deci belle

Prease don't doozat, Tearos. Actualize yourself first— that should keep you busy for the next 20~30 years. After that, you will have learned the meaning of wisdom is easy, not using it is hard. ed note: address response to Tearos

So the Buddha walks into a bar… heehee!! and the bar-tender sees him and can't help but ask, "Who are you?" The Buddha replies, "I'm awake."

Lots of good responses here. hi Pernani~ just keep doing this for a long long time …a looooong time. Monkey-mind is your own mind right now; that's not a problem at all (and especially in the beginning). Why? We need monkey-mind in order to have something specifically tailored to the individual to watch. It's called using the disease as the cure. Stopping-thinking isn't about stopping the monkey-mind~ it's about developing an unbending intent to maintain a continuous subtle concentration for the purpose of 24/7 observation of mind. The reason we use the monkey-mind is simply because it's there. The point of beginners' rote meditation exercise isn't for the purpose of cessation as much as it is to practice activating the mind without dwelling on its contents. You have already discovered that cessation is an impersonally spontaneous event; you don't do it. Someday sudden illumination will happen in exactly the same way— of its own accord. It is simply not you~ nor is it up to you. That's the shining mind. That mind IS you. That's what watches without discrimination. Someday, that mind will see itself, and you will have ceased to exist, as of yore. That is the real deal. That is authentic transcendent cessation of an entire world. Don't give it a single thought~ A related old saying states that adepts aren't afraid of the monkey-mind, they're afraid of not noticing it. ed note: typo, last line

Since you asked, the answer is, enlightenment isn't "yours". You will never experience enlightenment. So what's to care about? Not much, since this kind of authentic relationship doesn't exist on any significant level in this day and age. We sure are assuming a lot here …who said the guru would tell? The OP specifically asked "how do they know". It didn't assume gurus would go around changing the babies' diapers for them. Gurus aren't baby-sitters. Let's not get on a "guru" feeding frenzy based on Leo's alternate track concerned with self-actualization.

It is spiritual. Authentic enlightening beings are such that their innate non-psychological awareness is completely efflorescent in its functionality. There is no "figuring out" involved. Deductive reasoning is a property of the psychological apparatus, therefore it is not employed in terms of that which is already known immediately. Such knowledge is immediate. Buddhism calls this the opened Dharma-eye. Of course, they are also adept at picking up subtle cues from those they are dispassionately and intimately dedicated to, in terms of the specific teaching venues they are attuned; not to mention by virtue of their loving responsibility, dedication, years of experience and an unconventionally penetrating skillful means which they are able to employ by the very potential that comprises any situation they find themselves responding to.

I know some brilliant individuals who could only manage failing grades in school because of their psychological makeup. I'm referring to people who lean towards various characteristics of autism (such as myself~ not that I'm particularly brilliant). I was fortunate enough to have sported a "photographic memory" when I was younger~ but I have since run out of film-- hehe. My point is that people have different needs in terms of assimilating "learning". For example, I cannot for the life of me understand the science behind guitar amp design, and it took me two years just to get the relationship down relative to output transformers and speaker impedance matching (it is not complicated at all)— it also took me about the same amount of time to know beyond any doubt, that the way to bleed power capacitors to avoid instant death was, in fact, beyond doubt . I can only learn through direct experience. Verbal/diagrametric examples are excruciatingly tedious for me, so I end up re-writing and redrawing them in the process of exacting the proof-of-experience relative to the intended message of the original technical manual's written content. My writing-style is directly derivative of this need for a clarity and precision through vocabulary and contextual construction (if anybody had noticed)… The best I can offer is that there is no "best way to learn" for everybody. It's part of the learning process itself. ed note: re-work 4th paragraph

Just so you know, Cory— it just happens …often enough to some people. It's not good or bad, it just is. You must be living in your head though~ my whole body resonates like that sometimes. For me it is very pleasant. I wake up in the middle of the night and there it is. After a while it stops, (or not) and I roll over and go back to sleep. See if you can allow it to spread over your whole body next time.

Just don't try to make it happen again or if it does, don't try to "help" it like you did. Obviously, that was a big mistake, huh? Anything out of the ordinary like that is happenstance. A phantom experience with no real power~ but nothing wrong with that! Real people don't go through life in a state like that or want to. Just do what you were doing before any of this nonsense side-tracked you in the first place. Beginners are into getting-off on their new-fangled psychological buzzes. These experiences are ultimately of no account— not that they aren't beneficial, but, as you found out… ego-consciousness ruined it by clinging to the experience. When inner and/or outer phenomena like this occurs, just exercise inner and outer subtle observation without helping or hindering anything while you let it go in the ordinary course of its arising. That is exactly how enlightening beings respond to everyday ordinary life-situations without anybody knowing the better. At least you got a good example how ordinary consciousness can ruin things~ no big deal though— it doesn't matter one bit. Otherwise, keep up the good work, Cory!

Hi Jonson~ Make sure that you are writing about what you know. If you know that, what isn't being said about what you know? If you know what you want to say about what you know in terms of how no one else is describing your subject, then just start writing and see how it starts to look. No need to make it interesting… unless it isn't— I wouldn't want to wear that hat! I sure hope this is a personal project… and good luck— try to scrounge up a mentor or attend a workshop in a big city near you.

LastThursday wrote: Exactly!! It is absolutely essential to the process. You have to know what you are knocking down. So it is important to build it as best you can in terms of referencing one's real experience at the expense of the personal identity— so one can learn as much as possible as the parts of the work-in-progress devolve in the face of an ever more revealed mystery of reality. To proceed further we then implement more and more universalistic elements into our constructs until we ultimately arrive at the selfless construct. Taoism calls this the homeland of nothing whatsoever. It is a real experience. When there is nothing left to break down, there has never been the person. This is arrival at the basis and one can go no further in terms of seeing one's absolute nature. Self-refinement is a long, gradual process. There are no shortcuts. We just work with what we have. Chop wood, carry water. No sweeping gestures. Even in the aftermath of illumination, there is only further gradual practice in terms of integrating or harmonizing enlightenment to conditions. This process is really a matter of integrating enlightenment into our very lives. This is the occupation of enlightening being. One's own mind right now is enlightenment already, but our weakness in terms of clarifying consciousness is long habituation to intellection and subsequent clinging to the conditioned personal psychological awareness in particular, whose very function is to facilitate ego's processes. This is all very well and good, except ego is the very seat of instability due to the liability it has taken on as the surreptitious phantom holder of one's identity. Why is ego axiomatically unstable? It is because there is no construct in terms of reality, but ego needs constructs to have a sense of relativity. The false self cannot exist but for "other". Again, that's a fundamental aspect of its function in terms of creation— it's a good thing, but ego has a problem in that it's not designed to be an absolute. To ego's credit, it can and will die trying— in fact (to quote Don Juan Matus) "ego is such a prick, it would rather kill itself…" Gautama buddha noted that ultimately, there is no knower and no liver of life. What is it then? It is mind itself. After a long long time of naturally whittling away the most subtle aspects of ignorance, there is a reversal of sorts, and the "true human with no status" resumes its proper place in the general scheme of things relative to the being that is going to die, and ego takes its proper place in service of one's inherent enlightening being. Actually, just this relationship IS the basis of authentic self-refining practice. As such, it doesn't depend on sudden enlightenment— as well it shouldn't. Why? One's own mind right now is already the basis of enlightenment. Truly, nothing is gained by complete perfect sudden illumination. As for… For some people meditation is an adequate temporary expedient, I suppose, although I must admit that I have never practiced formal meditation. Nothing beats real experience— there is no substitute. Effective conscious use of mental models for the purposes of clarifying consciousness is dependent on the person. It seems to be a viable method for you thus far, LastThursday~ Bravo! Absolutely. It is just due to the fact that awareness is itself spiritual and inconceivable~ it is our very nature. Mind itself is who we are and the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die comes with the territory of dimensional time, space and the utter mystery of creation. I say that the absolute, in strict terms, is no mystery at all— it isn't even nothing. Realizing that isn't accomplished by the individual— what arrives as illumination is what has no self whatsoever. Just this is awake without beginning. That just means that it is impossible for the self-reflective consciousness to effectively experience one's inconceivable nature. But it is possible, and necessary, for one to recognize and reliably access one's own innate non-psychologically aware nature in real-time as regularly and often as it appears; faintly at first, then progressing "grain by grain" (to use the taoist phrase describing the gradual gathering of the medicines comprising the so-called elixir of immortality) to arrive at full realization of the totality of the being that is going to die. Sudden illumination is one's innate aware potential seeing one's own innate unborn source for the first time. This potential is awake and uncreated. It is what has always been aglow. The selfless experience of innate affinity in terms of the uncreate is pure knowledge. ed note: add "there has never been the person" in 1st; typo 2nd; add last quote and its three paragraphs

hello LastThursday~ Unfortunately (and I apologize), my terse devolved into obtuse (as it is wont to do), but there is still the core response I derived from your OP. So I don't mean to be rude… In general, although I totally appreciate your thrust at clarification, I cannot leave well enough alone, in terms of the realm pervading the psychological standpoint— as enlightening activity is my main counterpoint to the reason for deriving analytical distintions of awareness in the first place. Especially as we may very well both be working beyond the comfort of a philosophical perspective (I know I am)!! Please continue, per your OP—and if you should find anything relevant to respond to in my post, so much the better!

hi mr Thursday~ I hope you don't mind a little certainty in my response~ it's so very important to make these observations such as you have and then further go on to consciously clarify their relativity to each other; Bravo!! I'll be terse-ish… Forget #4 It is just that you don't have a practical control over #3 that you can accept its flow as is. It is possible to develop a type of "control" over dreaming, but it is connected to non-psychological intent. It is not directly related to the thinking and talking mentality. Dreaming is not the same as ordinary dreams. #s 2 and 3 are both conscious awareness in terms of the psychologically biased human mentation. To the degree that waking consciousness is refined, its relative sanity shapes the coherence (or not) of ordinary dreams. General practice toward mental hygiene is critical and warrants a constant 24/7 intent in terms of impersonal nonjudgemental subtle observation. Just being present in this regard helps to keep the "riff-raff" at bay, so to speak, and that clarity of mentation has its beneficial influence. Furthermore, #2 is utterly and literally karmic existence, so I would regard #2 as categorically characteristic of "impermanence", but I understand your terminology because it is literally "what makes the world go round" and is sustaining its seeming solidity. That IS karma; the process that uses primal energy potential to fuel the course of created evolution in lieu of the Absolute. It can also be termed psychological momentum. I don't mean to imply that there is a choice. The Absolute is the same as karma; as such, both are subject to clinging by the human mentality. Just this is the dreamer and the dreamed. The aspect of potential looms over this scheme; it is possible to enter into it as a conscious relationship with unrefined potential inherently within, yet simultaneously not subject to, the laws of creation, karmic existence and eternity. That's what the term liberation denotes. It is not that one is liberated from anything. Liberation, in the buddhist sense, is the freedom of enlightening impersonal adaption to conditions by the fact of complete resonance with the uncreated spiritual potential inherent in situations themselves. That it is unrefined potential with which one is working (from within the contextual micro and macrocosmic aspects of karma), means that there is something as yet undisclosed, unconventional and non-psychological at play. Nobody knows, yet it is completely natural in terms of our inconceivable nature as human beings to facilitate impersonal adaption in the course of ordinary situations unbeknownst to anyone. The world of sensation (#1) seems like that because knowledge is immediate while psychological mechanisms are comparatively slow. I would typify #1 as acknowledgement of the impersonal phenomenal realm. Its immediacy belies the fact that it really is not out there. It is sensed as "impersonal" but not as "other", relative to the personal (ego) identity. "Otherness" relative to the self arises when objects are adhered by discriminatory consciousness, but once ego clings to any one such stimulus, and employs its discriminatory patterns of psychological bias, its projections become self-evident (literally). Any time this happens, #1 turns into #2, and can then fall into further psychological processes such as #3. What you say in regard to #1 in terms of NOW reflects your innate affinity with the property of your own mind before the first thought. NOW exists in terms of awareness, not phenomena. In other words, NOW is attributable to mind. Mind is not only the present, but presence itself. You could adjust your scheme to categorize #1 as immediate knowledge. It's what you know before the first thought, as knowledge (open awareness) is what immediacy/presence is. #1 as categorized in the OP, is really the only thing that isn't within the rubric of psychologically aware process (it is its cause), and as such it could occupy the hierarchy as #0 (as the psychological/non-psychological reference). I have to get cute here and suggest that it is literally potential potential at this point because ordinary people don't know the nature of reality and therefore don't have the power to work with potential directly— but it is necessary to make it clear that one's relationship with creation is up to oneself alone. We don't have to go along with the flow of karmic energy. So the karmic flow (incremental causality as is), is phenomenal experience before the first thought; it is neither real or illusion, in terms of the personality yet. Once mind is involved (with potential), the light of awareness can be followed to its source in each instance (or if buddha-consciousness is stabilized permanently in the individual one can be said to be streaming reality), or it can turn into the gravity of creation/karma (when keyed to objects), according to the habitual psychological patterning of the individual living the dream. Therefore its (reality's) potential energy is a karmically compelling personal liability to the degree the individual personal identity is habituated to its patterns of conditioned compulsions. Being free of compulsion is also indicative of liberation. The power of the dream is relative to the overarching aplomb of the thinker's thinking thoughts self-referencing the thinker. This is known as self-reification. Self-referrencing mentation is what makes and sustains endless rounds of birth and death; that is, karmic bondage, which is definitely not liberation.❤︎ ed note: typo, 3rd; add most of 6th; remove redundant "habituated" in penultimate paragraph

Orgasm isn't the same for femme as for the male. The male is vitally drained by ejaculation, not by orgasm— the two are totally different functions; as for femme, it is the monthly period which can be debilitating to say the least. For males, they must learn to de-couple the ejaculatory trigger from the onset of orgasm. Femme must learn to stop the menses when they are young enough to do so. For the older ones, there are different consideration to take into account. The last two lines are for those who are involved in advanced taoist grafting practices.

In terms of the impersonal absolute, of course buddha isn't capitalized— so Nahm's distinction qualifies its possibilities in contextual usage. The OP is indicative of the author's true wonder into the nature of perception to the point where it is realized that awareness is such that it is possible for people to "discover" its properties— how wonderful! Taoism refers to peoples' unified awake nature as "the real human without status", and "Buddhas" are referred to as "real humans". So even in taoism, the absolute nature of the awake one is personified as a matter of implication due to its intrinsic aspect of phenomenal humanity. The word "one" is indicative of universality, or unity, in terms of the absolute nature of awareness; "one" is not referencing a person in the context that Nahm has pointed out— a lot of people aren't aware of that, so that is an important distinction by Nahm. When it is capitalized (independent of religious emphasis), it refers to the usual (relatively recent historical) suspect— and it is a proper name. Otherwise, the reference indicates inherent buddha nature in terms of the absolute nature of humanity— and that includes everyone right now. All people are potential buddhas already, only we use our complete perfect aware qualities to perpetuate the false psychological identity by using things to gratify the personality, instead of seeing reality impersonally, which then enables us to skillfully use ego-consciousness to adapt to conditions according to the time. Enlightening activity such as this doesn't depend on sudden illumination or rote meditation exercises. It is necessary for each individual to see this and know this personally to enter the path of authentic 24/7 practice that doesn't depend on formal meditation schemes. Those who take the forward step without psychological bias or projections and can truly share themselves with the world are actually clarifying their own potential buddhahood without entertaining anticipation or conceptualization. ed note: add last part of 4th paragraph

How Did Buddha DIscover Meditation? The historical buddha to whom you are referring is just known as such; there are reasons, but they are all circumstantial. They don't matter. Meditation is older than sin. No one "discovered" meditation— it is mind itself right now before the first thought. Due to habit energy, people find it difficult to just rest here. It is your own mind right now not being used to reify the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die. The mind's non-psychological capacity is the door to all wonders. Self-reification is bondage to endless cycles of illusion. The awake aware mind before the first thought is the pinnacle of remedial techniques aimed at clarifying open sincerity without bias. "He is just passing time honestly" is aiming at clarifying open sincerity without bias. This is true practice passing through all activities, conditions and situations unbeknownst to anyone. I recommend this kind of research above all others. Ultimately, this kind of research transcends time and creation. Taoism calls this "resting in the highest good". It is the "pivot of awareness". Buddhism didn't invent enlightenment. The Tao isn't taoist. It's your own mind right now before the first thought.

That's like saying, "I'm going to come back anyway.", in terms of future lifetimes, so why worry about fill in blank here. That kind of understanding is extremely shallow (not saying you are!!), in terms of intellectualism. It has ZERO power. You actually have a personal death. When you die, you will meet your death. I can assure you that at this point in your life, your death has about ZERO regard for your investment in your final instant on earth with your death. Who you are, in terms of the being who is going to die, is NOT at all what you think. Intellectualism is powerless in the face of the cosmos. I suggest ten or twenty years of in-depth self-examination and self-refinement. Your perspetive will be changed inconceivably. But people must come to the conclusion that they have no time— and then apply themselves tirelessly.

I feel that it is important for one to be known in one's chosen (or at least targeted) field for a specificity of application— and if that specificity lends itself to a multiplicity of applications, then so much the better. I was coached at the beginning of my film career to not be known as a Jack-of-all-trades, and it served me well. As I see Leo's suggestion, I would say that no one in my professional film career knew I had a parallel track in professional alpinism. Now that I no longer have any responsibilities in motion-picture photography, I have not lost anything per my continuing passion and service in mountain-guiding. It may be advantageous in the long-run to be discreet about how wide-ranging your skill-set is. It's like copyright. Only sell what the market really needs at any given time. Otherwise, you may spread yourself thin and sell yourself short.

It's great to map out our ever-deeperning understanding like this Preetom!

A good point to consider in regard to Faceless' post is taking into account the fact that there is a degree of subtlety in terms of one's followthrough. I loved your whole process~ excellent, really. At a certain critical juncture, it is then necessary to suspend further considerations and let it lie void of intellectualism. The amazing thing is that your attention continues to work non-psychologically if given the opportunity to do so in unfathomable ways. It's really up to potential itself— but it's up to the person to recognize it in the first place. In Buddhist terms, there is "stopping and seeing" or concentration and insight. Concentration produces insight, but further concentration destroys insight. In the taoist analogy, there is always the point where (if one goes far enough) one should "withdraw the fire", in alchemic terms. Potential can be seen to have a life of its own if we are able to sense its operative characteristics, so this is a valuable point that can provide further insight into in everyday situations as well.

hi Flow❤︎ …I'll see where this goes~ Not bad, but let's take this a little further back to its non-originated aspect of unity, which you are referring to as "oneness". There is no "one". By direct experience, it is possible to arrive at this extreme of limits in terms of the limitless. There is no thing. This is the basis of discussion. There is no "they", "it", nor is there a single reason or hope of meaning. What people can experience in this vein is as far as anyone has ever gone in the psychic history of humankind. Human awareness has never "evolved" because it has never entered into the sphere of Creation. Non-originated, as such, there is no change, no being. The quality of the unborn aware human nature is awake. Just this is Unity. There is no other. Certainly, there is that which is beyond the ultimate, beyond the unknowable, but that which is accessible in terms of realization beyond the person, beyond selfhood, is awareness itself— and this alone is to be acknowledged as the true self, which is void of self, uncreated, as is, unified selfless intent. Unity is awareness yet there is no thing, no image, no beginning. Awareness is empty, emptiness is itself void of voidness. That's not a cute word-game, it's a description of Reality. In other words, nothing doesn't exist either. The Absolute doesn't exist "in" a void. It's an inconceivability. Let's move on. Selfless unified intent is your nature— that's one's ineffable nature wondering about the ineffable. When you get to the ineffable source, there is no wonderer, so there is no wondering~ there's just selfless unified intent (it's not yours). Is that wonderful? Not yet. There is a point of illumination on the verge of going into action in perpetuity. This point, being your nature (which is not yours), has never moved. That's why illumination, the "light", is not created. When it does move, that's creation, that's karma, that's eternity, that's the "one" you speak of. When does it move? All at once, because that's the nature of the absolute. Absolute= unified; all at once. Created= incremental; process. The absolute and creation are not different. They are the same thing. Inasmuch as there is no thing, this is an inconceivability that one realizes as one's own nature. Therefore, people are able to enter this inconceivability to carry out enlightening activity in response to conditions without extending or relying on their own personal power. They use the potential that is inherent in every created situational cycle, because enlightening being is unified in terms of being the expression of the absolute essence of conditional energy comprising creational karmic evolution. In spite of the fact that the Absolute has never moved, it's moving right now because we're all individually this point of illumination all at once. But by the activation of your non-originated intent, it is possible to return to your inconceivable source of illumination, and see it for yourself as itself. It's you, you are not it. Knowledge of the Real is precisely where you are right now whether you know it or not. So Flow's intuitional OP into the inconceivable "logic" of reality is indicative of how close we are to seeing reality, not only in the absolute sense, but also (and more importantly) in terms of adapting the logic or "celestial mechanism" in taoist terms, to everyday ordinary situations. The manufactured illusion of being (separate ego identifications) is not manufactured "out there". It is possible for people to see reality in the midst of everyday ordinary situations. Those who see reality do not see illusions, therefore nothing whatsoever is manufactured. It is the person who manufactures illusion. As for projecting the manufacturer onto the non-originated basis, this is the myth of god-the-creator. Awareness is not created, so there is no such creator other than as a psychic point of reference when passing through the veil between ego-referencing consciousness and enlightening being when one realizes and accepts one's enlightening function. Jesus said he is the light because all people are none other that just this true light of awareness. Ordinary people follow the light of creation and are therefore bound by its laws of karma. Enlightening beings "turn the light around" and follow the same light to its source by accepting their innate enlightening function beyond good, bad, self, other, right, wrong. Please avoid the tendency to rationalize the aspect of "the light" in linear terms. It's an inconceivability, but it's natural. The Absolute is not the mystery. The absolute is unknowable. The mystery is Creation. People can enter into its mystery as enlightening beings by seeing things as true potential and not as things to use to gratify the false self. I have addressed the point of the OP's thesis in the first sentence. As for the OP's second sentence in the quote, that whole aspect (which Flow intuited uncannily) gets into the "take-over of creation" elucidated in taoist immortalism or spiritual alchemy. That is in itself the work of enlightening activity in the midst of everyday ordinary situations where one awaits a created cycle's innate "killing energy" to arise per the situation's timing, whereby one the steals its potential. That's about as far as I'll go with this for now. ed note: add "(it's not yours)" in 7th; add "inasmuch as" in 10th; add 15th; add 16th paragraphs

hi Pernani, I hope very much that you might be able to appreciate my wonder and astonishment. I have never practiced formal meditated in my life, so… would you, or could you please describe the point the various and innumerable techniques are designed to penetrate? What isn't "working" about them? What aren't you accomplishing in spite of your efforts? I hope you will help me understand what it is, specifically, about technique, that is preventing the attention from accomplishing its aim!

Nice response, Prabhaker— that'll make a good impression, but males' bodies aren't any less sexually resplendent that the femme's. Maybe Osho needs some special attention from a professional… heehehee❤︎!!

My first thought for a response to the OP was to say that it spontaneously purifies the chakras all the way up and through the crown. That's how it happened to me (while playing guitar in a group situation~ hahaha!!) Nobody was the wiser and I never told anyone. Monkey-man said it simply and to the point without leaving anything out.

I really loved highest's response. I sense the OP as sober inquiry, but its premise is void of practicality in terms of any viable application within the querent's comprehension, in terms of the many apt responses Alrya received. Obviously, and in Alrya's case, any powerful response by the knowledgeable is beyond the ken of mere intellect— which must be surpassed. Alrya, please don't be recalcitrant (and in your case, picky), just to entertain a very closed intellectual (ego) paradigm. Death, indeed. Evidently you've never known you really ought to duck NOW to avoid a bullet. I'm afraid you are asking the wrong question— you want to know what fearing for your life is, SO YOU CAN BE PRESENT. Presence is a real knowledge you ought to aspire to. Presence is itself streaming transcendent practical experience, such that it makes an instance of sudden enlightenment a needless redundancy. If you want to get past a fear for your life by first having to avoid cheap-shots to vital (or otherwise) body parts being thrown at you by an intent other than yours, strive to have a life worth losing— and don't be cheap with death, because (while you're alive) it is truly your closest advisor. Get to know your death, and ask your own personal death these same important questions! As for your reformulated questions: One, DEATH HAS NO MEANING. Two, Death's influence on your typical day is up to you. Finally, until you yourself personally know what the limit of human existence is (by virtue of sudden illumination), your last question is meaningless. ed note: add "and" in 3rd; typo, 7th paragraph

Although I alluded to the meditative aspect of being in a certain psychic zone when subjecting oneself to certain types of concentration while carrying out tasks, it would be a huge mistake on my part to suggest that working conditions conducive to "zoning out" are de rigueur, or even remotely helpful for one who is on a path of virtuous self-refinement. I used to work 16 hours a day often and regularly on set next to the cameras~ what's the biG deal? I really liked what Girzo said about "no hope"! Hahhahaa! that is exactly the kind of situational environment that will give any self-refinement practice a huge kick in the ass!!