deci belle

Elisabeth wrote: My, aren't we in touch with our presumptions, Elisabeth?!! If it ain't got no sparks, honey— that's just the way it is. Just because he didn't feel anything doesn't mean your projection is valid. It is possible and even advisable to realize that one's sexuality is circumstantial; one needn't go with it at all. One's own sexual polarity (or lack thereof) isn't necessarily a validation or negation of the potential of that spark, which is nonoriginated. The erotic is transcendent for a reason (or not). It's literally older than sin. That's right. The spark of one's nonpolarized erotic potential is inherent. In other words, sex is the dual nature of creation incarnate— yet its potential is already unified in terms of that spark. It's already you, and it is possible to know it. TheSomeBody asks if you can change it. But why bother? You can walk around being the source of it and most folks won't even suspect anything. Talk about being out of touch with one's feelings. It's a matter of chronically forgetting to project your patterns of personally self-reflected circumstantial conditions onto the world. It's not even spiritual per se, in the conventional sense. TheSomeBody mentioned Leo's observation that it is possible to change one's psychology; one can (and should) clue into one's non-psychological awareness~ call it potential. It's not a matter of lack as insinuated by Elisabeth, after all— it's what underlies the karmically bound personality. It would be very advantageous to get in touch with this potential. Taoism calls non-psychological awareness spiritual. Emotional awareness is part of the psychological apparatus (as is intellectualism) of the being that is going to die. Femme already has a part of this non-psychological aspect inclusively operative in terms of having a greater familiarity with non-discursive feeling, while males tend to be a bit exclusive with their circumstantial identities— not that femme are that much less invested, i.e: in the body beautiful. I highly recommend that people consider changing their sexuality~ in the absolute sense. ed note: typo 7th paragraph; add last 4 words

yawn… You wanna be special do ya? Start by joining the human race.

haha~ my value-judgement of the words are opposite of zoey's… but in neither case do I advocate the implications of the subtleties of doing. Practically the only time people conceive of these words is when they know they don't have something they need. Hope seems to express a slightly more selfish (helpless) connotation~ not that it matters, because faith can and will be abused by the usual suspects before they stoop to relying on sheer hope to feel like they are doing something to get whatever they consider themselves lacking. If I seem cynical— don't fall for it. It's just that if one really knows what one needs, what one really needs (in terms of factual lack), then one knows what one is waiting for and one waits for it as simple as that. What is the point of hope or faith in terms of Reality? True faith already knows that what is, isn't always necessarily apparent— that's the power of faith; it already knows. In this context, personalistic hope is an embarrassingly selfish act. If any action is required in terms of spiritual adaption to situational potential, then one needs to wait for the proper conditions conducive to meeting situational change~ it does not involve deliberation. Helping the Way can only be regarded as arbitrary, karmically bound and binding. Rectitude, in terms of correct action is not attributable to the psychological momentum of the times. The Tao te Ching states "the master carpenter does no cutting." I suppose the above is most akin to Preety's sense of the word, trust: But what is being trusted? Enlightening being's activity is attributable to nothing whatsoever, therefore trust must not be a reflection of the self that thinks right or wrong, good or bad. What is it then? Potential alone is to be trusted, which is the very epicenter of inconceivability in terms of the world and one's ever-clarifying enlightening efflorescence. Otherwise, evolution is not only dependent on conditions, they are one in the same. All created cycles are the same in this regard. One refines the self by virtue of simply awaiting the proper conditions with single-minded intent and acting according to the time. As is common, the usual suspects are emotionally attached to their hope or faith or whatever the politically correct term du jour is, if not even more attached to arbitrary outcomes (a certain election result comes to mind) and consequently (when caught in extremity), have already lost their innocence; the direct connection to an innate open intent consisting of non-resistance, which is one's selfless direct connection to will. So these people then have no recourse but to rely on the power of irrational rationalism (mere words or thoughts consisting of habit-energy), prayers, in the grossest sense, if you will— because of the "selfish" aspect— which only really amounts to a bit of short-sightedness, which in all truth can be remedied by a modicum of sheer objectivity. But people don't want to go there~ they'd muuuch rather cling to activist emotionalism, hide their virgin ideals in another round of bumper-sticker rhetorics and "talking-points" and, in a word, blindly recite their prayers. This is a polemic existence utterly void of the basis of non-psychological unity. In terms of craving enlightenment, as some are wont to do in the quest for spiritual materialism, it would seem obvious that such emotional or even intellectual attachment to an inconceivability is an anathema to the conscious basis of which enlightening potential is the pervasive element. —Ain't ever gonna happen in terms of the person. Yet who else has ever relied on such a thing as hope? Enlightening being has no use for hope or faith; it just responds. I'm guessing that Preety_India's OP is simply focused on the semantic connotation of these terms, but I thought it would be advantageous to address an aspect of the underlying issue(s) which commonly prompt one's attention to consider the power of the word in the first place. ed note: add first line; typo, 4th; add Preety_India's quote; add penultimate paragraph

Those who live as warriors have only two things, will and patience.

even my little pinky is kinky~ *winky-winky* hahahahahhaa!! ed note :sassed-up my response since nobody noticed anyway… heehee!!

Um, enlightenment isn't a personally derived approximation suited to your own temperament, Arkandeus. I mean, why bother calling your approximation "enlightenment", for example: when you write: This is all pure speculation— not that this description isn't a fact relative to the Absolute, but yours is utterly derivative pretense— or else copied out of a book or online somewhere. It's called philosophical speculation— and to what end? I don't necessarily have a problem with that per se, and I don't mean to sound critical, but it sure would be helpful for folks to actually hear about this stuff from people who know. Dang. Enlightenment isn't about saying what it is or isn't (as if verbal clarification is the point of transcending creation). Enlightenment is about APPLYING its inconceivable potential in the midst one's karmically evolving milieu. That's the difference between "shooting the breeze" and personal power. And here are pluto and MarkuSweden commiserating over how depressing it is to "be" enlightened" without a guide. What kind of enlightenment is this that garners an "inner circle" mentality only able to express a "misery loves company" comaraderie. Even a guide can't help these pitiful illuminates. I've heard this kind of thing from seekers in real life and all I can say (to myself) is what, do I smell like Limburger? Hhahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahhhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahhahaah!!!

This is why it is said to first see essence on your own and then seek instruction. Here's the deal— there is further practice required after seeing your nature. It is not enough to sit around and psychologically project your understanding onto the world simply because there's nothing else to do. Though enlightening action is carried out in response to everyday ordinary situations, it is not reliant on one's own power. Entry into inconceivability is real; nobody knows the activity of enlightening response. It is secret action one does in public. The great taoist spiritual alchemic classic, Understanding Reality states right up front that one who stumbles across the jewel of one's inconceivable essence would be a fool not to set to work right away to refine this jewel. Sudden enlightenment is entry-level experience; it is simply to be understood as only having planted the seed of buddha-potential in the homeland of nothing whatsoever. There is a point to seeing your nature. Not to set to work to refine the potential of buddhahood is to be "like a stupid cat trapped in a cave under the black mountain." One must endeavor to "set up the alchemical workshop again" to enter advanced practice. I don't know if you people are real or not. If you are awake, then what is it? Why do you seem trapped? There is a reason enlightenment is called liberation. Please speak up! ed note: add everything after the first line

hi Arkandeus~ I wouldn't go as far as to foist that understanding on the world. Perhaps it might be that everything is the same as the level of your awareness of unity, obviously, but really, that isn't saying much. I definitely see your point, and it is a good thing to articulate and distinguish these for ourselves and others. As for: I would have to suggest that you need to go much further into it than this indicates because ego is not other than your own mind right now; not different than an effectively (or not) enlightening expression of unity at any given time according to the requirements of the time. Ultimately, ego suffices as the most magically advanced utility at the service of one's functionally selfless enlightening spiritual potential. Mind is one. Ego functionality and spiritual adaptability are not different; not separate. To the degree one's self-refinement is developed, one's ego function and enlightening activity are unified, in that one's impersonally subtle adaption is a spiritual response to the karmic evolution of everyday ordinary situations without anyone's knowledge.

Ether said: And I would know you don't know what to do in the matrix (much less with it). The matrix is created and you are not. You probably think that would be a limitation. That makes sense though, because you think you exist. You are full of endless notions, Ether, but you do not grasp the point of experiencing knowledge. ed note: add (much less with it) in 1st line

The OP is asking the wrong question. Why? Not because (non)existence isn't relative to absolute, but because there is no creator. Oterwise, the OP is an insane postulate. Why there is (non)existence cannot be conceived. Ether doesn't even know what isn't knowable isn't known. Sad.

mr ahmad said: He said in one blow~ YOU CAN'T KILL EGO AT ALL. That's why I was egging her on. Ego is your own mind right now— no different than enlightenment. Next time keep yer clap-trap shut mr ahmad (heehee!!) …spoiled all the fun~

How else are you going to find out? It's not philosophy. It's not right and wrong, good or bad. It's not about being nice. Kill her and find out what happened. THAT's what it's about. ed note: typo last line

Kill her. Just do it. Who cares? Do you know? What are you afraid of? Kill her. Do you want someone else to be blamed? KILL HER.

There is actually a point to this. Enlightenment is inherent, innate— in fact it's already your own mind right now. But activating it is another story… how does one activate the mind without dwelling on its contents? What would be the point? There is actually a point. Does anyone know? ed note: didn't change a thing

hi jwk~ It's just that the human mentality at this point has long been accustomed to psychological clinging or leaning on anything convenient …mostly just the rambling nature of the constant stream of thoughts coming from nowhere in particular. When the mind first experiences freedom from its cosy nests, all kinds of dilemmas present themselves in addition to simply not having anything to cling to. This can be disconcerting in its new environment of space-like awareness. As soon as the ratio-synchretic human mentality concedes its domain as Leo pointed out (the wise mind), and by not following its activity unawares, the traces of no-mind (or non-psychological awareness) gradually come to the fore. This is to be nurtured by subtle attentive conscious awareness (by the same aspect of mind heretofore occupied by mindless rambling). There is a huge difference in effect between mindlessness and the no-mind that Leo refers to. Yet mind is one— there is no refuge because there is no inside or outside. It's all your innate selfless nature through and through without beginning or end. ed note: typos in 3rd; add "your innate selfless nature" in last paragraph

I liked Martita's response until I got to "Find an anchor". I know she meant well, but …please… tough it out. Now is NOT the time for comfort. WATCH the fear— don't use anything to divert you awareness from the critical aspect at this time. Face the fear. Ultimately, true freedom is no anchor. Fear is the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die acting out as usual to maintain ego-centric control and suppress your awakening non-psychological awareness at all costs. Just watch the fear and/or whatever it conjures up to disrupt your flowering potential. When the minions of Mara threatened the buddha at the site of his complete perfect enlightenment, he just touched the earth with one finger. Ground yourself (or more specifically, center yourself)~ Martita's suggestions should be used in that context— forget comfort. That's for dilettantes. ed note: add "Now is NOT the time for comfort." in the 3rd line; add line about "centering" in last paragraph. In the eastern Asian sense of the symbology of Earth, it is the color yellow, the center, and it corresponds to the notion of solidity and nurturing stability.

bonjour, brovakhiin~ Yes, "interrupting consciousness" is a term used to describe the instance (or consequence) that results in sudden illumination when experiencing the Absolute, as it is the break in the continuous stream of thought constituting the individual's false identity that precipitates complete perfect enlightenment, being the reversion to one's inherent non-origination before time. It doesn't happen per se; just this is a priori without ever beginning. Seeing this by virtue of interrupting one's conditioned stream of thought-consciousness for the first time is what seeing your nature constitutes. It is experiential proof of one's selfless non-originated aware potential heretofore obscured by habit-energy (self-reifying thought patterns). I alluded to an aspect of this in terms of facilitating interruption of conditioned awareness within the temporal sphere of ordinary incremental (karmic) existence. In other words, "interrupting consciousness" isn't necessarily fully dependent on all-at-once sudden illumination— it is the gradual "grain by grain" accumulation of potential (in terms of spiritual alchemy) that results in the sudden. In terms of spiritual alchemy, it is by the cumulative potential "gathered" in the course of transcending innumerable created (karmic) cycles that one experiences transcendence of the total cycle of an entire lifetime whereby the great matter of life and death is resolved micro and macro-cosmically. In the further maturation of this event, one may eventually actualize transcendence per the individual karmic existence in fact (not just potential) and one thus consummates entry into inconceivability. It's not like one ever "crosses the finish-line"— there is no end to spiritual evolution. Why? It is already beginninglessly causeless. The causeless is already inconceivability. It's already oneself right now. Knowing the Causless is immediate transcendence of karmic evolution. Proving it in the midst of everyday ordinary affairs unbeknownst to anyone is further maturation of the accomplishment. So what precipitates seeing your nature (in terms of the absolute) or "gathering" potential (in terms of temporal existence) is the actualization of non-psychological awareness. It's not other than your own mind right now, that is, one's thinking capacity, but neither is it the same. Just the non-psychological itself is the spiritual capacity and primal selfless awareness of enlightening being. Mind is one. When the non-psychological spontaneously appears in the midst of ordinary consciousness, it is most important to recognize its potential and "gather" it at once. Doing so is called "using yin to nurture yang"; using essence to nurture sense; using spirit to gather real knowledge". Seeing reality and "gathering" its potential is one in the same. It is not that one actually "gathers" anything. This operation requires effort, yet it is neither easy nor difficult. The 3rd hexagram of the I Ching is a crystallization of the correlating phase: Difficulty. What follows (seeing or gathering) is the most subtle and critical aspect in all of spiritual alchemy; this is the occult meaning of the 4th hexagram of the I Ching. Taoism calls this the "ten months of incubation" in the aftermath of "taking over creation and stealing its potential". The 4th hexagram is Darkness. After a long long time of continuous subtle concentration over months and years, the accumulation of "gathered" potential results in a stabilization of one's spiritual non-psychological capacity, whereby its bright virtue is actualized in the individual and one's enlightening function comes to the fore. In taoist lore, this is when the spiritual embryo spontaneously emerges after being purified in the empty vessel void of intellectualism. This is where one's "dragging a boat through mud and water" initially reaches a point of functional unity within the wholistic potential comprising the essence of karmic evolution (creation), and one begins to see essence by virtue of delusional existence. It's not that there really is "mud and water" and/or "clear sailing". The point of authentic spiritual practice (in terms of enlightening potential) is awakening to the actualization of one's spiritual function that expresses being fully deluded within delusion. Such stabilization of consciousness is the reversion of one's ego function in the service of one's enlightening potential. Such is actualized Buddhahood, that is, seeing reality by virtue of delusion. Reality isn't somewhere else, otherwise obscured by delusion— they are one and the same. As mind is neither absolute nor temporal, so also is the nature of reality or Suchness. ed note: add 2nd paragraph;a bunch in the middle; add last three lines of penultimate paragraph

A very wonderfully thoughtful person has been PMing with me lately and I am posting one of the installments of our conversation which is rather long. For those who are interested in the general topic, I hope it is a worthwhile read… That inkling and constant knowledge of the unattainable is universal. Call it saudade, that's a Brasilian term. Also Brian Wilson often conjured that space in the latter classic Beach Boys tunes. His "tripping" affected him profoundly. You feel the potential and also the sadness~ that's what haunts humanity. It's a beautiful thing. Don Juan Matus called it the "terror and wonder of being a man". It's the aspect of the created human condition— it's very deep~ I suppose it's what constitutes our heart-felt sense of being. I write about what matters to me; about what I know. It's probably that you sense the veracity that resonates with your innate knowledge. The sudden is just an instantaneous experience of utter familiarity with who you already are, who you have always been, in terms of what underlies our personalities— that which has never begun. We already know somehow— and experiencing that is most important, BUT… it's not up to us as individuals to facilitate the experience. There's no need. Enlightenment is all there is and delusion is the only place to see it and use it, in terms of seeing and absorbing potential in real life— not just the instantaneous experience of the Absolute. As I mentioned earlier, the science of life (which isn't really taoist per se) is not dependent on the sudden and can be taught. The science of essence (your nature) cannot be taught. The ancient dictum is "see essence on your own, then seek a teacher". For me, how do I stop fighting things and being frustrated when I know that this enlightenment thing is real, and it's out there, and I can have it as long as I don't try too hard to get it? That's confounding. Did you "do" anything to facilitate it? Meditation, psychedelics, or any of the modalities that everyone suggests for spiritual awakening? Because I was a single child, I eventually had to learn to fight, which was very frustrating too. I was lucky, I never knew enlightenment was a thing to want, to do, to experience. I guess I sensed that the source of my haunting wonder was already "me". I must admit that I was a willing victim of overwhelming wonder— and it served me well. I never thought about it at all in terms of a thing "out there". Ultimately, it's not out there inasmuch as the world IS you. Taoism says that "the world is the sage". There's no "out there". The world is it and your open sincerity to whatever is at any given time in spite of the world's psychological momentum, is the key: it's not what you see, it's why you see. When you realize that you see because of your unborn aware nature, which is utterly selfless and void of content, you can begin to displace the personality patterns that are obviously untrue in the same way that you felt that organized religion was sensed as untrue. You can use the unborn to see what is, or you can use it to sustain the illusion that perpetuates the false self. That much doesn't depend on sudden realization. It's a matter of gradually and subtly emptying oneself of oneself bit by bit and managing just that in the midst of, and by virtue of, everyday ordinary situations. Just this is 24/7 meditation. Rote sitting meditation is never to be discounted; obviously, you know the benefits of regular sitting meditation after just a very short time. I'm not necessarily "sensitive", but evidently I take things to heart in such a way as to deeply process everyday ordinary experiences, so I have never done formal meditation over the course of my life. Perhaps this may be a benefit of borderline autism(?), I don't know. So "emptying" oneself isn't about diminishing the self as much as it is clarifying potential for receptive virtue to accumulate. You will be able to witness untold inhumanity passing for ordinary discourse with understanding because the virtue of receptivity is the capacity for extreme subtlety in terms of understanding not-understanding. That's entry into inconceivability. Anyone can understand understanding; this is where there is a parting of the ways without anyone being the wiser. Why? There is truly nothing to know. Just letting this much go incrementally dissolves the pillars of ego without a trace. In the same way, in terms of the aftermath of sudden realization, the traces of enlightenment are also dissolved. Dogen said, "People become buddhas and buddhas become people." The fact is that you can't have enlightenment because it's already you right now. In that sense, you'll never have it, even after you see your nature. Before or after, nothing changes. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. it's the Causeless. It's already you, which hasn't begun. That's why awakening to your innate unborn awareness resolves everything on the spot (not that you won't be dealing with situations simultaneously). You won't be different or see anything differently after the sudden because you've already always been so (enlightened). Since this is the case, awakening to one's unborn awareness doesn't depend on the sudden. Nevertheless, it is very important to conduct oneself with mindful clarity to assume complete responsibility for carrying out innocent wonder with which to properly experience the interruption of conditioned conscious awareness (either all-at-once or moment by moment), even though we are potentially able to prove we were born knowing— and are therefore intrinsically able to implement the innate capacity of non-knowing causeless non-origination without formally interrupting consciousness for the first time. This gets back to "mastering" the meaning underlying the 3rd and 4th hexagrams of the I Ching (Book of Changes): difficulty+innocence=endless transformations without karmic bondage. Taoist spiritual alchemy is somewhat akin to the idea of "collecting the sparks" of mystical Judaism. In terms of words, it is a matter of "freeing potential from the karmic matrix." All one can do is be single-minded within one's inconceivable objectless wonder and use that to displace the stultifying patterns that perpetuate the false self's dominion over the being that is going to die. Doing so makes one's steps lighter and facilitates a subtle fluidity to one's response-body (which is the world). There's no one thing implied. It's a 360˚ spherical deposition resulting in a reference-point void of personality's pre-eminence. In terms of one's enlightening function, just this IS potential. Because (in terms of alchemy, spiritual or otherwise) it being imperative to work with what is the same, what is able to see and work with potential is just potential. It's awareness. This would not be possible if it were not for the fact that people are inconceivable beings naturally partaking of potential whether they know it or not. We are already enlightening beings independent of the personality. Actualizing the function is initially a matter of dropping the harmful psychological patterns reifying the personality— so no need to drop the "healthy" patterns. That can be accomplished gradually, after the sudden, in terms of further self-refinement— which is an endless process. Conversely, purposely not focusing on it is a losing strategy, because I know it's real, it's the ultimate earthbound knowledge and I know that I ain't got it. How to find a middle ground.....that's my biggest life issue right now. Keep the focus— it is to be "diffused" in a 360˚ sphere of non-psychological awareness; that is, not focussed relative to the self or even on "what is" but rather "as is". Awareness is itself just this "as is". Ultimately, there is no thing. Awareness, uncreated, is just it; is just as is. Pure awareness is selfless knowledge (not in terms of things, but) as the expression of one's inconceivable nature, which is awake and nothing more. "Exercising" the focus in this manner diffuses the energy habituated to perpetuating the false identity through self-reification by spreading it so thin that the habit energy polluting innate awareness loses its initial grip and ultimately, its overbearing power over the being that is going to die. Self-refinement carried out with unbending intent over a long long time is just this subtlety. Energy freed of its habituated momentum reverts to potential, which is very becoming, non? What's real is awareness itself. THERE IS NO THING. Reality as is, is just the awake quality that is our nature. That's why I say the 360˚ focus is not on "things"— it's just a matter of "exercising", experiencing, the use of awareness as an utterly diffused "focal point" void of habitual self-reification. It's a matter of creating a vast suspension of the particulars constituting the personality via the re-focussing of awareness and letting whatever goes by the wayside be forgotten. Awareness is one; mind is one. The trick is to set up a subterfuge, like a big conceptually gossamer donut in the sky that spins so slowly and continues to slow down, by virtue of one's psychological momentum losing its tendencies, without having to "do" anything by the personality's power (which would set up an equally powerful reaction). Therefore habit energy loses its "gravity" so to speak, heretofore having stultified itself as one's otherwise spontaneous enlightening potential. The energy doesn't go anywhere. The habituated energy of mass (momentum) is what is perpetuating the false identity's karmic power over one's innate selfless enlightening potential. So the "purified" (void of momentum) energy reverts to its proper capacity in terms of one's spontaneous enlightening function because spontaneity is the result of fluid stillness. "Pollution" is simply energy subject to karmic momentum. It is allowed to die of its own ever-diminishing centripetal proclivities. Surprisingly, if it were not for karma's dual aspect (dual in itself, yet also paired with the absolute in this critical analysis), the natural restoration of unified potential as one's innate enlightening function would not be the case. It's just the way it is and no one knows why. Otherwise, in terms of one's enlightening function, there is no "good" karma, because all karma binds one to the incremental. The point of enlightening practice is to "purify" residual karma by mindful self-refinement so as to be able to take on the karma in terms of the world's inexorable situational evolution, which is, in truth, one's own self moment to moment. It is not that one would consider "looking for things to fix", the working definition of enlightening activity, because enlightening activity does not depend on one's own power. It is not a matter of "doing". Arriving at this is precisely what doesn't depend on the sudden. It is a matter of self-refinement by using situations to refine the self instead of using situations to gratify the self. Seeing the difference is the middle-ground you seek. Just seeing is the critical aspect. It is not a matter of doing at all. When you know what's real, situations are tailor-made to exhibit the potential. In seeing potential, you do not do anything with it. THAT is spiritual alchemy. In buddhist terms, seeing is the Supreme Vehicle of buddhas, activated by taking to the middle-way which is neither temporal nor absolute. This is Suchness, true reality void of either extreme. It can't be faked. You have to see it in order to not use it. Ordinarily, people see potential as conditioned energy out of sheer habit and use it to foment self-serving illusion. In doing so, potential changes into energy, whereby it enters the created sphere and sustains karmic momentum incurring further cycles birth and death without end. And it won't do to see it and "white-knuckle" oneself in terms of self-suppressed craving (ala classic Alcoholics Anonymous terminology). One actually has to "give in" and work in its (delusion's) midst while gradually introducing wisdom. The taoist saying is "follow desire without stepping over the line." "Following desire" is in not denying potential; "not stepping over the line" is gradually introducing guiding wisdom according to the time in order to withdraw at the peak of potential. Just this is Difficulty, the 3rd hexagram. Carrying out the aftermath of withdrawal at the peak of potential is the meaning, effect and method of accomplishing the time of Innocence/Darkness, the 4th hexagram. I find the latter operation extremely subtle in nature—though it can be accomplished by degree, so not all is necessarily lost,in terms of "gathering" the potential (if "done" so clumsily) which is then "further refined in the empty vessel, void of intellectualism." Sometimes psychological rumination is not so easy to avoid— yet it must be accomplished, otherwise the "unrefined" potential gathered in any given karmic cycle is wasted in vain. In technical terms, which you can research on your own, the critical juncture of every created cycle subject to the spiritual alchemic "operation" is called the Yin Convergence. In terms of the taoist overview, this is accomplishing endless transformations, planting lotuses in fire, sublimating oneself physically and spiritually and entering the tao in reality. So do yourself a favor and forget about enlightenment, per se. Re-focus a bit and assess the huge arena in which to set to work, which is what comprises the actuality of "jumping in and floating around in the center of the compass." sPLash!! ed note: add "I must admit that I was a willing victim of overwhelming wonder— and it served me well." in 8th; zapped a typo somewhere in the middle

i sso sassy❤︎!! There are about 6~7 years of my posts on The Dao Bums forum. Some of it ain't so pretty cuz of how I was subject to the abusive "free speech" policy by the resident pack of literalist translators trolling that website. They were pretty covetous of their "understanding" of ancient Chinese taoist teachers, teachings and traditions. But it's only a small percentage of the articles I posted. They actually had an "Articles" section, but after I pretty much camped out in the "Articles" section and didn't want to hang out with them— just talking about what the words mean,— void of the experiential source behind the words, they got rid of that section. It was an interesting time I had there. I had some strong support, but the milieu was overall pretty ignorant of the point of the original writings' focus toward actualization. It didn't help that I referred to that bunch as the "recreational philosophers" …heehee!! You would probably need to register with the Dao Bums forum to have easy access to the articles attributable to "deci belle". I appreciate your interest, Monkey-man~ merciiiiii❤︎ ed note: bold> "The Dao Bums" 1st paragraph

bonjour, Monkey-man❤︎ Humbling oneself doesn't seem as the same thing to me as knowing authentic humility— I'll try to change that in one fell swoop. The OP asks "how to humble yourself"… Many people do subscribe to the "school of pain", but I wonder why that is. I don't buy it. Perhaps your average blockhead needs that kind of trauma to produce a state of mind to appreciate others' good fortune(?); what's that got to do with humility— is that a comparative thing going on— in order to feel less fortunate compared to those who are experiencing less suffering? That's pretty selfish right off the bat. (You didn't mean that right, Leo?) The way to feel humility (for me) is through great gratitude (I see Infinite Potential mentioned that above). Certainly (and paradoxically), I have indeed exhibited a good-natured cheerfulness through a feeling of gratitude after experiencing a loss (not that I would have dared to identify the loss as a trigger for suffering nor did I even consider that event a misfortune). I find that true wonder is an experiential source for one to know humility. Like seeing the Milky Way… how wonderful! In order to know humility in such a way that one could be said to have "humbled oneself"~ I don't know. I believe this gets back to something that is intrinsically a deep state of the natural mind-ground of the individual— that is something akin to knowing the natural goodness of reality as is-- and being openly sincere in the courage to be vulnerable to that goodness for the sheer hell of it— or simply to avoid shutting oneself off from knowing that kind of intimacy with reality as is. So I'll say that a really good way to humble oneself is to commit to being fearless to the consequences of accepting true vulnerability in one's everyday ordinary situations. I believe that what I have just suggested is the best way to realize the intent of Jesus, who proscribed "turning the other cheek." That is, since one is mindfully ready and able to accept "misfortune" (which is relative) in the second place, one is certainly ready and able to being vulnerable to conditions by virtue of one's mindfully active humility to what is, in the first place; a priori, as it were. "Turning the other cheek" isn't about being a doormat. ed note: add parentheses to "misfortune" and (which is relative)… to penultimate paragraph

hi Monkey-homme! I used to have a tumblr blog for a few years (also had a Wordpress blog too) before and after the recreationally-pedantic powers-that-be at the daobums website banned me. They asserted that theirs' was a "main-stream" venue (gag me). I deduced what would eventually happen as a result of my outspoken nature, so that's why I started those blogs in the first place. Not very much traffic, as you might very well imagine. I suspect that about .02% of any given population at any given time experiences a predilection for my content. That's the sweet-spot I write for. But it's been at least three years since then, I think. I hadn't been online in any capacity since that time. I have been hanging out here of late, not intending to make a habit out of it… Would you like me to start one again, or are you suggesting that I should go to my special place to do zis, hmmmm? heeheehee❤︎!!

hi *mr Winston* ~ the matter of psychological habituation to perceiving buddhas as "buddhas", in terms of a concept in your mind, is what has usurped your enlightening potential from transcending creation here and now . A buddha's day-job is an open secret~ nobody knows. "Transcendence" doesn't go anywhere. Right here is where it's at. Delusion is all there is. Only buddhas see delusion as delusion~ they don't mistake it for reality. Reality is simply awake to what is without personal levels of perception. Reality is the quality of seeing— not what is perceived. Dogen said that "there are people who attain realization upon realization and people who are deluded within delusion." On face value you might be confused as to the message. "Realization upon realization" is what ordinary people take for their minds, believing their thoughts' projections to be reality. "Deluded within delusion" is seeing reality as is, and furthermore knowing the potential(s) present at any given time, and working with just that. Dogen also said "When buddhas are truly buddhas they do not need to be aware of being buddhas. However, they are actualized buddhas and further actualize buddhahood." If you can't kill that "buddha" in your mind, you'll never see your own buddha which does not have to be aware of being buddha. It's not a word game. It's real. The way that buddhas actualize buddhahood in terms of spontaneous response is expressed as knowledge for the benefit of ordinary people who can't help but recognize it according to their capacities. That is not the fault of buddhas. To the degree that one's own buddha sees the expression of buddha knowledge, that is one's own buddha regardless of karmic obstruction. In all people, the capacity is the same— it is without limit. Karma varies according to the individual. Faceless, dear~ he didn't pluck his eyebrow, so there was nothing to fall into his eye. I hope this instance can serve as an example to illustrate exactly how it would be well for you to just work with what IS and don't make things up (using awareness to create illusion). Your reply was based on sloppy comprehension to the facts printed in black and white right in front of your face. There's no humor in it if you are just arrogantly following your own personally flippant psychological momentum making it impossible for you to be present and intelligently respond according to WHAT'S THERE. Don't be a clod— if you can help it. Just see what's there— and respond to that. You'll be a buddha without even knowing it.

There is a relatively well-known anecdote concerning a certain ancient Chinese philosopher of sorts who was said to have been of the mind that even if it could save someone's life, he wouldn't pluck a single eyebrow. As for the OP~ the test is, if you can't kill a buddha, you're not a buddha. Suuuch recreationally squeamish and philosophically speculative concerns relative to self and other, right and wrong, good and bad. I wish people would get over their emotionalist conventions of what selflessnesss means. It's not good or bad, people. it's just selflessness— if you know, it doesn't matter, because Suchness as is (reality) is unified. An inconceivability in your own skin without borders. What's sad is, as long as you don't know, you're bound and gagged for eons. ed note: add "recreationally squeamish and philosophically speculative" to 3rd line

Self-importance. A closely related aspect of this self-reflective space is melancholy. Though these psychological states may be entertaining for some people sometimes, they only serve to strengthen the illusion of the false self.

What's with the passive relationship with your thread, Sukhpaal? You said you know, but you don't say what you know. What is the difference, hmmmm?