless open wonder to step over eternity itself. How do I know? By going through this and coming out the other end to take up gradual practice once again. It is because the function of enlightening being is itself the endless process of self refinement. Self-refinement freeing the capacity of primordial open awareness from the calcification brought on by the human mentality's penchant for routine habituation is the gradual process of dissolving the ingrained habit-clusters that perpetuate self-reification. Enlightening activity deepens as self-refinement clarifies the basic mind-ground Honzhi refers to as the Empty Field. One uses worldly situations (the empty field of the world being none other than Mind itself) to the point where sudden realization is the natural resonation having reached a harmonic critical point of no return. One discovers that one has never been but thus: nonoriginated, selfless, aware. The point of no return is having returned to that which one has never otherwise not been without ever beginning to be so. One is not created. Reality is Unborn. One then seamlessly returns to the world having achieved nothing whatsoever. Buddha said, "Nothing is gained by complete perfect enlightenment", All beings are thus". Seamless return to the emptied human mentality now fully empowered as the mind of tao which had always been thus, only now just discovered as thus, proves that there is only one mind, not two. Therefore, enlightening experience of no-mind, empty of voidness, impersonal, uncreated; the essential nature of creation, nonbeing within being, is the result constituting a potential entry actualized outside of time, being, creation, psychological and hence karmic matrices by virtue of fusion with cosmic immaterial primordial uncreated aware reality. Though you are not it. Just this is your nature, your mind, right now. By the way, It IS a mystery. Really!! It is inconceivability. It is beyond understanding. Don't even try. This potential permanent stability no different than the nature of awareness itself is the entry-level achievement. Inasmuch as permanent stability of ever-awakening enlightening function selflessly adapting to creation has reached a critical juncture fully dependent on further self-refining activity no different than before experiencing the sudden, is proof of gradual and sudden being one. This is why I say that enlightening being functioning impersonally therefore adapting independent of former habits of self-reifying psychological patterns relative to illusory created karmic cycles constituting everyday ordinary situations is not dependent on sudden enlightenment. Enlightened mind is already in place, is already your inherent function, only obstructed by the human mentality unawares. This is the root of beginningless karmic bondage. When people commented recently on the Recognizing Reality thread utterly oblivious of the OP, and stated that they "smelled blood" and categorized it [the thread] as just "lines on a screen", I refuted both as being Mind itself: My reply? NEXT. People ought not be so sloppy. Since these two bums did not see reality as Mind, and attributed it to the smell of blood and lines on a screen— it is obvious why the ancient discipline of open sincere wonder activating an objectless process of self-refinement leading to authentic entry into the path of complete reality independent of before and after and free of conditional identities is the prerequisite illuminating the positionless perspective that abides as the Unborn: your own mind right now. The spontaneous power released in terms of one's own potential by that which is inherent in each situation one finds oneself in proves the basis of aware function as being unity inherent in karmic evolution (conditions/change), awaiting the perennial advance of the dharma as is. Resting in the highest good is floating around within the center of the compass without categorizing a separate self identifiable in terms of a relative position. This is itself impersonally adapting to situations. It is not that one actually does anything. Taking over creation and stealing potential is as easy as turning over one's hand. If people only knew… It is simply one's impersonal enlightening function naturally so. Should one discover this function and accept its subtle application, one should then (as Honzhi says), take the forward step, entering the world to adapt the spiritual subtlety freely without admitting one's own power and generously give of oneself without reservation in terms of entering situations completely without thoughts of survival. ed note: just a few typos, happily

haha❤︎❤︎

I can only imagine what the dear posted… hehe. I wanted to bring this up because it is a foreign reality for most whose relationship with reality deems a constant and necessary state striving speculatively towards creation and not one of waiting for reality to arrive incipiently at the pivot of awareness void of thought relative to outcomes dependent on self and others through thick and thin. One isn't waiting passively or actively in terms of something one needs as in Don Juan Matus' dictum concerning the tenets of a warrior, or the waiting discussed in the 5th hexagram, and it isn't a matter of strategy relative to conditions for an ulterior purpose. It is witnessing the unfolding of enlightening being, the world no different than your mind. It is the waiting of those whose way is an impersonal ever-ready, objectless, simple presence resting in a causeless wide-open breadth of adaptability. This is aware stability meeting the perennial advance of the dharma. The third chapter of Dogen's Genjokoan says, "Carrying the self forward to confirm the myriad dharmas is delusion. The myriad dharmas advancing and confirming the self is realization." This is what I mean when I say the function of enlightening activity is proven by affairs themselves. It is the function unbeknownst to anyone. Activity is just adaption by virtue of potential inherent in the situation itself, not admitting one's own power. The function is transcendence passing through creation. What is necessary to observe in one's dealings in affairs is the further emptying of one's surety in the aftermath of passing through, where there is passing through passing through. In his commentary of Dogen's Genjokoan, Hakuun Yasutani says of this passage, "…even if we arouse the mind that seeks enlightenment, practice diligently, see our nature, and realize the way, each of these is nothing more than one wave in the sea of delusion. Hence the saying, ""To pursue practice in the midst of delusion." Where else would authentic powerful practice be? Certainly not on the mat in quietude. Meeting the perennial advance of the dharma to me is not just waiting to die in a positive sense as I see it played out, it is not conceiving thoughts holding out for any kind of survival, therefore simply being ready for one's death in the way one conducts oneself at all times in ordinary affairs. This is being worthy of one's death in terms of clarity of spirit flowing freely. Simply put, meeting the perennial advance of creation as opposed to advancing oneself to meet creation is the difference between "mistakenly discerning a self, exhausting your mind" or" simply forgetting all about one's own body and mind" in the unfolding of enlightenment. Morgan would be proud.❤︎ ed note: change "from" to "than" in 2nd paragraph I inserted bits of Yasutni's phrasing from near the end of his commentary to the Genjokoan's 3rd chapter to suit my needs in the last paragraph. Flowers Fall, Dogen's Genjokoan ISBN 1-57062-103-9

The absolute position cannot be pictured in the mind of the unenlightened person. It doesn't matter who. Entry into inconceivability can only be activated by one's own enlightening being which is not a matter of one's own power, personality, or intellectual gravity. If and when the switch occurs, and one does the flip conceiving no-mind and non-doing all-at-once, it has never been a matter of one's own doing. How much less has it ever been one's own understanding? Even at the words of storied prior illuminates upon realization, they were already steeped in just this potency of all-at-once and amongst the living transmission of peers. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't have to be that way at all. It's just now. Here it must be recognized that specialization in textual studies is most problematic due to the fact that affinity is not within the realm of words. Some people have expressed a striving mentality in order to "understand the meaning of the original classics" (self-translated to boot). The authentic teachings are beyond words. That the unspeakable is described in the works of enlightened prior illuminates since ancient times, their meaning is only in the application of the unspeakable itself in terms of everyday ordinary situations. Reality itself has no meaning. It never has and it never will. It just is. So be it. Awaken to it now as is, no different than your own everyday mind without making arrangement beforehand. What percentage of the content of numberless forum threads and topics are simply a pastime of discussing another's words with yet more words understood as others' understanding? And then further bothering to state intellectual agreement or not. There is no need to do the math, I suspect. Maintaining positions based on learning and referential distinctions of provisional teachings in order to refute that which is currently beyond one's nonpsychological capacity is delusional and this should be avoided at all costs by those who contemplate affinity in terms of a basis in the real. Subtle operation within a living recognition of one's inherent affinity with the wordless is the ability to deal with situations in terms of an immediate application of one's potential inherent in the situation itself, not relying on one's own power, and not in terms of an understanding based on circumstantial psychologies of self and other. Adaption isn't a convention concerned with getting along or going along. Therefore, in terms of impersonal adaption, it is most important not to get confused as this leaks potential and one is then forced to go along with the karmic momentum of the situation— this being the antithesis of all of the world-honored authentic teachings. Panda complains (claims) that I have no position. Had she known that her accusation is a compliment of the highest order, I doubt she would have admitted her resentment in those words. For her part, she continually confuses transcendent tenets that are strictly and traditionally qualified in the authentic teachings of the Kashmiri and Chinese patriarchs with the words, "Do not show these teachings who those who have not clarified the basis." I do not include this traditional warning for two reasons: first, I cannot pick my audience, and second, those words would only inflame the resentments of the intellectualists and professional teachers who want to speculate with my threads— if only to seek opportunities to chip away at the author. They hardly notice that I RARELY post on their threads, if ever— dare I admit I am wont to actually visit their creations. Why would I? I'm not here to learn anything. What's to know? I specialize in the actualization of not-knowing. If one can apply the inherent potential of each situation in terms of matching karmic momentum, one then frees this situational creative potential and absorbs it impersonally. Buddhists call this saving energy. Taoists call it stealing potential. Responding to threads and posts is no different. When one wishes to respond to threads topically treating entry into the inconceivable such as I do, it is simply not appropriate to habitually make reference to provisional, intellectually biased, lopsided creationist/eternalist, and half-baked literal devices of philosophical origin. One must come from a personal experience and application. Otherwise how can it be on-topic? Textual studies aren't based on reality, they just give reality a name. Poring over names given to reality aren't applicable to descriptions of the first-water. I write for perhaps .05% of the users of this forum (including the vast majority of users who have never bothered to register— and who blames them?). In alpinism, the traditional and life-lengthening dictum is not to get on climbs or ski-descents until one is ready. Unfortunately, those armed only with an intellectual bent (or less), an opinion, some memorized passages and a few formal practices and perhaps having completed a cultural immersion by virtue of employing an organized spiritually-oriented tourist destination-management firm can make hay out of any thread that suits their fancy (if only to justify the monetary outlay). Those with affinity prove it in actual affairs by dealing with the situation in terms of immediate adaption on the situation's terms~ in terms of what it is, all the while one's counterparts are involved with conceptual ramifications out of habit. A very good analytical tool is to study the "five ranks" of Cao Dong Chan buddhism. When "arriving with both together", is freely applied, there is dealing with particulars in terms of particulars without attaching to either extreme of absolute or relative. One does not stoop to conceptual fabrications to suit one's polemic a priori posture because one does not, in fact, have a posture or a position to express or maintain. If I keep saying the same thing after five years now, consider the bent of your activities. There's a whole lot of you and about .05% of me at any given time. Those are good enough odds. I seem to be rocking this pig ranch just fine. Wouldn't you have to agree? Thus, one accomplishes adaption to complete reality alone. In this singularity is the situation, oneself and others, inherent karmic potential, and the continuity of selfless wonder unbroken— where "neither the person nor the objective world [are] snatched away". By avoiding an habitual specialization speculating in formal textual studies and their social, professional and psychological ramifications in actual situations, those with affinity see affinity in terms of reality in themselves without differentiating unreality, words, and delusional understandings inherent in the situation itself. The good in this is not to be considered good. It is just cutting through the cultural bullshit resolutely in order to pass through passing through without traces of enlightenment. Otherwise, there is entrapment by virtue of intellectualization, verbal understanding, opinions relative to self and other, and biased resentments based on ideas of enlightenment or ignorance. At such times, intellectualists should ask themselves how it is, since mind is already enlightened nature, why do they themselves see words and not an affinity when it comes to textual studies? It doesn't require academically fashionable page-long paragraphs to deduce. ed note: about six typos sprinkled throughout the OP

I found this in the frontispiece of my copy of Dogen's Shobogenzo. Don't know when I wrote this… FLOWERS FALL What is manifest Is itself absolute reality What lies at one's feet Is this complete reality in one foot. One's whole mind and body of creation Has never once suffered existence: Shining all along~ Following the heart's desire without ever once stepping outside the singular rhythm.

It's the tag-team matron contingent again! Panda and RV. We're just missing miss Kitty!! Have you removed anyone's posts from your querey-based threads lately, hmmm? How nice. Until you can work with the nonoriginated, how can you rest in it? In your case, Panda, the reason you will never be tenured is because you do not work with original material. Just sayin'…❤︎ That's how the cookies crumble. This is how the… FLOWERS FALL What is manifest Is itself absolute reality What lies at one's feet Is this complete reality in one foot. One's whole mind and body of creation Has never once suffered existence: Shining all along~ Following the heart's desire without ever once stepping outside the singular rhythm.

haha~ good one, really!! Next.

Next.

Can you address the OP? If you can't, consider yourself an imitator by default. Why? Imitators follow (fresh blood in this case) their fascinations without addressing the reality unawares due to a lackadaisical undisciplined mentality. You just got sliced right down to your ying-yang, kid. Don't do that. Like pretending to be an innocent bystander and slowing down to look at an accident, and fucking up the works in the process. Fucking up the works is a subtlety tourists can't fathom. It's called being afraid to miss out on something~ not exactly the model of independence. What's the harm? Your independence. How? Following your idle fascinations mindlessly. This is a critical factor. Perhaps you will come to discover its significance. ed note: add everything below the first line

Are you imagining yourself not following along with creation by attaching your facetious innocent bystander status to me without knowing it? That is a dubious distinction. You are not an innocent bystander. I am a power unto myself dear. Do get used to it. I respond, but you get caught up in judgements of conflict. I have no conflict with conflict. I kick ass as appropriate. WOULD YOU CLOWNS DARE TO ADDRESS THE OP?

Bearded Dragon wrote: Actually this is the key to recognizing reality. No separate self is reality. Seeing this is enlightening activity's function of not acting on behalf of views attached to outcomes based on speculative relationships with the world. Not entertaining opportunistic ideas relative to habitual cravings and subtle psychological patterns is freedom from karmic evolution. As for reincarnation~ that's not my problem at all. Why? To be concerned with that concept occurring in the future is delusion, and I'm present. Reincarnation is right now. Don't follow creation now and there is no creation to go along with now. If you are free now, you'll be free at the moment of your death. When recognition of reality is stabilized in terms of everyday ordinary affairs, potential is recognized as the real essence comprising form, and awareness itself is recognized as one's own presence of selfless intent, pure and whole, spontaneously ready, yet always resting in stillness, not predisposed, therefore without bias or inclination. This is freedom from karmic energies. For the eternalists in the crowd (those who imagine themselves to have a separate soul/originated identity— oh, and one for each planet, star, asteroid, phytoplankton and each solitary disease-vector, no doubt), the above should clue you into the fact that emptiness is it. If you don't see that, and even if you do, it doesn't explain anything. All I'm doing here is describing reality. If you can't see it as it is, don't blame me. Potential is uncreated (duh), and awareness is uncreated (see your nature and get down with that). So what's left to be you? Answer: not even nothing. Why? Nothing doesn't exist. Bottom line: it's a mystery. When you see your nature, the mystery becomes you. Even before that, inconceivability engulfs you and everyday ordinary affairs become you too. For those who do not know situations as themselves and entertain outcomes relative to self and other, where's the mystery in that? All you can see is changes as you are swept along in your bondage to karmic evolution. The classics of the authentic teachings are about NOT GOING ALONG WITH CREATION. The classics can only be appreciated for what they are after enlightenment. After all, they were written by ones who were thus. So don't feel too bad. I suggest the brighter bulbs get wise without further ado.

If you were achieved yourself, Daeluin, why would you ask? I know, so I don't ask.

Just checking to see if youre still breathing, bob. The earth has no soul, kids. The buddha is purported to have done a lot of things~ think of how many delusional people exist compared to how many enlightening beings are running around beyond convention. Now how many stories of the buddha are geared to the mentalities of the lowest of the low compared to those who see reality? Now do the math, people. .05% of the stuff you may come across by RESEARCH will be pretty much the straight scoop. The rest is provisional. My guess is the ladies who have just come in their little group (for moral courage, no doubt) are part of the provisionalist crowd. Yawn. I make no apologies. Y'all can suck on whatever comes to mouth most readily. If you have an affinity, we rock. If you don't~ you know who you are. Eat your hearts out, because I do not care. Yer not my problem.❤︎

There is no soul, bob. Soul would be dependent on a separate self, bob. Ya got no separate self, bob. Taoism doesn't do separate self, bob. Are you on the right website, bob? You are definitely on the wrong thread, bob. Try the recreational philosophy department… bob? Comprenez-vous? ed note: add last line

Well, Panda-dear~ I am sso pleased with your comment.❤︎ How could deci have a position effectively expressing Complete Reality having no position? Though I am not it; it is me. If it is a thing to people who only have eyes for things, then it is not that essence is immaterial, it is simply people bound by their conditioned personalities habituated to selfish perspectives who are unaware of delusion as delusion and cannot see reality as emptiness containing nothing void. The void has no distance, no inside or outside. Where would a position occur? Enlightening being is the Virtue of the Way and the Way is Virtue's power. This is the meaning of the statement, one does not admit of one's own power. This is not philosophy, it is mind itself. Those who see reality have no position because the homeland of nothing whatsoever is their home. Having this home is so whether one is aware of it or not. But until one has direct knowledge of the basic mind, one has no home to recognize as oneself, so one instead takes delusion as one's home. The simple fact is that delusion has no position either, because reality and delusion are one. This is the meaning of the term Sameness. The buddhist term sameness within difference is another way of saying taoism's nonbeing within being. Those who can act on the knowledge of Suchness as is are those who partake of the Supreme Vehicle of buddhas, saints, adepts and wizards. As I said above: those who see delusion as delusion see reality; those who see delusion as reality are lost in delusion. I suppose we are still talking about me, after all… all who know the world is the same as the sage know the self is unborn. How can those who do not comprehend emptiness as real be capable of comprehending the emptiness of deci belle? Bodhidharma's famous response, "Don't know", is just his knowledge of emptiness in two words. Who could ever wear this out? ed note: add last two lines

The master carpenter uses no tools. Enlightening being does not admit of one's own power. It's just that when I see a fat fellow, I slice. When I can't move heaven, I move hell. It's all the same to me. The fact of the matter is that deci has no idea how it has come to be what it is. But deci has a fucking wicked-ass time of it, I assure everyone.❤︎ ed note: spice it up a bit