(I) Protection: Be patient with any obstacles and »judge not about it« . Just go your way.
 
(II) Introduction: Compare the words from the very beginning with your own direct experience. If you only read the text and think about the content, it sounds like philosophy and you understand nothing. The content reveals itself from the immediate methodological enactment. You have to »implement« the existing tasks before you can actually verify or falsify represented content. This is meant when it is said that you must »compare the words from the very beginning with your own direct experience«.

 
Task: Do nothing. Implement this task for a while, before you read further.

There are two different ways to implement this task:

  • You »practice« doing nothing. This is synonymous to »conceptual reification«.
  • You do nothing. This is synonymous to »primordial unfabricated looseness«.

Internalize: To »practice« doing nothing is not doing nothing. The task is involuntarily »practiced« instead of actually implemented. This is tantamount to »grasping« resp. »conceptual reification«.

Solution: Do nothing. Implement this task for a while. If you catch yourself thereby »practicing« doing nothing instead of doing nothing, you recognize how an »doing nothing« is permeating the contrived experience due to your »practiced implementation«. Such a reified-identified »subjectivity« can swell to enormous and very subtle states of consciousness. So, whenever you catch yourself »practicing« doing nothing instead of doing nothing, interrupt this detected »meditation« and do nothing. Did you recognize the difference between your fabrication and the actual task? Great. If you are naturally able to implement the task »de facto« instead of practicing resp. conceptually reify it again, this is already synonymous to »primordial unfabricated looseness«. Since »primordial looseness« is completely unfabricated, there is immediate-obvious no need to practice resp. conceptually reify the task again.

 
Task: Act normal. Implement this task for a while, before you read further.

There are two different ways to implement this task:

  • You »practice« acting normal. This is synonymous to »conceptual reification«.
  • You act normal. This is synonymous to »primordial unfabricated looseness«.

Internalize: To »practice« acting normal is not acting normal. The task is involuntarily »practiced« instead of actually implemented. This is tantamount to »grasping« resp. »conceptual reification«.

Solution: Act normal. Implement this task for a while. If you catch yourself thereby »practicing« acting normal instead of acting normal, you recognize how an »acting normal« is permeating the contrived experience due to your »practiced implementation«. Such a reified-identified »subjectivity« can swell to enormous and very subtle states of consciousness. So, whenever you catch yourself »practicing« acting normal instead of acting normal, interrupt this detected »meditation« and act normal. Did you recognize the difference between your fabrication and the actual task? Great. If you are naturally able to implement the task »de facto« instead of practicing resp. conceptually reify it again, this is already synonymous to »primordial unfabricated looseness«. Since »primordial looseness« is completely unfabricated, there is immediate-obvious no need to practice resp. conceptually reify the task again.

 
Consequently, every actually implemented task is equivalent to any other actually implemented task. Other potential implementations to internalize → implement → recognice → interrupt → implement:

Task: Don’t use your consciousness. Task: Don’t try to perceive anything.
Task: Leave everything as it is. Task: Don’t focus on anything.
Task: Simply sit and do nothing. Task: Simply look at the room.

 
 
(III) Note: To »practice« acting normal is not acting normal. This is evident. The task is involuntarily »practiced« instead of actually implemented. This is synonymous to »grasping« and prevents any »actual implementation«. To »practice« acting normal is »an« acting normal, instead of the actual task that needs to be implemented. Because consciousness is »already« the direct expression of conceptual reification, you’re constructing involuntarily a »thing« out of the actual task. This is like if one had no name and you would call him »no name«. In this case, the »practiced implementation« is a »conceptual reification« of the actual task and a representational »acting normal« respectively thinglike »acting normal‘nes« permeates the experience. Such artificial »subjectivity« can evolve to enormous and very subtle states of consciousness. Due this greedy »reified-identified« subjectivity one »want to get something very specific« from the task and this brings us directly back to the start.

Consequently, »practiced implementation« is contrived, »actual implementation« is uncontrived. Consequently, »practiced implementation« is fabricated, »actual implementation« is unfabricated. Consequently, »practiced implementation« is just seemingly, »actual implementation« is actually. Consequently, »practiced implementation« is only intended, »actual implementation« is actually. Consequently, »practiced implementation« is »subjectively«, »actual implementation« is actually. Consequently, »practiced implementation« is thinglike, »actual implementation« is »transparent«.
 
(IV) Mnemonic: Every »actual implementation« is primordial-unfabricated respectively primordial-uncontrived. But don’t think in consequence, »..so there is nothing to do« or »..so I behave myself completely natural« or »..so I simply sit and drink my tea« or »..so I’m already liberated« or »..so I stop trying to meditate«. This is just »thinking about« resp. just speculation from the standpoint of ignorance. The tasks must be »implemented« and there are only two ways to implement them: as unfabricated fact or fabricated practice; actually or seemingly. Based on a complete understanding of the difference between the actual and the seemingly, the process of »conceptual reification» can be stopped resp. interrupted. This »can be« the beginning of »primordial unfabricated looseness».
 
(V) Pointing out transparency: Since primordial looseness is completely unfabricated, the reified concept of an origin or subject or object »does not matter«. It is like you have finished hard work. There is immediate-obvious no need for a moreover and immediate-obvious no need to meditate on something. All this »does not matter«. The phrase »it does not matter« is to be construed as immediate-obvious »knowledge«. It is neither the product of an special thought or insight, nor is it dependent on an special thought or insight, because obvious »knowledge« is an immediate »fact«, primordial inseparable from appearance; so »vision« respectively »form« is »like« a vivid reflection. This »primordial inseperable expression« is called »transparency«. Just leave it »de facto« as it is.
 
(VI) Decision: But how transparency is uncovered stable? That should keep one occupied for quite a while, because transparency is completely unfabricated. So »stability can’t be practiced« . But even if transparency seems to be obscured again, the fact that stability can’t be practiced is now known. This is called »path-knowledge« . So one have to make a strong »decision« and the fruit is relative stability. This can take years and decades. If transparency is relative stable, »potentiality« begins to unfold and this is the beginning of the »grand finale« .
 
(VII) Grand Finale: Without the grand finale, everything is just like dry-run. Why? If knowledge is immediate-obvious, everything appears as transparent primordial-inseperable expression of knowledge, but it doesn’t appear in that way »exactly« . There’s a gap. It behaves like in this metaphor: If you put a straw in a glas of water, he appears broken, even if you know that the straw isn’t broken. Everything seems to be covered by a thin film of ignorance. What’s “everything“? Look around. That’s »solid vision« , based on ignorance. True stability without the grand finale is not possible, because the thin ignorance-layer of solid vision always creates confusion.

Because of the unfolding potentiality of transparency, the gap must be closed and will be closed naturally, if transparency is relative stable. The thin-film of ignorance will be scraped off trough immediately obvious unfolding »exact vision« like evolving lights, rays, sounds and thigles. They are called »exact vision«, because they are an exact primordial-inseperable expression of knowledge. Remember the straw metaphor; there’s no gap anymore. Note: Exact vision appears and develop as stability develops; the two go together. If exact vision unfolds, it is mixed with solid vision. This washes the thin-film of ignorance away. At the end of this process there’s just exact vision, including your body. This can be the end of life and death. But it’s impossible to understand any of this just trough consciousness. That is why you should start with the introductions. Don’t waste your time.

 
(VIII) Excursus: Self-deception

Some people »practice« detachment and believe in a row, they were actually »detached«. But this has obviously nothing to do with the fact that they are actually detached, otherwise they would not have to practice that. Some people »practice« mindfullness and beliefe in a row, they were actually »mindfull«. But this has obviously nothing to do with the fact that they are actually mindfull, otherwise they would not have to practice that. Some people »practice« equanimity and beliefe in a row, they were actually »equanimous«. But this has obviously nothing to do with the fact that they are actually equanimous, otherwise they would not have to practice that. From the beginning, each meditation resp. »practiced implementation« and it’s effects should be seen as a contrived product and mere speculation. If you are angry, you’re still angry even if you practice serenity. If you are greedy, you’re still greedy even if you practice humility. Tear the root of the problem directly from the soil of solidity.
 
(IX) Excursus: Shackles

This approach is not about artificial states of consciousness, in which »a subject« disappears. The emphasis is on »a«. This idea, as well as the complementary state of consciousness, is already the mistaken basic assumption respectively conceptual reification of a truly »existent« subject – which disappears in a row and no longer »exists«. This is nihilism based on eternalism. What actually ends are such conceptual reifications; thus no greedy »‘nes« appears more far and wide.
 
(X) Excursus: Change

»Change« must take place by itself, based on actual insight. So that life and its setbacks is meant. Change on the basis of »meditation« and therefore speculation as suggestion, is just a trance-like product of imagination. This self-deception has often disastrous consequences. Some people see in this view may be a risk, because then it would ultimately futile to try to change someone. In the context of transparency and thus a broader perspective, actually any change based on ignorance is finally pointless waste of strength. This is certainly more difficult to cope with, but somehow the so-appearing cycle of life and death must go on. It’s not about change, but »actual implementation«.
 
(XI) Excursus: Doctrines

Do nothing. Leave everything as it is. Act normal. Simply sit. Simply rest. Look at the sky. Be aware. Don’t focus. Leave your consciousness alone. These are all tasks that need to be »implemented« actually, which would be equivalent to »knowledge«. From each of these tasks you can potentially build an own doctrine and tradition. If such tasks are conceptually reified and therefore »practiced«, then this is only consistent. But every actually implemented task is equivalent to any other actually implemented task. Consequently, sectarian content and the associated spectacle doesn’t matter.
 
(XII) Excursus: Ultramundanity

Expressions such as »actual implementation« and »practiced implementation« are used in this context quite exclusively in the methodological sense and thus quite »natural«. It’s not about »two truths«. This »artificial interpretation« is the still existing underlying »greed« for specific states of consciousness. According to this interpretation, the »actual implementation« must be something »ultimate«. Who interprets »knowledge« as »ultimate result«, has never »actually implemented«.

»Change« must take place by itself, based on actual insight. So that life and its setbacks is meant. Change on the basis of »meditation« and therefore speculation as suggestion, is just a trance-like product of imagination. This self-deception has often disastrous consequences. Some people see in this view may be a risk, because then it would ultimately futile to try to change someone. In the context of transparency and thus a broader perspective, actually any change based on ignorance is finally pointless waste of strength. This is certainly more difficult to cope with, but somehow the so-appearing cycle of life and death must go on. It’s not about change, but »actual implementation«.

This approach is not about artificial states of consciousness, in which »a subject« disappears. The emphasis is on »a«. This idea, as well as the complementary state of consciousness, is already the mistaken basic assumption respectively conceptual reification of a truly »existent« subject – which disappears in a row and no longer »exists«. This is nihilism based on eternalism. What actually ends are such conceptual reifications; thus no greedy »‘nes« appears more far and wide.

Some people »practice« detachment and believe in a row, they were actually »detached«. But this has obviously nothing to do with the fact that they are actually detached, otherwise they would not have to practice that. Some people »practice« mindfullness and beliefe in a row, they were actually »mindfull«. But this has obviously nothing to do with the fact that they are actually mindfull, otherwise they would not have to practice that. Some people »practice« equanimity and beliefe in a row, they were actually »equanimous«. But this has obviously nothing to do with the fact that they are actually equanimous, otherwise they would not have to practice that. From the beginning, each meditation resp. »practiced implementation« and it’s effects should be seen as a contrived product and mere speculation. If you are angry, you’re still angry even if you practice serenity. If you are greedy, you’re still greedy even if you practice humility. Tear the root of the problem directly from the soil of solidity.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.