Songtsan

I see what you mean...It depends on how one internally defines the word...I think about all the times I would say, "I wish this were over," or "I wish this would happen for me," (i.e. some ego driven desire), or "I wish I was dead," or "I wish I was never born," etc. So in that sense, a wish is basically wanting things to be other than they are: positive or negative attachment. Even the bodhisattva vow involves some attachment - wanting everyone in the world to be fully enlightened. I suppose they view it as being unattached, but holding to an ethical vow, yet the seed of bodhichitta is somewhat based on attachment. But they know that of course, they use attachment as the boat to cross to the farther shore. Attachment has its uses, after all, none of us might even be pursuing the spiritual path without it. I think one of the root desires behind all desires is the wish to become a god - to have all the powers of creation in ones own hands, to create change wherever one sees fit. Deep down, most people either want to be omnipotent/omniscient/etc., merge with that which is omnipotent/omniscient, etc., or else be directly taken care of by such a transcendental force- the first two are basically the same thing. I actually practice a thing now that I call 'Drive all wishes into one' where every time I find myself wishing for anything, I take it straight away to the ultimate wish - to become a god. That wish contains all other wishes (at least in my view it does). I suppose I could do the same with hopes - i.e. whatever I am hoping for hope for, "the best." In fact I could combine wishes and hopes into, "I wish/hope for the best, always." And tell my mind to shut up after that. I see that hope is more connected to fear than wishes are - it seems more intertwined in a way...as if it takes into account all the good and the bad that could possibly happen in a certain situation, and expresses a desire that the best happen instead of the worst, as in: ..."I hope this doesn't happen," "I hope she likes me," etc. almost as if one is praying for good luck and against bad luck, or a better chance at something good occurring, whereas wishing is more direct - basically stating what is wanted exactly. Its almost as if hope is, conventionally speaking, 'needs based,' whereas wishing is 'desire based.' Hope is like saying, "I need this to happen, please please please happen for me..." "I won't be whole without it," whereas wishing is like "I want this to happen, if I had my way, this is exactly what would happen." Hopes seem to us to be more realistic than wishes...people usually dont hope they will become a god, whereas wishes can go anywhere outside the laws of physics. Same for what we call 'needs' and 'desires' - needs are more reality based, more conventional, whereas desires span the limits of imagination. Hope seems more heartfelt, perhaps because we see it as more realistic and thus have greater attachment because of the belief that it could happen, whereas wishing usually has less attachment because we subconsciously know that what we are wishing for isn't likely at all, so its more of an entertainment, and held less close to the heart (and thus infused with less attachment, since desire and love are very close, desire being love based on an ignorant assumption that bliss/happiness lies in claiming the object desired).. I know what you mean when you speak of a wish being more of a creative urge from the soul. I think there is a continuum, where at one level a wish is pure and unadulterated by lower passions - a pure wish so-to-speak...but this also leads me to wonder if the same continuum exists for hopes as well...where at its noblest, a hope is like a brightness in the dark...almost a sense of surety in good overcoming evil kind of thing, or knowledge overcoming ignorance...such as in "Having hope for all humanity" etc. although then that might be crossing into the territory of faith. Perhaps faith is the leading edge of hope...or the next level of the continuum...

Hope almost seems exactly like wishing, and wishing is almost exactly desire, and desire is almost exactly attachment. Hope = suffering

look up the Tantric ritual of Chod, such as at this site: http://lionsroar.name/the_chod_ritual.htm It essentially practices offering yourself up to be eaten by the demons (which are us)...when you lose attachment to yourself, fear generally no longer exists. Attachment to form causes fear of losing that which you are attached to. Nonattachment usually leads to bliss (if done right).

...or make your meditation object the most distracting thing that you become aware of...practice relaxation techniques in the most non-relaxing of situations.

View every sound as a 'dharma sound' reminding you to get back to your work...therefore, instead of those sounds becoming distractions, they become reminder sounds that you have a purpose, then you will start to embrace those sounds instead of labeling them as negative in your mind. Embrace everything as mind - know that it is you as surely as the thought 'I' is you. Everything is your mind. On the outside those sounds are just vibrations of air molecules - it is your brain that gives them the quality of 'noise' thus the noise is you and only you. So the question is, will you view your own self as a distraction?

Need is a human based concept and doesnt exist at all in reality outside of the mind. There is only suchness, or what is - is. Period. What happens, happens. What will be, will be. The earth doesnt need to rotate, it just happens that it does. 'Need' is not some universal law like gravity. Need is NOT a law of the universe - get it through your head. Nothing 'needs' to happen - the world won't blow up if trees don't get enough carbon dioxide, or if cars don't get enough gasoline. A car that doesnt have gasoline is still a car. A human without air to breath is still a human, even if they are a dead human. Their essential energy will simply take on another form. Need exists only to maintain form illusions...therefore it too is an illusion Yes, I need air to survive in this body - from a conceptual point of view, but from an ultimate point of view nothing is needed. Its not required for anything to be, even if a whole chain of things breaks down from the loss of one thing in a system. Existence will still exist without the concept of need. Sometimes a complex system simply exists without requiring any parameters. Cause and effect are linked. If there wasn't oxygen in the air humans would never have arisen as they are today - something else would have though. Need is subjective, relative - requirements for specific form sets. Nothing specific has to happen for things still to happen - other, different things will happen instead. This whole discussion was simply the age old battle between dualistic and nondualistic concepts. Nothing other than that. All my concepts are thousands of years old. Here is some Taoism for you, since say you are Taoist: "The awakened mind has never come into being and so cannot disappear or be destroyed, nor can it be analyzed into component parts, nor described or manipulated in any way.The mind itself, abiding calm as itself, itself constitutes enlightenment, the utmost, unspeakable delight called omniscience by the sages. This enlightened knowing, which knows all as simply itself, is birthless and deathless: because it never comes substantially into being, it can never disintegrate or cease to be...." -do you see why I dont think we need anything? If we are to become 'unbecome' or get outside of dualities, which is really about losing the illusion that we aren't already That - join with the absolute, we no longer have to follow the laws of the dual world. We are this. "The immortal can not become mortal, nor the mortal immortal, for there can never, under any circumstance, be a change in one's essential nature." Non-origination - Having no other source than itself; having no birth, or death; without beginning, middle or end; acreate (not created). All things, all worlds, are unoriginated. " "Practice clear serenity, embrace the fundamental, preserve unity, return to emptiness, and go back to nothingness; only thus can one achieve final settlement." -does need exist in emptiness? in nothingness? "If you cease thought and have no conceptions, this is true thought. True though is true emptiness. The realm of true emptiness is the gradual way of transcendence, leaving the city of darkness and going to the court of reality. " -does need exist without the conception of need? Then there is only cause and effect, which is related, but different. Need implies a requirement. Cause and effect are linked like Yin Yang. Cause/effect have no rules such as requirement, cause/effect ARE universal laws...needs ARE NOT. This is simply the way it is.

My legs and feet can go numb after 15 minutes doing even half-lotus...I prefer those little zen benches myself...with a pillow on the bench. This isn't some kind of competition to become super-yogi. While full lotus locks you into an upright position really nicely...it is always better to have your hips elevated above the knees - this gives you the best pelvic tilt, and the straightest spine. Trust me I know about this as I have whats called hypolordosis of the lumbar spine - which is the very opposite of sway-back. So in order to elevate your hips, you have to be sitting on something...like a zen cushion, or a folded blanket. If this is the case, you wouldn't be having any issues with too hard of a seat for your buttocks.

I already explained to you my understanding that you need things if you want to maintain a fixed form. You are merely quoting what i already said back to you, after we already went over that. Telling me what I already told you and already know and acting like you are teaching something is ridiculous. I have the feeling you dont even read what I write...anyways, I dont recall ever choosing to exist in this form, in fact I dont really know that there was an 'I' that existed (or could choose) before this life at all..I think that 'life chose me' to exist. Maybe, maybe not...but it makes more sense to me right now- you seem so sure and I am happy for you in your confidence that you existed before as some kind of self that could choose. I myself tend to believe that selves are illusions, and that existence arises as a co-creation. I also sometimes doubt that choice itself exists...did a car choose to exist, did a snail choose to exist? What makes us so special? Just because we have these computer like brains that have more complex logic and memory abilities? It seems that even the simplest animals have feelings. Also, you should be more aware of the definitions of the words you use: 'hypocrite' means that I am pretending to virtues that I dont possess and judging others by my supposed ideals. All I have been doing is expressing my beliefs - I never I said I knew it all, or that I was enlightened, or that I thought I was better than you, or that I wanted you to believe what I do. I do believe what I believe whatever I wish to believe, and I will not let someone like you try to make me feel guilty for believing what I want or speaking my mind. It seems like you have something personal against me - that you are angry - even your avatar looks angry. You have issues you need to deal with. Just don't like me if that's what makes you happy - judge me and call me names if it makes you happy - I will only end up reflecting your arrogance back at you. I am not anymore grown up than that. It will happen naturally - I make no plans. We will end up burning eachother up - if that's what you like - if you want peace - show me peace. I have given you enough chances to say something nice instead of inflammatory, and then if you did, I too would say something nice back again, and we could quit this argument. There are no winners here.

Great story... I'm curious about this phrase: "inverse flow of forward moving waves of Light" cant quite visualize what it means... also...would you say that Nirvana is just another perception attainment? Even if one stays there all the time? Great video too by the way...it made me think about this story about a Zen monk who spends all his time practicing and practicing harder than any of the other monks, but never attains satori...Years and years go by. Other monks aren't as dedicated as him...they sneak out of the monastery at night to visit the geishas..Year after year goes by...The monk gets nowhere. Finally he gives up, sneaks out to the geishas themselves, sleeps with one, and attains enlightenment that very night. Sometimes it seems that all this spirituality stuff is really just self-help - specifically just how to help ourselves suffer less and feel better. How to become happy within a crazy world, no matter what way that world comes at us. Nonattachment equaling bliss, due to not being attached to what happens to us. Is there anything beyond the realms of pleasure and pain? Even if we do become empty and lose our 'me' and our story, and get filled with the truth that exists outside of stories, won't we still just be energy that is experiencing bliss? (or not whatever the case is)...is it really true that there isn't anything to attain that is better than anything else, as long as you aren't being attached to finding pleasure and avoiding pain? They say one can leave the wheel. and yet the Buddha says there is no self that reincarnates, yet there is one at the same time...it is tendencies that reincarnate the Tibetans say. If we strive our whole life to find some permanent bliss state, isnt that very striving based on attachment to pleasure - so as high and lofty as our goals may seem, it is still attachment based. Even if we seek the bodhisattva ideal - we want to end all suffering and ignorance in the world...still that is attachment to beauty, bliss, perfection, and thus negative attachment to suffering, poverty, pain. And as good as pleasure feels to the awareness, and as bad as pain feels, they are just electrical sensations. How can a noncorporeal 'self' or whatever supposedly gains Nirvana after death experience anything? It seems to me that pain/pleasure are things of animal bodies. Its too bad we dont really really know for sure whether there is a soul (or self)...if there was, people could be more sure what was really important. If I knew I could attain some heavenly abode of permanent bliss and immortality, I probably would be working a lot harder, maybe not cutting off an ounce of my body, but I would be devoting my whole life to it. The doubt that there is a self that exists after death, makes me hem and haw.

No one, everyone, me and not me...what I feel I am in the moment and not that too. Sorry to sound like I am trying to be witty, be these really are all true. To fixate on any one aspect of my (illusory yet real, real yet illusory) self would deny other parts that also exist. I am all the selves of my self, all the selves of all the selves. I am a mirror fractured into a thousand pieces, reflecting a thousand reflections of a thousand other fractured mirrors. These fractured mirrors are all reflections of the one big unfractured mirror...BUT- we only see the reflections of the fractured mirrors that we are when we look at this mirror....until we realize the fractures are illusions.

umm...sandpaper? spankings?

First of all, my original question was rhetorical..meaning it was really a statement that indicated that no one needs anything. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I see your point and mine too...I honor myself and you at the same time. I speak from my voice however and not yours - you can do that yourself, you dont me to do your speaking for you. I sincerely believe that ultimately, no one needs anything - we already have everything. Needs indicate something you dont have. We already have immortality, we already have all things - they are stuck to us like glue. I am sorry it upsets you that I disagree with you. I am here to speak my wisdom and not to blindly follow others in theirs. I never tried to force you to my way, just answered you from my own self. If you see this as not contributing anything, perhaps you should do some soul searching. Let me expand, as I see you are getting upset and trying to play it off as being my responsibility. I understand that when a person writes their story and becomes attached to form...that they then create needs for themselves. In order to be something specific, you have to have things a certain way. Needs are form specific. But if we are not attached to form, there are no needs. Needs only exist when attachment exists. You think you own your life, but I say that life owns you. Because you think you own who you are, then in order to be that which you think you own, you 'need' certain conditions to exist in order for this idea of 'me-ness' to continue. Hence needing air, etc. This is true only if the idea of self is true. Especially and specifically if the idea of self includes 'having' a human body. Then yes, if this is your view, you do need air. However, I am largely Buddhist, and they think the self is false - look for it and it cannot be found. It is simply composed of aggregates - a compounded illusion that exists in our heads, a mind fabrication. The body is not the self. So now you know where I am coming from. I do not believe I am the body, that I am my mind, that I am even my 'I' - no 'I': no 'I' = no needs, period. Hence, as this board exists for DISCUSSION, I have simply discussed my views. If you want to take it personally that I disagree with you, I have a few options: 1) reflect your discontent back at you, i.e. fight fire with fire and get into a clash of minds, 2) respond with emptiness, i.e. simply ignore you and allow you to dwell in your own discontent while removing myself from the suffering altogether, 3) or lastly I can pull you forward by only asking you questions, and making no statements, and allowing you to talk about your beliefs while offering none of my own. I have chosen the first one, because that is who I am at this moment...if I wanted to be the most nicest to you, I would choose option three. If I wanted to be nicest to myself I would choose option two. I have chosen to be somewhere in the middle, which is to both honor you and myself. I will not pet and stroke your ego, and would not expect you to do the same with me. You make your choices, I make mine - we co-create what is. Do you still have a complaint?

Its funny, after just yesterday spouting something about how its ok to spend time developing mind models of how reality works through using the monkey-mind to create a better monkey mind I've suddenly come to the opposite viewpoint as well - I've spent my whole life thinking and thinking incessantly..all day long 24/7...brain that never stops...it certainly has some correlation with dopamine levels..but I used to kick myself in the ass because I always heard that the monkey-mind was the cause of all our suffering and to be 'improved' or 'grown up' spiritually meant silencing that mind and unifying with the Tao, with primordial being, with ultimate reality outside of our own limited reflection of reality. Become empty so that the ultimate reality will constantly fill you. But then I gave up trying to master it by defeating it and decided to master it instead by becoming friends with it and understanding it, without trying to escape it. It seemed to me that instead of trying to 'drop it' all, one could instead refine it, so that the inside became more and more like the ultimate reality of the outside. Find the untruths that were within and tame them, make the mind 99.99% similar to the ultimate reality of the Tao - an almost pure reflection. And its completely true that I refined much of my understanding and approached gnosis within. But I am still stuck in that all day long crazy thought world, its just far more 'presentable' as they would say and I am far more at ease. The thing is that the Tao is forever changing and that as soon as one creates what one views as the perfect mind map of reality, reality goes and changes on you, and then you have to learn again anew on a daily basis. I am now starting to think that I was wrong and that in order to truly be in accord with the universe as it really is, I must let go of the mind, as everyone has been saying all along...It's good that I have finally started to trust this age old wisdom, because before I was always doubtful, because I was thinking, 'But shouldnt we know how things work, detail by detail, like scientists?' 'Isn't this also enlightenment?' Definitely there is great value in logical analysis, yet the universe is so much complex than we could ever learn through a lifetime of analysis and learning. I think that by joining with reality and letting the wisdom mind be constantly open in awareness we simply connect our brain to the larger brain of the group-mind, the group-body, that instead of having to do all this work of analyzing it constantly to make sure that the reflection is accurate, one simply becomes the accurate reflection, because one simply is the accurate reflection by being directly noninvolved with interfering with the reflection process. By becoming empty within, the fullness of without joins with the emptiness of within. By becoming empty within we become full of the truth, without having to snatch the truth out of the air by wrestling it to the ground and sweating every second of the day and then exhausting our brain and killing ourselves with the stress. At the same time I think that a full mind is also a constancy of our reality - forever emptying, forever filling. Whether the reflection is accurate because of direct perception, or whether it has become an accurate perception through mental fencing...both have value, but I think in the end that learning to empty oneself as often as possible, one learns far faster than the other. Both ways can bring bliss, but by emptying, bliss can also come far easier as well. Also, by basing understanding on a reflection, no matter how accurate - you are always slightly living an untruth, even if it is only by .1% but when one truly integrates with what really is, one is always true and always completed. As the truth is constantly changing as the wheel turns, the truth does not remain stagnant, but rotates in step along with 'that' The truest truth one can attain - at least as far as I can tell.

If perfection is not a universal principle like gravity, force, energy, being, etc. then does it really exist on an ultimate level, or does it exist only in the mind? If for the mind only, then we could say is it perfect according to understanding of the mind's idea of perfection...Ideas however are ephemeral, today's perfection is tomorrows not-so-perfect. Which person is to decide what the perfect ideal is?

Another path that is supposedly good is the path of bhakti, or adoration for a divine principle - it works too...I practice this as well...devotion to the kundalini - who helps me out all the time. 'She' is my beloved, in the sufi way. So I practice a threefold path: devotion, fullness, emptiness...I am finally just working it out...the doubt is starting to completely disintegrate..Happy as a clam

Now I am flowing the opposite way again...but not leaving the other too. I aim to integrate them both. When thinking is too extreme and I just cant focus on one thing - do mind mapping and refinement. When mind is slowed down, focus on one thing. The Tibetan Buddhists in the Vajrayana school I think do this practice where they view everything in the world as a big mandala, and all the beings as various divinized gods and demons. This is viewing the mind as everything and making the mind a holy place of gods and demons. This is nearly exactly the mind techniques I use. It is unifying oneself to the divine. But your focus changes depending on whats going on at the time, so its not one-pointed focus techniques...focus is there, but every-shifting. Focus is used to create ideal forms, to replace the minds not-so-ideal constructs with better ones, thus replacing the self with a better self. Emptiness is the way of dropping everything in mind, fullness is the way of using everything in mind and creating with the elements of the fullness. The combination of the two can be stronger still. All 3 ways can be equally strong. Different strokes for different folks. I will combine them into one way. I will combine all ways into one way. Ways = way = all ways dropped, and then just is.

Who said that I need to be alive at all...if i die I come back again, so I cant die. Breath not needed then either.

at·ten·u·ate (-tny-t) v. at·ten·u·at·ed, at·ten·u·at·ing, at·ten·u·ates v.tr. 1. To make slender, fine, or small: The drought attenuated the river to a narrow channel. 2. To reduce in force, value, amount, or degree; weaken: Medicine attenuated the fever's effect. 3. To lessen the density of; rarefy. 4. Biology To make (bacteria or viruses) less virulent. 5. Electronics To reduce (the amplitude of an electrical signal) with little or no distortion. v.intr.To become thin, weak, or fine. adj. (-y-t) 1. Reduced or weakened, as in strength, value, or virulence. 2. Botany Gradually tapering to a slender point.

I think one-pointed focus is exactly attentuation....you slowly start to reduce the signal interference of all incoming stimuli while keeping the signal of the thing you are focusing on high....attenuation happens naturally - the mind/body attenuates the stimuli it finds non-novel and non-threatening in order to focus on the things it sees as more important or as a threat. Mindful meditation is hard because the thing you focus on is considered harmless by the bodymind to a large extent, so the minds tendency is to get distracted by 'more interesting things.' By wrestling this pattern and reversing it, we come to a new place...

I have some questions if you have time: Can you tell me, without violating or using any of the ‘rules’ that are listed here, whether there is anything missing, that should be deleted, or whether one or more items are exactly the same thing (relatively, not absolutely as this is meant for relative mind states) and should be combined in a way that cannot be described using the parameters of the list or the mergence of all members? Or can you take action using words to in any way improve my understanding? I do realize that fullness = emptiness, but I made them separate because there is just a slight (although illusory) conceptual demarcation between them. I also realize that these are all the same essentially, but I am trying to stay a few steps before that yet right on the edge. I am trying to create a mind-map that could be used to explain things just a few steps before the purely non-direct mental realization that everything merges into ‘isness’. It’s an illustrative tool for all those people, like me, who still spend a lot of time fabricating mind constructs….If this model works, then I will design a model even one step closer that starts combining the categories in a sequence until it ends in the ‘one thing,’ but I want to have a logical pathway that could be conceptually explained (outside of direct perception methods) as purely a mental construct. I am working on a system that uses thought constructs to destroy thoughts constructs without insight/awareness methods. A system someone could use to destroy conceptual misunderstandings, so that they can then let the conceptions go because they have conceptually grasped all that they could (for those who cant help but contemplate conceptions like me). Thanks for your attention. - Songtsan (See the sets below these questions and then come back to the questions if you would….) If these were a pyramid, would you say that any of these numbers (not including the mergence of them all) belonged at the top, as in has the most strength or most relative AND absolute reality? I am thinking that number 7 might be iffy and could possibly be removed…but it still seems right for now as doesn’t nonexistence exist, in that there are things that don’t exist, then doesnt that make it true that nonexistence exists and therefore it is a something, or would you say that nonexistence doesnt exist so therefore it doesnt belong on the list? Are any of these sets illogical, lacking in substance, or should otherwise be removed because they don’t properly illustrate the principles I am aiming for?Could you logically say that ‘suchness’ or ‘is-ness’ is an 8th member of the list, or does it supersede and contain all of the members of the list or is it relatively the same as fullness or emptiness or both of those (I am thinking that this is the case, i.e. mergence of the list, but could it logically be argued that it could be relatively separated and make an 8th member, conceptually separate from the others)? It seems possible that emptiness and fullness could be exactly suchness in relativistic terms, but it also seems that emptiness and fullness could be just one step away from suchness for categorization purposes. As emptiness without the concept of ‘I’ seeing emptiness is the absolute emptiness, so in that case, although both are suchness, it seems that since suchness covers both emptiness with or without thought fabrications of a self seeing emptiness, then that means that since suchness encompasses both types of emptiness, it could be said that absolute emptiness does not include emptiness with a thought fabrication of ‘I’ experiencing emptiness, whereas suchness does, which would indicate suchness is ‘more advanced’ than either type of emptiness…or, would you say that suchness exactly equals the combination of fullness/emptiness in a Yin Yang kind of way, and that conceptions of absolute emptiness are always full as well and could never said to be absolutely empty? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Each one of these items can be applied to, and contains any of the others, and might something look like this (nonexistence not shown, because, well, it doesn’t exist…maybe imagine that it lies in the spaces instead of the points): 1) Everything is true 2) Everything is false 3) Everything is both true and false 4) Nothing is true and nothing is false 5) Emptiness (say/do nothing) 6) Fullness (say/do anything) 7) Nonexistence 1) Duality is true, nonduality is false 2) Nonduality is true, duality is false 3) Both duality and nonduality are true 4) Neither duality nor nonduality are true 5) Emptiness (say/do nothing) 6) Fullness (say/do anything) 7) Nonexistence 1) Everything is good 2) Everything is bad 3) Everything is both good and bad 4) Nothing is good or bad 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence 1) Everything is suffering 2) Everything is enjoyment 3) Both suffering and enjoyment are forever true 4) Neither suffering nor enjoyment is true 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence 1) I am everything 2) I am nothing 3) I am both everything and nothing 4) I am neither everything nor nothing 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence 1) Everything is everything 2) Everything is no-thing 3) Everything is both something and no-thing 4) Things are neither everything nor no-thing 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence 1) Everything is self 2) Nothing is self 3) Everything and nothing is self at the same time 4) Neither everything, nor nothing is self 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence 1) We are all the same 2) None of us are the same 3) We are both all the same and yet not the same 4) We are neither not the same nor the same 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence 1) Everything is absolute 2) Everything is relative 3) Everything is both relative and absolute 4) Things are neither absolute or relative 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence 1) Everything exists 2) Nothing exists 3) Everything both exists and non-exists 4) Things don’t exist but they also don’t non-exist 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence (neither existence nor nonexistence exists) 1) Thumbs touch 2) Thumbs don’t touch 3) Thumbs both touch and don’t touch 4) Thumbs don’t touch but they also don’t not-touch 5) Emptiness 6) Fullness 7) Nonexistence 1) Everything is empty 2) Nothing is empty 3) Everything both empty and not empty 4) Things are neither empty nor not-empty 5) Emptiness (without the concept of emptiness) 6) Fullness (…is emptiness, also with emptiness as concept) 7) Nonexistence 1) Everything is full 2) Nothing is full 3) Nothing is full and everything full 4) Nothing is full and nothing is not-full 5) Emptiness = fullness 6) Fullness = fullness 7) Nonexistence (?)

Love 'em!

You will find me in your storage barrel, but I will not be wet.

awesome - you helped

Except when the wood is wet and it makes a smacking sound when axed. Then the water is in the sky instead of the bucket.