Search the Community

"We need a deeper understanding of what the dream is, of what experience is, to truly utilize dreaming as an approach to enlightenment. When we practice deeply, many wonderful dreams will arise, rich with signs of progress. But ultimately the meaning in the dream is not important. It is best not to regard the dream as correspondence from another entity to you, not even from another part of you that you do not know. There is no conventional meaning outside of the dualism of samsara. This view is not a giving in to chaos: there is no chaos or meaninglessness either, these are more concepts. It may sound strange, but this idea of meaning must be abandoned before the mind can find complete liberation. And doing this is the essential purpose of dream practice. We do not ignore the use of the meaning in dreaming. But it is good to recognize that there is also dreaming in meaning. Why expect great messages from a dream? Instead penetrate to what is below meaning, the pure base of experience. This is the higher dream practice - not psychological, but more spiritual - concerned with recognizing and realizing the fundament of experience, the unconditioned. When you progress to this point, you are unaffected by whether there is a message in the dream or not. Then you are complete, your experience is complete, you are free from the conditioning that arises from dualistic interactions with the projections of your own mind." -Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche from The Tibetan Yogas of Sleep and Dream

Roger, don't worry about it. As you say, things pop up when they need to. Speaking of which, I've been listening to Swami on Mandukya Upanishad. Does Vedanta have any specific dream/deep sleep induction techniques? Or is it just a matter of increasing daytime awareness which naturally leads to dream/sleep awareness?

NEVER ! And there isnt a thing in the world ... or in your so called magical arsenal or your self imagined 'powers' that you can do about it ! Its clear to anyone who cares to look https://sebpearce.com/bullshit/ We can no longer afford to live with dogma. The complexity of the present time seems to demand a deepening of our essences if we are going to survive. You may be ruled by bondage without realizing it. Where there is materialism, stardust cannot thrive. Without peace, one cannot dream. Yearning is the antithesis of rejuvenation. The totality is calling to you via ultrasonic energy. Can you hear it? Although you may not realize it, you are unrestricted. If you have never experienced this lightning bolt of the creative act, it can be difficult to dream. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the galaxy via electromagnetic resonance. Humankind has nothing to lose. Our conversations with other seekers have led to a blossoming of pseudo-infinite consciousness. We are in the midst of an advanced awakening of spacetime that will clear a path toward the quantum matrix itself. https://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

it's a good question. Have you ever heard the raise, "Likes to get a rise out of someone?" So certain people like to get other people anger or a "rise out of them" - so that the person can the "suck up" the anger of that other person. So the anger is yang qi but they are using their "yin qi" to suck it up. That is a lower level of what you are talking about. Now on a higher level, the yin qi is literally a black hole. The irony of a black hole is that actually reality, as now defined by Western science, is based in quantum physics due to "time-frequency uncertainty" aka wave-particle duality. So what this means is that as a particle speeds up then its external frequency is actually going up as energy defined by the speed of light. So normally in classical physics we think of momentum as speed plus mass but in the quantum realm it was proven the momentum is inverse to the mass as wavelength (defining time as spatial distance externally). As John Chang states, a person can store up yin qi only as much as they have yang qi built up internally based on celibacy. This is why real qigong masters are so rare since celibacy requires controlling the dream state. So then waking reality becomes another dream state while the "real" truth is beyond the dream state as a literal black hole spacetime vortex. So then based on quantum physics again - the internal frequency goes up as a particle goes into a black hole but the external time SLOWS DOWN. So externally a person or in this case, a "bullet" - never actually makes contact with the black hole or "yin qi" as gravity. So this is called relativistic quantum physics because you have two times - one from the future which is superluminal as the 5th dimension. This is then what "guides" the bullet - and so that time gets shorter and shorter as the internal frequency of the bullet gets bigger and bigger. Then the relativistic external time gets bigger and bigger - meaning slows down as a red shift (which is another way of saying Yin Qi). Then the frequency of the bullet (again based on light as relativistic invariance speed) goes down - as the red shift. So that is what the qigong master experiences since John Chang is literally "embodying the Emptiness" - through his lower tan t'ien and central channel. For us "normal" people we see the bullet speed up - but John chang experiences the opposite - he sees external time slows down.

I work with a method of dreamwork called Dream Yoga(not tibetian Dream Yoga). Here we dont take symbols for what we are taught they are, but we ask them directly what they are doing in the dream. It is an interview prosess designed to show you your dream from the dream elements perspectives. The thing with the dreams we remember is that they have passed through the mind. They have to be filtrated through our waking consciousness. This makes the "message" distorted. By interviewing the dream elements we can open up to see the hidden message behind the distorted memory of the dream. For example a client of mine dreamt she came into a dark room and saw herself get brutally killed by a shadowy figure. She was very upset and thought this dream meant something really bad. We interviewd the shadowy figure and he told us that he never intended to be shadowy, and he never intended the dream to be upsetting for the dreamer. The dreamer realized that herself as the victim wasnt upset but really accepted being killed. In the dream the dream elements really wanted her to enjoy being killed. It was an aspect of her she needs to let go of and the dream group came together to help her let go of it, to help her move on with ease. This is an example of how dreams can seem bad because we distort them, but are really a great help in our development and life situation. If you look at your dream with Dream Yoga you might get surprised! You can try in the "sample session" at www.dreamyoga.com

No, you have it around the wrong way ! If you turn the tap on ... that is NOT leakage ! neither is ejaculation from sex or masturbation . and wet dreams certainly count as leakage . rest assured grasspopper that every time you wake up in shame in your sticky sheets - here goes another 5 years of your life ! ( and if the wet dream has inspired by a night visiting white western dream demon woman ... make that 10 years each time ! )

Potent question. In my case, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I was fortunate in that my first cognizant memory in this life was an out of body experience. It was induced by a powerful dream and resulted in my awareness hovering over my sleeping body and watching it for a time. This revealed, before I even had a concept of death, that my body was not the center of my beingness. Awareness is home. Awareness is not body dependent, but the body tunes the awareness to certain frequencies. At most, the body while awareness roamed free of it, seemed akin to a very loved coat. Special, incredibly comfortable... but just a coat in the end. As a result, there has never been any fear of losing this body, or of this body's eventual decay. This does not result in a longing for death. (that has arisen and faded on its own as my path led to the nights of darkness). But there is no worry or fret over it. The only teeth seemingly remaining in death lies in the passing of those treasured and deeply beloved. So many friends and family lost takes a toll, but even this shines with joy greater than grief. For in their passing, my joy at knowing that throughout the infinite boiling seas of this 14.7 billion year universe... I had the uncanny good fortune to have met, loved and was loved by such hearts and minds. Treasure of treasures.

"He who dreams of drinking wine may weep when morning comes; he who dreams of weeping may in the morning go off to hunt. While he is dreaming he does not know it is a dream, and in his dream he may even try to interpret a dream. Only after he wakes does he know it was a dream. And someday there will be a great awakening when we know that this is all a great dream. Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman - how dense! Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming, too. Words like these will be labelled the Supreme Swindle. Yet, after ten thousand generations, a great sage may appear who will know their meaning, and it will still be as though he appeared with astonishing speed." (From The Complete Works Of Chuang Tzu, translated by Burton Watson.)

I didn't say dreams were not important. They clearly are otherwise we wouldn't have them. However, they are pure internal generations of a certain state of consciousness. Don't you ever day dream ? Do you ever find yourself having driven a car many miles without being conscious of the distance or time ? Did you crash, or lose consciousness ? No. The mind can cope with multiple states of consciousnes simultaneously. It isn't a black and white thing between full consciousness and unconsciousness, but reality remains reality. Reality remains reality even when we dream. There is no mystery-at least not epistemologically-we can dream, or be entirely unconscious whilst still being able to react to stimuli-that's why a shock will leave the waking person initially confused until the mind can traverse several states of consciousness until full focus and then can apply reason. Reality is that you dream, but reality is not a dream.

If you are in a dream then nothing matters. It's either a dream or it isn't. You set the rules. If you are just treating the dream as reality then what's the difference ? That's rhetorical of course, because there clearly is none, so why not accept reality. If you decide to change the definition then I'm at liberty to turn it back. I can say that your dream is your reality and that's why you are trying to explain it. I don't have karmic traces, but I do have high blood pressure :-) I have no issues with my past, no regrets, no guilt, absolutely no concern whatsoever. I'm not preoccupied with my past, because it's the past. I can use what I obtained from experience, what is useful and then delete the rest as useless crap. That means I love now, I love life, I love reality right here and now. That it doesn't always conform to my expectations or desires is all part and parcel of my joy meant of life. If I ever get to the point I detest it so much I would regard it as a dream then I will know I've either taken a wrong turning, or my life actually has become of such a poor quality that I no longer require it.

I remember coming across the ability to play with size perception in school at around 10 years old, and I actually cultivated this distortion of perception to relieve the boredom I felt in class. When I was 12 I had a dream of a catatonic ‘crazy’ old man and woke up to hear the words ‘he is me’. In terms of shattering my simple conscious concept of reality this was a cracker, it ripped apart any simple certainty I had about who I was, and forced me to start questioning this level of reality. After that dream I couldn’t help but start to subconsciously identify with this other me, and it left me grappling with concepts that were overwhelming at the time and pretty much ruined my ability to live a normal life. So, it was an actual dream that introduced me to the concept that my sense of who I was in this world was limited and unreal. And I would likely argue from this dream and other useful dreams since that dreams are a truer version of reality than my waking perceptions. I certainly agree that our perceptions and conscious thought are limited, but to my way of thinking it is insulting to the value of dreams to call unreality dream-like in a pejorative sense.

We can't really know for sure-- in order to know we would have to be "outside" of the dream. Perhaps we are all like Zhuangzi's butterfly. However, if we imagined what it would really be like if our experience as if it WERE a dream, there are some interesting implications which serves as an excellent metaphor for nonduality, rather than as myriad reified objects that arise out of an essentialist metaphysics. (Essentialism only "works" in a certain limited context-- the problem with essentialism is the conviction that such a view is the end-all and be-all of reality. It is the error of transposing empiricism (which works great in science) into the metaphysical. This generate a myriad number of problems which I can't even get into here.) But consider this: I think most people have dreamed of family, friends, co-workers, people in the past or even those basic "stock characters" -- and no matter what our interactions are with them in these dreams, none of these "other persons" within the dream are actually "other persons" at all. If your father is, for example, angry with you in a dream, that isn't really your father expressing anger -- it is yourself, the dreamer, who is angry. As a metaphor, this suggests to me that the "self" we believe exists (as an essential, reified, independent object) is actually a distortion of the unified whole-- and only through such a distortion do we make the error of thinking we can have good without bad, or beautiful without ugly, or pleasure without suffering, etc. These distortions then lead us to actions which do inevitably rebound upon us because we AREN'T separate from the whole. Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Compensation" serves as the perfect commentary for the second chapter of the Daodejing in this respect. I think this is why stillness of the mind/body (via certain forms of meditation) is vital to "smoothing out" those distortions, so to speak. The less stillness, the more distortion, and the more distortion, the less clarity. Many of our struggles in life are really just struggles with this "self" which believes itself to be "real" -- as a reified, seperate independent being -- which is very similar to how we experience the "self" in dreams. Such meditative practices don't get one out of the unreal and into the real because there is no "outside" at all. There is only experience. Maybe Zhuangzi's point is that it doesn't really matter if reality is "real" or "just a dream" -- in the end, there is only this one experience, the one life we are now living.

Yes, I’ve had similar experiences. Dreams are wonderful. I practice dream and sleep yoga. When you cultivate the ability to become lucid in the dream and aware in deep, dreamless sleep the possibilities are endless!

That is a most interesting subject. Yes, life is a dream,...but, does one dream it? Or are they being drempt? Suppose you dream of someone,...who are they? Are they dreaming a dream? Inside your dream? Is it really true that you're off to dream a dream within a dream. If the 5 skandhas are not real,...and the perception of dreaming arises from the 5 skandhas, ....what is true?

I believe that in Ken Cohens work, he speaks very breifly about Tao dream yoga. He basically says that dreams are connected to the element of water, so in Tao Dream yoga you keep a bowl of pure water by your bed. This approach suggests that this form of Tao dream yoga is working in the following levels: 1. Ritualistic- By taking the time to preform the action of placing a bowl of water by your bed, you are maintaining an awareness of your intent to experience lucid and meaningful dreams. 2. Symbolic- The action of leaving the bowl of water by your bed presents a symbol of lucid dreaming to the mind. As the mind is primarily unconscious in the dream state and the unconscious mind communicates in a symbolic language, you are communicating your intention to experience lucid dreams to you unconscious mind in its own language. 3. Energetic- The energetic influence of the water is suggested to enhance ones ability to enter into the water dominant dream state consciously. This approach seems characteristic of tao philosophy. Accomplish means in a simple and graceful action, without effort (watery approach). It seems like it could offer an alternative to practicioners who find the common western approach to lucid dreaming to be innefective due to the stress of consciously placing emphasis on the practices (firey approach). To others this practice could offer a balance to the buddhist and western approaches. In this case the practice of both aspects might enhance each other. I am interested in learning of other Tao Dream techniques as well. Love and Light Tony

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition Posted by: An Eternal Now Here's something I just added to my e-book. I was trained in these 3 aspects and Thusness asked me to write something clearer about 'experience, realization and view' and synchronistically I actually had the same thought on that day. I think I'm going to add this as one of those preface chapters before I start with the journal section in my e-book. So the 3 aspects I'm talking about are: 1. The Experience 2. The Realization 3. The Implications of View However, for the sake of this article and benefit for readers, I will add two more: 4. The Practice 5. The Result/Fruition ... so this is going to be a very long article... I can feel it as I am writing now, hehe. Oh and one more thing: I put Practice after the first three instead of dealing with practice in the first part because I want people to know what they are doing their practice for, and the reason why they are doing those practices, how those practices result in realization and their effects on View. You will understand as you read further. This article documents my insight and experience and journey. Even though whatever I said is authentic, spoken from experience, accurate, it is not meant to be an authoritative map for everyone - not everyone goes through these insights in the same linear fashion (the Buddha only teach people to realize Anatta and Shunyata in the traditional Pali texts and did not talk about Self-Inquiry or Self-Realization, for instance), however it is true that all traditions of Buddhism (provided that there is right guidance and training) will eventually result in these various kinds of insights and experience, despite going through a different path or practice. It should also be understood that when people talk about "no-self", it could imply a number of things... from impersonality, to non-dual, to anatta. In worse case it is being misunderstood as dissociation (I, the observer, dissociates from phenomena as not myself). Therefore, we should always understand the context of 'no self' that is being said by the practitioner or person and not always assume that the 'no self' must be the same as the 'no self' you have in mind. Due to lack of clarity, very often 'anatta' is confused with 'impersonality', or 'anatta' with 'non-duality'. They are not the same even if there may be overlaps or aspects of each in one's experience. One must be careful to distinguish them and not confuse one with another. I will now start explaining 'experience'. There are a number of important experiences related to our true nature: 1. Pure Presence/Witness This is the case when practitioners have experienced a pure radiance of presence, awareness, in the gap between two thoughts. Having recognised this pure presence-awareness, one tries to sustain this recognition in daily life. In daily life, one may sense this as a background witnessing presence, a space-like awareness in the background of things. It is felt to be something stable and unchanging though we often lose sight of it due to fixation on the contents of experience or thoughts (like focusing on the drawing and losing sight of the canvas). This is related to the 'I AM', but still, this is the experience, not the realization. 2. Impersonality This is the case when practitioners experienced that everything is an expression of a universal cosmic intelligence. There is therefore no sense of a personal doer... rather, it feels like I and everything is being lived by a higher power, being expressed by a higher cosmic intelligence. But this is still dualistic – there is still this sense of separation between a 'cosmic intelligence' and the 'world of experience', so it is still dualistic. I experienced impersonality after the I AM realization, however some people experience it before I AM realization. Theistic Christians may not have I AM realization (it depends), however through their surrendering to Christ, they can drop their sense of personal doership and experience the sense of 'being lived by Christ', as in Galatians: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.". This is an experience of impersonality that may or may not come with the realization of I AM. 3. Non-dual into One Mind. Where subject and object division collapsed into a single seamless experience of one Naked Awareness. There is a difference between a temporary non-dual experience and non-dual insight. Explained later. 4. No-Mind Where even the naked Awareness is totally forgotten and dissolved into simply scenery, sound, arising thoughts and passing scent. This is the experience of Anatta, but not the realization of Anatta. Explained later. 5. Sunyata (Emptiness) It is when the 'self' is completely transcended into dependently originated activity. The play of dharma. There is a difference between this as a peak experience and the realization of emptiness/dependent origination. Explained later. Next is the 'Realization': 1. The Realization of I AM Having an experience of witnessing, or a state of pure presence, is not the same as having attained self-realization - in that case the practitioner can be said to have an experience, but not insight/realization. I have had experiences of Presence and Witnessing consciousness since 2007, but not the realization until February 2010 after almost two years of self-inquiry practice. Self-realization is attained when there is a certainty of Being - an irrefutable and doubtless realization of Pure Presence-Existence or Consciousness or Beingness or Existence as being one's true identity. There is nothing clearer or undoubtable or irrefutable than You! Eureka. One realizes the luminous essence of mind but is unable to see it as all manifestations under differing conditions (that would be non-dual and beyond). In this phase of insight one sees all thoughts and experiences as coming from and subsiding within this Ground of Being, but the Beingness as a noumenon is unaffected by the comings and goings of phenomenon, like the movie images passing through the screen, or the waves coming and going within an unchanging ocean. Seeing a subtle distinction between the Noumenal and Phenomenal, one clings to the pure thoughtless beingness (which is non-conceptual thought) as one's purest identity, as if it is the true unchanging self or ground Behind all things - one clings to a formless background source or witness of phenomena. Since view of duality and inherency is strong, Awareness is seen as an eternal witnessing presence, a pure formless perceiving subject. So it is seen that I am here, as an eternal unchanging Witness/Watcher of the passing thoughts and feelings, I simply witness but is not affected by, nor judges that one sees - nonetheless there is a separation between the Observer and the Observed. A true experience is being distorted by the mind's tendency at projecting duality and inherency (to things, self, awareness, etc) Also, in my experience the I AM experience after the initial realization is tainted with a slight sense of personality and locality. That is, even though the mind knows how to experience Presence beyond all concepts, the mind still cannot separate Presence from that slight and subtle sense of personality, until about two months after the realization, that sense of a localized witness completely dissolved into a non-localized, impersonal space of witnessing-awareness-presence (but still dualistic and 'background'). At this level, the I AM is separated from Personality, and it is seen as if everything and everyone in the world share the same source or same space, like if a vase breaks, the air inside the vase completely merges with the air of the entire environment such that there is no sense of a division between an 'inside space' or an 'outside space', such that everything shares the same space, as an analogy of all-pervading presence. This all-pervading presence, though stripped of any sense of a locality or a sense of personality, still pertains to the thought level (non-conceptual thought). One does not experience the same 'taste' in the other sense doors - like sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. Nevertheless, if this experience of 'all-pervading presence' is sustained, it can lead to an oceanic samadhi experience. p.s. (updated) Just one day after writing this chapter, I found a book by the same name as mine, 'Who am I?' by Pandit Shriram Sharma Archaya. He distinguishes the Soul, the Inner Self/the Inner Witness/the 'Nucleus of your World', from the Universal Self or the Omnipresent Supreme Being which is the supreme source of even that Inner Self and everything else in the world. He says that one has to realise the Inner Self first before realizing the unity or oneness of that Inner Self with that Universal Self, Atman=Brahman. This is precisely what I'm talking about - the difference between the initial experience and realization of I AM (as the inner Self), then the maturation into the Universal I AM. This is the difference between Thusness Stage 1 and 2. In the Universal I AM, it is just this "unified field" in which "everything belongs to everyone", and that in this phase "A Yogi is one whose individuality has been consciously united (merged) with the cosmic Self." Everything and everyone is impersonally expressed and lived by this pervasive source, as stated by him, "particles of universally pervasive intelligence and energy, cosmic consciousness [Chetna] and life, are activating infinite systems, forms and forces of this cosmos." 2. The Realization of Non-Dual, into One Mind Having an experience of non-duality is not the same as having a realization... for example, you may have a temporary experience where the sense of separation between experiencer and experience suddenly and temporarily dissolves or there is the sense that subject and object has merged... temporarily. I had such experiences since 2006 (I had a number of similar experiences since then in following years, differing in intensity and length), the first time I had it was when looking at a tree - at that point the sense of an observer suddenly disappeared into oblivion and there is just the amazing greenery, the colours, shapes, and movement of the tree swaying with the wind with an amazingly intense clarity and aliveness as if every leaves on the tree is crystal-like. This had a lot of 'Wow' factor to it because of the huge contrast between the Self-mode of experience and the No-Self mode of experience (imagine dropping a one ton load off your shoulders, the huge contrast makes you go Wow!) This is not yet the realization of non-duality... the realization that separation has been false right from the beginning... there never was separation. When non-dual realization (that there never was subject-object duality) arise, non-dual experience becomes effortless and has a more ordinary, mundane quality to it (even though not any less rich or intense or alive), as everywhere I go, it is just this sensate world presenting itself in an intimate, non-dual, clean, perfect, wonderful way, something that 'I' cannot 'get out of' even if I wanted to because there is simply no illusion and sense of self/Self that could get out of this mode of perceiving, and there is nothing I needed to do to experience that (i.e. effortless), something that has no entry and exit. In the absence of the 'huge contrast' effected in a short glimpse of non-dual experience prior to insight, there is less of the 'Wow' factor, more of being ordinary, mundane, and yet no less magnificent and wonderful. You also become doubtless that the taste of luminosity experienced in I AM is exactly the same taste in all six entries - sights, sounds, smell, taste, touch, thought. So now you realize the "one taste of luminosity" and effortlessly experience pure luminosity and presence-awareness in and as the transience. You realize that the I AM (nonceptual thought) that you realized and experienced is simply luminosity and NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) in one particular state or manifestation or realm, by no means the totality, but by not realizing this you reified one state into the purest and most ultimate identity (a note however: the ‘one taste’ spoken in Mahamudra tradition is not just one taste of luminosity but the one taste of the union of luminosity and emptiness), and thus you no longer "choose" or have "preference" on a purer state of presence to abide, since you see that I AM is no more I AM than a transient sound or sight or thought, everything shares the same taste of luminosity/awareness, and of non-duality. Here the tendency to refer back to a background is reduced as a result of this seeing.. Hence merely having temporary non-dual samadhis are *not* enlightenment... why? The realization that there never was separation to begin with, hasn't arisen. Therefore you can only have temporary glimpses and experiences of non-dual... where the latent dualistic tendencies continue to surface... and not have seamless, effortless seeing. And even after seeing through this separation, you may have the realization of non-dual but still fall into substantial non-duality, or One Mind. Why? This is because though we have overcome the bond of duality, our view of reality is still seeing it as 'inherent'. Our view or framework has it that reality must have an inherent essence or substance to it, something permanent, independent, ultimate. So though everything is experienced without separation, the mind still can't overcome the idea of a source. There is no overcoming the idea of an ultimate metaphysical essence, something unchanging and ultimate, even with insight into the non-duality of subject and object. With this view of inherency, Awareness is seen as inherent, even though previously it was as if things were happening 'In' Awareness but now all manifestations ARE Awareness, or rather, Awareness is manifesting 'AS' everything (rather than things happening 'IN' Awareness which would be dualistic). Awareness is not apart from manifestation. Nonetheless, the mind keeps coming back to a 'source', a 'One Naked Awareness', a 'One Mind' which manifests as the many (All is Mind - everything is You! The trees, the mountains, the rivers, all You and yet not You - no duality or division of subject and object), and is unable to break-through and find the constant need to rest in an ultimate reality in which everything is a part of... a Mind, an Awareness, a Self.... Or one tries to be non-dual by attempts to reconfirm the non-dual or one mind (thinking the sound and sights is You, trying to subsume everything into Mind, trying to be nondual with or intimiate with sights and sounds) which is another form of effort arising due to ignorance – the ignorance of the fact of anatta that always already, seeing is just the seen, no seer, and therefore no effort or attempts to reconfirm is necessary. All effort is due to the illusion of ‘self’. What this results in is a subtle tendency to cling, to sink back to a ground, a source, or attempt to reconfirm, and so transience cannot be fully and effortlessly appreciated for what it is. It is an important phase however, as for the first time phenomena are no longer seen as 'happening IN Awareness' but 'happening AS Awareness' – Awareness is its object of perception, Awareness is expressing itself as every moment of manifest perception. It should be understood that even in this phase, at the peak of One Mind, one will have glimpses of No Mind as *temporary peak experiences* where the source/Awareness is temporarily forgotten into 'just the scenery, the taste, the sound, etc'. Very often, people try to master the state of No Mind without realizing anatta, thus no fundamental transformation of view can occur. Since no fundamental change in view has taken place (the view is still of 'inherent Source'), one can still fall back from that peak experience and reference back to the One Awareness. That is, until you see that the idea itself is merely a thought, and everything is merely thoughts, sights, sounds, disjoint, disperse, insubstantial. There, a change of view takes place... the result of, 3. The Realization of Anatta Here, experience remains non-dual but without the view of 'everything is inside me/everything is an expression of ME/everything is ME' but 'there is just thoughts, sight, sound, taste' – just manifestation. More precisely (as it is realized for me in October 2010 when I was doing Basic Military Training): in that moment of seeing, you realize that the seeing is JUST the experience of scenery! There is no 'seer is seeing the secenery' - the view of 'seer seeing the seen' is completely eradicated by the realization that 'in seeing ALWAYS just the seen, Seeing is just the seen'. In seeing, always just the shapes, colours, forms, textures, details of manifestation. The illusion of agency is seen through forever. BUT... this is not the end of story for anatta and no-agency. The initial entry into Anatta for me was the aspect of Thusness's Second Stanza of Anatta, however the First Stanza was not as clear for me at the moment (for some people, they enter through the first stanza, but for me and those focusing on non-dual luminosity, insight comes through second stanza first). The two stanzas of Anatta can be found in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html Few months later, even though it has already been seen that ‘seeing is always the sights, sounds, colours and shapes, never a seer’, I began to notice this subtle remaining tendency to cling to a Here and Now. Somehow, I still want to return to a Here, a Now, like 'The actual world right here and now', which I can 'ground myself in', like I needed to ground in something truly existing, like I needed to return to being actual, here, now, whatever you want to call it. At that point when I detected this subtle movement I instantly recognised it to be illusory and dropped it, however I still could not find a natural resolution to that. Until, shortly maybe two weeks later, a deeper insight arose and I saw how Here/Now or something I can ground myself in doesn't apply when the "brilliant, self-luminous, vivid, alive, wonderful textures and forms and shapes and colours and details of the universe", all sense perceptions and thoughts, are in reality insubstantial, ephemeral groundless, disjoint, unsupported and spontaneous, there was a deeper freedom and effortlessness. It is this insight into all as insubstantial, ephemeral, bubble-like, disjoint and self-releasing manifestations that allows this overcoming of a subtle view of something inherent. There is no observer observing something changing: simply that the "sensate world" is simply these disjoint manifestations without anything linking each sensation to another, without some inherent ground that could link manifestations, so manifestations are 'scattered'. Somewhere this time, Thusness wrote me a post in blog: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/putting-aside-presence-penetrate-deeply.html Prior to this insight, there isn't the insight into phenomena as being 'scattered' without a linking basis (well there already was but it needs refinement)... the moment you say there is an ‘Actual World Here/Now’, or a Mind, or an Awareness, or a Presence that is constant throughout all experiences, that pervades and arise as all appearances, you have failed to see the 'no-linking', 'disjointed', 'unsupported' nature of manifestation – an insight which breaks a subtle clinging to an inherent ground, resulting in greater freedom. Only one who realizes anatta and thus becoming a stream entrant will start to understand the purpose of Buddhist practice. Buddhist practice is not about being lock-in to a most special or ultimate state of consciousness. Due to the false view that there is some inherently existing ultimate Self or state, such a spiritual aspirant may see the ultimate spiritual goal as permanent abidance in that purest unchanging state or reality or Source. This is actually a practice at grasping, not letting go, and therefore will not reach the Buddhist goal of the cessation of all clinging and afflictions (Nirvana). The Buddha's teachings on the other hand teaches us to realize no self, no me, no mine, in anything - including 'awareness', 'consciousness'. It does not mean consciousness is denied but the inherency of consciousness is seen through. One sees that the notion of agency, or an ultimate awareness observing or manifesting things is an illusion... in seeing there is just the seen without seer, no agent, no source behind things. So there is not 'awareness and manifestation' and not even 'awareness manifesting as everything' since 'awareness' is only 'manifestation'. There is no 'The Awareness', rather it is deconstructed into the six constituent streams of consciousnesses therefore vastly different from the monistic kind of non-duality (One Mind) - rather there are the visual, auditory, nasal, gustatory, tactile, and mental consciousness, all are processes of activities manifesting according to causes and conditions (such as the sense organ, the sense object, and all kinds of various causes and conditions). So all experiences are constantly self-releasing because there is no 'inherent view', the view of something inherent, that causes us to grasp, abide, cling to. In short, what this realization entails is the deconstruction of 'Awareness' into the six streams of dependently originated consciousness, without a cognizer, through the realization that in seeing always just the colours, shapes and forms, and in hearing always just the sounds (the diverse appearance of manifestation). There is just a process and stream of activities of knowing without knower, and each manifestation of cognizance is distinct, disjoint, it is just a diverse display of manifold rather than a collapsing of multiplicity into Oneness such as in the case of One Mind. When the sense of self/Self is sufficiently deconstructed, you also begin to experience everything as being a stream of activities that dependently originates. You directly see and experience everything as the activity resultant of the interaction of the entire universe of causal conditions... the total exertion of the universe, the totality of causes and conditions, gives rise to this moment of manifestation. Effectively, there is no self, no universe, no solidity, and all there ever is is an interdependent process of causes and conditions meeting to give rise to an activity, followed by another interaction that gives rise to more activities, ad infinitum. Therefore, dependent origination allows us not only to see "just manifestation" as in anatta, but also to see "manifestation" as the dynamic interdependent process of ungraspable, unlocatable, and empty (yet vivid, dynamically manifesting) activities. However, without anatta, without the utter and complete deconstruction and removal of the sense of self/Self, we will not be able to experience everything as the total exertion of all causal conditions. It is only when the sense of self/Self is totally relinquished that we can experience ourselves AS this causal process, without any sense of an agency or personality. Therefore, the insight and experience of dependent origination requires the full maturation of Anatta and No-Mind as a requisite. Anatta and dependent origination are therefore linked, but not the same. You can realize anatta but not realize dependent origination, but you cannot truly experience and realize dependent origination without anatta (i.e. through dualistic and inherent thought or view). For example, normally we view ourselves as actors, and doers, of our bodily action and speech. We think we are a controller of our thoughts, feelings, and experiences. When we realize anatta, this doer, controller, perceiver, agent is seen to be false and illusory - there never was an agent. This makes it possible for us to penetrate deeper into 'how' manifestation occurs? At this point, an intuitive seeing happens - whatever manifests, manifests as an activity via causality, the sound of 'da da da' on the keyboard does not come from ME, they are not MINE, but the words formulating in the mind, leading almost instantly to a physical movement and action to press the buttons on the keyboard, leading instantly to a manifested auditory experience of the 'da da da' sound.... one seamless impersonal, interdependent and causal process of activities, manifesting upon the aggregation of causes and conditions, subsiding due to the fading away of causes and conditions. One cannot even say that the 'da da da' is the sound of the keyboard any more than it is the sound of the words formulating in my mind - it is just this single causal, impersonal process of activities happening without any agency or source (be it internal or external), happening entirely by causal aggregation. 4. The Realization of Emptiness (Shunyata) Effectively with the realization of Anatta, the substantiality of any self/Self is totally seen through. There is no such thing as a 'self' or an ultimate 'Self' with the capital S at all - always, in seeing just sights, in hearing only sounds, in sensing - just tactile sensations. Manifesting and liberating upon inception... moment by moment. Once seen, there is no longer any more clinging to some ultimate Source or metaphysical essence/substance. Instead, one finds delight in the direct revelation of the sensate world moment by moment, seeing, hearing, tasting, all wonderful, all marvellous, how alive... words can never capture it, the practitioner is no longer concerned with concepts and contents, but instead 'grooves' in the minutest details of every sensation. Freedom from sense of self/Self is very freeing and blissful. However, having said so much, there is a danger of reifying the sensate world into an actual, substantial, tangible, inherently existing objective universe. This is the phase after the realization of Anatta, and before the realization of Shunyata. At this phase, it is as Thusness have said, "Before the insight anatta first arose, you still risked the danger of seeing the physical as inherent and truly existing. Therefore there is a period that you are lost, unsure and AF [Actualism/Actual Freedom - a teaching that aims to eradicate all sense of self/Self and emotions] seems appealing - a sign that you have not extended the insight of emptiness to phenomena though you kept saying twofold emptiness.", and after Shunyata it is more like "There is just aggregates that are like foams, bubbles, ethereal having all the same taste without substantiality and implicitly non-dual. No sense of body, mind and the world, nothing actual or truly there." So what is the realization of Shunyata? When observing a thought in the beginning of June 2011, observing where it came from, where it goes to, where it stays, it's discovered (again, a eureka moment) that the thought is utterly illusory (and likewise all forms and sense perception are the same)! Empty! No-arising, no-staying, no-cessation! Insubstantial! Coreless! Substanceless! Hollow! Unlocatable! Without an origin! Without a destination! Cannot be pinned down! Cannot be grasped! Cannot be found! And yet, as empty as it is, still, like a magician's trick, an apparition, an illusion, vividly manifesting due to interdependent origination out of nowhere, in nowhere! How amazing it is! A sense of wonder and bliss arose in light of this realization, a newfound freedom and liberation. And as wonderful as it sound, there is still nonetheless a growing dispassion to the entire show - it is like a TV show, and when you see that your whole life is like a TV show - utterly empty of any substance, you can no longer become so passionate about it. You see it as it truly is - a dream-like movie playing out. This is the arising of true dispassion and non-attachment. It should be understood that everything is dream-like, mind-only, in the sense of Emptiness is not the same as Substantial Non-duality of One Mind. It is now seen that everything is really no different from a thought - as in as baseless and empty as a projected thought like a dream, though it doesn't literally mean everything (including sense perceptions) are mere figment of imagination or projection (if you stop thinking, illusory perceptions still manifest due to natural dependent origination). Since everything is dream-like and illusory, they are fundamentally no different from a thought or a dream, and it is in this sense we can say that everything is mind-only. So all is mind in terms of emptiness signifies this dreamlike nature, vastly different from all is mind from substantialist perspective. So in short, there is a very big difference between substantialist non-dual of One-Mind and what I said here. In this experience, there is no background reality. It is NOT 'The world is illusory, only Brahman is Real'. It is not about the background Awareness (there is no awareness apart from manifestation!) but rather the foreground aggregates that I am talking about - A thought. Everything is as insubstantial and illusory as a thought or a dream. There is just the aggregates that are like foams, bubbles, ethereal, having all the same taste (of luminosity and emptiness) without substantiality and implicitly non-dual. No sense of body, mind and the world, nothing actual or truly there or here. Anatta (firstfold emptiness, pertaining to self/soul) makes clear many of the Buddha's teachings about anatta, especially Bahiya Sutta, Anattalakkhana Sutta, and so on. Whereas this realization of Shunyata (as in secondfold emptiness, pertaining to objects) makes clear another set of teachings by Buddha such as the Phena Sutta, and the Mahayana Sutras like the Heart Sutra and Prajnaparamita Sutras. The realization of twofold emptiness is traditionally (in Mahayana traditions) deemed as the basic criteria for realizing the first bhumi Bodhisattva in the path to Buddhahood, whereas the realization of anatta (no subjective self) is the realization of stream-entry in the path to Arhantship. Implication of Views The implication of views wasn’t very clear to me until more recent months (some time after I realized Anatta and Shunyata), when I began to see that what was causing grasping, clinging, the wrong way of perception, sense of self and so on was actually the latent view of inherency and duality. Even though previously realization has arisen that clearly done damage to such views, the impact of views in our experience and living wasn’t fully clear until more recently. What is view? View is a deeply held notion, belief, position, stance, with regards to the reality of self and objects. This view has direct implications on how we view things - how we form a mental conception of self and things which causes grasping and contraction. When you want to cut ignorance, you go for its roots, not cut off its leaves and branches. In this analogy, sense of self/Self is its manifest form (leaves and branches) in the form of a sense of contraction, alienation and self-grasping in the form of craving and emotions, while the latent view is its roots. As an example: if you view that your self abides in the heart center, then you may sense a contraction in the heart center, if your belief/position is that your self abides in the head, you may sense a contraction or clinging there, as well as that sense of alienation from the sensate world at large, a sense that there is this seer behind the eyes looking outwards at the world in a distance. That felt-sense of contraction and alienation, that sense of self/Self, is its manifest form, while the self-view/position/belief/ignorance is its root. This is why we cannot successively get rid of the sense of self/Self by will and effort without effectively cutting off self-view from its root through a paradigm shift via realization. There times of peak experiences which everyone has experienced some time in their lives (usually in childhood) where the sense of a self/Self goes into temporary abeyance and there is just the sensate world, magnificent and wonderful, untainted by any sense of self or emotional contents, just the pristine purity and clarity of the sensate world at large. Yet most of us tend to forget those moments, and continue our lives not transformed by such experiences at all. Why is that so? Our self-view is intact, and no amount of glimpses of PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) or NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) is fundamentally going to transform us unless we cut off the roots of ignorance. It should be understood that these latent tendencies or view of inherency and duality runs so deep down in our psyche that it is not merely a matter of conceptual belief but a deeply rooted, habitual way of perceiving things through a particular paradigm or framework... so deep and habitual that it cannot be removed even if one has come to an intellectual conclusion or inference that the doctrine of anatta and emptiness is actually something that makes more sense than the view of duality and self. For instance, I myself have faith and am convinced intellectually about the truth of anatta and emptiness way before I had a direct experiential realization that effectively resulted in the liberation of false view. But I can say in those years where I remain a mere intellectual or conceptual conviction or inferred understanding of this matter, I do not experience any sense of a freedom from self-contraction, from afflictive emotions, and so on... all these come from tendencies so deeply latent that it cannot be resolved by a mere intellectual transformation of views and beliefs (such as by training yourself in the Madhyamaka reasonings). For false view run far deeper into our psyche that require you to truly realize things from experiential awakening/knowledge and vision of things as they are. Also, a lot of people think 'The Right View is No View' which is true since all metaphysical views pertain to false views of existence and non-existence, however the way they go about resolving the problem is by 'forgetting all concepts'. They think that by suspending all beliefs, by forgetting all concepts and sitting quietly in a state of pure awareness, somehow merely by that, they can overcome false views. Let me offer something for you think about: every day we go into a state of deep sleep where all our beliefs, concepts, views, thoughts are temporarily suspended. But when we wake up, what happens? We are as ignorant as ever. Our framework of viewing self and reality is still the same. We still experience the same problems, the same sufferings, the same afflictions. This analogy should clearly show you that sustaining a state of non-conceptuality or mastering a state of 'forgetting the self' is not going to result in a fundamental change or transformation or effortless seeing, unless true wisdom and insight arises. I shall offer two more analogies which are related: a person deluded as to see a rope as a snake, will live in fear, trying to tame the snake, trying to get rid of the snake, escape from the snake. Maybe he managed a way to distant himself from the snake, yet the belief that the snake is still there is nevertheless going to haunt him. Even if he managed to master the state of forgetting the snake, he is nonetheless in a state of delusion. He has not seen as it truly is: the snake is simply a rope. In another analogy, the child believes in the existence of santa claus and awaits eagerly for arrival of his presents on Christmas day. One day the parents decide that it's time the child be told the truth about santa claus. To do this, beating the hell out of the child is not going to work. You simply need to tell the child that santa claus doesn't truly exist. In these analogies, I try to showcase how trying to deal with the problem of false views through means of 'forgetting conceptuality, forgetting the self' is as useless or deluded as 'trying to forget the snake, trying to tame the snake, trying to beat the hell out of the child' when the simple, direct and only true solution is only to realize that there is only a rope, and that santa claus isn't real. Only Awakening liberates us from a bondage that is without basis. Without the right contemplation and instilling of right view, you can 'sit quietly in pure awareness' for an entire lifetime without waking up. I cannot stress this point enough because this is a very prevalent erroneous understanding - even someone at the I AM level of realization will talk about non-conceptuality, non-conceptual Presence-Awareness and think it is final. Same goes for other stages. By overemphasizing on non-conceptuality, they will miss the subtler aspects of insight, they will fail to grasp right view, they will fail to tackle the subtler imprints and mental framework of viewing dualistically and inherently. They will not even see their framework of perceiving self and things as false that is causing some subtle effort and clinging (to a Self or to an actual ground here/now or to an actual world), just like you will never see your dream as a dream until well... you wake up. As Zen writer and speaker Ted Biringer says, "Accurate understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do the inquiring." Non-conceptuality does not mean non-attachment. For example when you realize the I AM, you cling to that pure non-conceptual beingness and consciousness as your true identity. You cling to that pure non-conceptual thought very tightly – you wish to abide in that purest state of presence 24/7. This clinging prevents us from experiencing Presence AS the Transience. This is a form of clinging to something non-conceptual. So know that going beyond concepts does not mean overcoming the view of inherency and its resultant clinging clinging. Even in the substantial non-dual phase, there is still clinging to a Source, a One Mind – even though experience is non-dual and non-conceptual. But when inherent view is dissolved, we see there is absolutely nothing we can cling to, and this is the beginning of Right View and the Path to Nirvana – the cessation of clinging and craving. So as you can see, non-conceptual, even non-dual experience does not liberate - so we have to use the intellect to understand right view, and then investigate it in our experience. This is like a fire that in the end burns up the candle it is burning on, consuming itself in the process, leaving no trace even of itself. In other words, conceptual understanding of right view, coupled with investigative practice, results in true realization that dissolves concepts leaving non-conceptual wisdom - but without that process of investigating and trying to understand right view, merely remaining in a state of non-conceptuality isn't going to help you get free. People who fear engaging in thought, trying to understand the right view, challenging their views and understanding of things, are unfortunately going to stick with their own deluded framework of perceiving things. Now having diverted our attention so much, let us return to the subject at hand. There are two kinds of views (with sub categories): 1. View of Subject-Object Duality The view of subject-object duality is prevalent in everyone up to the realization of I AM. If you have not realized I AM, it is felt as a sense of alienation, separation, distance, between I as a subjective perceiver inside my head looking at the world 'outside' from a distance. Having realized the I AM, one no longer doubts one's Existence, Pure Presence, Consciousness. It cannot be unseen, because luminosity is the unconditioned characteristic or essence of mind that can never be removed from sight. In that moment of realization, there is no longer any doubts as it is a direct non-conceptual realization of a fundamental fact of reality. Yet, due to the taints of dualistic view, this luminosity is abstracted from other experiences (from sense perceptions, thoughts, etc). Due to the view that there is a subjective self, or observer, apart from the perceived objects, there is always this split between Me, the Observing Awareness, and 'that' - the observed objects. Even if one perceives Awareness to be an infinite background container and manifestations to be finite appearances popping in and out of this background container awareness like waves on the ocean, there is always this split between 'awareness' and 'contents of awareness'. Contents of awareness appears 'in' awareness, but is not awareness. The view that Awareness is a container for phenomena but is not a phenomena is a kind of dualistic view/position/stance that is unfounded, but in ignorance taken to be true. This is the subject-object dualistic division. When one realizes non-duality, one no longer sees awareness as the background container of appearances. However even though dualistic bond is gone and one no longer sees distance, separation, inside or outside, but an intimacy with everything, nonetheless there can still be the bond of inherency - seeing Awareness as something inherent (independent, unchanging), a subtle clinging to the view of a Subjective Self even though usually seen as impersonal [in fact probably seen to be universal] and furthermore without subject-object division: 'IT' is inseparable from, and manifesting itself as, all appearances. 2. View of Inherency The view of inherency is twofold: the view that a subjective self [whether personal or universal], and the view that objects/phenomena have intrinsic, objective substantiality (whether gross such as 'a tree', or subtle, such as elemental existence of atoms). All metaphysical views come down to 'is' or 'is not'. Either something exist, or something does not exist. The former is eternalism, the latter is nihilism. Both views are extremes and to be rejected according to Buddha. What is subjective self? Self is seen as being an unchanging subject - in other words, moment by moment, the objects of the field of experience come and go, but there is this unchanging subject or Self that remains unchanged and independent of the objective field of things and events. There is something that is me (what I feel as subjectively existing, unchanging and independent), and something that is not me (that which is experienced apart from myself). The former is subjective self, the latter is the objective pole. For example, the view that there is a self in here, in this body, that remains unchanged even as the body undergoes birth, growing, ageing, and so on, even death for some (view of eternalism - a soul remains unchanged and continues into eternity even after death) or perhaps only in this life (view of annihilation - the self ceases upon death) constitutes the view of a subjective self or soul. If you were to lose your hand, you still feel "I am the same old me". That view that the self remains unchanged pertains to the stance or position of an existent self. However, exactly how we view subjective self can get more complicated than that, and this view changes and transforms accordingly, it differs from person to person, and depends also on your spiritual practice and experience (if you have one). The view of what Self is can be very coarse or subtle. For most people, their view of self is not very clear - if you ask them do you think you exist? They will say 'yeah, of course I do'. If you ask them, do you feel you exist as a self? They will say 'yes, of course I FEEL [perceive/project/believe/sense] that I do exist'. But if you ask them, where you located? They usually cannot answer you immediately. They may give you vague answers like, well, I'm here, of course. But if you probe them where is the 'here' they refer to, they need to think. They aren't sure (unless they have contemplated about it before). You ask them, are you located in your hands, your legs, and so on? Doesn't seem like likely candidates since if you remove your hands or legs, you still feel like you're there, unchanged - in other words hands and legs are seen as possessions (mine) rather than self (me). As they try to pinpoint where the Self is, usually some will point to the center behind the eyes inside the head, or somewhere in the heart region. Depending on where they cling to as their seat of the Self, they will feel some tension, tightness, and contraction to that region of self. Also, regardless of where you pinpoint your self to be at, there is always this ongoing sense of alienation from the sensate world at large, a sense that there is this seer behind the eyes looking outwards at the world in a distance. This clinging to a subjective self veils us from having an intimate, non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception of the sensate world as it is. It keeps "us" in a distance (there will always be a sense of distance when there is a sense of a separate self). This view of self transforms when you undertake practice of self-inquiry. At the moment of self-realization, the view of Self completely undergoes a life-changing shift. There is this undoubtable insight of what Consciousness IS, what Existence IS, what Presence IS. And this Consciousness is undoubtably present, intimate, YOU, closer than your breathe. This undeniable fact of BEING is taken to be the true self. It has nothing to do with the body, nothing to do with the world... so the previous views of a self being inside the body or having to do with a body is overthrown. Rather, all experiences (including the body and mind) are seen to be happening TO a background pure existence-consciousness... and soon (for me in two months) it becomes the ultimate impersonal container of everything - the trees, the door, the floor, the birds, the mountains, everything is not happening outside of me, but is all happening in one universal space - Consciousness doesn't belong to me any more than it belongs to the door or the cat's, it is all just One Existence, One Life expressing itself in every form and being. At this point the view of Self becomes more impersonal - you see that this entire universe is simply an expression of this impersonal, universal space, and that this universal source is what you truly are. So again, the view of Self shifts accordingly to your progression in insight and experience. Still, the view of Self is tight - coarse in fact, because now you have a very solid (rather than vague) sense of what You are, in contrast to the uncertainty of what Self is before Self-Realization. This view can potentially be a hindrance to progress because if you cling too tightly to the view that this I AM or Beingness (which actually simply is a manifestation pertaining to the non-conceptual thought realm) is your truest identity, something most special and ultimate, you will crave or cling very tightly to it. This will prevent non-dual from being experienced in other sense doors and experiences. But if you are able to let go of this clinging, focus on advancing the I AM in terms of the four aspects and with the right pointers and contemplation, your practice progresses and you will come to a point of realization that Awareness/Consciousness/Existence has never been separated in terms of a subject and an object. This is the point where dualistic view is removed (as mentioned earlier) but not the inherent self view yet. All perceptions, experiences, manifestations, sights and sounds are completely non-dual with Consciousness. In other words, they are not happening TO or IN Consciousness, but AS Consciousness. Consciousness is itself taking shape and experiencing itself as the mountains, the rivers, everything IS Consciousness in expression, everything is Consciousness, All is Mind. At this point, the view of Self shifts again - now it is no longer a Subjective Witness, the sense of a subjective Witness completely dissolves... into One Mind, an indivisible/undivided field of Consciousness expressing itself as everything. The view of Self at this point takes this One Mind, this undivided One Naked Awareness to be the Self. Even though it is indivisible from everything, expresses itself in everything, nevertheless this One Awareness is unchanging and truly existing. Non-duality at this point is understood not as no duality (in which case there is absolutely no Subject, not even an unchanging Awareness), but as the inseparability of subject and object, a collapsing of dualities into Oneness. As an analogy, Awareness is seen to be an unchanging mirror, which nevertheless cannot be separated or divided from the contents in the mirror - Awareness and the contents of Awareness are completely One - there is only One seamless field of experiencing - the One Naked Awareness. Even though seamless, even though not seen as anything personal or separate, Awareness is still seen as an unchanging Subjective Self manifesting itself as the field of experience. So this seamless One is now deemed as the Self. When we come to the realization of Anatta, the last vestige of (Subjective) Self-View collapses, resulting in what Buddha calls Stream-Entry and the eradication of self-view (sakkayaditthi). At this point, NOTHING at all - not even Consciousness can be deemed as a Self. And how is this so? By seeing Awareness, deemed as Self, as also not-self, in the manner of 'in seeing always just the seen', 'seeing is just the experience of sight' - not I, not me, not mine, only a selfless process of self-luminous activities without agency. You know self-view has been overthrown when there is through experiential knowledge and vision that there is no self to be found inside or apart from the process of five aggregation. There is simply no You in reference to what is seen and experienced in any manner (to, in, etc) - in seeing just the seen. At this point you see as the suttas state, that the aggregation cannot be said to be happening TO a self, IN a self, nor can it be deemed a self exists IN the aggregates (like a soul located inside the body). As the Buddha explains, "But, lady, how does self-identity not come about?" "There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form." in Udana Sutta, and in Bahiya Sutta he says "When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." Once the Subjective Self-View has been dissolved through anatta realization, the view of objective existence still occurs. Even though there is no view or sense that there is a seer seeing the red flower - only the experience of the red flower, nevertheless the view of objective existence is that the sensate world we experience actually references an objectively existing world, such that if I close my eye, the red flower I previously saw is actually still truly existing out there in a substantial manner. Perhaps, for more intellectual people, they can adopt a more agnostic kind of view with regards to the world - perhaps it is real, perhaps it is unreal, but whether the world truly exists out there however cannot be known by me. Or perhaps, they can even adopt the view of emptiness (through inference and study on emptiness teachings), yet without true experiential realization, the view of objective existence cannot be dissolved... just as even if you adopt the view of anatta through inference (through analogies such as the Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning), nonetheless as I said earlier, with this inferred understanding you will still experience clinging to the sense of self, a sense of contraction and alienation despite the intellectual acceptance of the doctrine, until you have resolved this matter through direct experiential insight. However, to get a sense of how this view of objective existence is actually untenable, with the example of the red flower I said earlier as an example (that whether I close my eyes, the red flower truly exists out there), consider this: If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence. When realization is experientially realized, the entire sensate world, including all thoughts, are seen to be completely empty of any inherent objective existence. You can no longer believe or view objects as having an independent core or substance out there. There is simply no way of clinging at sensate world in terms of 'the flower exists in this way' - there is no more clinging to objects and characteristics or objects as possessing certain characteristics, no longer false views about being able to locate or pin down an actuality of objects, no more grasping them as truly existent. Everything appears as completely illusory yet vividly appearing, having a magical quality (literally 'appearing like magic') to them. In Conclusion Non-conceptuality, or even non-duality of subject and object does not mean non-attachment. As Thusness says: non-dual luminosity is blissful, but not liberating. Many people think the non-conceptual Presence of I AM, or the non-conceptual and non-dual luminosity free of subject and object is liberation. It is not. You can also see from my explanations above on 'view of inherency' that the view of duality is simply a subset of the view of inherency (one particular way the self is seen - as a separate subject), and removing the view of duality does not mean removing all views of inherency (having relinquished the view of a dualistic self or a perceiver separate from objects, you can still cling to a unified self or One Mind). The complete dissolution of views pertaining to duality and inherency (therefore Right View is No View) is what results in non clinging, because all clinging have their basis in taking self and things as true existents, as something to cling on to. For example to be able to cling on to something, you must be able to establish something which you can cling to. To be able to cling to the sense of self, the view of self must be in tact, to be able to cling to objects, the view of objective existence must be in tact... in the same way that in order to cling or crave after santa claus, you must believe in the existence of santa claus, to fear the snake in the rope, you must truly be deluded enough to perceive the rope as a snake. All views are mental proliferations, all mental proliferations cause suffering. As Nagarjuna says, "Not known from another; peaceful; lacking proliferation with proliferations; non-conceptual; undifferentiated — that is the characteristic of reality." A fully awakened person (a Buddha) who never leaves a state of equipoise on reality does not have views, does not even have concepts and thoughts. His or her actions and speech arise spontaneously out of pure wisdom, not through relying on imagination, fabrication, concepts or conventions. His state can never be conceived through the conceptual intellect. The Practice I think the topic of Practice is dealt with more in-depth in other sections of the e-book, therefore I am going to skim through this portion here. There are many kinds of practices one can engage in in order to give rise to realization. There are neo-Advaita teachers who teach that "no practice is necessary, no realization is needed", I say bullshit to that. As long as ignorance, false view of reality is in effect, we are going to experience suffering, afflictive emotions, sense of self, self-contraction and all that. Even though there never was truly a self and all these are a result of pure delusion, nonetheless, unless we wake up, we can never be liberated from suffering. There are "pure now-ists" that say, all thoughts of awakening are a dream, your true self is fully evident Here and Now. Well that's ok as a pointer - but to take it as a suggestion that no practice or no realization is necessary? Bullshit again, and even though your true nature is fully evident in the present, unless you realize it, it is as useless as a diamond hidden under a beggar’s pillow unnoticed - the beggar is still going to be poor, perhaps for his entire life, which is tragic to say the least. Then there are some of those teachers who think that "there is no practice guaranteed to lead to realization". Well in a sense yes, I cannot guarantee if you will realize your true nature today, tomorrow, one year, or ten years. Nobody can. If some teacher guarantees you that you will certainly attain awakening if you follow him for two years, he's outright lying and probably a fraud trying to buy followers through false promises. This is not to say that awakening within two years is impossible or even farfetched (far from it as I myself took less than two years of self-inquiry to attain Self-Realization) - but there simply cannot be guarantees like this. There is no fixed or guaranteed timeframe for awakening like there are fixed timeframe for graduation from a university. But what I can say is that whatever I practiced, I am confident if done sincerely with right understanding, will surely lead to awakening. You simply cannot apply any formulas like 'today you study this, tomorrow you study that, the following day you'll get your certificate' to awakening. But those teachers who didn't offer a method simply aren't offering people any solution at all - as if their own awakening happened by chance. (They may say that practice and meditation is as useful/useless as walking down the beach since awakening can happen in both instances) In that case their awakening is completely useless and not beneficial to anyone else, and it is a waste of time trying to understand what they say since they don't offer you a solution or method or way where you too can wake up. Well, perhaps you might say, their 'method' is simply to keep repeating the same things over and over again and then someday perhaps, you will finally get it. Well, good luck with that, because it is my experience that merely listening is insufficient - a form of contemplation, investigation, is what is necessary (from my experience) to effectively result in true realization. You may listen to the same doctrine over and over again, and totally get it intellectually and score 100/100 on a 'non-duality exam' (like I did way before I had any real realizations), but no transformation can happen unless you truly see it for yourself, and that is by investigating and contemplating on them yourself in your own experience. The reason some of those teachers utter bullshit that puts down practice and realization is because of their lack of clarity. They don't know how to help you awaken - but I know how to. Sorry if this sounds kind of arrogant, but I assure you it is not, it is just honesty in stating some plain facts for those sensible enough to see it. As a matter of fact, there are many teachers out there who also offer valid methods and ways and practices that can effectively lead to realization. I am far from the only one that talk about practice (lots of teachers and practitioners talk about it - especially in Buddhism, and even traditional Advaita) - I am only explaining one way, a way that worked for me. When I talk about practice, I often mention that practice has two types: direct path, and gradual path. Of course I don't mean there are only two types of practices in the world, in reality there are countless kinds of practices (though they do still fall under the category of either direct or gradual) from practitioners following countless lineages and teachers and traditions (in Buddhism there is this saying that there are 84000 Dharma Doors to awakening, 84000 being merely a metaphorical number signifying countless, Dharma Doors can mean practices and gateways to realization), most of which I am not familiar of. I say: more power to them, and go for whatever works. If that practice works for you, or resonates with you, go for it. I am not selling you something and saying that you MUST follow the method I offer (remember: I am not a guru, just someone offering his two cents based on personal experience), or that somehow only this method is going to work, or that this method is THE TRUE AND ONLY way. It is not. It is just one of the many ways... but one that has worked very effectively for me and many others. To me my way is the best way, but this is entirely subjective - to someone else whose other ways worked for them, their way is the best way, and so on. To make a 'one for all' statement is to become biased since it does not allow for alternatives. So what exactly is direct path? What is gradual path? Direct path does not mean if you take up this practice, you will attain awakening today or tomorrow (it took me 1 year 10 months of self-inquiry to realize I AM and a couple of months more to realize the further stages of insights, which nonetheless I don't consider too long, and I consider the time I took to realize these stuff as not so surprising given the directness and effectiveness of the direct path contemplation). It is direct, because the practice focus on a form of very direct contemplation on the nature of self and reality that results in a direct realization of the nature of reality. It does not focus on cultivating experiences (such as merely experiencing awareness, presence, space-like awareness, or any other aspects of experience that becomes natural and implicit after realization). Rather, it goes right to the core of things, very quickly resulting in a direct realization of our true nature. As an analogy I consider self-inquiry (Who am I? that leads to I AM realization), Zen koans (but I'm not a Zen master so can't offer more insights on that), contemplation on non-dual (where does awareness end and manifestation begin, where is the border between awareness and manifestation, etc), contemplation on anatta like Bahiya Sutta (in seeing always just the seen) or Thusness's two stanzas of anatta, contemplating on where thought arise from, where thought abides and where thought goes to (effective for shunyata insight), all these are forms of direct path contemplation. As for gradual practice: for example, practicing 'Awareness Watching Awareness', turning the light of awareness upon itself and so on is a gradual method that focus on the experience of I AM but eventually can lead to realization after the experience has matured and stabilized. Even stuff like Kundalini can result in I AM experiences of cosmic consciousness, and that too is a gradual path practice (though one I am not familiar with). Vipassana practice and mindfulness practice (experiencing the minutest details of the senses as clear as can be) as Thusness and I understand it can result in Anatta realization in a more gradual manner. But I should say, when I advice people on how to move from non-dual to anatta, I always advice both direct path contemplation and also the practice of vipassana and mindfulness. So it is not always an 'either/or' case. In a way both can support each other. Without a clear sense of non-dual luminosity, it is also hard for a real effective contemplation on Bahiya Sutta. Without any prior experience of non-conceptual Pure Presence, it is also not easy for self-inquiry to be so effective as one will be looking into conceptual thoughts for answers rather than looking at the reality of their non-conceptual Presence. For example Ch'an Master Hsu Yun focus primarily on self-inquiry, but also talks in one instance about 'turning hearing inwards to perceive one's self-nature', which is basically the practice of 'Awareness Watching Awareness' that Michael Langford talks about. The main focus however, if you want to practice direct path, is to focus on inquiring 'Who am I?' My practice and the practice I advice is going to differ according to your aims, and where you are in your practice. By that I mean for example, when I had no inkling about what my real nature is, I took up the practice of self-inquiry to realize the I AM. But after the I AM, you should focus on the four aspects of I AM. To move into non-dual, the practice is not self-inquiry any more. You can put self-inquiry aside. Instead you should focus on the four aspects, in my case with impersonality first, then later emphasis shifted to the aspect of intensity of luminosity (practice shifts from experiencing luminosity as the background Source to experiencing luminosity as the foreground sensate world and aggregates - sights, sounds, bodily sensations and so on), plus with a particular form of contemplation that challenges the view of boundaries, subject and object, inside and outside. After arising insight into non-dual, you should then investigate into anatta like in Bahiya Sutta (in seeing just the seen). After anatta you should investigate on the 'disjoint, unsupported', as well as contemplate on Shunyata. So again these kind of practices and contemplations differ according to the phase of practice you're at. You should shift your practice as you progress - otherwise if after Self-Realization you get stuck on trying to abide in the I AM 24/7, you cannot progress into further stages of freedom and effortlessness that require deeper realizations. Some people get stuck in I AM for their whole lives not knowing there is anything further in spirituality. So do not stagnate for too long. Know the maps, know where you are and know how to practice accordingly, and your path will be faster and you will attain liberation more quickly. But if you have not gotten into any of these stuff, it's best to begin and focus on self-inquiry with the aim of Self-Realization. More practical advice on this subject can be found in the Conversations on Self-Inquiry section of the ebook. Apart from these direct path contemplations, daily practice of meditation (both in sitting and daily lives) is helpful, if not for gaining enough mental stability and calmness for true insights to arise, but also to develop the quality of tranquillity and deep samadhi (which will not easily arise without disciplined daily sittings, regardless of whether you have awakened to your true nature or not). In tranquillity, you learn how to drop your attachment to your body and mind, to all thoughts. This leads to tranquilizing of all mental and bodily agitations so that you can enter into a state of meditative absorption which can be very blissful. In meditation, you learn to let go of everything - mind, body, life, teachings, concepts, worries, concerns, agitations, basically Everything. During those days when I practiced Self-Inquiry, Thusness taught me to dedicate sessions everyday apart from self-inquiry, to the practice of Dropping, which is the tranquillity practice I talked about. Of course we should practice letting go in everyday lives as well, but dedicating fixed periods for sitting meditation is also important. In fact, the whole purpose of Buddha's teachings is to teach us how to let go - of everything, relinquishing all clinging and craving. To be able to do this, there must be insight and tranquillity. As the Buddha said, both insights and tranquillity in tandem is what allows complete liberation from afflictions to take place - both are necessary, both are required. But I do not focus too much about meditation in this book (not that it is not important - far from it), because I wish to focus more on the insight front and leave the details of meditation for other books which have elucidated on those topics far better than I. As an intro, you should read Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's "Clarifying the Natural State" and his more detailed and technical "Mahamudra: The Moonlight" along with Thrangu Rinpoche's commentaries on these texts in books "Crystal Clear" and "Essentials of Mahamudra". All these books are full of deep meditative insights and experiences from clearly awakened masters. In Buddhism, we say that a person who wishes to attain awakening and liberation should master three fronts: morality, samadhi, and insight/wisdom. This e-book focuses on the insight/wisdom front, but by no means implying that morality and samadhi are unimportant. However, many other books have dealt with these topics to a much greater degree than I, and I do not have something better to offer than them in this regards. But basically, if you have truthfulness, harmlessness and generosity in your life, this is going to be of beneficial help to your pursuits in samadhi and wisdom, because a mind attached to lying, harming, and selfishness is going to cause afflictive hindrances (hatred, guilt, greed, and other mental disturbances or hindrances) preventing true samadhi and insight from arising. The cultivation of virtue itself can also cause a wholesome joyous mind, and a joyous mind or a mind imbued with good mental qualities like loving-kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity is conducive to the cultivation of concentration and insight. The cultivation of virtues also result in merits, which are an important requisite for awakening, a topic I shall not elaborate here but is already explained in other forum threads such as http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/409161?page=1#posts-9963001 The Result/Fruition You may be wondering, what is all these fuss about? Why should I bother with these stuff? Why get awakened? What is the results out of this? Is there any practical transformations in life? There are many "awakened persons" who say there are no perceivable differences apart from perhaps having a sense of resolving these stuff, the end of seeking, the end of false notions about self, maybe more clarity in life. But to me, in my experience, when you have sufficiently deep insight and experience, a far more profound and life-changing transformation takes place. As spoken in the other chapter in the e-book on maps of awakening, speaking from experience, I can report a gradual emotional transformation or attenuation after the initial insight into anatta. I shall not repeat the details here but summarize them. Here's what I know can be attained through deep awakening (at this moment these are the ones more apparent to me but as time progresses there could be more): - a permanent freedom from all delusions of pertaining to the view of an existing self or object - freedom from any sense of self, separation, alienation from the world, self-contraction - freedom from attachment to a sense of a body-mind, drop off body-mind - no more inside and outside or any kind of boundaries and weight - freedom from craving, anger, fears, sorrow, attachments, or any afflictive emotions - pure bliss and wonder and delight in the intimate and intense aliveness of every moment's experience due to effortless and perpetual NDNCDIMOP: non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception of reality - deep sense of wakefulness, clarity and aliveness - sleep need reduced by up to half, wakefulness and alertness increased very much - thought activity decreases, discursive thoughts lessens tremendously, replaced by NDNCDIMOP - thoughts that do arise self-releases without trace According to Buddha, when you achieve full awakening in the Hinayana level (the attainment of personal liberation, Arhantship), it also confer things like 'ending the cycle of rebirth' in the literal sense of not having to be reborn again and again in this world of suffering - but then I shall not dwell into this, understanding that not all readers may accept such a doctrine (I do - and past lives are something that can be recalled in meditation so to me it is more than just a theory or a belief, furthermore scientific research like those by Dr. Ian Stevensons backs rebirth). If you are into Mahayana like I do, my aim is to attain full Buddhahood for the sake of benefitting mass sentient beings which is not merely personal liberation - Buddhahood confers things like great compassion, mastery of skillful means in teaching, omniscience, mastery of supernatural powers and the ten virtues (paramis) and so on. I am not a Buddha - just learning and practicing to be one. Anyhow, the effects of awakening I have currently observed are the natural result of having discovered a true and accurate way of perceiving things, freed from the view and sense of self and objects, resulting in just the NDNCDIMOP of the sensate world as it is. It should be understood that you should not focus on removing emotions head on, or removing thoughts head on, or removing sense of self head on. Why? If you do not go for the roots, but try to cut off the branches, then you leave the root intact. Your delusion is intact even if you managed to 'get rid of the sense of self' (just like your delusion is intact even if you managed to distant yourself from the illusory snake that actually is a rope). But once you cut off the root ignorance, the branches are dealt with, or they naturally fall away easily. So when realization occurs, you honour realization first, understanding that there is no liberation from afflictions without first liberation from ignorance via true knowledge and vision of things as they are. You don't sit in meditation all day trying to cultivate 'thoughtlessness'. You don't try sitting in meditation all day to 'get rid of the self' or 'get rid of emotions'. These are naturally dealt with in the maturation of true insight and experience. They are a natural result of clarity. Also, if self-view and sense of self is not relinquished, people generally treat 'letting go' as a form of dissociative practice. 'I' or the 'witnessing awareness' dissociate from 'my feelings', as if there are two things that can separate from each other. This simply strengthens the delusion of self, leading to more clinging, not liberation. This is why Thusness warned a long time ago: "...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another form of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. When it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force yourself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...." Even if you are able to achieve a state of letting go to a high degree and you enter into samadhi, this is merely a temporary state where afflictions are temporarily in abeyance or suppressed. This is ok - but keep in mind they are merely suppressed, not uprooted. Only wisdom in tandem with samadhi can uproot afflictions permanently. One last thing: Buddha teach practice (such as the four foundations of mindfulness, seven factors of awakening, and so on) from his awakened experience, sort of like working backwards for sentient beings, translating his experience into practices. In other words, the experience of pure alertness, clarity, equanimity, and so on... are qualities natural in one's experience after realization, but before realization they are difficult to be experienced effortlessly (though that doesn't mean we shouldn't practice to experience them). It should be known that there is a difference between practice after realization and the practice before realization. After realization, practice is effortless, without any attempt to modify experience - just resting in the natural equipoise on reality. Such can also be spoken of as 'non-meditation' since it is not really effortful practice. It should be understood however that only an awakened person can experience 'non-meditation', an unawakened person attempting to do 'non-meditation' will only fall under the power of their own conditioning. For example they may mistake lazing around and day-dreaming with 'non-meditation', which is a tragedy. The conditioning here means falling into the magical spell of duality, the stories about 'me' and 'the world', the stories of 'I', 'me', and 'mine'. An awakened person who realizes the nature of reality is able to overcome his view of inherent and duality, because there is no deluded views about 'I', no 'mine', and no 'other' (objects), the awakened person does not give rise to delusion and attachment (therefore requires no effort or antidote) and is naturally and effortlessly authenticated by the unity of luminosity and emptiness (Buddha-nature) in the midst of their life, not just in sitting meditation. For such a practitioner, all thoughts and perceptions are in a state of self-releasing or self-liberation, no effortful practice or antidote is necessary because what self-releases does not cause harm or delusion. Due to the view of emptiness naturally being authenticated in daily life, a person does not grasp on 'I', 'me', 'mine' and 'things', and due to non-grasping, there is also no need to make special effort to 'let go' - there is no problems (attachment due to inherent view) that need to be remedied. As an analogy: a person suffering hallucination may imagine there to be a beautiful paradise in front of him, so he chases after the mirage experiencing craving, attachment, and suffering. Because of his sickness, the person needs to be treated with an antidote - some kind of medication to prevent the outbursts of mania. Such is the dilemma of sentient beings. Seeing things as real and inherent, we grasp and crave after them, but an awakened person knows better - there is no person, nor object that is real - everything is illusory. Having no delusions about it, such a person does not give rise to grasping and naturally no remedy is needed. Such an awakened being is also not delusioned about there being a 'special state' that he therefore craves after (after all, everything is empty) - he is not seeking after some nice transcendental experience, therefore no effort is required, but is simply liberated on the spot. The need for effort and meditation only arise when one feels some suffering, deviation, or distraction that requires 'antidote', but for one who effortlessly rests in the equipoise on reality, does not require antidote, meditation and effort. But until then, meditate hard, practice hard to awaken (and it doesn't mean after awakening you don't need to sit, but it becomes effortless without agenda or attempt to modify our experience - even the Buddha does regular sitting meditation just because it is healthy and promotes well-being). Do not underestimate the power of our karmic conditioning - it affects our every moment experience until awakening. Also, before realization, it is truly difficult to experience things like 'the luminosity of the textures and forms of manifestation', 'non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception' and things like that. As Thusness said to me before, to stress on these things to people is to cause them more unnecessary frustrations. They simply cannot see it, even though we (after realization) see it all the time - we can't even unsee it. So the practical thing is not to emphasize these things to them again and again, but advice them to set aside time every day to meditate, practice mindfulness, practice contemplation. Eventually when realization arises, these qualities become effortless. But you can't tell them to experience mindfulness 24/7 - that is just not possible. It would be very good already if they can experience pure clarity in their relatively brief period of sitting meditation, let alone for the entire day. But after Anatta, it seems that this brilliant non-dual luminosity is very effortless - I don't need to practice anything to be in NDNCDIMOP or the pure consciousness experience. I don't need to practice 30 minutes of mindfulness or meditation to reach a state of pure consciousness or NDNCDIMOP. Every ordinary and mundane experience even in daily life and non-meditation setting is already implicitly so. Before awakening, such experiences seem hard to attain, and are rare and intermittent, requiring much effort in practicing mindfulness and meditation, but after awakening it becomes realized and experienced as the natural state, experienced in real-time in everyday living. Like Simpo said, "IMO, before the insight of no-self, it is quite hard to not get caught at the content level. This is because, before the non-dual, non-conceptual experience/insight, one does not know how 'not getting caught' in the content is like." That is why insight is important. But don't worry if you don't experience all those qualities before awakening - it is very difficult to, but it becomes natural after insight, so just focus on insight.

Uh, yes exactly! except not an external source, an internal source! And so you dream awake! Like dolphins already do! You dream on purpose! You dream deliberately! For dolphins are known for their tremendous capability of healing! AND THAT PROOFS OUR PURPOSE as HUE MANS! That we are ment to be stewards of this entire planet, just as the dolphins are stewards of the oceans! You have to always reach for the highest perspective of all of that which is all of that which is all of that which is what you truely are! The absolute best of the best perspective. And this has tremendous gravitational attractive power which then yields the absolute best result every single time, ever expanding outwards into ever more satisfying ways experiences of perspectives of yet another way that all of existance has of experiencing itself, in ever more satisfying ways, ever expanding in the infinitely and eternally worthy nature of all that we are.

No matter how auspicious an idea may appear as it is known by a knower from within the mind, identification with being anything in particular is essentially self-imposed limitation. The guru admonishes to leave concepts behind, to relinquish the identity of doership and acting, to be free of burdens not needful which may become to us as obstacles. Being is without doing. One can not help but simply Be oneself. All that must be done is then done rightly and naturally. Simply be as one has been, as one already is and as one will forever be. Be as you are, for the naturalness of this being that we are is that which makes the supposed becoming of anything in particular possible. Being this being, is to naturally abandon this or that identity. In this being, it's revealed that one is the knowing-ness of knowledge, the doing-ness of that which is done; the essence, the very being-ness of being itself. The Power of power. There's no being of this or that, there is only this-ness or that-ness, through and through. The heart of being, which is being, and beyond it. The Paramakash, so far removed from what the mind can imagine, that even the pure consciousness "I AM" seems to be an almost alien thing. From Paramakash, to Mahadakash: The gods and devas may possess names and forms, but the "light" of consciousness is completely attributeless. Without a body, it embodies all. That "light" which illuminates the mind as a reflection, is no more the mind or its contents than the Sun is equal to the daylight it provides. Lord Krishna: "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation." Innumerable states seem to appear upon or within this "light", along with the appearance of one(s) who appear(s) to traverse them. Eternally back and forth, seesawing up and down, the actions and inaction of the apparent many is reflected in the waking dream and deep sleep states. One can get comfortable in a dream of one's own making, lucid even, yet become mesmerized by the powers of awareness in the dream. One can become engrossed in the indulgences of physicality, unsatiated by desires of experiencing waking life to its presumed fullest potential. These states come and these states go. Yet there exists a "state" which never comes and never goes, beyond even the self-love that is undifferentiated bliss experienced in deep sleep. It is all there is. Conscious, unconscious, both conscious and unconscious, and Neither. The original being, experienceless, stateless in its state, in which all states and all experiences appear as if they were themselves dreams of a dreamer unknown.

I find it so odd how the people have been naming their waking hours "waking hours" and their dreams "just a dream" when dreams are so much more purpose filling! The only way to rationalize the fact that dreams can be so intensely revealing of truth, is to throw away our definition and actually call sleeping the awakening and this waking reality the dream of our having fallen asleep. When I have a lucid dream, the 5 minutes I have that lucid dream, it is so intense... So intense that I learn 5 truths about my self that I have been in the process of forgetting for 5 years long. Then, the habbit kicks in as I wake up(or should I say go to sleep?) that I forget those lessons from my lucid dream within just 1 week. Totally void of wisdom I become and filled with ignorance. Untill I can succeed at yet another 5 minutes of lucidity, either in my dream or waking hours. The effectiveness of my ego at succeeding in forgetfulness is so big, that I now call my own ego the "master of deception." If you ever find your selves facing all the layers upon layers believe systems that forms the platform for your ego to fool you around, you will witness the ego's strong desire and intent to keep you from finding out this is a dream. After a while, you just cannot ignore this force we call ego or devil. The biggest battle you will ever have to fight in your life, is the battle with your self... The devil is infact powerless, but if you are a person of slumber, you can be assured that your ego has got you under its controll. The battle is not one physical violence, neither mental violence. The battle is about facing the truth of peace with courage. Such a simple task you have to do in order to wake up, yet, no one I have come to know in the world can achieve to do it. The task of recallig that this is a dream... If you ever do find yourself doubting wether or not you are dreaming, the battle with the ego has begun, wether you're aware of it or not. The drums of war are being hit so intense, at that moment, that you cannot even hear it. Where an army of physical violence deceives you from your own power and freedom, the master of deception always keeps 10 thousand deceivers ready on hold for when the time comes that you shall doubt the reality of your current dream.

Yes, I practice lucid dreaming. You can do anything in a lucid dream including the practice of qigong. You could learn new forms from the ancient masters, create new forms of your own. You can even go to sleep in a lucid dream and have a lucid dream within a lucid dream... Lots of possibilities. I highly recommend you investigate further.

Yes, i thought so too. Thank you for commenting. Next one... On Realization of the Nature of Mind by Dezhung Rinpoche Kunga Tanpa'i Nyima When you come to approach the Dharma you should do so with the attitude that it is for the benefit of others; the concern should be for all sentient beings who have been your mother and father since beginingless time. Out of a concern to help them you are listening to the Dharma in order to become a buddha, for this is the one way in which you can truly help others. But when you listen to the Dharma you should be free from inattention, free from ill feeling or emotional disturbance and you should listen as one who is hoping for some kind of cure for an ailment which is with us intrinsically, all the time. When we listen to the Dharma we should be free from any sense of ordinariness; that is, we think no longer of this world of mundane cares, this world in which we live, but imagine that we are listening to the Dharma in the presence of a buddha whose resplendent form sits shining before us, that the place we are in is a beautiful meadow filled with light, with flowers, with fragrance in the air, that we ourselves are not in our corporeal forms, but that we are all in the form of enlightenment, the bodhisattva, that nothing is weighted down by tangibility, by substantiality, that everything appears, magic, fresh and breathtaking, like a clear dream. If with these ideas in mind we listen to the Dharma, we will understand it and apply it. What I'm going to say now doesn't at all come from me; it's no product of my imagination, but has been taught to me by very great teachers, very wonderful people, who represent a living tradition of study and realization that extends back in time for about 2500 years. I would like to share some of this tradition with you, because I think that its teachings are very valuable, very important, and for this reason I hope that you'll listen very carefully. There are about three and one-half billion people living in the world at this time, if I have the figure right, and most of them have little real concern for any form of religion. Most people are concerned with just looking- after their own needs and those of their families, or escaping from enemies or problems, just struggling for survival in the world, one way or another. Most people are quite involved with just living from day to day, and the few people who do manage to begin to think about the end of life, of death, or about their actions in this life and their consequences, or maybe of special ways in which they can make their lives more satisfactory, less painful, the people that we call 'religious' can be divided for our purposes now into two groups. Most 'religious' people basically see themselves as existing in a relationship of God and man; and this relationship, I think, is commonly felt to be one of, you might say, master and servant, or even of owner and slave. Out there, there is something, someone, who is much stronger, more powerful, wiser, more intelligent, than I am, and if I do what he wants me to do; if I live as he tells me to live, then I will have done what he wants me to do, and he, in turn, will give me what I want. It might sound like a business relationship in some religions, or in some other religions one's own position might be much less strong; I am poor, weak, miserable, I will throw myself on the mercy of him out there and he, out of his kindness, will help me; in some religions this almost has the sound of a begging relationship. The way of the buddhas, the Dharma, although we call it a 'religion,' in comparison with the situation described before, might not even be called religious'; because it is basically concerned with man himself, and with the most important part of man's personality, his mind. We can describe the buddhas Dharma as mind training. As a person I have certain abilities, there are things that I can do, and if there are certain things that I want, my mind, as the controller of my body and speech, needs training to be able to provide what I want. Now, anybody can understand that if I want to be an accountant I can take an accountant's course; if I want to learn French I can study it, but buddhists claim that the most useful thing that I can learn is what the real nature of the world really is; and that the course I can take, the mind training that will provide direct awareness, through insight, of the true nature of reality, is meditation. Everything in buddhas teaching is concerned with the training of mind, and it's a difficult and complex teaching to explain. The source of the teachings that we know today as Dharma, which means the 'law', or the 'way', is the buddha named Gautama, the sage of the Shakya clan, who was called Shakyamuni, a buddha, or enlightened person, who reached full enlightenment in India some 2500 years ago, after a career which began with his determination to reach enlightenment in order to help all sentient beings. On the basis of that determination he practiced mind training, and cultivated the positive qualities which resulted in his full enlightenment as a buddha. During his lifetime he taught the Dharma throughout India. If we consider how to approach his teaching, it can be summarized in one concise verse, "Through connection one is bound, through disengagement freedom becomes complete." These two lines may be expanded into the four truths; "There is suffering, suffering arises from emotionality, the cause of suffering that is emotionality can be removed, there is a way that this removal can take place." To elaborate, 'connection' and 'suffering' refer to the ignorance, emotionality and the actions and their results that we are all caught up in, and that as long as we have ignorance and emotionality, or act out of emotional motivation, then this action binds us to the sort of existence that is called daily human life. Yet, when we are free from ignorance, have come to a full realization of the nature of reality, so that there is no longer any basis for emotionality, then there is only freedom; freedom from any kind of compulsion or constraint, and one has attained the goal of enlightenment, of buddhahood. What does it mean for an individual to practice or follow the teachings of the buddhas Dharma. First, it means that he has a certain orientation; second, it means that he ]earns, or begins to appreciate, a certain approach to the understanding of life. The orientation is called 'going for refuge' and it focuses upon the possibility of enlightenment as expressed in the concept of buddha; that is, that it is possible to become a buddha; that the way to such enlightenment is through the practice of the buddhas teaching, the Dharma, and that help and support in such an undertaking will come from the congregation, those who are engaged in the practise and teaching of the Dharma. A buddha is the direct realization of reality; he is that realization expressed as communication; he is the form which a buddha can take in order to help sentient beings. The Dharma is both experience and learning; it is the learning which is training in morality, training in meditative ability, training in wisdom and understanding, and it is the direct experience of the realization of reality. The congregation are people who can lend guidance and support to one who undertakes to become a buddha, and a person who is practising buddhism takes these references as the basis for his way of coming to an understanding, for his practice and, in a way, for his life, A buddhist, then, is oriented toward, takes refuge in, the buddha, the Dharma and the congregation; now, the way he begins to approach the world can be laid out in four statements: All composite phenomena are impermanent, all emotionality is suffering, all phenomena lack, or are empty of, a self-nature, and the transcendence of suffering is peace. How can we explain the possibility of, the process of enlightenment! There is the potential for enlightenment called buddha nature, there is the framework for the achievement of enlightenment which is the human existence, there is the contributing factor of contact with a spiritual teacher, the means which are the instructions of that teacher, there is the result which is buddhahood, and there is the continuous activity which is the manifestation of enlightenment which works for the welfare of others. This classification of the six elements of enlightenment shows the real possibility that one can become a buddha, and the fundamental concept is found right at the beginning; the concept of buddha nature, the seed of buddhahood. We have to recognize that there must be some potential within us if it is going to be possible for us to become a buddha. Not only must there be some potential within us, but it must also be the case that we are not already buddhas, otherwise it would be difficult to become a buddha. If there were no buddha nature, we would be caught in the cycle of suffering with absolutely no possibility of freedom; we would continue to suffer the pains and frustrations of existence that we do now, and this process would have no possibility of ending; there would be nothing that we could do about it. But this is not the case, for many people have become enlightened, have become buddhas. On the other hand, it is not the case that we are enlightened now, because we do experience pain and frustration, and a buddha is totally free from pain or frustration. So how are we to understand this potential! Buddha nature in essence is mind itself. Once it's recognized as such -- then you are a buddha. And as long as it's not recognized, there is suffering. A scriptural reference says, "The mind of a sentient being is buddha itself; it just happens to be clouded and bewildered. When this bewilderment and misunderstanding are removed, buddha is present." This is to say that, in a sense, we are each a buddha and yet don't realize it; only our blindness, our emotionality and ignorance prevent us from realizing this. To understand more clearly, it would perhaps be helpful to investigate what we mean by the word 'mind'. There are various words which denote mind; mind as a complex of attitudes, mind as a complex of emotions, and mind as a function of consciousness. When we consider the scope of mental activity, we have to consider six things. First, we are conscious of what we see, of what we hear, of what we touch, taste and smell, and we are conscious of our own thoughts. So there are six aspects to consciousness. Now to these six aspects we may add two further ones--mind as emotionality; that is, regarding the essential ignorance which is present in mind, and then, mind as just a basic cognition, something which is conscious of, or cognises events. It is this which actually becomes, which we actually designate the potential for buddhahood, buddha nature; the fact that mind is simply aware of things. I think that we can recognize that there is a distinction between the way consciousness of the objects that we perceive functions, and the way consciousness of thought functions. By this I mean to say, that consciousness of objects does not discriminate. We just see an object, and in the actual being conscious of the seeing there is no thought of good or evil, or of "that's a nice form, I don't like this one," it is simply awareness that seeing is taking place. In the same way, when we hear a sound, there is simply consciousness of the sound, without any discrimination or ascription to the nature of the sound, whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, The same is true of taste, touch and smell. So, these forms of consciousness can be free from discrimination; yet, these are not buddha nature. Discrimination, discursive thought, is the province of emotional thought. These are all the thoughts that we think; for example, "Oh it's too hot out, It's cold today, I like this, I don't like that, I'm attracted to that, I don't want that, I don't understand this, What's happening over there!" All of these thoughts, and there is an endless infinity of them, are the province or domain of mental consciousness; we are aware of these thoughts, that we can observe the thing that we are thinking about, the thoughts that we think about the objects that we perceive. But this tremendously active aspect of consciousness is not buddha nature either. And then, if we can still our mind so there is no perception taking place, so that there is no discursive thought taking place, there is still a definite sense of 'I' --I am, I exist, and we regard ourselves as being some-thing. And it is that sense of'' which is the cause of emotionality; the cause of our self-interest. Even though, when we are put to it, we cannot find out what this 'I' is, we still feel that it is very, very present. And this habitual, or instinctive, grasping at the sense of an 'I', this pseudo-consciousness of an 'I', is what may be called the emotional aspect of consciousness. And suppose. that the mind were to become so still that even the sense of 'I' were gone. Then, there is nothing that is apprehended. No colour, no form, no shape of any kind, yet there is a clarity; there is no grasping after 'I' and 'mine', but just a brilliant clarity, and there is a total freedom, a total lack of any obstacle, a total lack of any dualistic impediment of any kind. And this, which is clear, empty, unimpeded; this is basic cognition. If one recognizes basic cognition for what it is--if there is a direct realization of that, ignorance is banished and one understands; but as long as that is not recognized for what it is, there is bewilderment, and so all that happens, for good, for evil, has free play, because there is no understanding present to perceive what is, in fact, taking place. So in a sense this basic cognition, when it is realized, becomes buddhahood; when it is not realized it becomes the cause of everyday existence. It is like a jewel in a mud puddle. A jewel covered with mud doesn't shine, no fire burns inside it, but when we take it out of the puddle and wash the mud off it and hold it up to the light, it burns with its inner fire. Basic cognition is also a bit like gold in the ground. Gold ore is not visible and we don't see the gold in the ore right away, but if we take gold ore and smelt it, refine it, then the gold becomes very evident and glistens in its pure state. We might review what has been discussed by distinguishing between three aspects of mind: there is mind itself, which would correspond to basic cognition, the simple act of cognizing. This is mind as clear, empty, and unimpeded. Then there is mind as an emotional attitude, which would be this attitude or feeling that 'I am some-thing'. And there are all those aspects of consciousness; consciousness as thought, sound, touch, sight, etc., which are properly termed just 'consciousness'. And a distinction should be made between being conscious of things, the habitual grasping of the sense of'', and mind as it is in itself. Now our concern here is to recognize basic cognition; but even here we have to distinguish, because there is within basic cognition something which is basically composite, which leads to ordinary courses of action; it is consciousness functioning in its ordinary way, and this is the cause of everyday life, our existence as we know it. And there is also what we might call an uncomposed, non-dualistic aspect of basic cognition, and this is what we really need to realize. When we try to determine what it is, we are led to view it as simply nothing, as being empty; there is simply nothing which can be grasped there. Yet, if it is only regarded as empty, then a serious error has been made. Because, if it were in fact simply empty; that is, there were nothing, then where would any possibility of action come from? From what could anything emerge? What would be the concept of action if there were nothing for a foundation? It would be like trying to expect the sky to do some work; there is simply nothing in space, so space is totally impotent; there is just nothing there to act. So this basic cognition, in its uncomposite aspect, is not simply nothingness, is not simply empty, there is a clarity which could almost be called an immediacy; this emptiness and clarity are, in fact, identical. Yet, there is simply nothing that can be grasped conceptually. And this is why we say that this essence of phenomena, which is a synonym of mind-in-itself, is divorced totally from any concept, any process of conceptualization. The very great Indian Buddhist teacher Taranatha has said, "One must distinguish between mind, and mind-in-itself. Mind is simply consciousness; it is the basis of life as suffering, but mind-in-itself is the essence of what really is. Most people simply realize mind, and they feel they've come to some realization; they have experienced emptiness and clarity, but this is simply the impotency of basic cognition which is of no value. It is only when you meditate, and continue, and deepen that realization over a long period of time that you begin even to get a glimpse of what mind-in-itself is really like." Another statement comes from one of the greatest teachers of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, "All that we do in Dharma practice, right from the very beginning of going for refuge, is concerned with coming to this total realization; everything that we do is a means by which we clear away the various levels of distracting thought, emotionality and habitual grasping, until we come to see mind-in-itself " I have tried to explain, then, something about this basis, this seed of buddhahood, this buddha nature, which makes it possible for us to become -- for each of us to become -- a buddha. The framework in which we can become such a buddha is the human existence, the human existence which we have now. This is the framework because it is the only form of existence in which we have the opportunity to hear, and we are able to comprehend, such teachings as these. This is the true uniqueness of the human situation, the ability of communication, and the inclination to pursue religious practice. What makes it possible for us to do this is contact with a spiritual teacher; it is through contact with a teacher that you come to understand, to learn that there is something to be understood. The means by which we can come to such an understanding are the instructions of the teacher; we must apply them if we are to benefit from them. And this is a very broad area; the means start with various kinds of contemplation and various ways of acting. We can begin by thinking about how fortunate we are to be human, to have contact with the buddhas teaching, how very precious such an opportunity is; we think about the effects that our actions will have on us in the future, what experiences such actions will develop into, and we think about the presence, the continual presence, of suffering in any form of existence that is based on ego-clinging. These kinds of contemplations will lead us to a firm determination to become free of everyday existence, to remove all ignorance and lack of understanding. Then, we continue to develop compassion and love so that we can undertake to reach enlightenment for the benefit of others, and on such bases we need to develop meditative ability, the ability to still the mind, so that we can understand what the nature of phenomena is. If we are going to realize buddha nature, this emptiness, clarity and unimpededness, we have to understand much about the nature of phenomena, the nature of the world that we perceive, how it operates. And the key to this understanding is to gradually eliminate the sense of tangibility, of reality and concreteness with which we work in the world now; to learn to understand that the appearances that we perceive are not really as real as we would like to suppose them to be; they are not non-existing, but they are not existing either. This point of view is called the 'great middle way', and it is understanding of it which leads directly to the realization of buddha nature. Now, there was a man named Atisha, a very great Indian master, a great scholar, a great teacher, one who came to a very great realization. He was invited to Tibet to teach the Dharma there --this was about a thousand years ago-- and when he first arrived, he met with a number of Tibetans who were interested in learning more about the Dharma; most of these people had already had some contact with it, so Atisha started to instruct them in the great middle way. He said, "All appearances, all phenomena, all things that happen, are like magic; they do not have any absolute reality, there is no essence to any of these phenomena." And he looked around and saw that his listeners looked a little bit puzzled . So he said, "Let me explain--in India there are many magicians, sorcerers, who can create the experience of a whole life." And he told the story of a young family, the husband of which had a friend who was a sorcerer, and the husband thought it would be beneficial to himself if he could learn something about sorcery. So he asked his friend to come to dinner one day, and explained what he wanted; the sorcerer said, "Well, perhaps, we'll see," and as they sat down and were eating a meal of soup together, the husband noticed a strange-looking man coming down the road in front of the house; he was leading an absolutely magnificent horse, a beautiful animal, quite large, well formed, and as the stranger approached he called out, "How would you like to buy this horse!" The husband replied, "Oh, I would never have enough money to be able to purchase an animal like that." The stranger said, "Well, maybe I don't want so much, maybe just a few needles or something." The husband was taken aback in surprise, but before he could say anything, the stranger said, "Don't decide too quickly, why don't you ride the horse; after all, you want to make sure you like it." The husband agreed, and mounted the horse and rode off. The horse was indeed a magnificent animal; it galloped with the speed of the wind over rivers and through forests, across meadows, over mountains; the husband had never ridden such a magnificent animal before; he galloped along for hours and hours. It was such a thrilling experience that he lost track of time completely; he lost track of where he was, lost the road, and after many hours he noticed the sun was setting; he drew up and dismounted and looked around him, and he thought that he'd never been in a country like that before. Nothing around him looked at all familiar; he wasn't at all sure what to do, and after such a long ride he was tired, hungry, and thirsty, and he wasn't even sure where he was going to stay the night. But in the distance he saw a light, a lamp burning, so he walked towards it, and he found that the lamp was burning in the window of a house. Out of the house stepped a woman, and he asked her where he was; she replied, but he didn't recognize the name of the place; he told her his own country; she'd never heard of it. I guess he looked a bit distressed and she asked what the matter was. He said, "I've ridden a long way, I'm hungry and tired, and I don't even know where I am." She said, "Well, do come in" And she served him supper, he stayed the night there, and since he didn't know how to get back to his own country, he stayed there. He lived with this woman and they had a family together, and once, after many, many years, when their sons and daughters were beginning to get older they all went to a favourite lake of theirs for a picnic, and as they stood beside the lake, looking over it--it was a very beautiful place -- the oldest of the sons jumped into the lake and disappeared. Then, one by one each of the children jumped into the lake; then his wife, whom he had loved all this time, and lastly his horse. And there he was, an old man with white hair, completely alone; and completely overcome with grief he broke down in tears. And as he cried, he felt someone shake his shoulder; he turned around, looked up, and there was his wife of many years before, saying, "What are you crying for, what's the matter with you!" And he said, "If you only knew what has happened to me!" "But nothing's happened to you;" she said, "It hasn't been half an hour since we had our dinner. See, the soup pot is still hot." And the husband began to realize that everything that he had experienced had had no reality at all. Now, when Atisha had finished telling the Tibetans this story, he said, "And this is what all the world is like. It has no reality; it is simply an experience without any absoluteness to it at all. Oh, by the way," he said, "Do you have any magicians as good here in Tibet" And the Tibetans said, "No, no, we don't have any sorcerers who can create illusions like that." And Atisha sat very thoughtful for a minute and then said, "Well, it's going to be very difficult to explain the great Middle Way here, then, but, tell me, do any of you dream?" And the Tibetans answered, "Yes, yes, we dream, we're human, after all, of course we dream." "Well then," said Atisha, "Life in a sense, is like a dream; we have a dream, and it seems very real while we are dreaming it. When it's over, when we wake up, we realize that it was nothing more than a dream." So Atisha used this way to explain the great middle view. Everything that we experience is simply appearance; it has no intrinsic reality, and when we come to understand this, then we understand buddha nature, and we have become free from suffering. [Translated by Ken McLeod, edited by Thomas Quinn. (©Tom Quinn, New Sun Books, 1979]

In the Indic spiritual traditions, there are many different paths to the proverbial spiritual "summit". But generally they are broken down into two main categories - Direct Method - This is the method of Jnana Yoga, direct inquiry into Self (Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism) Indirect Method (various Yogas - Tantra, Kundalini, etc) In the direct method, one directly inquires into the nature of one's Self, realizing that each of the identities we associate ourselves with, are not our Self (social labels, name, body, mind, intellect, etc) till we get to that which cannot become an object of inquiry (and is therefore called the True Self, the true Beingness, the true knowingness, etc). I have been lucky to have travelled both paths myself. Direct Method purists would probably consider me a "spiritual mutt", and I'm glad I became one. There are so many treasures buried in various spiritual traditions in terms of both wisdom as well as practical methods, that the journey of this lifetime became richer for me as a result of these, thereof. My friend (who has recently embarked down the Direct Method) and I were discussing this. He knows I've been a taiji/Daoist practitioner for many years (getting close to two decades now), and also have undertaken studies of Siddhar Yoga, Hatha Yoga and vipasana style meditation as well. My Paternal Grandfather had taught me a lot of basics about pranayama when I was a young teenager and my Karate training later on helped with some of the meditation/breath-work. However, a lot of my early practice was really instinctive. I didn't have any teacher per se, but I had many teachers visit me and teach me during dream time. At that time, seated meditation was hard for me to do, still I was able to meditate after doing specific breath work (bhastrika, kapalabhati, bhramari pranayama). At the same time, I had started practicing Yang style 24-form taijiquan. Overtly unnknown to me, I was going through these transformations, the Qi sensitivity was developing, the Lower Dan Tien was formed, my 3rd eye was activating. At this time I was also doing a lot of dream yoga (lucid dreaming specifically) and perhaps that is why I remember Swamis and Daoist masters visiting me during dream state and providing me with instructions. Eventually I found Temple style taiji and my first teacher, Master George Bolger and I dived head-on into Taiji and Daoist cultivation. When I think back to the early days, I think a lot of stuff was "revealed" to me without my knowing much in terms of concepts that I know now (wrt. spirituality). I was given a specific mantra in a dream, by a Swami, when I was going through an excessively terrible time mentally and also financially (without a job for several months). That Mantra had become a mainstay of my practice until recently and helped me go through a lot of ups and downs in my journey since then (for almost 17 years). In course of my taiji practice, eventually I got a point where my witness self emerged quite distinctively. As "I" observed my mind-stream, first by starting to meditate in the gap between the thought (both during form practice as well as in seated meditation), I started to get alarmed and judgmental about patterns I observed in my mind. It took me many more years of silent anguish and finally my current teacher Master Jose Perez' "shaktipat", until I was able to come to a full realization that I was not my mind. The mind-stream is just a stream of objects that arise in consciousness. The underlying "me", i.e., the Pure Conscious Being is unaffected by the mind. My friend does not understand Energy, he doesn't understand all these "indirect methods" as he doesn't have a feel for energetics at all. One day, recently while discussing jnana yoga with him, when i was giving him analogies of how one can get to the same state of clear mind/no mind with energetic work and how any repetitive action can result in meditation, it seems I ran into a brick wall (For him, the direct method works best). Taijiquan and qigong are excellent practices to take what we get in seated meditation/contemplative practices and extend them into moving state. He was struggling to figure out how he can get on the "same page as me" wrt. energetics and cultivation and I think finally gave up. Thinking back about myself, for me the direct method was very hard initially. God knows I tried ... When I first read about Ramana Maharshi's "Who Am I?" type method, I was nonplussed as I had no "bearing" so to speak. I was deeply immersed in Samsara and my mind had not developed the clarity (not the same as intelligence) or the stillness to know where to even begin. Only after the constant witness had emerged (and after torturing the limited self over it) did Jnana path start to work. Don't get me wrong...I had the theory part sort of worked out. I had read my upanishads, yoga sutras, madhyamaka, among other texts, many times. I 'got it' intellectually, but it was not a experiential reality for me at that point. Right here on TDB, I've participated in many discussions (and some battles) over Buddhism, Vedanta, etc etc. At that time, I knew somethings "intuitively" and far less, experientially. Now when I see people torturing themselves like I have in the past, about effort vs no-effort, I mostly don't feel like sharing my thoughts. It is easy to talk about the simplicity of the "truth", after it has "clicked". Otherwise one has no way to gauge how simple it all really is. When Master Jose told me the first time I met him, "you will be surprised at how simple it all is", I knew instinctively, but really did not know. It is really simple, and yet almost all of us struggle over a "seeking", "a doing", in order to "achieve or attain some state or another". Yet in reality, it is something that is never apart from us. It cannot be found outside. Yeah, we've all heard the instructions of how we have to turn inward rather than outward, happiness/peace/God/Realization/Enlightenment/<Your favorite term here> can never be found in external objects. And yet, as part of our respective journeys, we seek objectively something that is the most intimate, most subjective of all experiences. It is always with us, never apart from us (Haha, and i also know how this type of platitude is bound to drive people angry, frustrated, plain bonkers with annoyance). Even in the inward turning, we try to turn the "within" into the "outside". As an object (or objects). This chakra, that nAdi, this Dan Tien, and so on. Until one day it becomes apparent...all of these are still objects to be experienced, but they do help point out the experiencer more definitely. Yes, Energy is nothing but consciousness. Everything rises out of consciousness, and sinks back into consciousness. The purpose of my writing this long post is to share my thoughts and also seek to hear about your journey, my TDB friends. And to say, that its okay to be a spiritual mutt. Sometimes the mutts are the most resilient, and eventually we have to realize that a raft is only a raft, no matter how beautiful and awesome it is. We need to use it for our travels, and that's all there is to it. Love and gratitude, Dwai

And in the book it apparently gets you to the place where it is all like one big lucid dream, whether in the dream state while sleeping, or the dream state while awake. Since reading the Flower Ornament Sutra, I have found myself merging with Flower Glow, a boddisatva, in my mind. when I do this it is easy to realize that the waking state is a dream. I wish I didn't take sleeping pills at night, but I take Prozac and there's no sleeping at all with that stuff. So I take pills to get to sleep. I only get snippets of dreams, but they are often profound. But not lucid, although I have had one in the past. Such fascinating reading, and a fascinating concept (or truth). I look forward to the day I can get rid of all the pills, but as long as I'm living with another, I stay on them out of deference to our getting along. I've tried again and again to get off the Prozac and, even knowing it's all a dream, the physicality of withdrawing from that drug is just horrible, no matter how slowly you try to do it.

Lucid dreaming is just the first stage to penetrate the illusions of dreams. Or to penetrate the dream of samsara. There is the dream of clarity in which you receive precognition and information about the future. Or information about your spiritual path. In the clear light dream, you recognize rigpa because it is manifesting itself as the luminosity of light in your dream. The experience is similar to a Samadhi but you are experiencing it through and in between dream states and waking states.

started doing soto zen about 10-12 years ago. Sat in our little forest, 2-3 hours a day, 7 days a week. Now days, I just sit until I don't sit. Cliff notes version: had the spontaneous movements, (I had to look them up, and they are called "kundalini kriya" movements, from what I remember. never had a bad experience with these, and they eventually went away. After about 3 or 4 years, I stopped having nightmares. haven't had one in 7 or 8 years. My dreams became lucid. (I actually divide them into what I call "simi- lucid", where one is engaged in the dream, but if it starts to change in a way that is not good, then I can start over, or just change the story". then what I call "Lucid" dreams, where like most, one can fly, walk through walls, etc, the typical fully lucid dream, and lastly what I termed "wise dreams" which there seems to be some kind of mythic parable or story, where one just knows that something needs to be understood in it. this kind of dream is both lucid, and many times, I am both aware of the sleep REM state, and also aware, at the same time, being in bed. weird shit for sure. Started doing Nei gung, (hope that is the way it is spelled now days), and compression breath, and reverse breathing for about 40 mins a day in my sitting meditation, for the last couple of months. the amount of energy developed is much like doing a gram of coke. I had to cut back on the reverse breathing, as for my yang constitution, it was kind of overboard, Been looking for real information on nei gung breathing, or Taoist breathing, but only find shit on the internet. my acupuncturist gave me your web address. look forward to sharing experiences and tips with you all. cheers. zp