Q&A with Andrew (formally Virtual Hangout) #69 - Nov 18, 2021

8:43PM Nov 18, 2021

Speakers:

Andrew Holecek

Alyssa

Keywords:

question

talking

turning

called

nature

reality

meditation

lucid dreams

projection

people

deconstruct

practice

experience

exist

create

relate

riffing

techniques

languaging

fact

Call this hello everybody. Oh, it's so nice to see all my friends. These are the only friends I have. So welcome everybody. So this is our bimonthly Thursday. gatherings where we started this. Back when COVID started, Lord long time ago It's amazing COVID hasn't stopped it so what we do I love these events because I don't really have to prepare anything. I just show up. I usually have a few comments and I will read one little thing often. I will share with you just a little bit of like, what was I working on this morning? And then what I do is I just I just take questions, which is great and there are a number of really good questions that came in as usual. And also for those of you who are showing up live obviously, the opportunity to ask live questions, which is always better for me. Because that way I can just pulling up a link here. I can interact with you and get some clarification because sometimes these types of questions are a little bit they're either opaque or they're just not entirely clear to me. So I will start with a couple that were piped in and then we can wrap it up and talk about whatever you want. But I did want to share a couple things. I asked the listener to put two links and one is of the my last event of the year. We got so I think I mentioned this last time I'm not sure we got a couple more rooms for the panel Del Mar Silent Retreat. It was amazing location in Mexico the first retreat sold out but this one has a little bit of room. You least have to check out the site. It's amazing. The second thing I wanted to share with you and I just got this information like an hour ago is I asked her to post a link for a conference that I was invited to with my friend Robert Thurman, some of you may know him. I've had the great privilege of doing three substantive programs with him over the last year and a half. We've done like 18 days of teaching together. He's amazing. This guy's truly amazing. And we have more stuff lined up for this year, including a possible live event. It is a memory retreat in the autumn of next year. We'll see. But the link is to a conference that I've been invited to present that you should just check out the lineup there. It's like Holy moly. I mean, there's some Eben Alexander Deepak Chopra, Minja. Remember che Frank has to Teskey Bob, of course, Joan Halifax. I mean, there's some amazing people there. And so just today what I want to share with you is I have to submit my riff I'm going to be doing two presentations with them one Tibetan approach perspective on these of death and then a panel with with the shaman PhD, Shaman guy and then I forget who the other person is. So anyway, this is what I wrote this morning. This is just what I'm going to be riffing on. I literally just sent it off to them. This is what my top my top pick is going to be. So the death of death Tibetan views on the ultimate journey. From the Tibetan perspective, death is an illusion, right? You've heard me riff on this for those of you who don't buy stuff, the path to immortality is the discover that which cannot die because it was never born. So I always talk about this right? You can really discover that aspect of you being below the superficial dimensions. That if you can become familiar with identify with stabilize this thing called death has no meaning that only applies in the world of form. So that's really the goal to discover that which cannot die because it was never more that was actually transcends or substance, space and time form all together. Armed with the right view, death provides us with a once in a lifetime opportunity to realize the truth of our nature. We then have nothing to fear and everything to look forward to. This presentation will explore what does and what continues and where we go after we die. Learn how aging is a preliminary practice for death. Dreams can help us prepare and how meditation is death in slow motion. Our fear of death is the secondary and authentic fear. What are we really afraid of? Find out why the Tibetan approach to death is one of the greatest gifts to humanity. And how studying and practicing death ironically brings us more fully into life. What do you think? If you read that, would you come to this talk? So I would I would talk more about it now but then you wouldn't come to the talk and in February. So anyway, I just I literally just wrote this in the last hour. And do check out the link. There's some amazing people coming up.

But I want to go right to these questions because there were some rich ones here. And then also you can when you ask a question here, the way to do it if you want to is you can go to the reactions bar at the bottom, click on that your hand goes up. And then Alyssa will unmute you and we can talk. You can also submit a question if you want in the chat column. You just go to the bottom where says chat, you can write something in there and she'll either read it for me or I'll read it myself but I wanted to address after pull it up here a couple of these that came in that were really pretty solid.

Okay, where are they? Okay so

both of these are pretty good. So this for the first one is from Richard and I'll read the question and then I'll run with it a little bit. Does the reality I create illusions have have any substance to it? What is the nature of that? Substance? What is the nature of other people before my illusion of them is created by chocolate because oh lordy. This is just a colossal question. Right. I mean, this is a question that philosophers for 1000s of years have dealt with from Plato to to Immanuel Kant. I mean this is this has just been such a great question, even to this day with cognitive scientists, perceptual scientists, and mystics and contemplatives. It's just a monumental question. So let me just say because there's so much to say so does the reality I create illusions of if any substance to it? No. It doesn't. It's called in Buddhist language is called and this is worth throwing into the mix. So the Buddhist so I will pick a little bit from the Buddhist framework, and then show you how it relates to philosophy and also to cognitive neuroscience because, again, this is just such a great big topic. The reality that you create is what's called Power carpeta. So in in what's called the yogacharya tradition, this is a very nuanced and wonderful, powerful tradition there. They have they talk about what I call the three nature's there's the ultimate nature, which is called Potter nirvana. There's the dependent nature, which is called para Tantra. And then there's the imaginary nature which is called Particle plateau. And so you're talking about current party competent, which has no substance to it whatsoever outside of the same substance that you can attribute to your imaginations. There is no substance to that. That's why it's called imaginary nature. But what becomes really interesting here you is what what actually is out there. And what is my relationship to it? And so the way that Buddhists talk about this, it's really interesting that the there's so many ways to talk about this, this three nature doctrine, because here this connects to your thing. What is the nature of other people before my illusion of them it's created? Well, the nature of other people before your Lucian is created is what's called the dependent nature dependently arisen mere appearance. This is this vast, you know, nexus of causes. And conditions that gives gives rise to a phenomenal display. There by the way, you have no direct access to with your traditional ways of knowing. And so what is the nature of other people before my illusion of that was created? Well, that's called the dependent nature and this is something that you actually cannot know with your conceptual mind and I'm going to give you a little bit of philosophical and scientific backing on this one, but for our purposes is the way it relates to the to the three nature's that's perhaps maybe the take home message here is that there is some thing out there. But everything here is in quotation if not a thing, and it's not out there. So that's what you have for starters, it's not a thing, and it's not out there. What is actually there. Tourism philosophers talk about this is relational reality, very interesting confluence of terms the dependent nature is the same as a relational reality. You cannot really know what that is from a cognitive, intellectual point of view. It's completely unknowable.

What we know when we perceive things as what philosophers called the phenomena of reality, so when you turn to perceive a person or a thing, you actually enact the phenomenal reality. So when there's this whole notion of you create your own reality, this is what you create. This is your imaginary imputation upon the dependent nature, that extracts your version of what you think is out there. And so the way this ties into the three natures is that the dependent nature, you can almost think of it like a like a pivot. The dependent nature of the independent nature is at the bottom of the V. And this is what makes us so applicable to what we're doing with the whole spiritual business is that there is something out there that it's not the world is not solipsistic, you don't make it up. There is something it's just out there. It's not out there. It's not a thing. What that thing is, is not too easy to describe the Buddhists talk about it in terms of emptiness, luminosity, depending on the tradition, they refer to it different ways. And so that is the substance. You could say, well, level is the substance of light. That is not to say it's that physical light. It's the light of mind, but the way it relates to us it's important is that there is something out there quote unquote, and depending on how you relate to it is everything. So if you relate to a purely if you relate to it without appropriation to self without reference without contracting without the imputation of the phenomenal sense, then in a certain sense, you can say provisionally that it leans or you tippet into the party and respond to the two nature. So if you see the dependent nature properly, you're seeing the awakened state, you're seeing what's actually there, but that again cannot be known in a traditional way can only be known in a Gnostic way. And what the Jewish tradition called The Art da apostrophe at the intimate type of knowing when the biblical and other traditions talk about how Adam knew Eve. He knew her in this deep Gnostic way. So if you relate to the power of tantra in that way, then that's the awakened state part in our spot. We don't do that we refer to self we impute we project, we do all our versions of it. That tips it into the imaginary nature, which is the phenomenal sense that's the way we know the world. So we don't really ever know the world purely at all until we engage in really deep purifying contemplative practices, meditation practices, that strip away all these other false ways of looking at it to reveal what's actually there. So oh my gosh, there's so much to say here, Richard. If you're on and want to ping this in a particular direction, that might be the best thing to do just because this topic is so colossal. So does the reality just repeat as a reality? I create illusions of any substance to it? No. That's why it's called the imaginary nature and has no substance. So what is the nature of that substance? Nothing. It's imaginary, completely empty of anything but your own conceptual imputation. So it has as much substance as your vacuous thoughts have. What is the nature of other people before my illusion of them? Well, again, that's the dependent nature that's relational reality. And that is something that can actually not be known again, cognitively. But it can be known intimately, you'll get direct valid connection, the nature of that, again, depending on the school, they'll have different answers to it. But fundamentally, that in the deepest description is really light frozen lights. That substance the nature of other people before my illusion of them is created is basically the nature of light. And so because this thing is so bloody big, I'm going to let it go for now unless Richard is there and wants to have some dialogue about

it. He is I can

step forward, my friend, if you want.

There we go. Yes, thank you.

From the perspective of quantum physics, what their

role is in light, it depends on who you talk to. So here's here's

Oh, lord.

Yeah, yeah, let me say a couple things here. Why do you feel we need to capitulate to the high priests of quantum physics? For one thing, I would challenge they're legit supremacy to with their description. They would vary depending on again, depending on which school of quantum physics you're talking about the Copenhagen interpretation, the many worlds interpretation, the cubism approach. So when you talk about QM, which which school of QM are you talking about? So there isn't one particular version I, I have the most resonance with David volt bones version of the implicant order that what he talks about really, and this is what I was somewhat intimating earlier, is reality is really the nature of light frozen light, and what that light is again, this is a colossally subtle, difficult topic, but I like it because it does connect deeply to the wisdom traditions. So Richard really depends even within QM This is why they're like, you know, what, a dozen different interpretations of quantum mechanics. It depends on which one you abide by. So I there's no easy answer. Here on my phone. But one thing that that I really want to emphasize here, and this is where the work of the physicist to actually ties in to the work of the cognitive neuroscientists, is that whatever is there doesn't really appear to you until the moment you actually look at it and acted in and actually perceive it. So again, because it's just so bloody big. Unless you want to go specifically. More with this, my friend, I'm not quite sure where to take it. So yeah, I'm just fighting a little bit because it's just again, it's just one of these terrific, really big questions. So I'll pause for a sec.

Roselli a

couple of times. Rovelli, Carlo, right. Yeah. So from that perspective, okay, so there you go. So when if you talk about Carlo revalues work, theoretical physicist, what's out there is nothing but relationship. Literally that nothing exists outside of interactions. There is no thing out there irrespective of your relationship to it. So from his interpretation of quantum mechanics, the only thing that exists is relationships, relationships, to what relationships to other relationships, there is no thing out there outside of its interaction with other things. And so therefore, you get this infinite Hall of Mirrors looking at each other, where nothing exists independently of every other thing. And this is fantastic because this is completely resonant with Buddhist descriptions of reality, which is why we're belly. In his most recent book, Helgoland devotes a section of his complete infatuation with Nagarjuna the king of emptiness he talks about exactly the same thing that Revelli is now saying, quantum physics talks about so from Carlos point of view, which I also have here, a completed view of it, the only thing thing that exists and again, it's not a thing, right? What is relationship? It's not a thing. This is another way to talk about emptiness. So you can say what is it that exist at this level, emptiness? And when he's not the only one, there are other physicists to say that the only thing that really exists is emptiness. And so I'm not sure that's certainly helpful, my friend, but these are really helpful. Topics to deeply, deeply explore because they will take you fundamentally into the nature of reality, which is what we're after, in at least the spiritual business trying to determine what's actually there. Think something like that, my friend, great question. I wish there was a pet easy answer, but there isn't. That's why even from a business point of view, scientists in the quantum field had been debating this for well over 100 years. And that's why there's like 10 different interpretations of quantum physics because nobody really knows what is the definitive one, nobody knows. Strings. That's the other thing. string string theory. What's out there? Well, vibration strings, right. Okay, let's get rid of that one. I was gonna give me a headache. Okay, from Tim. I'm really trying to increase my lucid dreaming frequency and longevity with some very limited success. I think I recall you saying in the past, at some point you were having lucid dreams almost every night. Yeah. When I was in my long retreat true. And then you were able to have them up to an hour so yes, I wouldn't say every single night but you know, when I'm doing this day after day after day, month after month, this stuff starts to click. And so yes, in the confines of my long intensive retreat, this was a really constant experience for me. Is your memory correct on this more or less? I wouldn't say they were an hour every night. Definitely not. But having them every night. Absolutely. Again, something unusual, Steven, the bearish when he was writing his PhD, because he was just soaking this material, he was having lucid dreams constantly. So not that uncommon, if you put that amount of energy into it. If so, can you please share a bit again, how you think you got to this, got this to occur? I am currently at an average of about two to four lucid dreams per month. That's awesome. Tim, that's way above average. And they seem to last about one to four minutes. Okay, that's actually high five. That's great. I feel that if I could have more and get them to last longer, I could do so much more with them. Absolutely. So true. If you have any new thoughts, you could just add a new thoughts here, my friend fairly new thoughts or could just say more about this would appreciate it. It's very inspiring and motivating just to hear what you've been able to accomplish in this regard. Well, thanks for sharing that because I'm usually quite reserved about blah blah blah being the sort of thing. So in short term, I wish I had better news. It's like you get out of it, what you put into it. And so like with Steven or me or others, I was having dreams pretty constantly like this as a Steven because I was living and breathing stuff. I mean like all the time. And so for people who don't want to develop that type of energy, and that's completely understandable, then the best we can do is really kind of like what you're doing. You just You just continue and the most important thing, Tim in my experience is just really meditate. Meditate, meditate. Meditate. Meditation is the practice of lucidity. The more you meditate, the more you're going to have lucid dreams. So your your comment, I probably get about 10 emails a week like this, and is completely warranted. Lucid dreaming is not easy. Dream Yoga is not easy. This is why I write in such a broad spectrum way like why it's so difficult.

If we understand all the factors that go conspire to bring about that lucidly analysis at then we appreciate why we're now lucid mostly because we practice we practice non lucidity all the time. Every time you capitulate to distraction, which is like how many 1000 times a day you're practicing non lucidity. So we're not lucid at night because we're not listening to that during the day. That's it. No magic pure physics pure karma causality and in that regard, the single best thing you could do is more meditation practice. Really, I'm not kidding. And then just constancy just keep going at it. The single number one biggest issue by a factor of about 100 to one is discouragement. People just say I can't do it. It's too difficult. And it's true. It is difficult because it's so subtle, because it goes so against the grain of everything that we do. So I wish I had that the the easy, quick silver bullet for you, my friend, but there isn't one, at least not yet. Or maybe some great Eastern or Western device. Some transcranial stimulator will eventually come around. I'm not kidding. Maybe there'll be a way to design the sweet spot and bring about the city every day. They're working on it. It's not there yet. So I wish I had better news on that my friend Okay, so there was another one here. We just take these up. Okay, um, Adam, you kind of and then we'll open it up to the live questions here. You kind of gave me some tips before I went on the vipassana retreat last month. My goal being to spend a lot of time meditating to fire up my lucid dreaming. Cool. didn't quite work out that way. See, there it is. I hear I'm not kidding. I hear about 10 of these a week. super common. But I did come in to change my technique then there's very nice good thing to do. For the duration of the training was very surprised by what experience cool really sensations, quote, unquote, that I had noticed before in meditation, although I was literally sitting on them, rice, or you mentioned that there are some ADR techniques that you have bought into in your practice. And I'm not quite sure exactly what you're referring to here is the 80 Odd techniques. So if you're online and content, I don't remember ever actually using that number when I talk about. Let me just finish this and then see if I can gain some clarification. You mentioned that there's some idiot techniques that you're pumped into in your practice. And I'm also fascinated as to where robustness sits in that spectrum. OISI. And Pfister doesn't fit in with other Buddhist meditation techniques. So when you're talking about at techniques you're talking about at different types of meditations, I don't remember using that number. Maybe I did, but yeah, I mean, there are dozens and dozens and 1000s of different types of meditations. I've more than bumped into them. That's why I did my theory retreat. I practiced these for months, years on end. Where does the pastor fit in? Well, it depends on how you define the possibility. It's another one of these multi Vaillant to listen to terms. That same signifier, different signified. So that word refers to a number of different things depending on how you define it. So the Pali Tera Vaada approach to the persona is not the same as the Buddhist approach Sanskrit. The passion Ah, they're not the same, even though it's the same word two different languages. So the passion that generally fits in all the meditations on the Buddhist tradition can be classified under either the umbrella of shamatha, tranquility, or partially incite all of them and then you have hybridizations or unities of those two, so some are the Unity or some of the passionate. So in order for me to answer this question, I need to know what type of the pasta you were doing and how you define that term. Because otherwise I could be talking about a completely different form of oppression. So if you're on and can tell me exactly what you were doing, maybe I can say a little bit more about it, but fundamentally classically passionate relates to a broad spectrum of meditations, that all all about Insight This is the principle contribution of the Buddha, he did not invent mindfulness or shamatha. He inherited that his contribution, his invention, so to speak, was the passionate and because there's such a brilliant technique, it's used by many different traditions and a number of different ways all using the same word, but not referring to the same meditation. So I wish I could be more clear. You have to tell me what you mean when you use that term.

He is actually on let me unmute.

Yeah, hi, Andrea. Yes. I mean, it was very specific, that they encourage you to seek a particular sensation and they start at the top of your head. Well, they start with the breath actually. So okay, very Annapurna, or whatever they call it, and sure enough, you feel a little tingle on your upper lip. Once you've experienced that, they try and extend that to try and feel it in the top of your head. And then sure enough, eventually you realize up like a bloody Christmas tree. And if you get this sort of tingling, prickly sensation, a thing that flows all over and you wonder why on earth, you've never experienced that. Before that. That's, you know, I thought, Well, I've been meditating for years, but I've never, you know, I'm literally sitting on it, but I've never seen it before. Yeah. And that that was really quite unusual to bump into something that you haven't seen within yourself before. So it was a very specific thing and they you know, that it's Burmese Buddhism, I guess. And it you know, that's all you do, as well at this point. Certainly. You just feel those sensations. And, yeah, somebody you know, Guernica. Yeah, it's the Guernica technique. He died in 2013. And you listen to his discourses, you know, super ordinary Nice. Indian businessmen kind of fell off. And it's very specific, and he says, if it doesn't work, forget it. If it does work, run with it. There's no real philosophy around it. There's a lot of morality. You've got to, you know, get the Sheila rights and morality and so forth in place and you have to do service. And they managed to run 300 centers all around the world without a single employee. So you know, they they've had extraordinary success in certain respects. And if they're, they're lovely people. You're, I just wondered where, you know, obviously, you've done a lot of Tibetan Buddhism, and you did mention somewhere, you know, just that you explored a lot of techniques and you sort of mentioned a number of around 80, you know, dozens and dozens and I was just wondering where this sort of fits into that spectrum of different meditation or techniques.

Sure, sure. Oh, yeah, that really helps a lot. But let me ask you a question that um, so when they say it works, you know, when they say if it works for you run with it. If not, don't worry. What do they mean when they say works? Does it mean that you have these the elicitation of these tingling sensations wherever you put your mind and your body? Is that what they mean by that?

Well, no, they they really mean if it improves your life. Yeah. You know if if you find that you're in the flow with universal law, as a result of it, embrace it, and you should get some feedback. But of course, there's always life vicissitudes that are gonna knock you off course. So I suppose that's slightly unspecific and a little bit vague, but they try to not encourage you to have a belief system around it, or they're sure it's a toolkit to use the tools if the tools seem to work continue that's kind of where where they're at.

Yeah, well, that makes that makes them a little bit. Gives them you know, who might say more authentic but makes it a little bit more kosher in my book, because if it was, if the working was, if it works, meaning that you have these sensations in your body, then that might be a little interesting slash suspect to me. Because a fundamental what value would that be, but if worth what you said, there that's really beautiful that if in fact you're using a form of mindfulness of body to elicit a sense of presence, that then invokes a quality of of whatever, heightened sensitivity beneficence kindness, whatever towards the world. That's fantastic. And again, it because I have not done this specific form of Burmese practice. I want to hold too many comments here. Because I have not engaged in this particular style. But what I can tell you that I think is the most important thing is that there are in fact dozens and dozens of incredibly powerful, skillful means not only in the Buddhist tradition, of course, but in many other world's wisdom traditions, which is why I'm such a tremendous fan of Jewish mysticism. I'm just doing some deep rereading and the Kadima tradition, post Kabbalistic Jewish mysticism, unbelievable techniques there. Sufi meditation Nandu China Tantra Hindu Patanjali I mean, there's, we were the beneficiaries of it. Once you step outside of the Buddhist thing, hundreds of amazing techniques. And so to me, the take home message here, Adam is really a little bit what I was pinging at earlier that that these techniques in and of themselves are all heuristics. They're all fingers pointing at the moon and if in fact they do and lead to these real world lead benefits, real applications, oh my gosh, go for it. I don't care where it comes from. That's fantastic. Explaining the specificities of all these different practices. Unless I've done them I'm quite reserved to do that because I don't want to be a dilettante running commentary on our practice that I haven't done. So I think to me, that's the most important thing that this practice and others, the one you're referring to, if it had this type of sensation if it develops a heightened quality of interoception more sensitive relationship to your body, if it's based on this CPP paying the term Sheila, which is the infrastructure practice of ethics and morality, if it cultivates that unbelievably beautiful important, and so I would just simply applaud that kind of narrative and simply say, continue the kind of nuances, the technicalities, that the Compare and contrast thing. I could run some conjectures on this sort of thing, but I'm not sure it's terribly helpful because again, I have not done this particular practice, but I've done a lot enough to know that there are so many very skillful ways to work with the complex nature of the spectrum of our meaning. And whatever, whatever it is, I don't care. That's a matter of wit. If it makes you a better person, more kind, more receptive, more loving, more compassionate. I don't care what it is, right. In fact, Khandro Rinpoche once said, A Tibetan, female to Gu and a gentle, gentle kind of critique to her students and to others. She basically said if you're doing these highfalutin fancy Buddhist practices and you're not becoming more kind, more compassionate, more loving. You're doing something wrong. Right? So to me, that's the take home message. Yes, I can say academically, this is the relationship of the pasta to this and this is how it works that have some value, of course, but the real value is what you shared at the end that if it's working to make you a better human being, I would just simply applaud it and say go for it. That makes sense.

Yeah, no, absolutely. Thanks very much. Just one last comment. They are very specific about never talking about the sensations you experience. So I've kind of talked about it. But

that that gives it even more credibility, Adam because these these experiences again, they're in the family of what are called temporary experiences. And so the fact that they would say that gives us even more credibility in my book, because these types of experiences are nurtured in many different types of practices. And the admonition to warning to keep those to yourself is really important because those experiences will not mature, if you leak them if they're not shared in a proper way. And this sharing is okay, because it's the sharing in terms of the question of a query and as an offering, that's okay. In my opinion, the sharing becomes problematic when there's usually the tinge of self aggrandizement. egoic inflation, that's when it becomes highly problematic. But what they said is beautiful, the more you can keep these experiences to yourself, the more they will actually mature into realization, they become more and more stable. So that in itself is really awesome. So it sounds like the total real deal, my friend, very cool.

Thanks very much.

Welcome. No. Okay. So we got a couple of live ones.

We do. We will start with prim Das.

Das.

Yes. Sir. I just wanted to start by saying how wonderful the last weekend was with the Dream Yoga. Retreat. Right. What a great group, right. Wow. That yes, that was that was an excellent session. few questions. You know, a lot a lot of things. A lot of contemplations arose from from that, but had a couple of questions one about classification into the of the three turnings, this you just talked about the three nature's in the yoga Chara, so that would that be considered second turning yoga Chara?

Chara is a transition between second turning and third turning so it classically belongs in the second turning, but it's often considered a bridge from second to third?

Uh huh. Okay, so that's, that's why I was like, trying to classify one or the other. I thought I was going a little crazy, but I wasn't sure. Okay, that's a bridge between that gap. Okay. And then how about the three Gaya the three kinds of second or third turning?

Oh, that's the service the bottom approach so that's the master Bada is actually a chi it's a it's a terrible first turning. But the Takaya again, it has so much explanatory power that it really it's it's one of these that applies categorically across all all three turnings. And so it has its basis on the service devata first turning because it has so much explanatory power. It basically it was talked about there is literally the three dimensional bodies of the historical Buddha but because it had so much power, it was an extrapolated to talk about the three actual dimensions of seconds of reality itself. Okay.

What what seems interesting is that, as you know, the whole idea of shunyata and then when I compare that to the to the three kayas, I mean, it's there. They're both sort of esoteric, I mean, thinking about some Bogu Caya and Dharmakaya. You know, it just it seems so complicated to just have it in the first turning. Well, yeah,

that's why it's spread across all three. And one thing I would say also from das like I said this weekend, is yeah, you can say is provisionally esoteric only because it's not our experience yet. So it's really it's fundamentally not esoteric at all, it just may not be completely available and accessible to us experientially. So when we read about it, especially some Bolkiah Dharmakaya it's like these, what the heck are they talking about? And that's why it's super important to always understand, well, where are these truckers? Where are these three bodies? Well, they're within you they are they actually comprise your true complete identity. This is really important because when we talk about the esoteric, well, it's not esoteric and exoteric. It's actually the full complete description of the dimensions of our entirety of our being. They're not out there somewhere. They're within us. So yeah,

the three turning paradigm to have the three turnings is that more from a Tibetan classification of

somebody, somebody wrote into their other. This was a retrofitted classification. The Buddha did not articulate his teaching in this way. This is just one way that are a number of mostly third turning teachings sutras retrofitted, the corpus of his his vast amount of teachings. So they were somewhat retrofitted, the Buddha didn't say, oh, now I'm going to be turning teaching on first turning stuff, not longing to be teaching on third turning. In fact, if you take a close reading, you will see that in many ways within a single teaching, the doctrine of all three turnings was hidden within them, so he may be talking on one level is seemingly first turning level, but a deeper rendering of some of the CO languaging. And some of the intimations will say, Oh my gosh, he's talking about second turning stuff here. Oh my gosh, he's talking about third turning stuff. So even though he may have been it's like a fractal, right, even though he may have been presenting from what seems to be an overt position, like mostly first turning, actually, a deeper reading will illuminate oh my gosh, all the three turnings are involved in each one of his teachings. See,

I had one last question about I'm done with the three turnings. Now. Right now. It's about the waking and dreaming state that you talked about in your last session. On Sunday afternoon. You You offered a quote from Khenpo Carter, I think, which that the only difference between the dreaming and waking state is that with the dreaming state, you have the waking state to compare it to contrast this point. But then Haven't you also said that the the experience of the waking state is CO created while the dream state is is just purely your own projection of the mind?

Yes, so were you find a rug with that?

But I mean, if so, then then that's not the only difference isn't that that thought the only

difference No, no yeah, there's more than one difference correct elicit you're saying that correct.

Okay, because remember that quote, I think it said only, you know, kind of implied only or maybe I miss Oh, didn't say only if it did art so I probably misunderstood. That's a yeah,

there. It's just one of the differences. I like you're alluding to I wouldn't say it's the only difference, but it's just one of the central differences.

So would it be accurate than just say that the waking state is CO created while the dream state is purely the projection of your own mind?

Well, yes or no? Definitely. The first part of what you said absolutely, positively is CO created. We do not bring forth this world fell asleep. It's brought together co created by the karma and the visual patterns of the beings that bring forth this universe. You can't say, at least in my book with complete authority that all your dreams are completely 100% Your own projection ie solipsistic. I used to have that view but I don't think so anymore because I've had experiences in dreams. Where there's definitely external agencies there. They're definitely, in fact, I had an interview yesterday with an anthropologist out of Stanford, she was interviewing me, we're talking exactly about this type of topic and I was trying to convey to her, which is difficult to do that without any question whatsoever. It's not uncommon to have experiences and one dream in one's dream and I'm sure many people here would would probably nod their head to this, where you would say that is not me that is not coming from me. And so I don't think even that the second part of your statement holds anymore, that there are agencies that once the mind becomes more porous, translucent, where we in fact can be influenced by so called external agencies. So even then, yes, as a general orienting principle. One of the differences is this dream is CO created here waking state. Generally speaking, most of our dreams are really neurological noise. First Person itself cystic, but not all dream experiences are that way. And I think a lot of people who would say definitely, definitely the case, and shamans and others who work with dreams will often tell you that they like the nature of Oracle even in Tibetan shamanism. Something enters that nature, an Oracle state that it is not him, right. Where's that coming from? So I don't think we can even make those kinds of classifications at deeper, more refined levels

are good Thank you, sir. Okay, thanks. Bye.

All right. Next, we have Tony. Hey, Tony.

Unmute yourself

that was my port Tony. Sorry. The

we go Thank you. Appreciate that. Hi, Andrew. Hi, everybody. I'm Andrew, quick question. Going back to the beginning of the class, okay. When Richard asked his super awesome question.

Yeah.

Um, if I recall at the one of the first things you said, and this is if I'm recalling correctly, just three simple words. When you turn and what you mean by

Oh, you mean like physically, like when you turn or literally turn around and I can't remember exactly what the context was. Can you say just a little bit more to jog my memory? Um, I don't know when you physically turn.

Yes, when we're not when you physically turn um and that and that's and that's that's the point of manifestation for lack. of a better term.

Okay. You want me to say something about that?

Yeah. What did you mean?

Are you ready? Are you ready to have your circuits blown just a little bit?

So might have already done it. You might have already done it, but I I need clarification.

Okay. So here we go. So, I will just to show you, I'm not making this up. I'm going to read something for you. This is what's called again, this isn't this is where we can really learn from the philosophers and contemporary scientists in neuroscience and physics. I mean, these people have amazing things to say. You'll hear exactly the same thing in Hindu Buddhist Tantra. But I'm going to pick on this a little bit from Western philosophy, and Western cognitive neuroscience and the idea here is the difference between what's called naive or critical realism, local realism and non contextual realism. And so, in an unexamined way, so quick crack crash course in philosophical terms, in an unexamined way. naive realism. There's a world out there when I turn around, it's always been there. I have nothing to do with it. I represented the dependently. It exists. Independent of me, that's called naive realism. It at a certain point, when you start to really think about things deeply, you went to the domain of critical realism saying, Well, you know, I'm not really so sure about this anymore, you start to question authority. The really, really interesting thing takes place when you start really looking at the shattering notion of what's called non contextual realism. And non contextual realism is another way. It's a fancy way of saying that. Here's the classic example, that the moon exists when I don't look at it, without context, irrespective of context, hence non contextual, that moon is there. And I just turned around and hope there it is. It's always been there. There it is. There it is. There it is. Well, his his appearance is not in harmony with reality as much as we think that's the case. That's not what's happening. And this again, this is not just Hindu, Buddhist Tantra. This is physics. This is cognitive neuroscience. This is perceptual science, and I'm going to read just one or two things. here because this is totally mind bending stuff, and I really into this in a big way, because you can really explore this in your dreams. So for instance, when you're in your nighttime dream, in an unexamined way, you may think that as you turn in the dream, there's some like pre existing dreamscape there. Well, it doesn't take too much examination from the perspective of a waking state to look back and realize that's not exactly that's, that's not at all what's happening. There's no pre existing MindScape or dreamscape in there, as I turn in my dream, the Trump is an activism I enact, I create that view. It's not there independent of my perception of it. That's phenomenal realism, like I talked about earlier. But the way this applies to this reality is when it gets extremely interesting because just like with prom dresses, question statement, that exact same process on analogy is occurring now. And this is like are you kidding me? So just to show you a little bit about just making this up. I'm going to share a little bit I think I've shared some of this with a group this weekend. from HUD big time hitting cognitive neuroscientists. Okay. So here you go. I opened my eyes and construct a spoon. Same thing is if you turn thinking, Okay, I close my eyes. My spoon for the moment ceases to exist because I cease to construct it. Something continues to exist when I look away, but whatever it is, it's not a spoon. And it's not any object in space. Time to take this even further, interjection even space time is a construct. Einstein said this even space time is constructed level all the objects that seem to fill that space whatever it is, is not a spoon and it does not exist in space time. Right? Okay, so here we go. As soon as you look away the spoon and everything else ceases to exist. Something continues to exist, but it's not a spoon, and it's not in space and time. The spoon is a data structure that you create when you interact with that something so that's that ties into a rebellious thing. The only thing that exists is interaction. relationship, right? All the stuff ties together. Okay, here we go. Another way to explain here's another way to explain a consensus that we all can start to icons in similar way. Whatever reality might be, or whenever we interact with it, we all construct similar icons, and similar methods for requiring fitness payoffs. There is no need to posit any physical object or space time that exists when no one observes.

Space and Time themselves are simply formats. The format of our interface and physical objects are icons that we create on the fly as we attend to different options for collecting fitness payoffs. Objects are not this includes the moon. This includes the wall behind you. It's not there until you turn around and enact it. Objects are not pre existing entities that force themselves upon our senses. This is an entirely new way to think about objects, we create them as quickly as we perceive them as needed. And then blah, blah, blah, goes on and on and on. Every time you turn around that wall, the room you're gonna walk into when you leave the session. That room does not exist for you, until you actually enter that space and enact that rule. It's not there. It is not there. And the quantum physicists will tell you that all these other people, let alone the contemplative traditions will tell you that that doesn't blow your mind. I don't know.

Okay, thank you. Um, when? When you said that, when you turn my body my quicking enlightened up, lit up for lack of a better word said, Okay. Um, for over the past year. I've been having what I call real peak experience because I don't I don't know where to go. I don't know who to ask. You're, you're the best person we had. You might be the best person on the planet. I don't know. You're right there and I need you. Um, for over the past year or so I've been having what I call the opaque experience, the opaque experience, the opaque experience. I don't have another that. I have to label it with some. As we have to label every damping we come. Okay, so, so you'll pay experience it would be and this happens rather frequently. When I'm just going along, daily life, whatever my might be living room, the kitchen, walking down, going to speak whatever. And I turn suddenly everything is simply opaque for a short period of time. And then there's manifestation. Then I see whatever it is.

Okay, yeah, I can connect to that. I think I know what you're talking about. Yeah. So you want to know what that is? Yes.

And with it is, it's a cognitive thing, because in a week, I'm going to be 77 years old. I don't know what was going on. Give me some direction.

Yeah, okay. So sure. Yeah, this is this is this is a good one. So yes. This is where we can look at what's called a pramana tradition. In both Indic Buddhist Hindu approaches to to logic and epistemology how we know and so they talk about forms of direct valid cognition versus secondary conceptual proliferation states of cognition. And so what you're talking about is this opacity experience will click for me here, Tony, is that in the very first moment, super interesting, actually. In the first moment of perception, if we're extremely attuned to the way we perceive, there's actually a moment of non conceptual and therefore non dual contact with reality. So okay, so before before the mind like like there's always a lightning strike before the thunder of contraction. conceptuality thinking reification everything but then contracts coalesces and flows onto that first direct recognition to create your version of your world. So it's entirely possible that what you're touching into is in fact, a slightly extended experience of this direct valid, sensory direct valid cognition which is non conceptual. You're actually in contact with reality. And when you have that experience, just as an invitation, you may notice that you are not there. But actually, no one is having that experience. No one

No one is having that experience. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's empty for lack of a better yeah.

Yeah, totally. So no one no one's actually having that experience. It's just that

I have the experience after the fact it's not.

Exactly so then what happens is a lightning fast contraction, you leave direct Bella cognition, and you go into these invalid forms of cognition knowing as we think it is, we relate to it referential, cognitive perceptual, all the blah, blah, blah, that we spend our lives in. And so what you're, what you're relating to here is pretty cool. And so eventually what you want to do is just be able to extend more and more realize it when you're having that first non conceptual contact, you're, you're in contact with what's true. And then eventually, that starts to expand more and more the contraction reference the self lessons. And then when that's fully stabilized, that's kind of the awakened space. So that's a glimpse of emptiness and so high five amigo, good for you.

Thank you. Once again, thank you, Rachel. Thanks, everybody. Yeah, good stuff.

Um, Andrew, the little blurb that you just read. Where did that come from?

Well, most people are nicer to me. It comes from Donald Hoffman. Right? He wrote this amazing book. I read it a number of times called the case against reality. What a great title. How evolution hid the truth from our eyes. It's a It's a masterpiece of a book. This comes from a chapter called usury. And so it's to me it's one of their many insights in this book, but his riffing on what he calls the interface theory of perception and non contextual realism is tremendously impactful, because it basically puts in western psychobabble language. Exactly what the contemplatives have been talking about for 1000s of years, which is why Donald has been a bit. He's getting a lot of traction in the spiritual communities these days because a lot of what he's talking about which is pretty rigorous, actually, is completely caught forward with Hindu and Buddhist tantric ways of perceiving. So it comes from his book, The Case Against reality,

actually can tell that you reference that book a lot because I typed it in my search bar is automatically populated from all the times I

think, yeah, it's a good one. It's definitely worth reading. He's a pretty sharp guy, to put it mildly. He's got you look, Google him up. He's done a ton of really cool podcasts with the one was Sam Harris. He did for three hours. That's a big, big leap. But he's all over the place these days and I think deservedly so. is really good stuff in my opinion.

Perfect, thank you.

Scroll through as somebody has another question.

I didn't see any come through to me, but I'm not sure maybe some directly you have your

So Steph, you asked what the upcoming talking conferences called. It's in that link. I think the art of living and dying, whatever. That's amazing people in that. Okay, let me see here. I'm going through this unless somebody else has another question or comment

Barry said you need to dialogue with Hoffman.

Oh, I'd like to get him yeah, maybe I'll see if I can. I know some people are no Hey, maybe I can get him on it and have a conversation with him because one of the things he doesn't talk about is the dream example. And I think we could share a little bit of remember material for him about approaching some of these things using the as the Advaita Vedanta tradition does the example of the dream so yeah, Barry, I'm going to try my friend. Okay, I'm just scrolling through

the

chat until somebody comes up with a question. So just to see if there's another question in the chat column.

While you're doing that, we are going to stay at the four o'clock time or so. Four o'clock Eastern for everybody. Or after today, that's for future reference, so everybody knows so it'll be four o'clock Eastern for the q&a.

Cool. All right. Awesome. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anybody else? Any other questions or comments? I don't see any other questions in the chat column. So

here we go. We got a hand up. Okay. All right, Kimberly, I'll get you muted.

Hey, Kimberly. Hello, how are you? Good.

Okay, so my question is, last Friday, I think we were on the webinar or something. And the question came through about, you know, things arising for people when they're in meditation and is it an outer entity or a projection of like the divine attributes or qualities within the self manifesting as a projection. So my my, my thought was that maybe it is both as a sense, where what is outside of us is also within us like the kind of the, the macro and the micro within us and you know, because that kind of blurs the boundaries of who self is. And so if it's arising from, you know, projection of self, but also a projection of an outer entity is that kind of something that would kind of stand up in theory is it not making sense over last

party? Yeah, it was making it sound until the very last thing you said so just so

I don't know it's hard to describe I had I had it but I should have written it down. So kind of that yeah, it's coming from within and without, but then if that is, so then how then that kind of creates a different context of what self is?

Well, that definitely does. And it really this again, is where we have to distinguish always when we start talking about these sorts of things, we have to make the important distinction between relative and absolute truth. Because it's very easy to conflate the two and a lot of confusion arises from that, because on one level on a relative level completely valid from that particular context and perspective, theory is in fact, something out there there was a provisional separation between self and other and therefore from that context, we can say that yes, we are projecting out onto that. But when we start talking about non dualistic things in the deeper levels of projection, so we're again, even here when we start talking about projections. You did the weekend. So you remember thinking the first thing we did a month ago, we talked about, even though different layers of projection. So the first foundational layer of projection is the projection of externality. itself that we take as a given axiomatic but it's not a given it's it's actually a projection. We we create project impute the sense that there's something out there. That's the priority of projection. And then on top of that come all the other levels of projection that that also come into the next year. And so it's really important when when we start talking about this sort of stuff that that because we're talking about relatively subtle things, that not only like in terms of the person that thing we have to become quite nuanced about the terms that we're using and what they're referring to. We also have to be more nuanced in terms of centrifuging out things like relative and absolute perspectives here because on one level, yes, there is the one but it's not even one it's more like none, whatever it is, you can't say what it is. But that only goes so far in terms of explanatory power, right? Because then we really want to be able to talk about, for instance, where these particular parents can arise in our dreams where we can have these experiences where there do in fact, seem to be agencies that are not internal to us. So therefore, we're we're at that level starting to work with domain of the relative but from your perspective, what stands out for me, Kimber, that made sense for sure, as within so without that, that yes, indeed there is this. This kind of complementarity thing going on? What we're perceiving as external can in fact be aspects of the internal but I'm going to pause for a second to see if that's resonating with what you're thinking and tributing because I want to make sure I'm hitting something. Yeah.

That's, yep. Yeah, it does. And so you mentioned the spanner and it's kind of like, you know, that is it that awareness consciousness, the kind of the, the response is a correspondent, overseer now,

spell it that

it's like the introspection so this vasana So, yeah, this person, sorry. Yeah. So yeah, is that the awareness? Consciousness? Like the witness consciousness?

Yes. At this level? Yes. At this level? Yes. So a lot of came up. Yeah. So exactly. So a lot of upasana. About level of practices, working with this kind of witnessing awareness where in addition to what I think Adam was talking about other forms of a pasta would be this insight is labeling thing. This fantastic where you do your pens, labels to certain phenomena as a way to establish, I think, a more sensitive relationship to them. And so that in fact does cultivate this type of witnessing awareness. Right. That's it. Yes. Yeah.

And then also, yeah, so just more kind of, you know, when we talk about self and who we are, in that sense, it's more you know, as you were saying, the one the primordial is kind of more generating through us through those layers of projection. And more we are just the witnessing.

Yeah, so this again, is where things like the one of the templates that really helps you work with this, in my opinion, is a yoga Chara I talked earlier about but teaching the three natures, let's have several contribution. The other one that are refined a lot is the a consciousness system. So this is where the whole a consciousness things comes, comes really very helpfully into play, where you you look at the structure of the dualistic mind, as its manifested in this mapping, and therefore a lot of what you're talking about here can actually be kind of explained or described using that particular template.

Okay, so that was the template of Tara was it? It's called Yoga Chara yoga Chara. Okay. Have a look at that. Yeah.

It's one of you need to talk to Premadasa. It's like his favorite topic these days. He's that he's not a yoga Chara King in this community. So keeping him on the side and he'll let you know. It's fantastic. And it's, it is actually exactly these types of questions and again, queries that bring about tremendous insight. Now we're trying to develop a sensitivity and a perception of usually opaque, foggy, inarticulate dimensions of experience. And sometimes it's hard to put these into words at first. We have feelings, we don't really know what to call them. We don't really know what they are. We don't know these manifestations of mind. And therefore these these particular maps are important, always knowing that they are maps and that's why the Takaya the three nature's the yoga Chara all these really elegant systems that describe the display of mind in both relative and absolute terms. They become extremely helpful and important because not only will they help you understand what's happening to you, based on the descriptions of people who have done this worker for 1000s of years and repeated by 10s, if not hundreds of 1000s of people. They will also help you really work with others and understand what's happening in their own minds and hearts. And so that's why it's helpful to become familiar with some of these more subtle descriptions of both relative and absolute dimensions of our being in mind. So that when things occur, we can have some sense of like, oh, yeah, that that that's what's going on here. That really helps me understand what's actually happening here. Because very often, you can have experiences prematurely in a certain sense you can have experiences without without adequate or proper understanding. And again, there's nothing whatsoever problematic with the experience, the experience itself was never the problem. The problem is how you relate to it. If you don't sometimes have the proper understanding, in relationship to an experience and that can sometimes actually become somewhat problematic to the point where it can lead to extreme cases things like mental instability and even like thinking like psychotic breaks in the lake

because honestly you just

don't know what's happening to you. Exactly. Understanding that, Oh, wow. This is a totally common thing in the contemplative traditions. You might think that you're going crazy from your side. No, you might actually be coming in late but you're thinking going nuts because you don't actually understand what's happening. You know? Heart and Mind. And that's why for me both I don't care again which system it is, it doesn't matter to me. That's why these systems can be super helpful because you don't have to go stumbling and fumbling in the dark, trying to figure out what the heck is happening to you. You can say, oh my gosh, this is what the Hindus say here. It makes total sense to me. This is what the Jewish mystics are saying, This is what the Buddhists are saying, and especially becomes really interesting when you realize, oh my gosh, they're all saying they're pointing to the same kind of thing. And then you realize you're not a nutcase. You realize I'm just breaking through to these really subtle dimensions. And so that's why it's worth the wrestling match and that's why I sit here and try to engage in conversations that unpack some of these maps. Not for philosophical purposes, that boys that tears out of me, but for purposes of benefiting others so that when they have these experiences, they have some idea of WTF is going on here. Right? Okay.

Yeah. It's just like you read my heart with everything you said there. Thank you so much. Okay, thanks. Bye.

Okay, I'll get Shakti first and then we'll come back to Providence, Mr. Yoga Chara, okay. He's the Bodhisattva he'll let her go first.

There we go. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew, and thank you to the group. Can you guys hear me? Totally. So I'm kind of new to the group and but I've been like working on these concepts for the last several years. I have three questions is that go ahead. The first one is I'm now before if there is an experience and there is a situation I found myself reacting to it my like maybe replying calling that person trying to find that, you know, situation and making it easier for all of us. But now I'm just like, taking a step back. And I'm just going through the whole analysis within me and me I have a conversation with like Okay, which of my body's like, is it my ego body? Which one's this conversation? Is it my emotional is it my physical who's talking over here? So I kind of have like this dialogue going on, you know, with these bodies and kind of working it out instead of reacting. You know, and lowering my energies and moving into that space, which is totally I don't want to be in my reality. So, yeah, that is that a good way?

Oh my gosh, are you kidding? That's fantastic. I would use maybe slightly different languaging. But that's just my predisposition. In short, what you're saying is just absolutely spot on that if we can realize that certain levels of reactivity are born from certain dimensions or as you put in your languaging bodies of our being, and that perhaps we can find something that gives us a greater sense of perspective, where instead of reacting, we can respond. I mean, that's fantastic. That's beautiful. And in a large part, it's somewhat connected to the earlier conversations, even to what Adam was saying about the past. And now when you can then start to articulate all that's that particular reactivity is coming from this particular dimension of my being. That's a huge thing, because then you can actually start to relate to the experience instead of from it relating from it is no relationship at all. That's what creates the reactivity. But with this newfound sense of perspective that can be brought about by a greater sense of understanding of what part of your being is actually relating to that. That's colossal because then in fact, you can start to see to see through things, see things more accurately. And and leave less of a carbon and karmic footprint, right, because you're just relating in a much more pure way. So that's fantastic. Good for you.

Yeah, definitely the karmic footprint, right. It's like, do I really want to relate to these people like I related in the past, you know, do I want to just move into higher dimension then rather, staying in 3d? So that's, thank you. And my second question is, you know, many times in the dream and the lucid dream, I'm not able to wake up and change things, but I remember it, and I like you know, wake up and I say, Huh, like for example, you know, that was thinking about some relative and that relative does not have the right energy. And so suddenly, immediately, my dream will pick it up, and my mind will pick it up. And you know, I would be in the end the way my mind shows me is like, food is energy. So I'll be in the dining table with those relatives, and wanting to share that food, right. And so now I'm like, I wake up and I say hey, you naughty girl. Do you really want to eat that food? Do you want to go down that path? So I kind of like talk to it as like a child. You know, not getting serious about it, but playing with it and so, so is that like a good way?

Or Yes, are you kidding? Sure. I think a little bit like what also what Ed was saying, if you find to answer these questions for yourself, if you find yourself more spacious, more responsive, less reactive, more playful, which you seem to be implying there's your answer that means Yeah, if you find yourself doing the converse of that more small minded, petty, reactive, whatever, then that's something you may want to look at and question but these qualities they that you're just even sharing, once you're attune to that kind of result of what you're doing that in itself lends credibility to it. You don't even have to ask anymore if that's what's happening. That's a good thing. Right?

Yeah. So my question is like, like if I don't catch it in the lucid state, but I wake up and I remember it. Yeah, I'm still catching it and changing that. Right? Correct. Okay. And then I kind of like you know, sometimes when I'm not able to change it for the other person, I call on one of my guides and I say, can you go take care of it, please, you know, go get them. The Prasad and show them love. You know, so instead of me, going in energetically, I kind of like bring one of my guides forward. And I asked them to be my messenger. Is that like a good thing?

Well, that's I think only you can answer that right. It could be but again, this is somewhat a playful question for you. Right? If you're doing that in the sense of like, Oh, I'm just gonna have my errand boy, do this for me. You might want to look at that. Right. But if you're doing it as a way, yes, maybe I can bring about some quality of resolution to complete this by by doing it within this capacity, then that would be like, I think a totally cool thing to do. So that's a question I think only you can answer from your own motivational side,

right? No, I'm I'm looking because these guides are like all higher level beings. Right. So I'm looking at it as to resolve this in this lifetime. In, you know, with relationships, so that you know, I'm just sending them love and sending them playfulness the same time and not take things too seriously. Right.

Beautiful.

Great. My last question is I'm noticing that say for example, I'm watching a YouTube of a tarot reader who is talking about what's happening right now. You know, in the earth and you know, some of the truth coming out and all those things and then immediately, and their next day in that lucid dreaming with that tarot reader, showing me what I need to change for myself. Is this like, do I am I just tapping into them and bringing them forth? For my help? Unconsciously because I don't ask it consciously.

Probably. So you're talking about this is happening in a lucid dream, correct? Yes. Yeah. So I think what you said is probably the case I can't say it again with total authority. But my guess is that in fact, what's happening? Yeah.

Okay. Like I mean, I, I don't like ask it consciously, but like, for example, like they're doing the Tarot reading and they want some support, and they put their whatever their paypal account and I'm like, huh, yeah, sure. You know, show me something more so that I feel good about contributing to that PayPal. Right. So and then comes this whole lucid dream.

Nice. Yeah. Yeah. Again, to me, it's, it's what I'm hearing from you is you seem to have you're just on the very edge of all these answers being answered from within. I think if you can just start to trust your inner teacher. Trust your inner wisdom. It's not that I don't mind pinging around by supposedly answers. Whatever contribution that might be. That's great. But I think more importantly, the membrane seems to be very thin for you that you can find these truths and these answers, just by trusting what is already there is you're just throwing them in my direction. And I'm basically reflecting back to you what I think you already know. So trust that inner voice. I think that's what's being that's the take home message I'm hearing here. Okay, awesome. So appreciate it. Okay, from Dallas last one. Fire away Mr. Yoga Chara?

Yes, sir. I'll try to stay in the yogacharya free zone for this last question. You've you've quoted Ruben laukkanen. Few times. him saying that. Remaining or resting in the present moment is annihilation. Yeah. Love that line. Is that awesome? Of course I kind of as I as I let that soak in. I was like annihilation of what is he implying annihilation of the culpa. And so is he lying? The you know, present moment as sort of a non referential shamatha nature of mind type of fact that

the above? Yes, all the above. So, basically, what this is a brilliant statement from my friend. Ruben Lacan in the neuroscientists, mystic poet. This guy's a rock star, resting in the present moment as annihilation in his languaging it's annihilation of all the predictive processing so in neuroscientific languaging. This also ties in very deeply to this whole, earlier wrap on non contextual realism that in his work, by the way, for those of you who are not familiar with it, you can Google him, la Ukko any and he recently published a really brilliant paper, for many to none with and in parentheses. So as for many to one for many to none, a really insightful scientific paper that he co authored on the the kind of the cutting through of predictive processing through three levels of meditation, two of which you mentioned, and so, basically, what he's talking about within his context is yes, when you rest in the present moment, you're, you're interrupting all these predictive processing. And fundamentally, it's a this is a very powerful thing, actually, that if one rests in the present moment with with complete presence and authority, it deconstructs even the present moment itself. So we talked earlier about how space and time are constructs. This is this is an astounding statement. What do you mean space and time don't exist? Well, they don't. In in relative reality, they appear to exist. Space Time and causality do not exist in absolute reality. And so we're Rubin says here goes extremely deep is that you can rest in the present moment, so to speak, to such an extent that, that not only do you annihilate all the predictive processing that he's talking about, you actually annihilate the present moment itself. And then you enter what's called a fourth moment, but a standard time, which is beyond space and time. And so you can use the portal the present moment to annihilate even the notion of time itself and so doing it, you have experienced that somebody can do what Tony was talking about the deconstruction of space time, the deconstruction of duality altogether. And so this is really the reason I'm riffing on this a little bit is the very simple practice of shamatha. Often we raised off to the passionate, but the simple process of resting in the present moment. If you do this fully, deeply. It takes you really to the core reality itself, where you deconstruct not only all these predictive processings all the narratives, although the call visit you're talking about, you deconstruct the fabric of spacetime itself. And so that's no small thing. And that's one reason I want to just run with that comment a little bit. Again, what does it do it it just empowers the other genius of these, these spiritual technologies, these meditations they're so simple, but they are exceedingly profound. If we just surrender to the simplicity if we can actually that's why it's worth riffing on it because if you have the view again, if you have the understanding, it will help you persevere and these practices they can be so incredibly boring and painful. They're boring and painful, because they're deconstructing your narratives. They're deconstructing the umbilical cord, the lifeline of the ego structure. And so by understanding it and riffing on it and talking about it, when you really don't want to meditate and you've got better things to do, no, there's nothing better than meditation that you can do. Because even to this incredibly simple practice, if you just surrender to it to the genius of this simplicity, it deconstructs the complex mind. It basically deconstructs all of samsara and surrendering to that simplicity born of understanding with a view like this is a total game changer. Then you realize, oh my gosh, these amazing technologies that are so simple, are beyond profound. I mean, these are really big deal practices. Despite their incredible simplicity so we have to let the simplicity defeat us in a certain way. So anyway, that's why I ran with that one Providence because it leads to some really important points in my opinion. Okay, Sound like a plan. So everybody go out there and deconstruct do a little bit more meditation everything will just completely fall apart for you. You'll love it. So. Alright, let me see if there's any last things here. I think we're probably okay. We're at about an hour and a half mark. So thank you, everybody. Nice to see everybody. We're back next Thursday. Oh, actually, no. Next Thursday, Thanksgiving. So for those of you who are doing the book study group, we'll send a notice out on Sunday. That's going to be moved up to next Wednesday. And then Thursday is tricky day where we can deconstruct the dinner table. But until then, yeah. Until then carry on.

always lovely to see everybody. Next week. What do we have Monday night, we've got a meditation group, maybe a webinar, we'll see. We've got the book group and then other things. I've got some really cool interviews coming up. I did I mentioned this earlier. I forgot the wonderful. I mean, really, this guy's amazing. I'm so lucky to get him. Swami sobre Priya Nanda. He's a master of the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Now dual. He's a big deal. He's a really big deal guy. I was lucky enough to get him. I think the first week in December, like two weeks out, we'll be interviewing him. I'm super excited to talk about non duality with him. So fun things are happening. Otherwise, everybody thank you so much for showing up. It's always fun for everybody to turn on their cameras. We do this totally geeky thing. We just all do this love fest hug goodbye. And I'll see you all

Hi Hi, everyone. Bye bye