Search the Community

I realize the logic is tricky here. If you can do real embyronic breathing THEN you can also do full lotus for two hours in ease. If you can't do full lotus for two hours in ease THEN you can not do real embryonic breathing. No where logically does this mean that embryonic breathing relies or depends on the full lotus -- the full lotus though demonstrates the ability to do embryonic breathing. If a person can't sit in full lotus then their energy channels aren't open. It's simple. It's powerful. haha. As for my own practice -- relating to nocturnal emissions - I have had no nocturnal emission since last spring. haha. That was only because I was perv attacked and I didn't get a chance to sublimate or convert the sex fluid back into chi energy again. About my recent phone healing from Chunyi Lin -- he said it was GREAT that I was sitting in full lotus. haha. He only said that I should store up the chi energy instead of doing my pineal gland transmissions all the time. He did say my kidney, lung and heart energy was weak but then I had gone three days on just three pieces of fruit and NO full lotus! haha. I was suffering from a stopped up colon full of charcoal. I give the details on my blog http://naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com So speaking from experience ONLY the full lotus enables stopping nocturnal emissions. The actual qigong masters rely on full lotus like Wang Liping, Yan Xin, Effie Chow, Chunyi Lin, Nan, Huai-chin. If full lotus is necessary for the qigong masters then why not for the students? haha. But really full lotus is not necessary...except for the real qigong masters. haha. Hilarious. Oh yeah the other thing is mastering the PC muscle flexing. So let's say you're having a dream that turns into not a dream -- meaning it turns "real." haha. If you're good then you can wake yourself up from the dream and flex your PC muscle just like stopping urination -- and then this will prevent any loss of fluid. Then you just go into full lotus and do reverse breathing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9lkq4LDQhk

No - you didn't get me even after I have repeatedly explained myself, perhaps I have not been able to convey my message clearly enough. All appearances are illusory/empty is a TRUTH... so the fact that all appearance is illusory does not mean for example, that 'correct cognition' is ultimately a false cognition (cognition of falsities), since illusoriness does not not make everything false as it is itself a truth - it only makes notions of non-illusoriness or notions of inherent existence false, makes sense? So there is false cognition (cognition of inherent self and objects) and correct cognition (cognition undeluded by false notions of self and objects). Correct cognition is illusory, and precisely because it is illusory that it is correct - because correct cognition here means undeluded by false notions of self and objects which would have contradicted its illusoriness. This is why Diamond Sutra keeps saying apparently paradoxical (but actually not paradoxical) stuff like it is precisely because there is no perfect enlightenment, that the Buddha is known to have attained perfect enlightenment. Illusoriness of something implies that inherent existence pertaining to something is false, and that its Emptiness is the Ultimate Truth, so saying 'everything is illusory' is not saying 'nothing is true' because 'illusoriness' or 'emptiness' is precisely THE truth, as a matter of fact correct cognition is the cognition of the truth of illusoriness, you get what I mean? It is realization and then authentication of the truth of the illusoriness of self and objects in every moment. And false cognition is the non-recognition of the truth of illusoriness. The view/illusion of self and objects is false (not true). The truth of emptiness of self and objects is, well, true. They are apparent, not substantial/real/inherent/independent - like a dream. By substantial and real I mean inherent and independent. No, I said its useless for a Buddha, but useful for sentient beings. A Buddha doesn't need four noble truths. He does not conceive anything at all and he needs no remedy about anything. He does not conceive conventional. p.s. in conclusion, the problem is that you don't understand the diff between peak experience and realization of anatta and emptienss. People can have peak experience where sense of self dissolves, and when their sense of self return, they go on their lives untransformed. They will not think that one mode of cognition is any truer than the other (like that you are implying) - simply because they have not realized that 'self' is an illusion to begin with, there never has been 'self' to begin with. If you have that realization, you will understand why you can either be awakened to Truth, or be trapped in delusions. If you merely have an experience, you will see it in terms of just being an experience wonderful or blissful as it may be - but nothing about realizing a truth, a Eureka realization that overturns your entire framework and view of reality resulting in a permanent transformation.

Much less limitations, not no limitations. I am talking about the realization that EVERYTHING is illusory... of course the realization is also empty and illusory (and empty = illusory, so because there is nothing at all - not even nirvana - that is not empty, everything including nirvana or even if there is anything 'higher than nirvana' must be illusory), but at least now you are no longer deluded. For example, the realization that the dream is a dream occurs in the dream setting, but from then on you are no longer deluded that the dream is real. yes I talked about it in my first post - most people live their lives with self-view and sense of self, but a very vague one. They experience alienation between themselves and the world, but they do not know what that 'self' is. But even though they haven't ascertained self or no self, nonetheless they cling to a sense of self which manifest as a form of contraction and alienation and separation - they feel a me inside experiencing things outside. This is why if they experience PCE or NDNCDIMOP - nondual nonconceptual direct immediate mode of perception, suddenly there's a huge contrast - a big WOW moment - when say, seeing a tree or a sunset or something amazing in nature (usually) but it could be anything. In that moment, the sense of self dissolves and there is just the amazing clarity and aliveness of the moment, the sight, the trees, the sound, without a sense of an inside observer separate from an outside world. Not understanding the experience or rather not realizing anatta as a dharma seal or nature of reality, they may later reflect upon it and say "oh my self dissolved into nothingness for a moment" or "I became the tree for a moment" even though these statements are not exactly true (there never was a real self to begin with, only the sense, the illusion of it). Me too, everyone too (or most people I'm sure). Agree. True. No - you totally do not understand anatta at all. Anatta is not a way of experiencing life. It is discovering there is no self at all to begin with - it is an illusion to begin with. If you realize anatta, you will understand why everyone is living a lie and an illusion, and now finally you are freed from that illusion. Anatta is NOT an experience... not a PCE or a NDNCDIMOP, however PCE and NDNCDIMOP becomes effortless and even perpetual after realization of anatta. However many people have PCE and NDNCDIMOP with NO realization of anatta whatsoever - as a matter of fact PCE and NDNCDIMOP are so common than Richard thinks every person in the world has experienced it some point in their life - usually in their childhood and is forgotten, but can remember it if they look into it deeply enough (he claims that every person he has spoken to at length can remember an instance in life usually in childhood when they experienced the PCE/NDNCDIMOP). Anatta realization however, is far different from any of those experience... it is a realization that always already, there has never been a seer seeing the seen - that is a FALSE delusional framework of reality, that always already, in seeing always just the sene, seeing is JUST the experience of sight without seer... etc. You may say - realization is also an experience isn't it? My answer is yes, but it is not an experience of 'the absence of sense of self' (a common temporary peak experience), but the experience of 'realizing that there is no self - never was, never will, from the beginning!' It is the experience of 'realizing a fundamental TRUTH' by seeing through a delusion, forever, and realizing no-self and shunyata. But unfortunately, you don't understand what I'm talking about, otherwise I wouldn't have needed to repeat. It is not just a mode of cognition such as the NDNCDIMOP or non-dual non-conceptual direct immediate mode of perception - it must have realization, and merely accessing a mode of cognition say a state absent of sense of self, is not the same as realization. For example as I explained above, NDNCDIMOP is a mode of perception and is extremely common such that everyone or almost everyone has had it before, however Anatta is a (permanent) REALIZATION about a truth, and is truly rare.

Right so there is just appearance of the "cognition of truth." If cognition is an appearance, then you are saying one is a false appearance and the other is a true appearance. If cognition is "of" an appearance, as in the example of the apple as the appearance. Then you are saying there is a separation of the apple as an appearance and something having the ability to be cognizant of that apple in a deluded way or a wise way. But you deny this model, so it seems be the former. If it is the former, then you are saying there are true appearance and false appearances without any basis but preference, since you also say that all appearance are illusory. If conventional truths are false but if it is observable, in its effects and powers to change, as a dream, why does that make it any less real?

Gagh, this is such a disappointing answer...your abilities in the dream are just as limited as in the waking world. Of course lucid dreams have limitations, the very dream itself, the fact that you are playing with the "sky" is a form of limitation isn't it? Just because one has more boundaries than the other, or the quality is different doesn't say anything about whether one is a projection and the other is not. Perhaps the field of influence varies. A teacher of mine once said that the mahasiddhas simply switch their dream world for the real one and that's how they can perform what we perceive as miraculous powers effortlessly. Is this an appearance? If yes, then by your standards it is illusory. So why is this anymore real than the mirage? You know people who believe in a "self" don't go around saying to themselves, "here I am! this I, "me" interacting with "him." They, like you don't purposefully ascertain a self or a non self. I sure didn't before I delved into spiritual stuff. If people did they would be far more aware of their egoic tendencies than they are most of the time. It is a matter of habit, ways of being. They forget why they live that way though, what is at the basis of that habit, the beliefs that have spawned it. Your case is no different. You just have another way of experiencing life that's all. It's no more true or false than anyone else's experience. You are being too irrelevantly wordy and repetitive and simply continue to reassert your position. You are not engaging in a discussion with me but talking at me. Instead of replying to my post word by word and taking phrases in their own out of context narrowness, let us both try to reply to the ideas and question we have here concisely. So I'm going to just try to dig out your main points. Isn't perception of truth a cognition? Do you not have an experience of it in the mind? And you say this is true than other cognitive states. One an awakened state and the other a delusional state. How is this not giving reality to a certain mode of cognition over another? Furthermore, what is the difference in the mind when it is labeling a certain experience as "truth" and something as "substantial"? Isn't it mere semantics? When we say something is substantial, it doesn't necessary mean something has a core to it, or an identity to it. It very much means that we take it to be real, that it is unfixed in its affect on our livelihood. The degree of something's "reality," as in its shades or rigidity, is also another factor in how the mind perceives. I don't think really understood what I wrote in that phrase. I'll try to be more concise replying to the post below.

Never said anything like that. Emptiness, and non-emptiness. Truth is emptiness. False is non-emptiness (inherent existence). Cognition of reality simply means correct cognition in the authentication of true wisdom (such as the wisdom of the twofold emptiness). Cognition 'of' does not imply subject/object duality, just as 'cognition of red apple' does not imply 'cognizer' - it just means 'cognition of red apple'. Cognition of red apple can have two types: false cognition and correct cognition. False cognition cognizes a seer seeing an inherently existing red apple. Correct cognition simply cognizes suchness, as Buddha says, "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer. Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime." Just because all are empty doesn't mean there isn't a correct and false way of cognition, the prior leading to wisdom liberation, the latter leading to suffering and delusion. So our compassion goes for those in delusion and suffering as a result of that delusion. Of course even to talk about wisdom and ignorance is also to speak in conventional terms because ultimately there is no wisdom, no ignorance, no ... . So if wisdom and ignorance are conventional truths why bother talking about it? Why bother talking about conventional truths if they are ultimately not true? Firstly as I said, karma, ignorance and its effects can be observed on the conventional level. If there is no sentient beings and no suffering, why talk about saving sentient beings? Even though Buddhas only perceive wisdom/ultimate truth and not conventional, nonetheless as Namdrol says "if you suffer from delusion, then you are still beholden to the two truths. It is inescapable." As an analogy, if you suffer from delusion, you require realization. Actually emptiness is always already the case and requires nothing - realization is only relative to ignorance (trees have no ignorance and no wisdom) - but the only cure to delusion is realization and the only way to attain realization is to walk the eightfold path. Then as an awakened being you become aware of the ultimate truth and know there is no ignorance, no realization, no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end of suffering, no path to end suffering, no . So everything becomes like 'dream-talk' - even talks about four noble truths are 'dream-talk', but it is nonetheless necessary for someone still trapped in the 'dream' (as in, trapped in delusion). A buddha however don't need it anymore but to teach sentient beings he has to engage in dream talk - mere skilful means. Ultimately, as Buddha himself said, he taught nothing at all - because ultimately nothing can be said. Thats like saying - there is already no self, you don't have to get rid of self, you don't have to practice anything to be no-self, you don't have to do anything. But that doesn't work for most of us - we can't realize it so such a statement is as good as useless. But once we have a method in which we can practice to realize the truth, then that means something for us. Insofar as there is the slighest trace of delusion left, you have to engage in further practice and contemplation. So there is a place for compassion, for skillful means, for dream talk. They are all in reference to sentient beings trapped in delusion.

Ultimately no difference (all states are empty), conventionally one is a projection of thought or intention as in lucid dreaming, while waking state is not a projection of your intention - i.e. you cannot fly in the sky or change scene just by your own intention, even though waking is also dream-like and illusory doesn't mean its a dream. Of course in waking state your intention can accomplish many things - like walking to the toilet. But you can't fly to the toilet because there are many other limitations and conditions apart from intention - physical limitations, etc. Whereas, lucid dreaming does not have any such limitations and operates solely via intention and thought projection. The notion of something non-illusory is already present prior to realization - it is more like, you once thought the mirage was real and there was a real city over there, and now you realized there is no real city over there, its just a mirage, an illusion. That moment of realization is a non-conceptual seeing - it is a Eureka discovery of something amazing - the fact that everything is vividly appearing and yet not truly 'there'! Illusory simply means no core, no substance in anything. Now of course even emptiness is empty - emptiness being an Ultimate Truth but not an Ultimate Reality - emptiness being the absence of inherent existence but not the presence of some metaphysical reality or a position of non-existence - it is taught so that one can relinquish false notions or views about self and objects instead of holding to a new view or belief, and when it has done its job, you totally forget about something called 'emptiness' and just live life without any more delusions. Just luminosity without reifying anything. I never have any thoughts about 'emptiness' or 'no self' nowadays - 'emptiness' or 'no self' simply rejects existents but does not posit a position of non-existence as truth. In other words, I don't perceive a self, but I also don't perceive a no-self - just the suchness of seeing, hearing, without a sense or illusion of self or even a no-self. Make sense? Yes thats right. Have already explained very clearly - there is a difference between delusory and illusory. Wisdom is the correct cognition of reality even though ultimately empty, while ignorance is delusional even though ultimately empty. I'm not. Yeah but its all a dream. All are illusory, but the latter is NOT delusional (you recognized the dream to be dream) while the prior IS delusional (you thought the dream scene was real). I do not give reality to anything - if 'reality' (in Buddhist definition) implies something real or substantial, then both wisdom and ignorance is equally empty, illusory, and unreal. However, there is a truth: the truth is emptiness, and wisdom is the cognition or recognition or realization of that truth, while ignorance is the non realization of that truth and therefore operating under false cognition of the nature of reality (as inherently existing). So yes, one is wisdom and one is delusional even though both are empty. You may think that to say something is true and unreal is contradictory but its not - its just because you have an assumption that something true must be something real (substantial). As I said, the truth is the unreality of self and things, and untruth is the (notion of) reality of self and things. I do not give reality (as in substantiality) to modes of cognition. I am just saying, there is a truth - the truth is emptiness, and wisdom is the undeluded cognition due to realization of that truth while ignorance is deluded cognition due to ignorance of that truth, all the while both modes are utterly empty and merely conventional. No - true is true false is false. Truth is emptiness, false is all notions of inherent existence. Or in another way of explaning, true is ultimate truth, false is conventional truth (put in another way: conventional truth is ultimately not true), but conventional truth also have truths and untruths. There is two truths: conventional truth, and ultimate truth. Ultimately, there is only One Truth - not two. So conventional truth falls under 'false', however under that category of things (conventional) you can distinguish false and true - as in conventionally, rebirth and karma is true (The conventionally observed efficacy of karma and its results cannot be denied. But even karma is ultimately illusory.), and conventionally, a moon made of green cheese is false. Ultimately, the only truth is emptiness, and conventional truth is not true. As an analogy - in a dream you can say you saw this and this, those are conventional truth. Even though certain things can be said to be true and certain things false in the context of the dream, ultimately whatever can be conventionally said about the dream is false in the perspective of ultimate truth - since the dream is entirely illusory and empty to begin with, so in final analysis the only truth is emptiness.

As "Taoist Yoga" states there's one kind of dream that is not a dream but is real and that's the nocturnal emission. You can do full lotus at the computer. I'm in it right now. haha. Chunyi Lin did his first two hour full lotus session while watching a martial arts movie. It's not necessary to do full lotus while "meditating" but, of course, keeping the eyes closed to focus the energy and doing mind yoga helps a lot. At your age if you can do two hours full lotus non-stop then you should be able to sleep less and again you're not really sleeping if you're having nocturnal emissions as those are not really dreams. haha. Or conversely being awake is another type of sleep walking when we don't control the subconscious mental energies. So that's why I sit in full lotus during the day even when I am not meditating -- we are constantly bombarded with lower emotional "attacks" so to speak by outside influences. Again diet is a big factor - so I recommend switching to a vegetarian diet. Ramana Maharshi insists that a vegetarian diet is a minimum for true meditation - when the body is weak then the mind is strong. it's easier to open up the chi channels when you can successfully convert the jing energy. Eating meat just creates sex fluid and if you can't burn it off then it's just a waste of energy. Unless you want to make lots of babies. haha. So to be an energy master the minimum is two hours of full lotus non-stop a day. Make time for it and the extra energy you get will mean less time doing other things -- less time needing to eat food, less time on the toilet, less time needing to work for food, less time needing sleep. Etc. Was that 15 minutes of full lotus to type this message? haha. Hilarious. 15 minutes of full lotus is nothing.

Then what's the difference between lucid dreaming and waking states? By the way, way to keep it concise. . So...that's a yes. Let's look a bit deeper into this "recognition" of an illusion. How do you recognize something as an illusory appearance? By having an idea of something that is non-illusory. And there is no agent either yes? So in your paradigm that recognition of something being illusory arises with the condition of recognizing something as true. It makes no sense to have something be false, without an opposite context of something being true. But you say everything is mere appearance. And that appearances are illusions. IMO, there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because you are giving legitimacy to a certain experience calling is wisdom over another way of experiencing which is delusional. But that so called "wisdom" is seeing everything is illusory and baseless: Nope. I'm not saying that at all. In fact it seems like you are without even recognizing it. If the dream tiger is real in your mind, it will also bite your dream body in the dream world and give you dream pain. If in the dream there is the arising of through that it is "not real" then there will be dream peace of mind, in a dream safety in the dream world. Which one is illusory tiger and which one is the illusory safety? On the contrary that is what you are saying. You give reality to one experience over the other, saying one is wisdom and the other is delusional. It's not "things" you are giving reality to, but modes of cognition and states of mind. As we agreed on the snake analogy, really there is no difference between "things" and "states of mind." So your "true" falls under "false." What you are basically saying above is True is "false," therefore "false." And since False is False, it is then True. This is a blatant logical fallacy and obliterates the point of distinguishing True and False. Haha! What? You don't make too much sense towards the end there do you. Let's examine a few things you said here: "Correct cognition" or "false cognition"...of what? Of reality? Cognition "of" reality indicates dual perception which I thought you don't have. You just have arising perception, which is not really perception, but more an experience and appearance. What reality are you cognizant of as "false" then or true, unless you label one type of appearance more real than some other way you are aware of through memory. Uh...this is totally random. Why are you bringing this up? Do you have trouble feeling truly compassionate for others? I just don't see why you brought this up..

The tree energy? Cool! Yesterday I had this strange urge to hug this old oak tree. I had just been burning wood to make charcoal and as I cut up different wood - maple, buckthorn, etc. I had this new respect for the power of the tree. Previously I had seen a rainbow aura and had a dream about this white bear about two old oak trees in my yard from when I was a kid. After the white bear dream I went to check on the old oak tree and it had just been cut down!! The white bear is a symbol of death/transition. Yeah then i realized those old oak trees were watching over me when I was a kid. haha. So when I was hugging the tree with my arms -- barely touch on the other side -- then I had great respect for how strong this tree was compared to what I had just burned -- how much energy was in it. It just felt good to hug it. Wow too bad googletranslate doesn't give a readable translation:

Lucid dreaming. "no longer being deluded about the dream" implies first, a moment of realization that terminates a false view about reality, and secondly this realization resulting in the effortless authentication of the 'suchness of seen, heard, sensed' without falsely projecting self/seer, objects, and so on, as per what Kalaka Sutta described. This actualization is the actualization of wisdom, and when all latent tendencies are completely removed (when not even the residual smell remains after the contents of the jug was removed), such a being can be called an arhant or a buddha, and such a being only perceives wisdom in day to day living, never any ignorance, sense of self, attachments, and so on "no longer being deluded about the dream" cannot be pinned down as an entity inside the appearance, or apart from the appearance. It is simply a description about our experience - ignorance is wrong-cognition and wisdom is correct-cognition (shall explain below). Wisdom is just a convention, but ultimately empty of any inherent existence that could be pinned down or located as a reality. Similar things can be said to anything else: weather cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the everchanging clouds, rain, wind, lightning, etc... Car cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the engine, door, [other components] etc... Self cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the constantly changing five aggregation... so on and so forth. Awareness also cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the six dependently originated consciousnesses. All are just conventional truths, ultimately empty - that means ultimately there is no wisdom, no ignorance, no awareness, no self, no car, no weather, no eye, no ear, no nose, no five skandhas, no nirvana, no samsara - Form is Emptiness. But this should always be clarified: emptiness does not deny form, no-awareness does not deny luminosity, no self does not deny witnessing consciousness, no object does not deny appearance, etc. This is why 'Emptiness is Form'. Can't deny appearances - but because of empty nature you cannot pinpoint something (a wisdom, an Awareness, a car, a self, a weather, a chariot) as the appearance, or apart from the appearance Anatta means there is no one, no agent, that is ignorant, that is realized, that is behind seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. So to presume "something" is behind something is already false. Realization is something akin to recognizing the dream as illusory (not delusional). When you recognize the dream, you don't wake up from the dream, you wake up from your delusions about the dream (as containing real substantial objects and a real substantial self) and you continue dreaming lucidly, able to manipulate the illusions. Wisdom is illusory - empty but not delusional. Ignorance is both illusory and delusional. In short, it is one thing to say that the thing you see is illusory - for example you can see an illusory thing - like a mirage. But its a whole different thing to be tricked by the mirage by taking the mirage as an actual thing - like you thought there is a real city at the far end, when actually its just a mirage. Mirage is illusory, being tricked is delusion. It does make sense conventionally as I just explained above (one is with delusion one is not). Ultimately, there is no distinction because emptiness is the nature of everything - from ignorance to wisdom, from hell to Buddhas. You think that to be deluded implies 'someone' being deluded. This is just an inference, similar to thinking that to hear something it requires a hearer, or to see something requires a seer. This is false. The Buddha says, I do not say "I see", "I hear", or even "I am ignorant" or "I am deluded". He says, based on such and such supporting conditions, such and such happens. He doesn't say 'I hear, I see, I awaken' but he says with such and such conditions comes awakening, seeing, hearing, etc. Because the nature of twofold emptiness is such that there are no independent/inherent self or objects, to hold the view that there are independent self/objects are delusional. So, there is correct cognition (wisdom), and false cognition (ignorance), even though both are equally empty. That means, the conventionally observed effects of wisdom (wisdom leads to liberation, clarity, etc etc) and ignorance (ignorance leads to the 12 links, leads to suffering, clinging, etc etc) cannot be denied. But even wisdom and ignorance is ultimately illusory. As an analogy: experiencing the dream as if the dream tiger is real and the dream self is real and as a result experiencing fear and suffering, is a sign of ignorance (false cognition of the dream). Experiencing the dream with the recognition that the dream is merely a thought-projection and therefore no real tiger or self and as a result experiencing no fear at all is a sign of wisdom (correct cognition of the dream). This is just an analogy, of course lucid dreaming is not the same as the realization of emptiness as the nature of reality but a mere recognition of a dream as a dream: dream here as the state opposed to waking, not the dream-like nature of everything. You see, I think the problem with you is that to you, 'true' means 'something real, something existing, something substantial' and 'false' means 'something illusory'. To me its the opposite. 'True' means 'empty of reality, substantiality, inherent, independent existence' whereas 'false' means 'something taken as real, substantial, inherent, etc' So you're basically saying: if things are empty, if wisdom is as empty as ignorance, how can wisdom be more true (as in being the 'correct way of cognition') than ignorance? Or how can ignorance be more false than wisdom? While my answer is that precisely because the nature of reality is empty, that wisdom (correct cognition) or truth does not require substantial reality but rather points to the lack of substantiality or graspable existence... and precisely because of empty nature, that ignorance means view of inherent/substantial reality - deluded, false cognition of reality... of course even ignorance is empty but with ignorance, you don't comprehend that. Not sure what you're getting at. And yes, ordinary world is just as illusory/empty as dream world. By the way, Diamond Sutra says a Bodhisattva who believes that there is a self saving a sentient being is not a true bodhisattva since he believes in a truly existing self and a truly existing sentient being. And yet, he should give rise to the intention to save sentient beings. Why so? If all sentient beings are illusory, why save them? The answer is simple: just because all things are illusory doesn't mean people realize it, and because they don't realize it, they are asleep, and suffering as a result. Compassion arises from no one to no one - simply a spontaneous response or reaction to the situation of samsara. So just because everything is illusory doesn't mean genuine compassion cannot arise, the genuine intention to save ourselves and others (even though there is no real self or other) from suffering and delusion.

Thanks for not plastering quotes. I like this shorter back and forth. Let's keep it this way when we discuss this issue. I don't want us to write pages of quotes and replies. I don't think it's necessary, especially since you are awakened and have a very clear mind. IMO your reply shows that you haven't really thought about this that much. If you awake in a dream, are you dreaming anymore? Also, is "no longer being deluded about the dream" an appearance, or is it referring to something recognizing the dream as delusional? Your answer is probably not the latter. So if it's an appearance, then it is also illusion. So now the distinction between delusion and illusion no longer make much sense since there is no one to be deluded about something. Your "enlightenment" according to your ideas, is just another appearance! So why do you say something is deluded and something is not deluded? p.s. you realize you can manipulate the ordinary world just like the dream world. The dream tiger can kill you too: you wake up on your bed and you are no longer in the jungle.

It is illusory but not delusory. Know lucid dreaming? In a dream, you may suddenly turn lucid so are no longer deluded about the dream, but the dream goes on, and you can manipulate the dream, fly in the sky, make use of the illusion. Fun stuff. But if you think the dream tiger chasing after you is real, not so fun.

logic is the sheepdog. reality is an unlimited dream that we just might never understand. well i think you missed my point but i'm not going to try harder than that to make it again. sorry i reminded you of your dad in an unpleasant way. the saying is no less true.

My father used to say, "You can dream about this in your right hand or shit in your left hand and see which fills up faster." It pissed me off when he said it, I mean really that analogy is just vulgar and meant to shock people. I actually started to tune out what you said after that, but decided to put my own feelings about that phrase and people that use it aside and examine the rest. I guess if you follow the bandwagon and believe everything that you've been told is true and infallible, then yeah, no point. Of course you could think for yourself and examine it anyways and figure out if it's a waste of time, then say, yeah it's a waste of time. Now to put it bluntly, you're following the flock, the sheep dog has nipped you on the butt and told you where you can roam. That green valley over there, you can't go there, that's not where the sheep dog wants you to go. So do you keep fearing the sheep dog and stay with the flock or do you one day wake up to the fact that you're just doing what the other sheep are doing and what every sheep that has come before you has done, and simply sneak off in the dark and make a life for yourself? Of course some wolves might get you, or you might wander into a desert, but hey that's the price to pay for freedom. At least that's how I see it, so please, don't feel the need to tell me what I can and can't answer, what I can and can't dream about, it's not your business to tell me, nor was it my fathers. The wise have only told you what they've experienced, not everything that can be experienced. Lao Tzu didn't know about nuclear fission, does that mean I shouldn't believe it exists? Jeesh, when are we going to move into the 21st century? This is like the Christians that still believe that wafer is the body of Christ and wine the blood of Christ. Science can disprove that and I think in the end it will disprove that your mystery is all that ineffable. Aaron

taoist ways of turning stress into vitality smoking herb, growing herbs rollercoasters living in a state of wanton abandon clear the mind of symbols think of the universal love and oneness taking time slowing down savoring detail empathizing cultivating animistic kindness and perception to see all as alive is to live forever, is the most heavenly and equanimous, it is the seeing of spirit itself kamis of wanti poets and the true jewish mystics, (and all of it in turn, freely coming together and apart, in simple benevolence) angels upon seas of rocks becoming trees speaking and growing, the fabric of earth and the universe Mother, you are everywhere guiding, you are old yet young you are within me, as I care for nature, and in the moon and sun as they call me, through the world they are woven, with their rays, their love, and brought together by their gathering, this festival, the stars, we dance and see and dance and see, divining on the walls like the lights of the water on the cave walls, we had painted the sky there, and so it truly appeared things were so true then, we had really made them, by the magic of tricksters the seamsters, of the universe, just a humor, a nothingness, a change of the angle, for that eternal wave which is ness, coming our language is the grooves, it has left, like a volcano long ago yet still shifting, everything is growing like the plants in this garden of oatenlia, the wood town where we rest our heads adventurers upon our steady treading stead, elves taking home in the trees, alora the witch and her broom of good tidings, we fly long in peace, ever living, in ways hard to understand, fading away, and coming back vibrations, all of it, of an eternal truth, i've seen it reveal itself like the face of God, so much emptiness, like the buddha and so much compassion and living like the Goddess all in one everywhere, always, yet we dance along the labyrinth calling in so many ways, finally the truth arises like a koan of truth, in so many simple and merely part of the grand mystery of life beforehand, something we perhaps were not meant to know, but nay, for it swirls together now, the soul, riding purely as the wholeness, like a mist scattering across an emptiness, full of the nourishing dream of life in its true real form, of the dancing energies of the dakinis among the myriad fractal infinite patterns which the river of life dances in its journey, it is a single sprout flowering in all these ways, all of us put together, it has woven and expanded, and continued and gone on, it is the tree of life, Adawapayo, sprouting from the land of Wanti, and verily, it is all things!

Unfortunately like it or not, Buddhism deals with universal truths. Whether you see those truths, that totally depends. But just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not true. Don't worry we won't start a religious war... Buddha is not a god demanding unswerving faith (he benefits nothing out of it - its all for our own sake - he does not ask for worship) and there is no Buddhist scriptures that can act as a basis for Jihad. Buddhism has had no religious war started by its doctrines (there are wars started by Buddhists since Buddhists as any other type of persons are succeptible to afflictions, craving, anger, etc, but not religious wars). When I said universal truths, I mean truths that pertain to the nature of reality and the human condition. The four noble truths are truths pertaining to the nature of reality and the human condition. They are universal. The truths of impermanence, suffering, non-self... these are universal truths. The truth of emptiness is a universal truth. So I say Buddhadharma is universal - because dharma pertains to universal truths. The truth of suffering (birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair), cause of suffering (craving and ignorance), end of suffering (nirvana) and way to end suffering (noble eightfold path) is universal. When I say 'end suffering' I don't mean like temporarily ending a dog's craving for food by giving him dog food, I mean complete, permanent end of any mental suffering and afflictions and furthermore the end of afflictive births in the cycle of samsara. You see, if only you were to see things as Buddha see, plus you have the three knowledges that Buddha had: rebirth, karma, and 4 noble truths, then you will be able to see things in the big picture and see why taking up Dharma practice is the best thing to do. As my Taiwanese teacher who could remember innumerable past lives and have [in this life] visited realms of heaven and hell and provided clear descriptions of them (well ok if you don't believe it - but lets just presume its true for a moment since this is what the Buddha reports to be true as well) have said - if you knew your past lives, you will totally get sick and tired of all the rebirths. But most of us can't remember past lives or that much past lives anyway - so this is something that can only be taken by faith - and if you have faith in Buddha, it can be a good motivating force to practice the dharma. Of course just by the suffering of this life alone some people will find enough reasons to seek for liberation, but it is far different from seeing things from the 'big picture'. And as the Buddha himself have said, SN 15.13 PTS: S ii 187 CDB i 658 Timsa Sutta: Thirty translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 2009–2011 Now on that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagaha, in the Bamboo Grove. Then thirty monks from Pava — all wilderness dwellers, all alms-goers, all triple-robe wearers, all still with fetters — went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. Then the thought occurred to the Blessed One, "These thirty monks from Pava... are all still with fetters. What if I were to teach them the Dhamma in such a way that in this very sitting their minds, through lack of clinging, would be released from fermentations?" So he addressed the monks: "Monks." "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?" "As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the blood we have shed from having our heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans." "Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me. "This is the greater: the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans. "The blood you have shed when, being cows, you had your cow-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans. "The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans. "The blood you have shed when, arrested as thieves plundering villages, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as highway thieves, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as adulterers, you had your heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans. "Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabrications, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the thirty monks from Pava — through lack of clinging — were released from fermentations. This is why I say dharma is universal. The truth of suffering is universal. And the most sensible thing after considering the big picture, is to end suffering ASAP, without delay. If you have not known the big picture, you may not have enough reasons why the Buddhist cause is the most sensible or best thing to do. And if you have not gone through the insights and experiences I had, you will not see why liberation is only possible through the twofold emptiness, which is why Buddhism is unique and perculiar. No, I mean the subjective individual experience for the person is undeniable - not absolute (as in truly substantially existing), simply undeniably appearing as mere experience - experience of unicorns is undeniable, even if it is mere delusion. The visual distortions by someone taking hallucinogenic drugs are undeniably appearing - even though completely illusory, empty. And such experiences are not universal because they are just an experience arising due to a particular set of conditions. Your dream experience at night is personal - I can't see it unless I have psychic powers. In any case, I don't share your dream experience. But your dream experience is undeniable for you (and you only). But when I say the Nature of experience, that is universal. The nature of experience is not about one experience, it is the nature of all experience, all phenomena, five aggregates - be it mind or matter. The truth of emptiness applies equally to you or me - there is no way that it only applies to me and not someone else. If they do investigation, they too will realize emptiness. There is no such thing as a person (as long as he has conditions like human life, right teaching and teacher, etc) who cannot realize emptiness because emptiness is the nature of phenomenon. Similarly there is no person in the world who can say they are 'unaware' or without any form of awareness. Luminosity is the basic essence of mind, of all experiences, and to be able to even respond or be aware of my communicating with them would already necessitate luminosity. Emptiness is likewise. The union of luminosity and emptiness is universal. It is the nature of reality. Since you are familiar with luminosity you should know that those people who aren't into spiritual will probably not know what 'awareness' or 'luminosity' is when you talk to them - at best a vague idea or concept about it but not direct knowledge or realization of it. Yet just because they don't know what awareness/luminosity is, doesn't mean its not there right? Precisely because luminosity is already present, that it can be discovered. It is not there only because of discovery (it is not merely an experience that pertains to an enlightened state - both enlightened and unenlightened have luminous minds) - it is already there, which is why it can be discovered. So anyway, if you have realized luminosity, but due to existing framework you see luminosity as inherent, independent, unchanging, Self, then luminosity becomes an object of clinging. But through investigation you realized anatta, then that clinging or reification of luminosity as a Self is removed. This investigation into the nature of reality giving rise to insight is what liberates you. The nature of reality is universal and only needs to be seen through investigation and contemplation. There is a clear progression of things: for example, A, B, C are universal truths. Lets say A is luminosity, B is anatta, C is shunyata. If you realize A, thats great because A is an undeniable fact - you can't deny luminosity or awareness right? It is a profound, transformational, blissful realization. Similarly you can't deny B or C so if you realize A, you should also realize B or C which refines your view. These are all universal truths that can and should be realized for total liberation. All our experiences are illusory. But to believe that in that illusory experience there is a real self and an object, that is delusional. When I say "one is living with illusion, one is not" I mean one is living with deluded views, one is not living in deluded views and ignorance. There is no ignorance for someone who has awakened. It doesn't mean however that they have something real and sentient beings have something illusory - even Buddhahood and Nirvana is empty and illusory. But a Buddha is no longer in ignorance about it. Not being in ignorance, a Buddha or an arhant does not cling, does not suffer. Prajnaparamita Sutra: "Subhūti said, "0 dear gods, if there were something that was more superior even than Nirvāṇa, I would still say that it is like a dream and a magical delusion. 0 dear gods, there is not the slightest difference between Nirvāṇa and dreams and magical delusions."411 I do not have metaphysical filter for life. Somehow you don't understand that theres a difference between delusion and illusory. All things are illusory - from hell to Buddhahood and Nirvana. But you can either be deluded about it, or awakened. Awakening is permanent. Once awaken you do not have more delusion. Even a simple exercise to observe the three characteristics of phenomena is a powerful investigation, well lets not talk about 3 char... just 1 will do: impermanence. Observing impermanence is a basic Buddhist meditation. Through that one may realize that all experiences are impermanent. This is not indoctrination - its something you can see - impermanence is a universal fact of all phenomena, that they are constantly arising and subsiding, they don't stay. In Vipassana terms people can start to see everything as similar to 'the vibrations of atoms' - nothing is solid. Indoctrination is to instill an unexamined concept. When it is examined and seen as it is, it is no longer indoctrination. Similarly, all investigation and exercise must be done through contemplation and observation in naked awareness. I can understand "all things are impermanent", it does make sense to me yeah, but unless I meditate, I'll never wake up to it. The theory is there, the realization and experience is lacking. So like a scientist, you can have your theory, but it must be proven or seen through tests. You need to device a reproducible test that can showcase how your theory works. This is totally not true... haha I find it amusing you would think so. I don't know how to convince you anymore if you truly think that I think I'm gifted. You just have to take my word for it... or not. Either way I am not too concerned about people's opinions about me (as I will explain). I am not interested in false humility and if I thought I was some great lama last life, I would have said it. I am not interested in false humility - if I were, I would have said something like "oh... I am not enlightened at all, I am just a lousy learner who hasn't gained anything from dharma" but I have so far been very open about my experiences with dharma (not out of pride but out of genuine sincerity to share it with others, to inspire others and perhaps provide some pointers for others). I have no memories of being a great lama last life. But I do have memories of being a student of some great lama. I must say, I am not a proud person, but I am not a humble person either. The question of pride/humility just does not arise because I simply am not concerned with self image (in fact have no clinging to self image nor any sense of self/Self whatsoever). As I told someone, I wouldn't care less if someone else thinks I'm a fraud or a fool or a madman, or that I'm enlightened, great, whatever (even though if he shows misconception of me I would probably attempt to rectify the misconception but I wouldn't really care or be attached to it). I am only interested in facts and truth, not what someone else thinks about me, or what I think about myself - their opinions are their own matters. I am also not really concerned if you believe in what I just said. I am just sharing my experience for the joy of it. (just found a sutta which describes how I would react: "38. "If for that (reason)[40] others revile, abuse, scold and insult the Perfect One, on that account, O monks, the Perfect One will not feel annoyance, nor dejection, nor displeasure in his heart. And if for that (reason) others respect, revere, honor and venerate the Perfect One, on that account the Perfect One will not feel delight, nor joy, nor elation in his heart. If for that (reason) others respect, revere, honor and venerate the Perfect One, He will think: 'It is towards this (mind-body aggregate) which was formerly[41] fully comprehended, that they perform such acts.'[42]") The whole story about my birth is just one of those 'interesting facts' and there is no explanations for it - I mean how the hell will we know what happened in between my last life and this life (until I can remember it that is). It is the least important of things yet its just one of those curious unexplainable things. Honestly, sometimes, I wonder why is it that such an ordinary person like me get to see all these and why so many other brilliant minded, sincere people can't? And the answer is not "oh because I'm special and I'm an incarnate of a special being" (which I do not think I am) but "it is truly unfortunate that the true dharma is not being propagated well enough to the masses, had it been so, it would have been like the Buddha's times where thousands or tens of thousands of his students get liberated". Not implying I could do a better job anyway... I am not skillful in teaching (and I'm not a teacher). Anyway my point in my previous post is that I probably had given rise to an aspiration to attain Buddhahood in my previous lifetime which had an impact on this birth - I'm sure lots of people have such aspirations. I don't mean to say "I'm a special Bodhisattva who chose to come here". You are making things overcomplicated perhaps due to my failure to communicate properly. Not in Buddhism, and not in my experience. In my experience, nothing transforms from one thing to another. Nothing becomes something else. And likewise there is no 'Awareness becoming this experience' (substantialist nondualism). There is just A is A, B is B, etc... In my experience and insight, firewood does not turn into ashes. And sorry I had to quote someone again because this expresses my experience very well: Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death. This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death. Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring. ~ Zen Master Dogen, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/genjo-koan-actualizing-fundamental.html Plus the Buddha teaches (and it has been my experience) that remainderless cessation is possible: "Now from the remainder-less fading and cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-and-form. From the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering." By the way I should say, cessation of self-view (attained in stream entry) is not the same as the complete cessation of ignorance (attained in arhantship). As an analogy: pouring out the contents of a jug still leaves a residual smell in the jug. This is also my experience, but shall not elaborate now. This is very true and this is what I mean by latent views and tendencies.

No i have absolutely no thoughts about how awareness began, except that one thought i just shared right there. And if i ever had a thought about the source, i would at least have already had 1000 thoughts about how the source must transcend thought and the mechanism of thought, language, in order to truly be the source. And if anyone wants to chime in here with any stupid thoughts about the origin of consciousness and awareness and the spirit, i will laugh to myself but that will be the only incendiary thing i say about it. I used to bend my head thinking "why is this" and "how could this have arisen" and I have read many theories on the subject, from many capable minds and religious/spiritual/shamanic worldviews, only to conclude that subscribing to such ideas causes a very unhealthy ossification of the psyche, dangerous in the EXTREME, because at that point at which your ego convinces you that you actually understand reality or the FIRST god damned mysterious thing about it, you will stop experiencing reality as-it-is and you will begin to perceive through the filter of reality as-you-think-it-is. so you can think "why" into your right hand, and take a shit into your left hand, but i can tell you right now which one will get full first. Thoughts of this kind aren't worth a god damned thing and are a total waste of fucking time get it? im swearing because this is actually important to understand. Reality is a subtle mystery, and deserves better than to be insulted by the notion that some ignoramus like one of us can comprehend it. Give up. Experience the dream, not your theory of "the holgraphic reality matrix of such and such" or "the square root of the speed of light times the weight of gold" or whatever nonsense your left brains produced and your right brains mistook as the oasis. Its a mirage. Sorry. The wise call it the ineffable mystery for a reason. Leave it that way, its way better for the quality of your experience.

Conventional truths are framed within an absolute view of the world and it needn't be clearly outlined by the conscious mind. Always. Most people take this for granted because they do not delve into the constructs of their awareness (this is where perhaps you should actually do vipassana). It may not be a perfect picture, or even logical, mostly it is unquestioned and accepted. But for any sort of conventional view or comprehension of our surroundings to make sense, the mind must have an ultimate belief in the world and its orders. Just because you don't think about it consciously, does not mean your metaphysical belief is not present. You are clearly not awakened if you do not see the relationship between the absolute and conventional beliefs and how they are really the same ocean at different depths. You can't have shallowness without depth and vice versa. So you believe that you are gifted. And also that Buddhist deities have bless your family and the birth of you and your sister. Whether you truly believe this is true or a hallucination doesn't matter because clearly you, as a devote Buddhist, accept these auspicious signs. Also it seems that you have prophetic abilities which you likely attribute to Buddhist practice. Do you still truly believe that you are an ordinary individual? I don't think so. You may not flaunt it. That would be too easy especially considering an upbringing in Buddhist ethics of humility. As you did above, you probably tell people that you are very ordinary or like to be seen that way. But I doubt you truly believe this. You believe, behind all the false humility, that you are extraordinary, special, blessed, and gifted. Nothing disappears into thin air. Not even your imagination. No energetic formation dies. A fire that burns the candle together make the smoke that dissolve into the atmosphere. It may become clouds, it may become mist. Similarly a belief cannot be destroyed. It is always transformed as a river does down a bank, taking different shapes, dissolving varying materials. It may be as dense and clogged as a rock or as abstract as thin air. But there is never a nothing. Even nothing takes its definition from the existence that came before, or the potential for existence in the vaccuum. It is erroneous, imo, to see this as a belief vs. no belief, as you seem to see it. I think you do see it in those extreme terms, as faith vs. no-faith, as you used that word in the previous post. It's rather a spectrum of seeming opposites, a degree of faith, and their seeming opposition is not absolute. Unicorns and monsters are very real in their imaginative existence. Your consciousness gives them life in a dream. You become joyous from seeing one in a dream, the sensation is there, the vision is there. It is experienced, just as the fear of the monster. And when you awake it does not disappear. The idea is very much alive within you. It can be communicated to others as well. It is indeed very real. You say you have no metaphysical positions, but here you are revealing that in your conscious interpretation of the world the dream world is less real than the daily world. I'm not saying it isn't. But do you see how you do have a certain metaphysical filter for life? That you cannot be without one? How can you have such little insight into your own mind for someone who claims to be awakened? That metaphor has another level of depth to it. The snake is still there and it has nothing to do with the rope in the first place. It is present within the mind, along with all the associations put around it: the fear of its venom, its shape, look, behavior, potential effects on your body, the slipperiness, the eyes. The snake does not come alive to the person because of the rope, but because of his mind. The rope is just a trigger that coincides with one of these associations. It's not that important whether the rope is really a snake or not. The idea is what lets you interact with it. If you had no idea of it, then the snake"ness" would be meaningless; you wouldn't recognize a snake at all. And it is still very much alive within even if someone has turned on the lights revealing a mere rope, its not gone or affected. If you contemplate deeper into this idea of a snake you come to understand what understanding is, how that snake is present within you. Then you do not tame the snake nor do you get rid of it, you comprehend your relationship to it. As a side effect that original fear may be assuaged, but that's not the point. The point of the metaphor is for you to see how you are always within the scope of your mind and its ideas, and how they are very much real and alive as anything you experience.

Agreeed,...you cannot separate space from time,...but as neither space or time exists, why try? LOL Both Buddha, and Quantum Cosmologists, suggest that never was a Big Bang. Sure, such a concept makes things more palatable for ego,...but is that the right thing? Swami Amar Jyoti wrote, "As long as you are projecting yourself into time and space in your calculations, your measurements, your excuses,...as long as time and space conceptions are consciously or subconsciously occupying your mind, you will not attain enlightenment....the worse fallacy of ego is this; that it does not take itself as a conception." "illusion of time, space, and ego" http://light-of-consciousness.org/ Perception is a dream,...that means you are a dream to. It does not mean that everything but you is a dream. Please stop with the Big Bang/Singularity stuff. It's man manufactured fiction,...a theory that will never, can never be proved. Because time (and space) does not exist. The Present exists,...but there is no Present in time,...and thus no Present in space. Quantum mechanics works on all levels, all the time, and in all space. I agree that it does appear to works with skandhan notions of conceptions. There is ABSOLUTELY NO ENERGY in Undivided Light,...the fulcrum upon which Duality effects its motion. Energy is merely the perceived motion of Duality attempting to find unity with Undivided Reality,...which it never can, because it was never really separated,...and does not exist. Absolutely no energy beyond duality,...absolutely no energy in non-duality,....absolutely no energy out of time and space. That applies directly to your experience of life,...and just because you might refuse to be honest enough to see it, doesn't mean it's not true. To understand Non-Duality is to understand Undivided Light. The thread 'What is Light' has everything one needs to realize Non-Duality. V

HE,...you are so focused on retaining some meaningfulness to a concept that is meaningless, that your emancipation from such a meme could be lifetimes away,...which is not a good thing for humanity. Wu Wei is not Oneness, does not act to bring things into Cause, nor has a nature. If you want to know about Wu Wei, study Undivided Light. If you want to know about god, don't look for it in Buddhism. Perhaps you should try ACIM,...these are questions submitted to the Foundation for Inner Peace: 1. If a God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here? This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space. When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds. Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen: Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3). These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home: The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it. You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions. That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5) But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment. It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world. 2. Does A Course in Miracles really mean that a God did not create the entire physical universe? We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of Source, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation: Perception is not an attribute of Source. Perception has no function in Source, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2). In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which Source did not create: The world you see is an illusion of a world. Source did not create it, for what Source manifests must be eternal as Itself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1). And finally, a similar statement in the text: Source's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet Sources laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours). These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality. Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of Source. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text: What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0). To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text: How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4). In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams. 3. What about the beauty and goodness in the world? Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality. Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it.

I do not have metaphysical beliefs pertaining to views of inherent existence of a self or of phenomena. All my beliefs deal with conventional truths and not absolutes. I forgot to mention, my mother had another dream when my sister was given birth. It involves Guan Yin (Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva) giving her a baby girl wrapped in pink towel and a red packet with $4, and when she was born she thought "it looked exactly like it was in my dream". Her birth was not requested by prayers or divination though. Interestingly, in recent years, my mother heard from a friend in our local sangha that she had almost an exactly same dream while giving birth to a boy except it is a baby boy wraped in white towel being passed to her by Avalokitesvara. My mom even thought of letting my sis meet with that guy, but no relationship worked out. That was some years ago. My sister is married now, not interested in spirituality currently though is a Buddhist by belief. Anyway who knows what those dream stuff may signify.. My dharma teacher speculates the $4 implies 'the four stages of enlightenment to Arhantship'. I have no idea what the $4 means or if it has any meaning. Such things are difficult (at least for me, who has no experience with dream interpretation) for me to understand. I should mention however that I have many prophetic dream images about events that happens the next day - it happens so often that I have become familiar with them and would instantly recognise the dream to be prophetic and inform my friend about it, and lo it happens (totally unexpected events that I saw with very high precision in dream). But discussing about this would be going off topic. But anyway it seems highly plausible I have a karmic connection with Buddhism in my past life, if not for my own memories, and some other reasons I do not want to talk about. I think 'practitioners taking birth with intention or spiration to continue their spiritual path in next life' is not that uncommon. The right view of anatta, dependent origination etc are like a fire that burns on a candle, not leaving anything, not the candle, not the fire. There is no positions or proliferation left. p.s. luminosity and manifestation is not denied, but it is also not established. three kayas inseparable. No. Waking up from a dream does not necessitate more dreaming. Yes, but by insight. Not by samadhi, not by intentional effort at getting rid of it - for example if you thought the rope was a snake, you want to tame the snake, get rid of the snake, whatever. But once you see a rope as a rope, no more effort to 'tame the snake' is needed - there is no snake.

According to what you wrote, antarabhava is in your mind what guided you to this birth, and gave you "fortunate" circumstances in a Buddhist family and karmic links. You believe you are an avatar of that, you do believe you are a special being, that's the definition of someone believing himself to be special: that it differentiates you from others in the form of a privilege. You might not consciously believe that to the degree of a Messiah, but there is clearly a construct within you that says these things. These are all beliefs by the way. You cannot deny, you cannot affirm. These are words that stem from belief, which you later state that you do not have any of. Your claims to ordinariness sounds just like false humility after what you wrote about your mother giving you a blessed birth, fortunate dream involving prayers, being a continuation from a bardo state, being naturally gifted with conditions for the dharma. To me your claims to ordinariness sound like a mere apologetic stance. The obvious fact here is that you are not ordinary. Anyone can see that from a 450 obsessive, paradoxically an almost self-obsessive book, written by a 21 year old who believe he is now enlightened. And you know this! You know you are not ordinary and now you pretend as if you were. Or you are totally out of touch with what ordinariness is, or yourself. Direct insight to you. Keep that in mind. It was within your awareness that you had a direct transformation. Deconstruction is another form of construction. Those words mean only what they do in relation to one another. But ultimately both are movements of the mind, its transformations. Constructiveness can seem dense and deconstruction less so, but both are transitions. What do you wake up to when you awake from unicorns? Horses? And what makes you believe horses are any realer than unicorns? "ALL metaphysical constructs, and beliefs, and positions"? Don't bullshit yourself. Everything you wrote above is bound in those. Being free from all metaphysical constructs and beliefs and positions is just another position. It might seem like you no longer experience held beliefs, or certain cyclical habits such as your mind returning to the notion of a "self," but that's just a habit now thrown away. Beliefs condition experience, give rise to new habits. You have just chosen to experience life more spontaneously and freely. It doesn't make it any more true or false than a man living with a "self." Please don't quote these things. Speak from your own mind and not borrowed words. We are not speaking about Buddhism. We are speaking about you because I think it's far more interesting to delve into who you are than these doctrines. Can't you differentiate Buddhism from yourself anymore? You don't understand the foremost things about illusion. Illusion does not negate something's existence. If a billion people believed in unicorns and dreamed of them, how can you say there are no unicorns with any certainty? If a person was under the fear of a monster in his dream and that fear was experienced, what is to say that monster is any less real than a tiger you might run into in real life? You are very close minded. Of course, close mindedness is a taboo in our age. Your second paragraph here basically says "I am very open minded, but you cannot change my mind from what I've seen"!! That's the very definition of close mindedness, the unwillingness to change. All along you were just making yourself climb Thusness's ladder. Your interest in Advaita mirrors his interest in advaita. All the vocabulary and methods of thinking you use are based on those stages. Remember when you first introduced ruthless truth? You didn't like that site because oh it "resonated with you" but because you wanted to deepen your convictions in anatta, which happened to be the next stage in the Thusness ladder. Don't bullshit yourself. These teachings didn't draw you within their own context, but only because they were in line with your intellectual and personal commitment to Thusness' teachings. They seem "true" to you because they agreed with you already believed in. You were never opened to the idea of an alternative beyond that. Your entire spiritual journey is just this one directional effort to become, confirm, and experience the ideas of Thusness. You should just give them link to Thusness and tell that that's what you followed. Of course the Buddha's teachings "resonate" with you next. It's what's on the next step. I know it sounds bad to say "I think buddhism is the best and better than all the other religions out there. It will lead you furthest in terms of human potential" but you should say that since it's what you believe, instead of a half assed disclaimer before it, "oh I think all religions are great" with an asterick next to it saying, "but Buddhism is best." Yes, remind yourself that is your your own consciousness' paradigm. And it still is and always will be.

Mere elaborations of my basic statement that my path and motivation lies mostly in faith and experience. Antarabhava is not a guide. Antarabhava means intermediate body, or the being in bardo state, i.e. my 'soul' or in more Buddhist sounding terms, 'rebirth-consciousness' or 'linking-consciousness'. I don't mean to say I am a divine avatar, a special being taking birth to 'save other beings'... That is the least of my intention to convey and to me, the least empowering idea - that my enlightenment is already 'predestined' and that I am just a Messianic god coming to save 'lost souls'. I am just an ordinary person who with interest, guidance, and practice, was able to realize this. I am not any more special than anyone else. I think this is a far more empowering notion - that every ordinary person like myself is able to achieve this, not some special avatars. And anyway I don't think I am some emanations of a great Bodhisattva, if I were, I would not have fallen under the chains of afflictions (before my awakening anyway). I am really just an ordinary person in almost every ways - except that I was able to find a way that leads to liberation. But I can't deny that I have some karmic connections to dharma from previous lifetimes. This karmic connection and probably intention or aspiration to attain awakening probably has influenced my birth in a conducive environment for dharma practice. But as a matter of fact, it is not a matter of faith anymore after I had direct insight. But yes my journey did have its beginning with faith. As a matter of fact this is not true. Why? Because my experience is not constructed - it is a realization that deconstructs, not constructs. It sees through illusions, not add constructs to perception. It wakes you up from your dream of unicorns (i.e. illusion of self and objects as being independent or existent), frees you from ALL metaphysical constructs and beliefs and positions. I have to repeat this again because it basically sums it up: "The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." ... As Thusness have said in A casual comment about Dependent Origination Dependent Origination is too a raft; it is like the stick that stirs the fire and is eventually consumed by fire without leaving any trace. Loppon Namdrol have said elsewhere: "In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views." I no longer have beliefs of a metaphysical sort (pertaining to existence of self, reality, etc) - beliefs are unexamined positions, but what if you have a direct insight and realization that all such positions are entirely illusory. You no longer have beliefs. This is what Buddha calls Stream Entry, which also means the end of Self-View - sakkadayaditthi. It also ends doubt and attachment to rites and rituals. The ending of these fetters is a permanent attainment - and the realization is permanent, once seen cannot be unseen. As I said before: If someone else is able to point me to a deeper experience apart from what I have already experienced and is able to give valuable pointers to my practice, of course why not? I'll be glad to learn whatever I can. I am not as close minded as you think. I visit bookstores to find books from true practitioners often. I don't say "I am the most enlightened person in the world" or "no one is more enlightened than me". But what's seen is seen - you cannot convince me of something there is no doubt or illusion about due to my experiential realization. For example, you cannot tell me 'self exists' - this is bullshit, as illusory as the notion of a santa claus or a rabbit with horns. I've already woken up from that dream and there is nothing you can say that can make me go asleep again - what's seen cannot be unseen. Try as you may, you are like convincing someone who woke up from a nightmare that the monster he saw actually is real - it simply will not work. p.s. Something I wrote to someone a few weeks ago: "Anyway, on a sidenote, this is all part of the process - when I was in I AM phase, what really drew my attention (despite my being Buddhist and having taken formal refuge in Buddhism since I was 2 - I definitely do not limit my learnings to Buddhism) was really those Advaita teachings, Ramana Maharshi, modern teachers like John Wheeler, some Zen teachings like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun on self-inquiry and so on. Then when I got to non-dual, much of the neo-Advaita teachings, some Zen teachings and so on start to attract me a lot. When I initially got to Anatta (or even slightly before), the AF teachings really interest me a lot - I started reading a lot of their articles. Why? Because we are all drawn to different teachings based on our experience. When something we read resonates our understanding, experience, and so on, when we feel a heart-to-heart recognition of the message in it, we will naturally be drawn to it. After undergoing more deeply the twofold emptiness, what draws me is the suttas, the sutras, the traditional teachings of the Buddha, etc. Who knows what may draw my attention or attract me in the future - I don't know. But right now, it seems that a lot of the traditional teachings are really clear, speaks to my heart, etc. I'm not saying you should start reading sutras (maybe you already had) - in fact if you want to realize I AM, I will not tell you to read Buddhism, for example I passed a friend all my Advaita books because he wanted to realize I AM. So that is where you start. So if you want to attain AF, then go for it and practice AF, but don't limit yourself to AF. As I hadn't limit myself to Hinduism, to AF, or even Buddhism, I am able to utilize whatever resonates with me at that moment, and that may change as my practice progresses and moves on." Of course I know this. When I said 'Presence', I didn't have Buddhism in mind (well of course Buddhism talks about it too and profoudly but I didn't have Buddhism in particular in mind). In fact as I said - Advaita was what interested me in those days. In fact before Advaita, Eckhart Tolle's teachings interested me a lot. I find the Power of Now (found it in early 2006) very practical and inspiring and life transforming, a great text that has great power to transport readers to a deep state of Presence. These experiences has in turn inspired me to really go deeper into spiritual practice. Having this in my memory, I have recommended his stuff to many people including my mother and some others. I have attended all the lessons Oprah held with Eckhart in 2008. Unfortunately his teachings are too commercialized nowadays. So anyway, I never said only Buddhism can lead to true life transforming spiritual experiences. I think all religions should have their own ways and practices and are worth learning. However there are aspects of Buddhism that is peculiar or special. And to quote Buddha's own words which matches my observation thus far: The Buddha said, 12. "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self."* - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html *"8. This passage clearly indicates that the critical differentiating factor of the Buddha's Dhamma is its "full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self." This means, in effect, that the Buddha alone is able to show how to overcome all views of self by developing penetration into the truth of non-self (anatta)." All views of self lead to suffering (clinging, effort, seeking, desire, craving, and other forms of suffering). If you were to achieve mastery of samadhi and abide as the I AM 24/7, which can have profound life transforming effects, nonetheless you cannot overcome the subtle clinging and achieve liberation. Even if you sit in samadhi bliss all day, this is not the same as liberation - as Buddha left his previous teachers who were masters at samadhi and had their own insights. When you achieve higher insights, your clinging lessens and disappears, your effortlessness increase. You also see how deeper insights are a natural progression of your original experience - the I AM is not denied, but now experienced in all manifestations in all conditions, effortless and spontaneous, without any attempts to re-confirm or any effort needed to sustain any experience. As I told Thusness: I just realized that the four aspects of I am are not just four aspects of I am They are also four aspects of non dual Four aspects of anatta Four aspects of shunyata Etc Those four aspects are refined in every phase as an example: seeing through the need to abide in non dual and dropping it - notice the tendency to reconfirm nondual by giving rise to thoughts like "the sound is as much you as the thought", seeing how ridiculous it is when always already in seeing just sound, in thinking just thought, all thoughts to reconfirm nondual arise due to falsely perceiving there to be a self to be nondual with "that" which turns into one mind and worse still it presumes there to be a subtle split that needs to be resolved when that notion of separation is entirely illusory. The entire movement to become nondual is illusory when anatta is fully seen and all self notions are dropped Intensity of luminosity in non dual - peak is in "no cold no heat", no mind, pure transparency, luminosity as textures and shapes and forms and all details of manifestation Effortlessness - when all latent views are replaced with right views then there's effortlessness of nondual Impersonality - even in nondual and anatta, impersonality must be matured Etc... Thusness replied me, This I have told u. I have told u that later u will understand. (though I didn't remember him telling me - not that he didn't as I'm sure he has, but when I heard it then, I probably didn't understand it at all) He also said, U must also understand that the four aspects are conveyed to u so that in the event u got lost In "I Amness", they can lead u back to the deeper insight of anatta n DO. So as you can see, each arising insight leads to greater freedom and liberation, greater effortlessness, greater bliss. I had seen things from that paradigm. For example when I'm in I AM, to me I took I AM as unchanging, independent, permanent etc... because it really felt that way due to my paradigm and experience. But through contemplation my view progressed. You need to read my e-book.

This guy, Greg Goode, is someone who has a very deep karmic connection with Buddha. This is why even though he had deep insight into I AM and One Mind through Advaita practice (focusing on Sri Atmananda's Direct Path teachings), when he saw the Buddha, he felt intense devotion, resonance and connection with the Buddha and he 'broke down crying'... Now he is studying Madhyamaka, Dependent Origination and Emptiness, taking Buddhist teachings very seriously. Those without karmic connection will not see it so easily. My karmic connection to Thusness is so strong that he was able to teach me in dreams, very profound and important things that aided me in realization - messages that foretold and adviced on what I am going to experience and realize in the following weeks to come, especially during times I do not have much time to meet up with him or talk with him (such as during my basic military training period). This is not possible if I had not had the connection with him - he informed me it was only possible because I had a sort of connection with him similar to Vajrayana's guru-student mind connection. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche talks about this sort of dream-teaching [how he was able to receive teachings from his guru and other awakened beings in dreams] in details in his book 'Dream Yoga'.