Search the Community

The sense or need to 'get rid of the I' comes precisely from the sense of being an 'I' who can 'get rid of I'. Who is it who can get rid of things? Is there an 'I' in the first place to get rid of, and is there an 'I' that can get rid of that? Are they not just another arising thought, arising and subsiding in lightning speed, insubstantial like a bubble? How can there be an 'I' in it? Is not the mind just another thought, unchosen, spontaneously manifesting of its own accord? Choice, thoughts, intentions arise spontaneously on its own, don't they? What is the evidence of an entity behind those choice? And is not even the idea that we are a self, or a thinker, or a controller of a thought, itself simply another thought arising on its own without a controller? It will not be obvious at first, it takes practice, observing, contemplation. This is not about getting rid of anything, but seeing clearly the nature of reality, beyond our mind's false assumptions and conceptual interpretation -- rather, the clear seeing is based on the evidence of our direct experience. Greg Goode explains very well: http://rogeringraham.blip.tv/file/2479869/ Here's something else to consider... Let's say it will be noticed that the body is out of shape. A thought may arise that the body could do with some exercise. Next a decision to go to the gym could come up. Nowhere in this 'chain of events' is there the need for an entity that takes the decision. If there was such an entity, it first would have to decide to take such a decision to be able to claim 'authorship.' It also would have to decide to decide to decide ad infinitum, thus creating an infinite regress. What I always say is that non-doership does not mean that you are helpless, but that the 'you-agent' is fictitious. We say "I live, I think, I breathe" and so on but living, thinking and breathing is not done by someone; it happens by itself. Let's have a look at thinking: Is there really a 'thinker of thoughts' independent of thought? Does this 'thinker' know what the next thought will be? Or is the thought only known when it comes along? This thought may get claimed in the next thought, which could goes something like "Oh, I just thought about such and such". But is the 'I' claiming to be the thinker of the thought- not itself part of the thought? Do not take this to literally please, as there actually isn't even a 'next thought'; only this thought right now. There is no past, which has led up to this moment. There is only THIS; including memories and other apparent evidence for such a past. Nevertheless, there is the unfolding of this dream in which "the Tao, without doing anything, leaves nothing undone." As such there may be the appearance of doing exercises, making decisions, planning your day, falling asleep, waking up, gazing at the stars, reading these words, or registering the sounds around you. It all happens by itself. As the Zen saying goes: Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows by itself. - Leo Hartong And in case you're mistaking that realising no-self has anything to do with getting rid of intentions, thoughts, and actions, (or even getting rid of an 'I', which in fact cannot be found in direct experience) I believe the above passage should pretty much clear that up. When you see through the solidity of an 'I', you no longer defend something that never existed in the first place, nor waste effort trying to get rid of something that never existed in the first place, and in place of that fictional 'self' you have the entire universe at disposal -- mind, physical body, space, mountains, the rivers, the sky, are your Body, total freedom from the limitations of an illusory separate self confined to a body-mind. # There is thinking, no thinker There is hearing, no hearer There is seeing, no seer # In thinking, just thoughts In hearing, just sounds In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors. -- these are essential for contemplation to give rise to Anatta (no-self) insight, but all these must be understood as 'Always and Already so' -- it is not a state achieved in deep meditation. It is a fact of reality that can only be realised.

To add on to my previous posts... Before we realise awareness, we think that objects have their own identity, and further, we identify ourselves with those objects -- body and mind. We roughly know that we are conscious beings with awareness, but we mistake awareness as something contained by an objective universe (our awareness being one thing among the others), contained by our bodies, and is somehow an illusory byproduct of this 'real' universe or body-mind. We do not have non-conceptual experience and realisation of what Awareness really is, hence the true face of awareness is obscured by our false concepts. After realising the luminous source we realise all these objects (the phenomena we experience) have no 'objective existence' and are only illusory, impersonal happenings happening within Awareness, without any existence apart from Awareness, yet that practitioner clings tightly to that source, that ultimate Subject, and reify it into a source wherein everything manifests and dissolves. Nothing 'is' without the clear light of awareness shining and revealing everything. Thus, this is realised as the luminous source of all that is, however one easily reifies the luminosity into an essence apart from phenomena. At the initial stage, Consciousness seems to be the unchanging witness, while phenomena simply arise come and go within it. Hence duality remains. At this level, consciousness is seen as real, phenomena illusory. At this level you know without doubt and without concepts what 'You' are. This is an important step - to experience this 'I' non-conceptually. You'll see through the illusion of Awareness as being in the objects or being apart from You, it is You, no separation at all. The first step is to know what Awareness is (non-conceptually), to experience this I. At this stage one realises that I am not an object (apart from me) -- and the so called 'awareness' or 'non dual experience' is not what I experience, it is what one is, or rather what simply IS. It comes with a tacit realisation that you are not merely a lifeless corpse, body or a machine. You know that you are more than an insentient object. Can a corpse be capable of activities and cognizance? No. The body by itself is incapable of cognizance -- they are instead, objects cognized within Consciousness. I am not those objects. I am alive. I am Life, Consciousness, Being. I AM. This I AM is never doubtable because it is more real than real -- it is so real you can never deny your own being, nothing can be more real than the pure presence of Being. From the perspective of someone who realises the I AM which is so real, all other phenomena are like an illusion (But it is dualistic since there is a denial of transient phenomena and establishment of the reality of consciousness seen as unchanging). At any moment even if doubting arises, I AM that clear knowing/presence in which doubting is arising in. This I AMness is Self-Knowing, it is known only by BEING it, it is not an observer observing something. When the practitioner realises beyond a shadow of doubt that this is who he is (rather than interpreted as something 'he' experiences), then this is no longer seen as a mere transient experience but a permanent Realisation of the nature of one's being. To realise this it is important to use methods like contemplating on the koan, "Who am I"? However this is only a partial, not complete realisation, and many more stages of realisations must unfold to clarify the non-dual, anatta, empty nature of Awareness. But this realisation is the initial glimpse of what Awareness truly is beyond theories and concepts, one knows by realising/BEING IT. This is only possible by dropping all our mental chatterings, conceptual understandings and notions of what Awareness is, and simply drop everything else -- mind, body, etc... only contemplate 'Who am I', and allow ourselves to be filled with only this sense of existence or presence until one realizes what existence is. Next, we realise that just manifestation alone is it, there is no other Subject or Source to fall back on. But at the same time we do not mistaken ourselves or awareness as located externally 'in objects' or 'in the objective universe' or being contained by this 6 foot body (cause the notion of yourself as being a tangible object of any sort is already thoroughly seen through in the 2nd step where we realise that the body and mind is 'contained' within this vast container-like awareness instead of being the other way around -- objects having their own objective existence and awareness being located in those objects. The 3rd step goes further and sees there is no container-contained dichotomy). At this level, consciousness is seen as not other than the illusion-like, dream-like display, which nevertheless is vivid and luminous. Consciousness 'feels' real and vivid but is without manifestation-transcendence essence or substance. Not only are you not separate from awareness (it is not an objective reality), awareness cannot be separated from all manifestations. The appearances are not seen as having objective reality apart from your awareness of it (it isn't 'yours', but language is dualistic), nor are they seen as manifestations of a pure subject, but rather, it is simply all non-dual awareness. In short: Sentient beings cling to/identify with objects. Dualistic practitioners cling to/identify with Subject. Enlightened practitioners cling to/identify with neither. Marblehead mentioned the zen koan: Before study and practise zen, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters. This is how I correspond it: 1) identification to objects 2) identification to subject, treating objects as illusion 3) no more subject/object, only pure manifestation as non-dual awareness

That's only one of it's manifestations. When I first started practicing kundalini, I was celibate entirely, not even during dream time. Then when it gets centered in the upper chakras, one can enjoy sex again and not loose energy. Like most guys go to sleep, most guys loose their energy, but once the flow is going upwards naturally and not downwards like for most people, then the energy is not lost during ejaculation and one is also receiving from the women her energy and it's cycling. I think you've talked about this. But once it's centered in the upwards flow, kundalini is not merely sublimated sexual energy anymore, it's something much more refined and wise.

It's just one thing when you are doing something that might be real but is more like a dream than anything. Really real, even if it's a very faint effect, that's another thing entirely. If the same metrics against chance and rigorous scientific inquiry are used to prove both psi effects and that aspirin helps a headache, then....well I have to rethink many things in my life.

I was having lunch with some colleagues and a women remarked that her friend had fallen in love with her husband because he was a good listener. I think that's really true for women; if the man can really sit and listen to her and actively listen and enjoy what she has to say, that's and big sign that there is real compatibility. Chris Rock say men need three things, food, sex and silence. Fuck me, make me a sandwich and shut the fuck up. I'm paraphrasing, but it seems there is some grain of truth here. One of the hardest things to do in relationship is really sit down and make time to listen to each other on a consistent bases. For me, and probably men and general, listening is one of the hardest activities to really do well in a relationship. They say women utter about 3 times the number of words that men do, on average, in a given day. In response to Kate's post, I think there is an art to successful relationships and I also think that Taoists have an advantage because part of the Tao is being a good listener and understanding that we are connecting to people. If you can develop this skill, I think you will have a lot more balance in your relationships. Women need to respect the silence in men and a man needs to honor a woman's need for authentic communication. Mature Romantic love, I feel, can be a spiritual practice in itself and, if taken seriously and respected as such, can be an incredible tool for personal growth and self realization. It doesn't always to have the the element of 'falling' in love either. It can just be a mature love relationship that you have going. In a way I Think we could even separate romantic or courtly love and the mature love that grows over time in a real relationship. In fact I would even say there is a clear distinction. If you have ever read Robert Johnson's work (anybody?), he talks in great depth about our western culture's obsession with what was originally called courtly love. It is from courtly love, explains Johnson, that our fascination with romantic love and our idealistic views on relationship have evolved. There are three books in particular by Johnson that I want to recommend, We, He and She. He was a student of Carl Jung and is considered on of the most highly respected Jungian Analysts in the field today. He's like 90 something now and still has a regular practice part of the year in San Diego, CA. Anyway, courtly love came about in the middle ages and was associated with an offshoot of Christianity that worshiped the feminine ideal. Courtly love was typically prescribed between a married man, usually a knight, and a lady of the court. It was not a sexual relationship, but one of great romantic passion non the less. The knight, would seek to win favor with the object of his affection, the lady in this case, by winning battles and contests of strength and valor and returning with gifts to offer the lady. These were often the things that still associate with romance today; flowers, silks, poetry and other sentimental offerings. But again, in courtly love, the man and woman were often already married and sex, although often perhaps played upon and symbolically present, never really enters into it. The idea is that the passion between the man in the woman is the driving force, compelling the man to ever greater heights of courage and conquest, mirroring his relationship with God and the divine, acted out through the feminine. Both Johnson and Jung believed, rightly so, that this ideal of courtly love has strongly carried over and is still the basis for relationships in the collective unconscious of the west. Johnson goes on to say that the our misinterpretation, as a culture, of the purpose and underlying spiritual significance of courtly love has been the cause and condition for a lot of suffering and a wrongly directed projection of the courtly ideal, something that was originally a form of spiritual practice, onto marriages and relationships in our western society. The work that Johnson has done is very significant and extensive and I won't attempt to present his work here except to illustrate a few points about the way relationships work in the west and how we suffer more often than not if we hold to these unconscious patterns. I will also make a brief observation about how western and eastern relationships operate. First of all, according to Jung, when men and women 'fall in love' in our culture; this is the unconscious (the true self, not the ego) projects the desire to commune with God onto another human being. For Jung, the soul of a man is the Anima, expressed in the feminine ideal; man's inner female. For the women, it's Animus, the inner man. These hidden aspects of our unconscious self are God in the form of the opposite sex and rooted in our mind stream as archetypal bridges to the divine within. They are very powerful and vary real forces, even though they are manifestations of the mind and the collective unconscious. If we understand their proper place, that they are part of God or part of the divine aspect of our own self nature, we can use them as tools for a truly spiritual life. They become doorways to the sacred aspect of our self and pathways to self realization. If your not familiar with Jungian work, this may sound unfamiliar and contrived, it's not; but you would have to do some research to fully grasp it. The mistake that we in the west make is thinking that this inner projection belongs to our girlfriends and wives in the physical world. We are fooled into believing that the animus and anima are the woman or man in our romantic life. We see the divine, or project the divine ideal, onto ordinary people and that's where things get mixed up. When men fall in love, typically, according to Johnson, if they are not aware of their unconscious, they project it on to the women who then becomes the object of their romantic (from the practice of courtly love) love. "Oh, she is so amazing, there is no one else like her, she is the one." Of course no woman or man can live up to this ideal and as soon as the illusion is broken, usually after they have dated a while or married or whatever, they realize that that special feeling of being with some divine personage has vanished. In it's place is a normal person with problems and faults and pimples just like the rest of us. Someone mentioned earlier that true love is the 'one that got away' and that's exactly the function of romantic love in our culture. You can never hold it in your hands, it will always slip away, like a dream upon waking. Usually, we start looking for someone else. Someone prettier, younger, Mr. Right or Mrs. Right. We don't understand that this holy image that we have fallen in love with is our own soul trying to penetrate our awareness. Most people who have been through divorce a few times or been married for a long time or had long term committed relationships that they were able to sustain and change with, begin to understand this on some level. But some people don't get it and keep going from one relationship to the next trying to catch what they cannot catch. Spiritual practice can also fall into this cycle. The rightful place of the divine is of course in your own heart and must be nurtured and tended to very carefully and lovingly and with the knowledge and the respect to allow it to take its proper place and play its correct role. Until we go within, we cannot know God or find real peace; Jung called this process individuation, the process of separation and then reconnecting the ego to the unconscious with awareness. A very Taoist idea. So what is real love than? Well, according to Johnson, we must, in western culture, enter love with the illusion. For most of us it's the only way to access the divine and eventually understand our relationship to the divine. So we have to operate within the limits of the culture we are born into to eventually break free of them. If we look at the divorce rate in America, it's not too hard to see that this is a very apt and accurate recommendation. Real love is of course based on healthy boundaries, mutual respect and understanding, and of course friendship and attraction. Johnson often likes to contrast our western ideas about love with the eastern way of doing things where marriages are generally more stable and grounded and sex and passion are more aspects or parts of the relationship as a greater whole and not the whole itself. Of course this is a generalization, there are exceptions in every culture and eastern culture is becoming more westernized these days too. So, the desire to fall in love can be and generally is based on false identification. It's a projection and completely mind dependent. There can be a more mature courtship that grows over time and becomes a strong bond that starts with friendship. That's what I'm looking for. This more stable and practical version of the modern love affair is based in reality and leads to a lasting bond and shared admiration where the divine in both partners is honored and acknowledged, but not wrongly projected onto the actual person. Two people who can share this kind of relationship are the luckiest people in the world. Two souls, awake together, supporting the other in a graceful and dignified way and not focused on how they can possess or benefit, but rather on what they can give and learn in return. So my question, again, is what we can do to increase the chances of meeting that special someone to love; From attracting a mate to supporting and sustaining a mature, grounded relationship? I have my own ideas for sure, what are yours?

Sentience = Awareness. Without you there is no earth. There is no past, present, or future. Your Awareness is unborn, unceasing, and will never die. Only its contents and experiences will change and cycle due to habitual actions and views i.e. Karma. All phenomena is creates from a beginningless dream wherein in you see flowers in the sky arising out of nothing and seeing it as a distinct form of itself, one adheres to "this," and "that" creating objects to this relationship of causes and conditions. There is no object of dependence. Only the relationship exists.

heart never drains thats just a feeling when greedy becomes disappointed through reaching for someone who is not truly there its called disappointment like stage diving without supporters Iv'e had good times stopping outwards orgasm. alone and with partner. a partner can very well share an inwards orgasm with you. a particularly paranoid partner would perhaps dream you stealing from him, while draeing inwards, but then again, who would have such a partner.

I don't really believe in enlightenment or striving for this "illusive dream," as I wish to call it. Whenever I have met a so-called master that was claimed to be enlightened, I learned that I didn't wnat to be like them. Most that I met were greedy, into having affairs with their disciples, and into fame. And I used to think that meditation would cause a person to become more moral and therefore not wish to harm others. It doesn't. Instead, I think "just being" is what is important. All this striving leads to nothing as far as I can tell. And when I read what enlightenment is supposed to be, by Hindus and Buddhists alike, it sounded so boring. Friedrich Nietzsche said it best when he said that he would rather choose eternally conscious suffering than nonexistence. And enlightenment seems like eternal nonexistence or just being blissed out.

Neat! We need more non-dual depiction cartoons. I don't know if I should share a dream here that I have more than once, at least this one part, but I'm feeling inspired to do so, so... I'll do it. It's different dreams that have a repeating element to it, as different things happen after this first part which repeats. The repeating element is; I wake up in sleep paralysis which happens often enough so it doesn't scare me anymore, I just follow the feeling and relax into it, and I slowly slip out of my body... I then find myself in a state of a wondrous bliss. I'm made of light and everything is just this light, a bright white light. I'm floating in this light, made of the light, experienced as bliss. I'm both aware of being in the light and that I am the light with the regular me swimming in formless me. I am both seeing from the perspective of being the person swimming around in the light, more like floating around in the light and I'm aware from the perspective of being the light that I'm floating in. So, I'm having perception from both sides. Having vision through the eyes of the "light being" swimming and the light itself being one big eye that is looking at me swimming in me. Like seeing through two heads at the same time except one level of perception does not have a center of vision to see from, there are no eyes, it's seeing from all directions at once and the other one, the little me swimming in the big me is seeing through the two eyes. So it's simultaneously limited vision and 360 spherical vision focusing in on a person floating around within itself. Like the ocean was suddenly aware of a fish inside of it, except I'm both the fish and the ocean. According to Buddhist interpretation of this experience, my consciousness was basically just experiencing the water element which appears as white light and this water element is all around. I was aware that my consciousness was mingling with the all pervasive pure level of water element, the freedom was blissful, and there was no sense of concrete identity as well, there was just awareness and bliss. The big formless awareness which was my consciousness being aware beyond it's habitual identification with the body, was seeing the little me blissfully floating within it, but the color was all the same, yet I could differentiate both houses of consciousness, one was the water element and the other was my subtle mind body. Though it was white on white, I was aware both of the unity because both experiences of simultaneous awareness' was from my one consciousness, my mind stream. I was aware of the contrast without there having to be color, like I could see my face and the details of it without there having to be shades and color differences. Though it's hard to explain and probably even harder to read, this type of experience I feel shows that awareness is not trapped within or dependent upon the physical body to see. That apparent limitations are merely a game, or a play on a stage that we do for fun, but we have forgotten how fun it is. Of course individual intentions for becoming physical and limited differ from mind stream to mind stream and the causes for birth into this realm differ from being to being. Yet, at the beginning of any particular cosmic cycle, the intention was probably merely for the sake of experience propelled by the condition of a feeling of need left over from the last universe since we didn't become Buddhas then. I don't personally see awareness as some mysterious will that choses to condition itself out of some desire or will to do so. I don't see it as the source of all things either, but I see that our individual consciousness can become aware of subtler paradigms than the 5 senses, thus transcending body and brain consciousness. Because when we come out of this subtle state we see our physical universe kind of re-manifest perceptually, we assume that it's awareness that's doing this, but it's really just conditions of the physical habit coming back into awareness from a subtler paradigm of consciousness. Our consciousness occupies dimensions beyond the body even while we are only being aware of the body level and sense consciousness most of the time. I'm having a hard time explaining this right now as I find that as I try to explain there is a flood of information and dimensions and details that need to be explained, so I feel like a huge book is trying to be expressed here... Which I'm not going to write, right now. So... thank you for posting this and asking us to express our beliefs around this. It's always a nice challenge to try to put experience beyond the linearity of sequential time and of limitations of expressed on paper words through the English language. Thank you. Take care!

It's erroneous views that are the cause of this not being experienced as an Eden. I used to have the messy view that all paths lead to the same destination which really isn't that insightful and doesn't see the meaning of things as they are. I made an excuse that the Truth was a transcendent umbrella idealism that is beyond thoughts, logic and reason. I used to think... why is it that Buddhists think they have the only path that leads to true liberation from unconscious recycling? As a Hindu I was able to see that Jesus was a Buddha, Krishna was a Buddha, Lau Tzu was a Buddha and Buddha was the only Buddhist Buddha because all these other guys who say that Buddhism is the only path that leads beyond proliferation are dogmatic and don't understand the Buddhas teaching. All these Buddhists missed the boat and only non-Buddhists understand the Buddhas teachings. I used to think like this. Because I thought all religions and all the cosmos had one source, that there was a beginning to the universe a source that was also it's end and that all things were of one substance and that everything was under the power of a mysterious will. Everything is the dream of one dreamer, dreaming his/himself into multiplicity only to become one again at the end of the cosmic eon. Then I realized dependent origination and saw past this dogma. I realized that it wasn't Buddhists who were being dogmatic, it was me... I was being dogmatic and I was mis-interpreting my experiences the only way an identity knows how. To identify my transcendent experiences with a transcendent identity. It's a habit that has kept me recycling for endless time, over and over again. It's the hardest habit to break. People want to take some parts of the Buddhas teachings but those parts that challenge their view, they dismiss as being some sort of addition that came later. But, the Buddha did say in the Pali Canon that his teaching was special and that the universe works like dependent origination illumines and does not work in the way that other traditions posit. It's an entirely different teaching from other traditions. It is unique and it's either wrong or right. But, it's not the same as other tradition which all seem to fall under the assumption that everything comes from one source and that one day we will all return to this one source. This is true, but that source is ignorance, and ignorance can be bliss, and have a lot of knowledge. That doesn't mean it's liberation from Samsara as the Buddha defines it though. Buddha was the only started of a major world religion that actually meant his teachings to be a formal religion with monks and lay disciples, an entire system of methods and contemplations for the sake of liberation from Samsara. It wasn't a later edition, he actually created Buddhism. Buddha meant for his teachings to be an organised path to liberation. His system of consideration is rebellious. It's rebellious against the habit of oneness, the substratum that we are all products of is ignorance. The fundamental ignorance of a final identity.

Other then a sorta've recurring dream I really can't remember.

Fascinating! When I was a child I had a very vivid dream of angels taking me on a tour of other dimensions-hell being one of them.I recall the men in white garments telling other entities that the most High has saved this one or has a purpose for him.Considering I was evil for awhile in my teenage years then I submitted to righteous principles..it makes me wonder about predestination.How we are free to choose yet those choices are still circumscribed by what is-a kind of fatalism-destiny.Anyway. I apologize since I wrote on your response without asking what you meant by refining energy and correct focus? Have you tried stem enhance? By focus do you mean directing the visualizations that go on in our minds, in an effort to steer the river of our ever changing [reconstructing] bodies?

I hope this doesn't side track a conversation, but about 10 years ago I had an astral projection where I unintentionally went out of my body 15 years back in time and went back to a place my body was sleeping (7,000 miles away from where I lived at the time). The place was infested with some kind of entities that quickly disappeared. I tied to get back to my body sleeping there, but realized it was my body but 15 years younger (and 2 feet shorter). And also about the same time I remembered that when I was little and about the same age I had a nightmare I had to fight the entities invading my house. It was so real and scary and made such a big impression on me that I never forgot that dream. So I just flew 7,000 miles back to my older body. I should have just tried to move my finger... would be faster. Still, this experience made me think there is a lot of crazy shit that can happen... if only we can have an open mind.

Hello Leon Basin. Thanks for the question. I enjoyed it immensely. I found also quite interesting the answers, as if there was an answer to such question. I think that if you keep on asking yourself this question, and keep on reading, and following people you feel have something to teach you, eventually you will find an answer that satisfy you. So what I wanted to propose you is just a simple exercise. An exercise that will not make you live life as a taoist, but might make you live life a bit less as a non Taoist. BtW, why do you want to live life as a Taoist? Don't you have enough troubles? This exercise, this game, has some rules. Rules are important. So it is important that while you do the exercise you follow them. First you need to ask yourself a question; here are some examples: Should I make love with the girlfriend of my best friend? or Should I live as a Taoist? Then you remain with the question, and find the answer. (yes/no/...whatever) But then in life (as in journalism) the important is never the first question, but the second one... And the second one is: why? And I told you that there are rules. and the rule is that as you answer the why question you are not allowed to refer to any authority figure. You cannot say because this book/this website/this text/this dream/this teacher/this guru... says ... . Whatever a book, a website.... a guru says, you leave it alone. The answer must not contain it. This is how traditionally, in our school ethic is being trained. Once you have the answer you change the question: what if he is not my best friend? what is I am angry with him? what if she asks me to? and what exactly does make love mean? Does that imply penetration? What if she wants it, she asks me, and we don't penetrate, but we look into the eyes, and let the energetic bodes copulate above? And so on. All this will not make you a Taoist, because honestly I don't think it is possible to become a Taoist, but might help you to drain some of the mud that covers you heart (nothing personal, we all have it), and let that internal wisdom that you have shine through. And when you have a connection to that... you will probably not ask yourself even how to become a Taoist. With great respect, Pietro

Dear Fellow Tao Bums, Please forgive me if this post is a little emo, I just found this site and just wanted to get my troubles off my chest.I am 23 years old, and it's been my dream for many years to spend my life cultivating and meditating. I work 60 hour work weeks, and it is really taking its toll on me. I make just enough to cover my bills and save a small amount, and I am a pretty frugal person. I don't eat out or wear fancy clothes, I shop at thrift stores, dollar stores, and budget grocery stores. I don't own a TV or phone only a netbook and a cable internet connection. I've got the cheapest rent I can find in my city, and I don't buy anything unless I have to. I just don't know anymore, working so much and having no time or money it is really hard on my soul. I don't know how to get out of this work, sleep, wake, chores, work, sleep cycle. I wake up each morning and just want to give up, I don't really know what to do anymore. At this rate it will take me 25 years or more to be able to afford a home of my own. I don't have the money or time to go back to school and if I did I wouldn't know what to go back for that I would enjoy or feel is an honest living. I am also scared of death, I guess that is why I am seeking cultivation. I don't want to be destroyed with death, I want to live on. Is this selfish and wrong? I am scared the life I am living will never allow me to cultivate a high enough degree to survive death. If that is the case what was the point of this whole life to begin with? Inside I am very scared, and frustrated with my life. What other living options do I have, there has to be a better way than this. Has any bum here managed to find a way to work less and focus on cultivation more, what is your advice? Your friend, Mikey

Depending on what you mean by self inquiry, if you are talking about Advaitic sense a la Ramana Maharshi, then self inquiry easily leads to the I AM realisation than to the No-Self realisation. The No-Self realisation is gained through contemplating vipassanically on these verses.... # There is thinking, no thinker There is hearing, no hearer There is seeing, no seer # In thinking, just thoughts In hearing, just sounds In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors. Or simply the Bahiya Sutta. This is not to say that self inquiry in the vedantic sense is not precious, because it can give a powerful realisation of one's luminous nature of mind (as pure aliveness, consciousness), a powerful conviction that you are not a machine, or a corpse or a lifeless body -- the nature of mind is luminous, clear, alive as pure presence, imbued with clear knowingness. My friend Thusness has instructed a number of friends on self inquiry in the Vedantic sense, knowing that it will not lead all the way but can be an important tool. However its empty (of self and inherent existence) nature will be evasive until further insights but it is nevertheless it can still serve as an important foundation or condition for further insights (though those who follow the traditional Mahasi Sayadaw Theravadin Vipassana path like Daniel Ingram may not emphasize this stage). It is this experience of the pure I AMness that becomes mistaken as an Atman or Eternal Witness. Great. I have to add on something... Rangtong seems to skew towards emptiness to the point of nihilism. Shentong seems to skew towards luminosity to the point of eternalism. When one realises the union of luminosity and emptiness, one goes beyond extremes. Luminosity is the very magical and dream-like display of appearances... vivid and clear but empty. Focus on the luminosity but also realise it's empty, dependently originated, and impermanent nature.

Right, there is no ultimate metaphysical essence outside of Awareness. Awareness and its luminosity has always been the nature of phenomena. The distinctions one makes, which is another state of Awareness itself, and an identification with the subject vs. an object is what is illusory. It is the eternal "I-ness." For anything to exist it must be within Awareness, within the Mind. It must be self-conscious, else, how can you know it exists? This is the only quality that cannot be changed and it is permanent. It is neither the observer or the observed because both point to a subject object duality. There never was any such dualities except within the imagination. Your mind has drawn lines in empty space. In reality there is no set distinction between the two. The luminosity is not dependently originated. It is what phenomena is. Dependent origination applies to the content of the luminosity wherein the distinctions of this and that are made. Once this is grasped, there is suddenly that. And then there is suddenly all these definitions, causes, conditions within the Mind. Hence suffering. Dependent origination and self inquiry are both methods of getting rid of the habitual seeds the Mind has accustomed itself to. It is destroying all false causes and discrimination. There is nothing but your own Awareness, and it has the total freedom and infinite potentials to create, interact, and dream. It has created this world, it can create new worlds, live in it, die in it, suffer in it. To realize this is to be freed from identifying with the falsely arisen causes within. And the servant is no longer the master. You are totally alone, everything, and free. You are in everything. And everything is in you. Each mind stream is its own creation. This is not to say that there is no "you" or other. The essence of "other" is projected into your mind. In the same way, your reality is simultaneously happening, reflected, in those you interact with. Actually it is reflected in infinite number of consciousness creations. Note: Certain Taoist methods mention how the practitioner, when he dreams of ascending into the heavens, actually does so both in his mind and in the heavens.

I don't know. I must see how my conclusions fit into my experience of reality. I have to contemplate further, but Dependent Origination on the surface made me realize that all distinctions, causes, and effects were illusionary. The question of free will and self identity has always been very elusive. That is why I came back to this thread when I realized that causes, conditions, time, space are all illusionary distinctions. No where could I find a boundary to a perceived event. Everything seems like a dream made up by my mind. And it is totally and completely free in its ability to create and evolve as an artist. I remember once reading about the Buddha being asked why there was suffering in his realm, i.e. Earth. And he replied that the suffering of his land was necessary to motivate others to become liberated. I feel as if I am dreaming that land the Buddha has constructed, only to learn that I am also a creator of realities.

Yes, that is precisely right. My will is bound by nothing but my own illusions I have created. But those illusions have been created solely by me and hence I have the total ability to become free from it. No one exists "from" anything. But they can only create their experience according to the medium they are able or choose to project. And the potentials of the content of creation is infinite, imagine making distinctions in empty space. You can draw a line through space infinitely, entertaining various causes and effects, entertaining endless variety of creation. I that same way, the Buddha ha left him imprint on creation as "Buddha" ness. He is there to counter the illusion of the dream, so that the mind can become awakened to non other than itself! Hence you are the sole creator of your reality. To me, you don't exist but as an imprint of a characteristic. VH doesn't exist in my Awareness but only as a VH"ness". We are simply both projecting a similar taste of objective existence, known as the "human realm." Yes. And your answer to this is that it comes from predetermined causes and conditions. Everyone just flowing to the current. My answer is that it is I. And this I is everything of my Awareness. It is my Mind.

Luminosity arises from the fact of the empty quality of things and consciousness. It is not self supported or self originated. You should try to study abhidharma more. You are obviously missing out on a subtle experiential insight because your conclusion is opposed to the bodhi of the Buddhas. I also used to cling to this level of examining that you are clinging to. But, your not seeing the meaning of my words, so the words don't make sense. Nagarjuna's Mahamudra Vision Homage to Manjusrikumarabhuta! 1. I bow down to the all-powerful Buddha Whose mind is free of attachment, Who in his compassion and wisdom Has taught the inexpressible. 2. In truth there is no birth - Then surely no cessation or liberation; The Buddha is like the sky And all beings have that nature. 3. Neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist, But all is a complex continuum With an intrinsic face of void, The object of ultimate awareness. 4. The nature of all things Appears like a reflection, Pure and naturally quiescent, With a non-dual identity of suchness. 5. The common mind imagines a self Where there is nothing at all, And it conceives of emotional states - Happiness, suffering, and equanimity. 6. The six states of being in Samsara, The happiness of heaven, The suffering of hell, Are all false creations, figments of mind. 7. Likewise the ideas of bad action causing suffering, Old age, disease and death, And the idea that virtue leads to happiness, Are mere ideas, unreal notions. 8. Like an artist frightened By the devil he paints, The sufferer in Samsara Is terrified by his own imagination. 9. Like a man caught in quicksands Thrashing and struggling about, So beings drown In the mess of their own thoughts. 10. Mistaking fantasy for reality Causes an experience of suffering; Mind is poisoned by interpretation Of consciousness of form. 11. Dissolving figment and fantasy With a mind of compassionate insight, Remain in perfect awareness In order to help all beings. 12. So acquiring conventional virtue Freed from the web of interpretive thought, Insurpassable understanding is gained As Buddha, friend to the world. 13. Knowing the relativity of all, The ultimate truth is always seen; Dismissing the idea of beginning, middle and end The flow is seen as Emptiness. 14. So all samsara and nirvana is seen as it is - Empty and insubstantial, Naked and changeless, Eternally quiescent and illumined. 15. As the figments of a dream Dissolve upon waking, So the confusion of Samsara Fades away in enlightenment. 16. Idealising things of no substance As eternal, substantial and satisfying, Shrouding them in a fog of desire The round of existence arises. 17. The nature of beings is unborn Yet commonly beings are conceived to exist; Both beings and their ideas Are false beliefs. 18. It is nothing but an artifice of mind This birth into an illusory becoming, Into a world of good and evil action With good or bad rebirth to follow. 19. When the wheel of mind ceases to turn All things come to an end. So there is nothing inherently substantial And all things are utterly pure. 20. This great ocean of samsara, Full of delusive thought, Can be crossed in the boat Universal Approach. Who can reach the other side without it? Colophon The Twenty Mahayana Verses, (in Sanskrit, Mahayanavimsaka; in Tibetan: Theg pa chen po nyi shu pa) were composed by the master Nagarjuna. They were translated into Tibetan by the Kashmiri Pandit Ananda and the Bhikshu translator Drakjor Sherab (Grags 'byor shes rab). They have been translated into English by the Anagarika Kunzang Tenzin on the last day of the year 1973 in the hope that the karma of the year may be mitigated. May all beings be happy!

Do you know a person who you have not met (not only physically). Wheres does this thing called "arm" begin and end? You have everything to do with how the tree is perceived. What you believe to be "tree" only exists as concepts attributed to a phenomena within the mind. That is like your hand trying to write a thesis paper. It can't. Not as long as it limits itself as a hand. And because you believe yourself to be of the body and the brain, material creations within the dream limited to the environment, you cannot do these things. Thus delusions and false clingings/knots must be let go of. Right. There can only BE I. The capital Self. It is not Brahma, God, Buddha or any of these things. It is right now in the ever non-dual experience. And this is only created according to your own intentions and thought processes rising from the illusionary act of distinction. The contents of the mind are only imprints of "treeness", "Marbleheadness" "Buddhaness," etc. The manifestations of the mind are actually, and truly, of infinite variety.

Hi Mikey, I feel your pain through your post. Life is difficult but also very beautiful and blissful if you have the proper perspective. I can't possibly say anything in a few words to change your life but here are some brief thoughts. Suffering comes from our conditioning. We have been taught since childhood and are inundated daily with certain expectations, likes, dislikes, and desires. We suffer when we want something other than what we have. The pain is in you not in your situation. Other people could be put into your situation and feel as if they are in heaven (Sudanese refugees come to mind). I'm not trying to say - "you don't know how good you have it" but rather "your suffering is in your desire to have something you do not have" and that is completely within your ability to change whether you make any changes to your job or not. One of the popular lies is that you need free time to cultivate. NOT TRUE! It's easy to cultivate when you have no responsibilities but of what value is that when you choose to come back to the world? It is every bit as effective to cultivate while living your life as it is. You just have to be a bit more disciplined and creative. One way to approach this is through mindfulness practice. My first exposure to this practice was through a book by Thich Nhat Hanh called The Miracle of Mindfullness. There are many other approaches to your problem and probably excellent and free websites containing similar information but I found that book very useful. I subsequently found many other ways to move my cultivation forward despite having a demanding full time job, wife, children, and other social responsibilities. It is still my greatest challenge to juggle and balance all of these responsibilities. First - you are important. Don't cut yourself short and don't feel that being selfish about your free time and happiness is a bad thing. It's essential! If you want to make cultivation a priority you can. Don't go out late. Get up an hour earlier and practice meditation before work. Learn a Taiji form and practice every morning and so on. Second - if you are able to leave the miserable dream we call society for a utopian existence, COOL! I've dreamed of doing that but don't have the courage to leave my responsibilities behind. Third - if you choose to stay in the world, make that life your cultivation. Difficult but far from impossible. Good luck!

Well, we agree on one point. That's a start. Hehehe. Only partial agreement here. But we can agree that the chair exists, right? True, you need your eyes to be able to see, whether in color or black and white. Without eye we cannot see. However, everyone else is still able to see the world in color so it still exists for everyone else - in living color! I, of course, disagree with your last two statements. First, my mind is only a part of what I am. I have arms, legs, a penis, etc. All my parts make up what I am. And finally, I don't have to exist in order for the tree to exist. Others will percieve the tree. I have nothing to do with the tree. We are separate manifestations. No, it is a fact. I have on a couple occasions thought that is was going to sit in a chair that wasn't there and my ass hit the floor every time. Without fail. No matter how hard I tried to keep from hitting my ass on the floor the momentum had already started and I could not pretend that I was not falling. I promise you, every time you try to sit in a chair that isn't physically there your ass will hit the floor. Every time - regardless of your illusions or delusions. I cannot imagine that. Sorry. But I get the point you are driving toward. That is why I have already stated in different threads that it is important for us to know our capabilities and capacities so that we can live our life to the fullest. Yes, I can imagine and dream that I am having sex with Halle Berry when I am asleep but really all I am doing is masturbating. Reality is reality. I can't make Miss Halle materialize in my bed - I have already tried. You are playing with the word 'fly'. That's not fair. Yes, I have visited my favorite place in Italy a view times in the past. It is a very special place. I was physically there a number of times. But in my imagination my visits are only the memories of when I physically there. I really din't go there - I only remembered the past experiences and replay them in my mind. I was still physically in Florida. But remember, that was an illusion - it wasn't reality. I recognize it for what it is. That is the difference between imagination and illusions and delusions. Peace & Love!

Yes, they share the same state of perception. You would not see the chair, but you will still feel the chair due to your perception of touch. When I close my eyes, the world exists without color. Sounds do not exist as sounds but wavelengths when you do not hear them but measure them accordingly. Yup, you've never not had a mind. You have always had it, because you ARE it. In fact, everything that is existent is of the mind, otherwise, how can you know that it exists? No that is the belief created from your identification of the analytical mind. You are trying to create something with a dead paint brush. You CAN do so, and that is why you believe you have a free will as a body, but really, the potentials of creation here is infinite once illusionary identity and habits are let go of. Imagine a person who thinks he is his hand. He believe he can only act as his hand and nothing else, and believes it to be the source of all his actions. Now he suffers very much because the hand has a very limited ability to create and choose what it would do. But on inquiring into the source of the hand's movement, he comes to know his brain. Whoa! Now he has so many tools to move, to live, to activate! . (A crude example I know). A whole new world opens up to him and the hand is no longer in conflict with the body. You can fly, only if you learn how to dream right. But you wouldn't really be flying, because you are simply making that reality come true. There is no movement here, only a perceptual deception. You think you move, because you believe you are controlling the body in a set environment. There is no set environment. All is the creation of the mind.

It is I! . I, I, I! There is nothing but I. There can be nothing but I. It is everything, but NOT everyone. You and I are on a total different plane of existence altogether. Each is his/her universe creating and expanding. Everything is created through the self and is of the self. The Mind dreams. And where do the contents of the Mind come from? It comes from the Mind's choice to create through a medium called being "Human." And in this mode it absorbs the patterns and imprints of the human condition. The "me," Lucky, which you see in your perception is therefore not me but an impression of me reflected as an actualized possibility, a pattern. We are both at a distinct stage in a similar dream.