Search the Community

No, you cannot say that (LOL). Evangelism is a Christian term,...you could say "MFPOS proselytizing atheist SOB", and I wouldn't object. However, I do agree that you come off as an evangelist, because of your clinginess to Christian concepts. Of course, that does not make you better or worse than a "MFPOS proselytizing atheist SOB",...because you are both arguing beliefs. For example,...I understand that there is no god,...but I'm not an atheist, because atheists "believe" in no god. I could be labled a Buddhist in that I neither believe nor dis-believe in a god,...(and use a path of practice and spiritual development, largely based on the oral instructions of Sakyamuni Buddha, which lead to the understanding of both the relative and absolute nature of reality.) Belief in a god is a belief that there is a creation. And yet there is no creation,...just a dream. Non-believers in a god also believe in a creation, although one that happened without a creator. What they fail to reason, is that all beliefs are dishonest. If a belief were true, it would not be a belief. V

Wu Wei is not blue-green algae,...Wu Wei is without vibration, thus without color. How can this be understood? As an analogy, the Heart-Center is not only the 7th point, or interlacing of the Magen David, but the 7th sense or Consciousness. The 7th sense (which vibrates as the color of green light) is not the transcendental or 8th sense; however, the 7th sense (Heart Center) is the gate so-to-say to the 8th sense (Heart-Mind). The 8th sense vibrates as white light. If you spin green light with red light (the physical center) and violet light (the mental center) it makes white light. Thus, considering the descension into form, white light is as the first expression on the fulcrum of the Clear, Undivided Light of Wu Wei. All moving things are unbalanced. Once there is balance, things no longer move (vibrate), and thus their condition instantly dissolves,...and with it the perceived energy it embodied. In the Stillness of Wu Wei there is no energy, no motion, no conditions, no opposites, no knowledge. Energy, motion, conditions, opposites, and knowledge are imagined characteristics experienced through the lower six sense organs in time. Everything experienced in time is experienced in the past. There is no Present in time. Wu Wei is the Present. Jamgon Kongtrul explains... "Actual phenomena - that is, the world and its inhabitants - are objects that we grasp at with our senses. These appearances are simply our mind's manifestations of confusion. In the end, they are not actually existent in any way whatsoever, but are like the appearances in a dream." V

No! Undivided Light is not form,...no form (energy, mass, nor time) can enter Undivided Light. A fulcrum is not form,...it's a fulcrum,...Still, Causeless, Dimensionless,...upon which duality effects its perceived motion. No! I did not get Undivided Light from Walter Russell,...although, when you strip-out Walter Russell's beliefs from his science, he does articulate the nature of Divided Light, although he uses other terms. Undivided Light cannot be known through the 6 senses,...the 6 senses only detect motion,...motion is an illusion,...no different from a dream,...often called maya. We CANNOT "listen" to formless, Undivided Light,...to listen implies vibration,...the still, fulcrum of Wu Wei does not vibrate. "haha" I had my first direct experience with Undivided Light in December 1974. V

Vortex -- on the whole reincarnation deal -- O.K. there's been life on Earth for billions of years. humans represent like the last half of a minute of life on earth if the timespan was one hour for all of the time of life on earth. Humans are just a tiny fragment of time for life on Earth. So let's consider reincarnation considering the big picture of life on earth -- humans -- half a minute. The rest of life - 59 minutes and 30 seconds. O.K. so bacteria -- well give that say 50 minutes of life on Earth. Seriously I'm just guessing here -- but even just 450 million years ago the biggest life form was not a plant but a fungus -- a mushroom. O.K. so 280 million years ago the dominant life form on earth was the Gorgon -- a reptile that was like a mammal needing lots of oxygen and it was big like a dog. Wham -- Permian extinction. Life restarts aka mass reincarnation. Evolution. "progress?" Dinosaurs - the smartest one was the troodon -- biggest brained dino -- about as big as a human -- on two legs. Wham. K/T boundary kicks in. global extinction. The little shrew mammal survives in the trees. 60 million years later that little tree shrew now is primate mammals as well. The inner ear of the primate used to be the jaw bone of the tree shrew. O.K. so that's "progress" right? I mean spiritually? Voila -- finally we get some humans on the scene around 1 million years ago. It's only been a few billion years of life on earth. haha. O.K. but wait with the modern humans starting 10,000 years ago suddenly all the other life on earth is dying. Oh no - it's another global extinction crisis just like when the Gorgons went extinct 280 million years ago and when the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Only now it's the humans and the humans are taking down the rest of life with them. Oh but wait - -humans are different -- they are "spiritually evolved" (i.e. progress). -- humans don't have a population explosion, reach ecological carrying capacity, hit overlimit and their population crashes - like every other life form on the planet. No humans "reincarnate" and progess spiritually. haha. I smell snake oil here - -yeah Ramana Maharshi said this about spiritual evolution: There is no evolution. That's a direct quote. So maybe part of us goes into a rock and gets stuck there -- I read a Buddhist book that described this. Imagine being reincarnated into a rock. I've read that when people crap when they die then their spirit goes out their ass and presto -- gone to hell? Bodri says how most people die like that -- the spirit going out the ass. the Tibetans state that which end of the body determines heaven or hell - just read the book of the dead for the details. The book "Taoist Yoga" states to not take a crap if you're going to leak chi out the backside. haha. It's the chi energy that powers the spirit after death. So if we don't build up chi energy to power the light spirit then we turn into ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I think they have emotional blockages holding them to Earth. So too much corporeal soul energy maybe? Or call it the etheric body sticking to their astral body? Yeah I've read in Master Nan, Huai-chin that if a person is good and religious -- moral -- then they do go to heaven. For example when I found my dad's dead body last spring and he was all blue -- suddenly my heart got filled with love. This surprised me since it was the most love I had ever felt with my dad before. But I knew that he must be in a better place than he was in his body. Also the show on CIA-cable -- "I Survived: Beyond and Back" - is very amazing for the spirit OBE NDE stories of people who clinically died and came back. Going to heaven or going to hell! Then if they do go to hell they come back completely transformed -- and become good people for their "second" life. Truly amazing. Also people who go to heaven come back transformed to be even more spiritual people. So Ramana Maharshi said that his cow become completely enlightened -- fully realized! He sent the cow special shakti energy to the heart as it was dying. Just like he did for his mom when she died -- so both the cow and the mom did not have to reincarnate as they had finally achieved "eternal liberation." Ramana Maharshi called that "cutting the knot" of the heart. But then Bodri and Master Nan, Huai-chin claim that unless the body is transformed if you do just mind yoga then when the body is sick like it was for Ramana Maharshi that means when you die your brain does not have the chi energy to maintain awareness -- so the awareness falls back into nothingness of impersonal consciousness. In Mahayana Buddhism unless the person maintains awareness of the impersonal consciousness then they are not truly enlightened but this is not the case for advaita vedanta. I, myself, side with Advaita Vedanta. Chunyi Lin says there is no "center" to the universe and that everything is constantly transforming and so there will always be reincarnation or rebirth if people want to call it that. It seems like parts of us stick around the grave or where we die as the etheric or corporeal soul and other parts go into a dream like astral realm that is more real than Earth. Be it heaven or hell. Then some of us go back to Earth...but maybe not as humans. As far as life on other planets I've read some claiming you can reincarnate on other planets -- I think yogananda stated this. Personally I'm not a big believer in advanced life on other planets. Which is a wild thing not to believe because the universe is so infinitely infinite. but science has shown that planet EArth is also incredibly rare in how life evolved here and how much time it took for "advanced" life to evolve. That it's almost like the universe evolved over billions of years just for life on Earth to evolve, etc. I mean science still seems to put Earth in the center of the universe even though cosmos-wise we are less than dust mites. Planet earth is just a speck of dust on the cosmic scheme of things. haha. So how about this -- no evolution. No reincarnation. That's what Ramana Maharshi says. No individual spirit. Impersonal consciousness is the real reality -- eternally "evolving" to create energy and matter and space and time -- a process of infinite love and light and also infinite destruction and darkness. But nevertheless it's possible for the human to unite with the love and light part of this process -- even if it is on an individual subjective level.

In terms of practice, my own personal experience says that The Flight of the Garuda (that can be found or bought everywhere) is the best "separation and breakthrough" for western minds. The practice begins simple, asking things like: Where is your mind now? In you feet? In your penis? In your head? In your eyes? In your heart? What is the color of your mind? Black? Blue? White? Golden? If you mind is in your body, what happens when you die? Where will be your mind? You need to ask again and again until you perceive that mind is not from this realm of illusion, this world is just a dream. Then you can find that mind, in terms of this world adjectives, is empty. After these there are meditations for shape, budhahood meaning etc. With The Flight of the Garuda you can separate your sem from your rigpa, and discover that you are more than this. In other words: separation from the views, because everything is the same. But, if this is true: a killer has a naturally illuminated center? A raper has a rigpa center? If you purify from the 5 agregates using chakras or philosophy is an unnecessary debate, in one sense all the techniques are one and same technique in various forms until you find rigpa. But study and meditation are the keys.

I had a dream of a white bear leaning against this big old oak tree that was in the yard I grew up in. I went back to check that yard and the tree had recently been cut down. The white bear spirit symbolizes death in shamanic circumpolar cultures.

Hi CarsonZi Einstein's statement is not a refutation of the inadequacy of the mind. It is not a reason to abandon the mind as a limited tool... The mind is all we have. The mind has components to it and they all work in concert. Components like intuition, memory, imagination, analysis, reasoning... What Einstein was saying is that you still use the mind, just that you have to think outside of the box or use your mind differently. Einstein also said: You said: Er, well, yes it can, it does and you should appreciate it rather than abandoning it. You learn the methods of practice using your mind. You use your mind to learn how to stop the mind and go beyond. Without a mind, you could never learn how to go beyond the mind. Words are all we have. If someone hadn't told you about their experience of going beyond the mind, of stilling the mind, of experiencing samadhi, you wouldn't even know about it. Granted, words are limited by the consciousness that apprehends them, by the cultural influence and the capacity of the mentality, but words are all we have and we have to make the best use of them. Describing experiences of being beyond the thinking mind is not pointless. I've had many experiences of stopping the mind and many others have too. We all try to describe those experiences. The descriptions may not all be the same, but most of them are when you start to examine them closely. They do point to something beyond, something incomprehensible, and to the superconscious or extremely intelligent, comprehensible. How else could the Buddhists have mapped levels of samadhi or jhanas? Well, yes, you can instruct someone in a practice, to have the same experience that you have had and one would logically assume that if the experience is the same, then the realization of that truth will be the same. Further, many yogic texts tell about shaktipat, about enlightenment on contact... SRF teaches that if you put a strong magnet next to a weak one, eventually the weaker magnet will become just as strong as the strong one. Enlightenment by close association! Then you haven't experienced superconsciousness, or unity consciousness. However, the more important question is: "If God is all there is, and we are all manifestations of God, do you have the right to interfere with God's creation by awakening people out of the dream?" TI

Very few seem to understand what Jivanmukti means and who a Jivanmukta is.. Jivanmukti refers to the state of an adept who remains alive in a physical body, while actually having completely realized his true Self. Though liberated from the samsaric cycle of transmigration, he continues to live on account of karma. There are three kinds of karma which affect all. The first two, Sanchita and Kriyamana, refer to karma or action done in the past which is yet to bear fruit, and action being done in the present which is to bear fruit, respectively. When the Self is realized, these two types of karma are completely exhausted. The third type of karma, Prarabdha, however, is the action done in the past which has already begun to bear fruit through the manifestation of the present physical body. And this type of karma cannot be exhausted until death of the physical body, just as an arrow which which has left the bow continues to move as long as its initial motion is not exhausted. So, the Prarabdha Karma keeps the body activity going, while the Jivanmukta remains completely unaffected by it. He remains not in the three states (jagara-wakeful, swapna-dream, sushupti-deep sleep) but in the turiya, which is characterized by unceasing tranquility. As he is unattached to activity and its result, he is also said to be free from the consequence and judgments of good and evil. This way, he is thoroughly amoral, and nothing would karmically affect him including someone’s murder, still such an act born of egoism is totally alien to his nature. Unattachment and amorality are but some of the important signposts, there is also the realization of identity of others and everything with his own Self. Because of this universal identification, everything he does is inspired by love which is free of preferences and exclusions. While this is the general concept of Jivanmukti, the Tantras of Kashmir Shaivism further clarify on this topic. There are sadhakas who, after the achievement of the supreme knowledge and their establishment in their pure nature, may continue to exist in embodied form for some time to come, provided they have previously ripened karma (i.e. prarabdha karma) sustaining their present embodied condition, and possess keen desire for enjoyment (bhogavasana). Such sadhakas, when enlightened, are said to become the jivanmuktas. The jivanmuktas do not live in a different world or walk about and behave differently from ordinary mortals. They exist, on the other hand, with ordinary mortals; they perform karma and participate in all activities of the world like ordinary mortals, yet their actions do not affect them. They remain as they are, emancipated beings. They perform karma only to keep themselves in embodied form and to satiate their desire for bhoga in this world, but in this process do not acquire any fresh karma. As soon as the fruits of their ripened or prarabdha karma which were sustaining them in their embodied form, are enjoyed and exhausted, they lose their body-apparatuses once for all and become one with the Supreme. They do not have further birth after the present one. Amongst the four upayas, those liberated through anupaya do not experience Jivanmukti. There is some chance of it in Shambhavopaya and much more in the case of Shaktopaya.

One of the things about the shadow that is so tricky to deal with, is that it is unconscious. It truly is. When parts of it come to light it is a great opportunity to have a good look. (Or, if you are not on a path of consciousness, to flip into denial and compensation.) Meditation should throw the shadow into light pretty quickly. And ongoingly. It can be very arduous indeed to face the emotional impact of ones less than desirable aspects, seen with clarity. I have been catapulted into severe anguish by seeing myself as unthinking, unfeeling, callous, generally unaware. The remorse I have felt for what I have done whilst unaware was agonising, no understatement. As I perceive it, the process is an energetic release and a karmic clearing. For me, thinking about my less than desirable aspects has been helpful only up to a point. Owning them is crucial, of course. But the real work, for me, has been done energetically be clearing the blockages created by said unconsciousness. Not that the work is finished! I dont mean to imply that. I dont think it is ever 'finished'. I think one gets deeper and deeper glimpses into ones nature - the parts that flow and create, and the other parts, that obstruct or destroy. Yes we inevitably have creation and destruction cycles, but the times when we destroy flow with shadow is what am speaking of and what I think your thread is about. So from reading what I have written I see what I am saying is that dealing with the process energetically has been more productive for me than just dealing with it mentally. The psyche is too clever at making up excuses for preserving the status quo. This is why art therapy, dream work, body work etc are so powerful. Because they bypass the conscious mind whilst including it as a guest rather than the monarch. Discerning what is projection and what is instinctive recoil due to the formation of an Other is an interesting excercise. It may be helpful to find where in the body does ones recoil come from, and go deeper into the recoil and get a sense of it as a colour, shape, name, time, etc, and dialogue with the recoil to find out the seed of it. It isnt so much that I 'dislike' things about myself as that I want to iron out blockages to flow.

Actually Chunyi Lin taught us to never pull the energy blockages directly out of the center of the top of the skull -- even though we are not touching the person. I didn't take this seriously and i didn't know what would happen and also I didn't realize how strong my chi energy was compared to the lady's. BAsically I had just finished my intensive bigu qi feast for a week on just half a glass of water and had just finished the LEvel 3 retreat and then Chunyi Lin's assistant asked me to share my experience of training with the group -- and then the lady asked me to do a healing on her. She knew I felt bad but there was nothing we could do. Everything left as it was the end of the healing practice session so we both left and she was still crying but someone came to comfort her. So then I went downstairs and I saw my college friend and I said you will not believe what just happened. Then right then the old lady came walking towards us still bawling with someone having their arm around her. But then I saw her again at another session and she smiled at me so I knew she had forgiven me and that it was just an honest mistake on my part. But that along with the astral travel spinning experience and also when I healed my mom she screamed at me bloody murder - super anger until I ate food. So I stuffed food down but it was very traumatic -- but I realized I was exorcising her alcoholism anger of her liver. At the time I didn't know that was what happened so she called me two weeks later and said she no longer needed her surgical stockings and she didn't need to keep her legs elevated. I had healed her -- she said the last healing was the "difference between night and day." haha. So I guess that comment fits into the astral travel dreaming bit. When I healed her it was like a dream -- very strong electromagnetic energy came out of me and then she actually got so sleepy I had her lie down on the bed and she fell asleep. Looking back I realize it was a very beautiful loving experience but it was right after she screamed at me bloody murder. So she asked me for another healing two weeks later and I said that I had stopped practicing because she had screamed at me so badly and she said that I was just lazy. haha. Now knowing why she had screamed - that I had exorcised her evil spirit -- that she had been possessed -- I realize that I was actually lazy but I just didn't understand. haha. So we learn but the lessons are very strong and it can take a long time to recover -- I have never built up my energy like it was for those two weeks.

What never existed leaves nothing in the hand but wind while 'reality' offers nothing but imperfection and failure; that being the case we can only dream of what never was and as for what 'really is' remember: it does not exist.

I've been fascinated by lucid dreaming since college after reading some of Stephen LaBerge's work 20 years ago. I've had some limited success, but nothing consistent or controllable. Recently I found a semi recent LaBerge book, from Sounds True, complete with CD. I'd been working on the spiritual side of Lucidity, but LaBerge's roots are academic, he's a PH.D who ran sleep lab at Stanford u. and did some of the first scientific work on lucid dreaming; actually training oneirauts and finding ways to send messages back and forth to lucid dreamers. In the book his favorite 'tell' (vs. Castenada's hands) is looking at things twice, particular writing, but anything will do. In dreams reality is less anchored, thus things change from look to look. I guess the advantage is the 'tell' is everywhere and everything, not hands or outrageousness. His guided meditations in it are very interesting. From a relatively standard relaxation start to the constant question 'Who is Aware' (followed by a gong!?), he puts you on a beach drawing numbers from 100 down with each breath whilst waves erase them. Later you breath in, out through an open mouth, a butterfly escapes, you become it, and go on to a dream state. It hasn't worked consciously for me yet, but I've only had the book for a week. Interestingly I didn't register the the butterfly part til I'd listened to it 3 times which means I was too far gone to have it register consciously. In any case, its a good book (Lucid Dreaming A concise Guide to Awakening ..), $6 from Half Price Books. While not easy, I think lucidity is the most attainable of psychic (if you could call it that) Siddhis. I believe it can open the doorway to a wide variety of knowledge. Its a double edge sword though. Sleep is an important necessity. Training tends to screw up mine and I'm reminded a traditional Taoist goal is long deep dreamless sleep. Still one thing at a time. I'll work on long and dreamless once I've gotten lucidity under my belt.

.... What? If you have an objection to what I say say them. Don't call me an asshole because it means nothing other than to show your dislike for what I'm writing. In my opinion, what I write in criticism of Xabir has value. If I sound incredulous, it's because the more I engage in a discussion with Xabir the more it is revealed how obviously contradictory and unsupported his claims are. Despite the paragraphs and paragraphs of very wise sounding terms and quotes he uses, if you just sort of get down to it, Xabir is this groomed Buddhist fanatic and a very naive practitioner. He is very clueless about how his views have been formed and the tidbits of analogy he comes up with, like the santa claus example or this mirror example, just end up sabotaging the very points he is trying to make revealing that his own insights are just copycated ideas from people he has faith in. In the past all this would've been very different since we would be having a discussion contextualized within Buddhism. But now that I approach him outside of that frame, he just sounds like hard headed fundamentalist incapable of clearly outlining or explaining himself in a sensible manner. His entire argument is based on just "Hey I see the Truth! And you don't! Because, well, I see it!" I see something a bit frightening in his demeanor, that he is merely a true believer, that he is completely in the dark about himself (not surprising, since he says he doesn't have a self). What infuriates me is that he often, in his belief that he is awakened and everyone else who is not Buddhist is deluded and ignorant, pretends to understand or have genuine insight into issues such as suffering, that he literally just touches on via the textbook, or his own bible. The truth is, Xabir doesn't really contemplate, but pretends that he has. His so called "contemplations" are just following whatever Thusness or Buddhism tells him is the way reality is, what suffering is, what life should be like, how to behave oneself, how to treat others (oh yes, gain good karma by proselytizing), like some indoctrinated school boy who can't even tie his own shoes, but likes to tell himself how he now knows everything because he does homework every night. What I feel from him is the same feeling when I meet some fundamental and extreme christian telling me I'll go to hell for not believing god, and to prove his statements reads from the bible, and as proof tells me of his dream experiences of seeing jesus, or his daily communion with the Lord (all of this actual events), that he feels Him in the heart. Of course, if you want to learn about Christianity, and providing that this man is somewhat intelligent, it would be a great idea to continue engaging with him. There's nothing wrong with this man, but if you had any sense, you'd look into how this man's convictions came about and realize that it is simply insufficient to believe as "the truth" or the nature of reality. But I do have problems with this man going around being condescending (of course, unintentionally on his part, since he is actually saving souls from damnation in his mind) to others or even intruding on their own rights to explore the notion of God or the Buddha by falsely claiming himself to be an expert.

Must be nice when one can accept one's own set of facts and create a worldview around it - I really dont understand how you think these cut down the rich ideas will be good for the country - who will they really be good for? I've spoken of many reasons why "its broken" and it aint because of the fundamentals - sorry TJL, you are simply asserting that the paradigm itself is unable to make for a happy, prosperous nation, when the history is pretty clear that the closer to limited government free market conservative principles we get, the more prosperous we get - and yes, the nation as a whole - and the more the government expands, carves out favors from the law for certain constituencies, attempts to force the populace to behave in a certain fashion - the more prosperity is retarded. The "less equal" things get. Which has better consequences for almost all involved? Asserting over and over that punishing rich people is any way to prosperity or a better country is a completely unfounded pipe dream that progressives have been trying to push on the country for a hundred years and change. Oh wait, I forgot - at this point, this is all about "equality" and flattening the statistics, not making the country prosperous. Curious why the jealousy and envy towards "those that have?" The poor are getting screwed remember, but oh...look at how the poor are doing here vs most other places. Compliments of that damn system that supposedly punishes the poor? Be well brother /\ your ideas are just too far whacked out to fit in this country at this point in time. Say what you want about me declaring this "my country" but the things you are suggesting are by and large against the laws of the land, so I have every bit the ground to say "go fk up somebody else's country with these ideas if you really must, but dont do it in my back yard." Because that's what those ideas will do (are doing) to this country since a lot of it is diametrically opposed to the ideas that created the country. We're all coming at this from a place of compassion, we just differ in the application - and my supported ways of governing will make for substantially better results from the standpoint of the entire race - until such time as the method may be dropped; the ways & means long since overcome. Dont worry, we'll get that star trek level of technology so we can provide that star trek level of social services. We just cant reach directly into the future and extract it for use at the present. We've got to grow our way there, and retarding the growth of the human race is not the way.

I could teach someone a method of meditation I learned through dreaming. It would be very interesting for me, since I've never taught it to anyone. I've been practicing it in regular intervals and when my energy is low. For the past five years or so. It is preferable to be able to sit in lotus, but half lotus also works. Some basic knowledge of acupuncture-points could be useful also, but isn't necessary. So... I'm open to teaching whoever wants to try it out. The dream laid no restrictions on who I could teach it to, only that it can not be practiced for personal profit. What I notice from practicing it is that I become healthy, intuitive and energetic. Along with other things.

That wasn't the point of the reply! Holy crap I see that you are really losing the power to infer beyond the appearance of the replies. Great wisdom indeed! The point of the reply was in objection to you supporting your ideals on the basis that a lot of people have them. So without using the framework or the views shaping a direct experience, how is your direct experience more true than someone else's this so called "direct" experience? And maybe, just maybe, wouldn't you be "investigating the framework" through, oh I don't know, inductive and deductive reasoning, i.e. inferred knowledge? And maybe, "those views" shaping how you view a direct experience..be...in that same medium? Are you saying you directly experience all the causes and conditions that come together to form your experience of driving the car? Well geez, then you must also directly experience the car being made at some point, and the guy who invented the model, then the guy who dug up the oil to make the gasoline, and the truck that mixed the concrete under you, and of course! the sun. Gotta feel the sun burning "directly" as its heat through space, through the atmosphere down to the car. What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't deny the it ness of the flower at all! It denies that the flower has a definitive color or shape because it's experienced differently in different modes of vision, because your eyes perceive objects in a certain way. Doesn't mean that the object is somehow an illusion or "not there" that's just a far fetched and totally baseless conclusion. And let me guess. The tool you are using to locate the thought or dream is...maybe another thought? Hahaha! So basically you are trying to locate another thought (needn't be conceptually worded, just the effort is enough) with thought, and since you are now newly occupied with "thought of trying to find thought" and OBVIOUSLY not finding this thought you are looking for (well since, you are already occupied)conclude that the past thought is a total illusion? Holy crap. This is like a guy saying "Hey! I'm going to find where I was 10 steps ago...oh wait, but I'm here now! Ha! That 10 steps ago place must've been a total illusion!" or having gone 10 steps "Wait a second...I'm still just here and not 10 steps back! Oh my god, it's impossible to find that place again! It must be a total illusion!" It's...mind blowingly...stupid. Uh, well, then that wouldn't be spontaneous. It would be learned. No, now that I'm reading through your own insights, it wouldn't surprise me if it took you that long.

Ugh. You are just a crap load of disappointment. Read what you are writing, it's just totally fanatic. "If you see truth, it has to be the truth that I see!" And, "Hey someone else saw it too! So it must be true!" Wooow. You can list a huge number of people who have seen things the way you've seen? Hahahahha! Well I can list a huuuuuuuge number of people who don't see what you've seen! Like say, billions of people who you think are "deluded"! Nope, you said it was useless. You clearly don't really understand the use of inferred knowledge, but is obsessed with "direct" experiencing. Deductive and inductive way of approaching information is not merely just theorizing potential cause and effects, but also establishing them from one's observations. For example, we observe that when there is fire, there is also smoke. So we deduce a correlational relationship between the two phenomena. And the next time we see smoke, our mind uses that knowledge to infer that perhaps there is also fire somewhere. If our mind stopped doing this, you would have no idea of the relationship between fire and smoke, and moreover would not be able to even distinguish what a smoke was besides sense experience. All this is truly ironic because all these years you tell these hindu practitioners that their "direct" experience of God is all delusional and they are attached to it. So how do you link the 12 links without inferring their connections after seeing their cause and effects being played out? Do you just see them all at once simultaneously? Well if that's the case, it would just be 1 link wouldn't it? Progression is established by connecting a series of moments and their relationships. If all you had were just mere observations, then you wouldn't have the ability to draw connections among them. For instance even if the Buddha had seen the 12 links being played out universally, he had to understand whether they were just induced visions or valid observations. Ok, let's talk about that red flower example you like a lot. So what if someone sees it as red and someone else sees it in quantum vision. It still doesn't deny that the flower's reality! People just experience it differently. So why do you draw the extreme conclusion that the flower is an illusion? Actually doesn't the fact that you assume there are other ways of experiencing the flower establish its reality instead? Ah so I see, any learned experience is conventional and illusory. So I guess you are just going to ignore the body's biological impulses, genetics, environmental influences when you are acting in this spontaneous and wise manner? Where exactly does this spontaneous action come from? It just *poof* arises? Name me an example of one that's not learned or affected by preconceived conditioning, or any learned knowledge. ....for the millionth time...I do not care what Namdrol says or thinks. I don't hold him to be authority as you do. I don't know him so these statements say nothing to me, they are just statements made without support. And how does Namdrol know what a Buddha does, how a Buddha thinks, how a Buddha acts. Unless he thinks he is a Buddha, these statements are just meaningless and invalid. How do you know that? Oh wait, I know. "I just see it that way." Nice. So wise. . How do you know your own experience is illusory when everything is illusory? Oh wait, I know. "I just see it that way." Haha! And what supports your convictions? Wait wait, I know, "I just see it that way. And someone agrees with me." Great. What led you to this vision? "I knew it was true because my teacher told me. All I had to do was see it that way." Great! Very nice investigation there! Maybe you just woke up to another dream.

Ouch! Damn dream BENDERS. !

Actually, no you didn't. But if you did, it would probably have read something like "<insert substantial logical argument based on comparative practical experience through exercise> followed by... and this is why i think one is not a good choice in reality; anther is the best choice. " I guess one can only dream...

I just wanted to say hello. I have felt like I have learned so much and so little at the same time. I have been enlightened and then have chosen at times to forget the Nirvana I have been shown. I am neither master nor student and in a strange, strange way...being back in America, at this time, is the ultimate test of being at peace with chaos all around me. To be the calm in the eye of the storm. In any event, no matter what you dream, believe or perceive, I wish to thank you for this wonderful forum. A Chinese Master told me, "What good does an enlightened person do on a mountain?" I smiled. At times I fret over what I am seeing...and a whisper...it comes...and says, 'do you always believe what you see?" That isn't to say that there will not be conflict...but with each journey, it just is the journey. Each river, is the river. Each path, is its own. So I am here...being more here. Not fluff...though I love people. I also know an important thing, there is seeing and not seeing. Our optimism at times blinds us to the vipers in the road. Our wisdom gets clear of the danger. Namaste M

If what you see is true than naturally it is non falsifiable - others will see the same thing as me if they do their investigation. I can list a huge number of people who have seen things the way I've seen. For example even now, I cannot deny I AM - I AM is just the luminous essence of mind experienced as a non-conceptual thought, but due to wrong framework it is taken as Self. Then one discovers non-dual - then I AM is no longer more I AM than a sight or a sound, but still a clinging to One Mind can occur due to univestigated framework of inherency. Nonetheless the non-duality of subject and object is a truth - there never was such a division, and this is what I cannot deny. Then I discovered anatta, again something I cannot deny. I never said they are completely useless (otherwise why is there madhyamaka teachings), but in itself they cannot accomplish much. Inferrential understanding can give rise to faith or intellectual conviction, but faith or intellectual conviction by itself cannot lead to experiential realization or liberation. His knowledge of 12 links is not by inferrence but direct knowledge. Never tried to, so no comments. Yeah conventional truth assumes things like 'that thing over there is a red flower', but as I have shown you and Thusness have shown the analogy about the red flower being empty of redness or flowerness due to D.O. and emptiness, ultimately 'that is a red flower' is false, it is not true. The ultimate truth is its emptiness. But from the perspective of conventional truth, 'that is a red flower' is true. Know that 'that is a red flower', 'red', 'flower', or 'that is a rose' is actually a learnt knowledge, it is something learnt, and the same thing goes for everything else including 'self', 'awareness', etc, a baby doesn't perceive a thing called 'self', 'awareness' but it is learnt. Before we learn it, we have no means of conceiving a red flower as red flower, we do not know conventional truth. But learning conventional truth doesn't mean its ultimately true, like the word 'weather' doesn't point to something inherent, like any other word ultimately doesn't point to something inherent. Anyway found an interesting piece of info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka A Prasaṅgika asserts that something exists conventionally if it meets all of the following three conditions: if it is known to a conventional consciousness if no other conventional cognition contradicts its being as it is thus known if reason that accurately analyses reality (that is, analyses whether something intrinsically exists) does not contradict it Whatever fails to meet those criteria does not exist.[5] Therefore Prasaṅgikas cannot accept that intrinsic nature exists, even conventionally. You have learnt from the past, but it doesn't mean you have to perceive conventional truth, knowledge can manifest in action completely spontaneously and non-conceptually in pure awareness/wisdom (see the fifth wisdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_wisdoms ). Loppon Namdrol: The primary Mahayāna sutra metaphor for a Buddha is a wishfulfilling gem because a wishfulfilling automatically gem fulfills the wishes of sentient beings without concepts. ------- What I am saying is really simple: Buddhas do not have conceptual minds, therefore, their acts of speech are not connected with concepts and signs. ------- Buddha's interactions with sentient beings are completely spontaneous and non-conceptual. ------- Buddha don't have thoughts, therefore, they have no concepts. They are however omniscient. What you said is relatively true, but ultimately, all is equally illusory and empty. Then so do all awakened beings because no true realization is shakeable. You cannot be lured into dream again after you wake up.

Hehehe. What can I say? It was a pretty good dream. You go Everything!

I'm living the dream!

Now, forget the dream and get on with living. (Thanks for sharing.)

Originally it was not my intention to reply something Simple Jack should be replying, nonetheless I'll add in a few quotes, and add that Simple Jack of course is one with deep *non-conceptual* meditation realizations, he is not speaking from concepts but his own direct insight and experience. Frankly whatever you realized is just the I AM, and there is no need for a long sutra like Shurangama to explain dependent origination, emptiness, and so on if it is just about I AM. Whatever it wrote must be understood in context. Since very early times, commentators described texts as being "nitartha" or "neyartha". The former are "fully drawn out", and require no further exegesis. The latter are "to be drawn out", and require further exegesis or explanation. This shows that they realized that some teachings are pretty much literal, and others are not. The only question then, is which sutras are which - and that's where most disagree. ~~ Venerable Huifeng "Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral characteristics, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. They are what is called ‘illusory falseness.’ But their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. 3:1 ”Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. 3:2 ”Who would have thought that production, extinction, coming, and going are fundamentally the everlasting, wonderful light of the Treasury of the Thus Come One, the unmoving, all pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of true suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, there is nothing that can be obtained. 3:3 ~ Shurangama Sutra Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear; Refrain from both positive and negative projection - leave appearances alone: The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra. ~ Tilopa The meditator may say, "It is the aware emptiness. There seems to be no difference." If so, ask: "Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought from meditation? Or, is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?" If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he had not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days. On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction: "When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya. "Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves. ... Let the meditator look. He may say, "There is no difference. It is an intangible, aware emptiness." If so, then ask: "Is it an aware emptiness after the perceived image has disappeared? Or, is the image an aware emptiness by means of cultivating the aware emptiness? Or, is the perceived image itself an aware emptiness?" If the answer comes that it is one of the first two cases, the meditator has not thoroughly investigated the above and should therefore once more be sent to meditate and resolve this. If he does experience that the vividly perceived visual image itself -- unidentifiable in any way other than as a mere presence of unconfined perception -- is an aware emptiness, the master should then give this pointing-out instruction: "When you vividly perceive a mountain or a house, no matter how this perception appears, it does not need to disappear or be stopped. Rather, while this perception is experienced, it is itself an intangible, empty awareness. This is called seeing the identity of perception." "Previously you cleared up uncertainties when you looked into the identity of a perception and resolved that perceptions are mind. Accordingly, the perception is not outside and the mind is not inside. It is merely, and nothing other than, this empty and aware mind that appears as a perception. It is exactly like the example of a dream-object and the dreaming mind. "From the very moment a perception occurs, it is a naturally freed and intangible perceiving emptiness. This perceiving yet intangible and naked state of empty perception is called seeing the natural face of innate perception or perception dawning as dharmakaya. ~ Dakpo Tashi Namgyal Rinpoche All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever. ~ Third Karmapa ....Although one recognizes the cognitive lucidity or the lucidity of awareness within emptiness, there are different ways that this might be recognized. For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish. The word naked is used a great deal at this point in the text. And the word naked here has a very specific and important meaning because it is used to distinguish between understanding and experience, that is to say, understanding and recognition. it is very easy to confuse one's understanding for an experience or a recognition. One might understand something about the mind and therefore think that one had recognized it directly. Here, the use of the term "naked" means "direct;" that is to say, something that is experienced nakedly or directly in the sense that the experience is free from the overlay of concepts. Whereas normally we have the attitude that thought is something we must get rid of, in this case it is made clear that it is important not to get rid of thought, but to recognize its nature, and indeed, not only the nature of thought but the nature of stillness must be recognized. In particular, with regard to thought, as long as we do not recognize its nature, of course thought poses a threat to meditation and becomes an impediment. But once the nature of thought has been correctly recognized, thought itself becomes the meditative state and therefore it is often said that "the root of meditation is recognizing the nature of thought." There lived in the eighteenth century a great Gelugpa teacher named Changkya Rolpe Dorje, who from his early youth displayed the signs of being an extraordinary person. He became particularly learned and also very realized, and at one point he composed a song called 'Recognizing Mother.' 'Mother' in his song is the word he uses to refer to dharmata or the nature of one's mind. This song was so extraordinary that a commentary was written about it by Khenchen Mipam Rinpoche. In this song, Changkya Rolpe Dorje makes a very clear distinction between recognizing and not recognizing the nature of one's mind. In one part of the song he says, "Nowadays we scholars of the Gelugpa tradition, in discarding these appearances of the mind as the basis for the realization of emptiness and of the basis for the negation of true existence, and in searching for something beyond this to refute, something beyond this to negate in order to realize emptiness, have left our old mother behind; in other words, we have missed the point of emptiness." Changkya Rolpe Dorje gives another image for this mistake that we tend to make. he says that we are like a small child who is sitting in his mother's lap but forgetting where he is, looks for his mother everywhere; looks above, below, left and right and is unable to see his mother and becomes quite agitated. Along comes the child's older brother, and the image the older brother represents is both the understanding of interdependence and the recognition of the nature of thought. The older brother reminds the child by saying, "Your mother is right here, you are in her lap." In the same way, the nature of our mind or emptiness is with us all the time, we tend to look for it indirectly; we look for it somewhere outside ourselves, somewhere far away. And yet we do not need to look far away if we simply view the nature of thought as it is."... ~ Mahamudra teacher Thrangu Rinpoche