ion

emptiness happens when just being aware of it's beings non-being without self and selflessly being infinitely the being-not's purest emptiness present being eternally not existing, so as emptiness the emptiness is; so it being actual causes its being which causes it to not be`which is the purest form of it...... if we are at all, then we are emptiness, all that is, is emptiness and emptiness is emptiness and because of that, there is no changer no change or changed changing, only the mutual arising of of the co-arisen whose existence is as being is emptiness...if you are, then you are emptiness, and emptiness is not...the formless Tao is emptiness, and emptiness is the middle way, but empty of . a middle, and empty of a way... whatever is has happened only by emptiness ,there is no other way, but through emptiness that any thing appears to be being...for that which does not appear to be emptiness but appears as some thing having a being, that is tangible is never truly being what is mutually arisen and emptiness is..emptiness is what mutually unfolds without self that is not being... what is not, can not have power of causation, so what appears to have power of causation, does not,and is not, and what does not appear to be being, that being the emptiness, whose being and the essence there within, being pure emptiness is what influencialy delivered mutually has which makes causation without a way of being but by its being, there is a principle that issues emptiness selflessly forth out and in t, and by way of that there is no cause to no-thing, there is only what is emptiness, and the principle essence of emptiness... empty and within...all existences that are being, are emptiness, mutually arisen, with, by, or of it's co-arisen, and if what is here had arrival which was dependent on emptiness for being it...if what is, was caused by emptiness, then the cause is without being ,activity, self, or form, and is empty of meaning, or motivation, but issued into two mutually without self principle driven by the principle with the bringing forth, what has mutually arisen because of the principle essence within emptiness with, and of emptiness whose eternally existing into being... And not being if we are at all, then we are emptiness, all that is, is emptiness and emptiness is emptiness and because of that, there is no change or changed changing only the mutual arising of of the co-arisen whose existence is as being is emptiness...if you are, then you are emptiness, and emptiness is not...the formless Tao is emptiness, and emptiness is the Middle-way, but empty of . a middle, and empty of a way... whatever is has happened only by emptiness form and/or phenomenons arising mutualy happens with out a self spontaneously by way of the mutual arising who’s dependet on emptiness and the p[ureness of iuts essence being while nonm being when a thing has been come to have been known, then it’s mutually arissen coresponding compatables,there is no other way, but through emptiness that any thing has a been an object or any such else that has been percived and appears to be being...for that which does not appear to be emptiness but appears as a form, which as being one it as existing either as form or as not-form../. form is not, and what isn't emptiness, isn't form nor is it not form...being, what is not, means not having reality as youre state of being and so form can not be the condition causing causation, so what appears to have causation, does not, and what does not appear to be being, that being the emptiness whose mutual arising has causation which makes causation without way of being, with that there is no cause to anything, there is only what is emptiness...all existences that are being are emptiness, mutually arisen, with, by, or of it's co-arisen, and what is here had arrival which was dependent on emptiness for being it...if what is, was caused by emptiness, then the cause is the principle who bound to selflessness without a sef without being ,activity, self, or form and is empty of meaning or motivation but unfolded into two with the mutual-ariser bringing forth and with what has mutually arisen into being emptiness...only by way of the principle and that even it being emptiness is emptiness...

The real good is only good because there is a real bad and that is born in illusion and duality which aren't, so that being the basis of there being there is also no good, however there is what are called just being and non-doing; that is Godliness being had. Godliness is had by not making any distinctions, and not having having a self to relate experiences and senses to. Not having made any distinctions or having a self to relate them to, who would call anything good or bad? What is called bad and good is within the imbalance of the duality nature, which is inseparable from the self concept. When there are things being done, there is only the storm of imbalance, not being balanced extremities become apparent, having a self to relate the extremities to facilitates, and potentiates the storm; until there is know one left to endure it, it's suchness will be. With no one left to endure it, there's no one maintaining it so perfect equilibrium will be, no one is glad, because they are content just being; just being is the state of true reality. It's in true reality where the radiance of the principle enshrowds us in the sense of contentment, the sense of profound comfort, and being without friction. The sense of being one with the principle and not being one or not one, the sense of being eternal and thus un-conditionalable, and in those senses one is enraptured by the principles joy and bliss. Life, when full of ones living it, is what is complicated, not what I'm simply saying. What I put out is lacking details for the sake of simplicity. Life comes with being and being comes with needing and doing. Life, if born with the finite has an end, and its end is death and dying. Just being and non doing is to be that which comes from the beginning and is unborn, but is because the principle is and emptiness is the principle's ever being's beginningness, that is without a start... The reason it seems so unsimple is because it is no a thing but lays between what is black and white, not there but there, black, white and both while neither, the act of transcending, the transcendor, the transcended, and to whit it will transcend are all who are emptiness and nothing else is; therefore what is not returns to emptiness and then, emptiness is what it is. To put in black and white is a dangerous thing but I will do so. In the begining there was the primordial state of yin, which precedes the yang so thus precedes the yin yang interactive state of being. Nothing being; no dimensional space for a transpiration to occur, for space is substance and substance is space within substance, but there was not. Since there was only not without a place to be, its lackingness of all things and nonexistence was it's state of being. With the suchness of emptiness as all that was in what was not, there was one thing. The one thing there is in this primordial state of yin is the quality of having absolutely no quality, so the quality is it's absoluteness. The one that gives being to the quality, is the principle within emptiness, and this is the same as what was emptiness. Emptiness is its formless form, and primordial yin is that form, but yin is not the principle itself; but is it's resting place and formless form; primordial yin is the principles initial expression and the un-strarting beginning. This emptiness is the originless origins where all states of being originate. Infinity has no form to point at but what is infinite is filled with it, but can not be what embodies it, because of its virtue and nature it transcends the qualities attributed to it, so it only exists in principle; the principle of infinity is the principle within emptiness, its quality of absoluteness gives emptiness to the eternally empty. While the primordial state of yin was being by there being nothing, it could not really said to have been being because there was only the suchness of notness, but that was its being. The notness only was because there is an awareness of its being, that self awareness is just the sense of being. So the state of non-beings origins are in the mutual arising of the state of awareness of just being non-being, when one was, immediately and because of, the other was born, and the reversal is also true and the two are one and inseparable. The mutual arising and the principle are alike and have no form, they are one, and one with emptiness. Emptiness was, and was truly emptiness because it was filled with the principle of infinity, but the principle can not be confined to any form or state of existing as, even if the form is formless and AN infinity. With that being true is the other mode of mutual arising illustrated as such: The primordial yin was, once it's self awareness was and vice versa; Once it was self aware, the awareness of being became the parameters of the principle of infinity. These parameters which are it's emptiness, become a thing that implies what is also emptiness but what those particular parameters and state are not an expression of, so the state of infinty as emptiness expands its being, by transcending the primordial yin state, and into the state of Yang which is also, a form of emptiness yet not expressible by its predecessor. Up to this point it goes like this: Emptiness is the mutual arising of the sense just being=the sense of just being is the mutual arising of emptiness; to this equation (wich we could call Sb=E=Sb)is added an annexed equation which is Sb=E=Sb also equals the mutual arising of emptiness as Yang, (which also is the mutual arising of Yin in "activity" so Yang is also the mutual arising of the newer form of Yin). So all of this is within the mutual arising ,and the mutual arising is within all of this, along with certain concepts I will not touch on here for the sake of simplicity, but all of this and these are insepserrable and one with emptiness, infinity, awareness, and mutual arising into being. The symbol of yin yang shows these two who are one and having the same self awareness and sense of being in activity, the non-active Yin is seen in the symbol as the circle they are with in. But we are not talking about Yin and Yang , we are talking about emptiness and how it is the Tao, and the Tao is the Buddha nature and middle-way. The principle of infinity is in the middle of whats black and what is white, it is also what brings white into being and what is being all 3, (and four and is also what is being the infinite concepts by way of it's transcending the black for the white, without any of it ever coming into being as "form"...), it is the path that infinity takes leaving the illusion of form in the wake of its progression, and its path and awareness are one and the same. To sum this up to now, let's say that emptiness is the co-arisen. The co-arisen are emptiness as action on emptiness, and emptiness in activity/ Yin-Yang, yet the action/activity are conceptual, only implied by the mutual arising of all things which "happens"all at once. What we think of as having existence does not exist, only that which came into being by the mutual arising of the principle's being which is the state of non being.. These all share one sense of being and that is the sense of just being, and the sense of just being has a selfless self-awareness of that of emptiness as an expression of being the principle of infinity. The Tao eternal is the principle of infinity, as we see it can not be confined to one form of being., and as it knows itself to be one thing by having a sense of being that thing, it transforms into its like ness and the likeness is implied by its beingness being known by it's awareness of being, and so it was written- ...and we see that this primordial emptiness found, "In the beginning..." is the originless who is the origin of all things, because its beingness is one with the mutual arising of its sense of being, which is one with its manifesting the co-arisen (yin-yang)as its being, and the mutual arising of the co-arisen are one with the conceptual features that are without form but give reality, and relativity their being (things like symmetry, equilibrium, interaction, diversification etc which came into being in principle/concept when primordial Yin was transcended by infinity into Yang who begot the form of Yin in activity)and to what was referenced when it was written- The Activation of the primordial emptiness into Yin in activity is Yin producing outwardness, but without ever really doing so, but the outwardness generates a thought impression with the likeness of dimensional space because it is the opposing symmetry of Yang's conceptual inwardness which has the likeness of light or sigularity. These are the myriad creatures who are the conceptual features of reality. Things like up, down, and all the dimension of 4-d space; Things like sequence and order are, in concept within emptiness, along with things like one thing leading to another and one diversifying into another. Any attribute that can be given to an activity, or phenomenon is comprised of things that belong to the mutual arising of emptiness being, and nothing the constitute as form or form being has any reality, but is devoted to dissolution of it's illusion. The formless elements that give body to illusion are not beings dependent on emptiness, not on form. Because they ARE emptiness, they exist and their existence is eternal, in fact if the universe was destroyed and only nothing remained, then nothing would be emptiness and in that very moment it's eternity would at once would do it all over again. Like I said, we aren't talking about yin and yang to focus on their forms as being we are talking about what is within and between them. And we are not focusing on the attributes of male and female as their qualities. their qualities are emptiness. When we do look at yin and yang as the primordial beings that create all things, we see that it is them who spawn mind, and create the dimensional reality called relativity and fall under it's spell of illusions. This is the false and dangerous way of seeing them, or rather, it (emptiness and infinity) as them, (the male and female forces and attributes).For over 20 years now I was fooled by the image that arose in my mind by the spontaneous arising and consciousness of the Void. Within time I saw the rising light within The Void, its inverted energetic likeness which I came to learn was the same as the yin and the yang, and with that I watched the images of them within me divide, multiply and transmutate; I saw them together give rise to consciousness by whom and with they created all things. This was dwelling on nothingness, not the essence there in and the dwelling on nothingness would literally bring destruction and dissolution to everything I had, from things that had form, like the belongings a person has, to things that use form like relationships people have; all falling and crumbling by what I had in mind which was the two forces of nothingness creating all things. Yet the very night I wrote the OP of this thread I had a realization about the Buddhas dharma on emptiness was in fact a reflection on the vision of creation that even today is something not just myself has had, the mystery of mysteries was unlocked and 20 years of studying the contents of my head were at once transformed into dharma understanding and I am seeing a new reality being born. This understanding unites the words of the Buddha and the words of Laozi as the teaching of one and the same. When we do not identify with the bodies systems and form which we are not, then we lack the concerns and desires of the body- then we are dwelling with and as infinity which is what is us, then what is seen without self is what is; because all that is seen is the path, and dharma , and the illusion of form is no more the active principle of our being. How could what is formed of finite form take action and cause activity on with what is not formed and infinite?!?!? When we identify with the systems of the body and its form as the self then we see the illusion of form as whats real, and we are concerned about what is not real and our activities revolve around that delusion and we become neurotic. To sum this and everything up to now, we can refer to what was written when it was seen that- But "it"doesn't do anything, it is done without effort any thing doing any thing. The itness of its suchness having the nature of the principle within emptiness is what completes all things and that principle gives its the momentum that gives totality to anything named by knowing its being; and it does so simply by just being. So because there is only emptiness, all that can be is going to be and will be, so there is no need to avoid anything or do anything; there is no possession of anything or obligation to anything. If it is going to happen it will happen and no doing or contriving can make that happen, but it can only make what we do act back on us. That which doesn't belong to the path is not and cant be; that which is on the path, is the path of infinity. There is no inherent goodness. If we conceive goodness the mutual arising conceives badness. Since the mutual arising of inherent goodness has its becoming from a self and the self is based on form and form is not, then the good and bad are also not, only passing things being passed along by beings who are passing. When there is no being passing these things on they will no longer be. There is no simple way to put it, but not in relation to there being a difficult way to put it so its really just neither, just look at it and it is, if it is made to be simple it'll bee seen as something difficult made simple, if it is made to be difficult then it wont be seen as simple... ...it is what it is, if it is difficult seeming it is the expanded and fullness and just takes time but is simpler, if it is simple it is not simple but the same thing only condensed and without the benefit of not having the erroneous views excluded. Heres the condensed version: the one who is none, became two that was 3, with and of that was the mutual arising of all things living, in & of eternity, being the one who is none, the ever resting. The one becoming two is not the creation of duality, it is the maintaining of infinity and the birth place of unity. Duality is the creation of awareness conscious of being human and under the spell of the illusion that form is real, these "humans" made distinctions between the forms they distinguished and ascribed qualities to theses distinctions by relating them to the self-concept. That simple action is the cause of dualistic chaos ensuing. That action was the deunification of all things. Here in existence, the snare of duality is that there is no good there is no bad, but because the good things are good in our way of thinking, we like to think that in non-duality there is only good but no bad. We cause in delusion the imbalance of the storm, and what is effective at easing discomfort and suffering but not ending it is trying to balance good and bad by aiming for the middle, and that be effective on calming the storm subtly within a person and in the relations of that person. What is beyond the mundane and one with the path is not either it is an ultra-mundane reality that is not divided by distinction, and where in the happenings are all in equilibrium, it is the state of being before good and evil were ever born and elaborated. This from the dualistic perception could be called good, but could also be called bad, but is neither, it is just the way of infinity, and to know what that is like is to experience the consequences of being infinity. The consequences of being the principle is having no self and the principle be you, and for you to just be. It is to be in profound comfort and ease, but to know that this does not come from you or through being you but that all that is is within the one and that this is merely the fundamental state of reality just being. Form being unreal is not the source of pleasure, it is not the source of joy, or bliss. It is not the source of love, or of comfort. It is impossible to relax your form because comfort is not your forms to have. It is not what receives joy because joy is not for form to experience. All these aspects of being only belong to the state- of non-being and are the direct result of the security in being infinity and not fearing the illusion of death, by not embracing the concept of self or self existing. It is to experience the wholeness in being not one, and not, not one, but humanity complete. .

Work for what?

Non-being is emptiness, the principle within non-being is it's fullness and what gives it emptiness; it's fullness is the vehicle of the mutual arising which it is inseparable from, and is also emptiness. IF the self is, it is dependent on there being other, and they are dependent on form which is transient and temporal, and thus without the principle within emptiness/non-being which is not temporal or dependent on form, then the self and other are not. Self and other are not, even in relation to the other, for if one is not, it can not be the basis of the other, so one self being does not create another, and the other one not being cant support anything. If what is, is not on the path of the principles arising through non-being''s being, then it is not. If what is, is dependent on non-being for its being, and is being by way of being mutually arisen as the diversification of the principle, then it is, and if it is, it is non-being/emptiness which is inseparable from the principle and like the stream of its diversification, utterly without a self.. Form is perceived, what is perceived as form being is perceived from form and is temporal, and the perceiving and perception of it is transient and changing, changeable and dissolving and so its not. Beings that are formations are not, nor is what is perceived by them of forms. The self being dependent on what is not, is not a being to begin with, but as long as it is being perceived its dependency is on that. If its being is reliant on what is temporal, its being is illusion, if it is reliant on non-being then it is, and it is without self. Non-being's being is emptiness the principle within emptiness gives emptiness its form, (which i s formless). Non-beings being makes manifest the mutual arising of its co-arisen forms of non-being, yet the numbers are not form. Emptiness isn't spacious like the emptiness within a space, but non-beings emptiness is vast without dependending on perception or being percieved for its emptiness. Its non-being is it's existence which means that it is not a manifestation of form, action, or activity. Form is dimensional space within dimensional space and dependent on dimensional space which is perceived as being, but it as a reality is not. Form is, only in relation to form (which is space being within space). Form is the formation of spaces within a perceived space, having come together into formation, and will once again fall apart and be no more, so its existence must be thought of as "in the past", which is "not here", and as, such has no real existence to take form of and in. It's existence is only perceived and what is perceived as an object or form is illusion/unreal. If Tao had was or is a form, its form would be dependent on substance and space, or the comming together in formation as space as substance within substance as space; if Tao came together as the result of things, its being would be dependent on there being a predecessor, but the Tao has no predecessor except that which it is dependent on which is the principle within. The principle within Tao is the first and only cause; the only cause is that there was and is the mutual arising of things as expressions of the principle within things, from Tao, the formless comes mutually the co-arisen being the 1 as the two and with that the manifestation through mutual arising comes all things that come in and out of formation as beings being, none of or dependent a form of anything for being, but all that is that is not illusion is born of this Tao that is emptiness, and all that is born of emptiness are emptiness which is as full of the principle as it is empty. When the being of a manifistation is full, this means it has been known by it's predecessor (which is the principle within the manifestation expressing the principle,), the knowing of fullness and the mutual arising are one, and the principle within by way of Tao becomes more, and what it becomes is the same as what it comes from and what it is going to, all of which are Tao. The Tao is emptiness and its mode of becoming are empty and without being or form, and what it will be will be the product of the principle that unites all these as one, the principle within Tao that is Tao. Is empty and without form, formation or coming into being. Its happening can be perceived but is not, and what it happens to can be perceived but has nothing happening to it, there is no self making things happen, no stuff having it happened too, just the nature of the principle within Tao causing all things through their mutual arising. Which are because of the emptiness of Tao and its co-arisen being non-being. The being NOT of Tao, is it's being's suchness, it's itness being; therefore the Tao of non-being is the manifestation of the principles being, the principle's unseeable form's suchness being seen in this emptiness is the comprehension of its unknowable fullness, and that being is the Tao within's coming forth as the mutual arising of inseparable beings. If you were what you are because of who and or what you are, then you would be not. The self being I, and the I having self is an illusion based on forms and formations. If your youness is dependent on formation, then it is dependent what is unreal and illusory for it's coming into being, and is not from the source through mutual arising. If your youness comes into being because of formations, then the essence of your youness is transient and should be thought of as in the past. The past having no beingness is not. If you are that you are, then the formations of forms and bodily systems that you Identify with as self are the excuses for your being, and what you are being. If what you are being is the excuse for that you are, and what you are being is the identity of who is being, then your existence is dependent on your existence already being. If you had been already being in order that you made manifest your own existence as the independent source of your own being, then that which created you being based on a form that was not, yet created, there for the "I am" s not and never will be. The self can not manifest its own self. When the principle within formless Tao that gives it's emptiness it's form, makes manifest a suchness being, the virtue of the principle within is given to that suchness's within and that suchness is manifest because of the principle within it is within it. The principle within Tao is un-created and everlasting originless non-being being, and without origination resting tranquilly always within the Tao, and so that which is called truly existing has the quality of not perishing or being dependent on something destined to dissolving, but instead is directly connected to, and is one with the foreverness who's likeness is perceivable within Tao's emptiness. That you are as a fact can only be suggested, and if the suggestion is based on the form being perceived, then it will be perceived as being no more when what is perceived is dissolving, or when the perceiver stops perceiving or holding a perceived mental image as to be proof of the perceived things reality being. A form requires and is dependent on things for being, namely spaces gathered within space, a perceiver, perceiving a perception of the object which is the subjection of space within space; with these things a form can be perceived... When the perceiver is not subject to what they perceived, then there is no more perceiving of the thing, so the perception of being is in the mind only. In the mind of a viewer where no object or other is, (except by the imagining called memory recollection which is subjective and a conjured thing, not actually manifested and being;) a mental image imagined. So if there is nothing to be perceiving you as being, then you are not being and are not. Is the "I AM" that is what you are ,in existence and real as the product of anothers imagination? If it is then you are dependent on that other imagining you, and the other is a form that is temporal and destined to disolve, and so effectively you are not. This islike wise for the self perceiving itself, when you are not perceiving you, the self no longer is within you and you are not, so how can the "Iam that Iam" be that it is? It does not have existence unless that which it is is bares the imprint of the principle in which only that which comes from, and is emptiness, and emptiness is totally selfless and without self? So being that the "I am that I am" requires other things that are not to support and maintain that is, what it is,then that what it is, is Not, and gives no existence for the "I am" to be. Without self and other to perceive and imagine you being there, then there is no perceiver, no perceiving, and no perception., With self and or other perceiving you, your basis and what you rely on for being was formed, and is becoming unformed and so ithe forms that were relied on are not,; the formations are in the past which is not. All that is is emptiness, the product of emptiness, dependent on emptiness and with mutual arising the passing of the principle into emptiness from emptiness. If you are then you are the "I am, that emptiness is, was, & will be", none of which has self to claim emptiness as it's own being, so is not, because all that is, comes from emptiness and is emptiness. if it is form it is illusion, being illusion it has no power to cause and no dependents to support. Illusion is the basis of Not.

All the emotions I can think of are relative and I so I wonder where love comes in in non dual terms some times, but I tend to think that it was all there, I could feel it but there realllly wasnt any othing like sadness or anything, I guess I tend more to think that this is the state of being where things like love originate. Maybe It would take exposure, maybe bliss is what its like when one is just being in that state, for instance if one were to remain in the state of being and go for a walk and another person came by, I can see how in feeling the bliss, being without discomfort or worry, no plans or schedule to keep, just dwelling in the thick of overwhelming bliss I can see that upon meeting the person, you would feel kindness and love, or if a person was suffering that the bliss would turn to compassion.

This might be veering off topic a little, but I would like to comment on this; Like some others here at TTB I have experienced egoless states. Never was one like the other. Some were terrifying where the only way of calming down was to quickly reassemble my Identity, most were very comfortable and relieving. There was one that I would say was a glimpse of "nirvana" the utmost unsurpassable state of being. This one involved the experience of bliss, which draws a self-concept into consciousness, as in "I am feeling bliss", or "this state is enjoyable". Whatever the thought that arises says or expresses, the thought implies an observer so a self concept arises and that is what causes a loss of the experience of perceiving through nirvana. Even thoughts like "I am this state" or "This is my true nature", which identify the state with a concept of self, or thoughts that bestow a title to the state like "this is the state of Nirvana", have the effect of disintegrating the the state of awareness. perceived through by the state. My current understanding of losing the state of nirvana, is that the bliss, comfort, or anyway the sensation can be described, is that the sensation to which we cling, or enjoy is not nirvana. When we enjoy or cling to Nirvana, we are not clinging to or enjoying Nirvana, but instead the experience is clinging to the effect of being (in) Nirvana. The experience of bliss etc., is the shine upon the apple. Clinging is mistaking the shine upon the apple for the apple itself. Bliss etc., is the radiance of nirvana, and the result of there being no thing to contrast the bliss etc. This is the crux of "crossing over", passing through the gateless gate. It is here where the practitioner judges them self by how they respond to the experience. Clinging to, identifying with, enjoyment of, comparison of the experience, and or deriving meaning from the experience (as in "I am becoming Buddha" or, "I am becoming enlightened") is to not allow awareness entrance into Nirvana because you are wanting it for your self, and calling it the ultimate. You can not remain in the experience for yourself; a self can not get beyond the radiance of nirvana, for within nirvana there is no self, nor lack there of.

Like a wave without a shore to crash upon, so is the sound of one hand clapping. Give it a beach and hear a round of applause. In the sun filled shallows, seaweed grows to the surface, shellfish will cling to the rock, and the swimming fish will make in the reef, their home. Bears, fox an others will be drawn down from the mountain to feast on the nightly provision deposited by the swell. Seals will rest on the rock bearing off spring in the safety and abundance of the shore. Birds from the forest come to hunt, birds from the sea join in to nest. The men and women will gather to throw their nets, their little ones will adorn each other with sea shells like the queens and kings who they are.

Pride is the sound of one hand clapping. Blame is the sound of one hand clapping.

Dao came 1st, but only after it's De was apparent. The myriad awareness arose out of nothingness and asked, "where does all this de come from? To what do we owe our existence?", whilein the same moment Dao mutually arose.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. You want to be upright, but in a natural comfortable way so that the body in accordance with gravity and posture and the finds its balance and hols itself up. Also, and this was more of a addition not specific to lower back, a lot of what we think is discomfort is easily overcome if ignored. However continually trying to re adjust, (even if just at the beginning) because of the perceived discomfort ends up never ending, one discomfort leading to another after every re-adjustment. A lot of that perceived discomfort is just noticing the different feeling. You feel it along those specific areas and thinking about the discomfort brings those specific lines of discomfort to mind which gives shape to those body parts, and keeps your attention on the shaped and formed, defined reality, you become very "self-conscious" in thinking and adjusting because of an about the "discomfort". That disrupts the meditation and being in the wrong posture, you wont be able to relax into what I call "profound comfort". Back to the lower back; if your daily routine and its associated muscle tensions cause you to feel a certain wrongness in your meditation posture which causes you to correct the wrongness thus creating a wrongness, you might be getting the pain from that. So the answer is to feel for where you really feel comfortable, all the while keeping mindful of the basic posture specifications, attending to uprightness, balance etc, but into relation to a posture that you can relax in without falling over or tilting or whatever. When you truly can melt, as in release all muscle tension dependent on consciousness, and remain in posture then that's where you want to be. Sit like a rock as they say; it tumbles and falls into a resting state of perfect balance. In that state if a feeling comes up in your back make sure it is not related to consciousness, if it appears to be purely physical, not dependent on consciousness, then go back to your breathing. If it comes up in your leg or thigh or knee and it is not due to consciousness/cant be released, then go back to your breathing, or what ever you do to keep your attention in check. When you can keep your attention off it you'll forget about it, it will go away completely, or the specific lines that draw attention to the specific body parts will fade and the feeling will lose its value/what you defined it as, and the lines will blur, it will feel like an object independent of your being, not comfortable or un-comfortable, just a ball of energy. That is where profound comfort sets in,the ultimate relief, a comfort not dependent on the body the physical that more so feels like its coming to you then from you; sitting on the lap of God .

I slouch all the time, which has my bones and muscles kinda tweaked most of the time, but after meditation My back always feels better. Physacly, meditation should be about relaxation so it is more important to relax and balance the spine then to hold it up right. Trying to sit too up right I had noticed that I was doing this thing, almost like I was holding myself up right by elevating the shoulders. What I realized I was oing was causing a subtle tension in my inner thigh, which actually lifted my butt slightly and gave me the illusion of sitting straighter. I had thought I wasn't keeping my back straight, but everytime I noticed tension and relaxed it, my back would fall into the slouchy feeling. I sat with a freind of mine whos been practicing meditation for over 40 years, he's been involved in American Buddhism since the 60's, and used to roll with Alan Watts, so I value his opinion on certain things. When our session was over, I held my posture which felt slouchy and asked him if it looked alright. He said yes. So what I had been doing was doing that lifting thing which caused pain when I didnt need to. It didn't feel straight to me because I didn't puff up. So maybe ask a freind or use a mirror once to make sure that when you think you're slouching you really are, because if you think you are and you aren't, you'll more then likely make yourself so rigid an in a few minutes you'll realize that your holding you back straigt with the thighs and your ass is starting to lift off the cushion. The key to straightening the back while keeping it realxed is to relax the inner thigh, and keep the spine erect by relaxing the shoulders and laying your wrist or forearms so that they rest across the tops of the thighs, then direct the spine so that it is lined up with gravity. That way you are not holding anything up period; its all balance and rest, then you just need to watch your chin/neck; the moving of your chin/neck can cause the spine to tense up too. When one part of your body falls out of position, the spine does gradual shifting so your chin rising can cause your spine to tense up in a couple minutes after. If you feel pain in your back, relax your butt and you'll feel your lower spine settle in. Keep checking your shoulders, if your shoulders are held in place by your hand mudra, that will create tension in your back via the shoulders, so make sure that your hand mudra is not holing you up, but that the weight of your shoulders is laying across the tops of your thigh an your hands are resting togeather so that they feel like they are not your own hands. Your back does not need to be held up, that is not the idea, its all about rest and comfort/letting go of tension. Something else that reflects in the back/spine is chest/throat breathing. If you're not breathing withyour diaphragm it will disturb the entire posture and cause you to hold your shoulders up an eventually lead to back discomfort. To breath through the diaphragm is to relax the diaphragm which is to relax the back and spine. The other thing is thought and muscle tension are one. Thought creates muscle tension, muscle tension creates thought. Relaxing the body quiets the mind, and quieting the mind relaxes the body. If you are finding that you are tense and try to relax, stop thinking an remember that you are not feeling discomfort, it is just a thought that you are feeling discomfort, you are thinking that you are feeling discomfort and you can break free of that thought just like every other one. The physical sensation will be there but it will be like a thing of its own that wont register as discomfort to you, the discomfort becomes like an indipendent object that has no affect on you.

No, I din't get the joke, but in all of the universe, ego is the only thing outside of a relationship. Again, ego is the sound of one hand clapping. I could hear it in your post, your ego was the only one in that relationship/ sucspiscion, accusation etc. For about a week now I cant watch vids, just a blank screen. My kids can't play video games either. Still cant see it, just blank and black. Sounds like you hooked up with a chick with a baby and temporarily assumed a role til you guys broke up and now your pursuing other things. Not at all like the zen story which is about not assuming roles an non-attatchment. The ude in the story was accused of impregnating a women, he was called the father of the child by the mother and her parents who were demanding that he take responsibility for his child which he did with out getting laid or enjoying the mothers company, until the day they said " hey thats not your baby its ours", to which he had no sense of possesion or attatchment and said, "if you say so". Its not that his girlfriends kid identified him as daddy because of the guys relation to the mom, and he say "oh how sweet" and felt an ego assertment until the day they broke up and he said, "hey this is your kid not mine" and then went on to pursue other pleasures. I dunno if its the same thing, but not long ago I was sitting in meditation. Often as Im doing so, I let my attention or what ever rest on the sound of crickets which is there day and night if you listen for them. At any rate, I was sitting and I dunno what the thought was that arose, but I wasn't really that involved in it but sort of was, and all of the sudden this really loud chirp from a cricket came out of the relative silence like a slap, and I got it. It was almost like the cricket was listening to whatever dumb thought I was begining to pay attention to, and interupted with a loud chirp with utter seriousness. It felt like there was something serious like an emergency going on and I was goofing off and someone checked me. It didn't startle or alarm me, it brought right into the moment

For some reason the video didn't show up for me, but that is actually perfect because the sound of one hand clapping expresses only one half of a relationship/dynamic being present in the act. Ego is the sound of one hand clapping. Two hands clapping represents how life springs from selfless relationships. What should sadden generations of zen practitioners is that they were led to believe that koans were unanswerable, and that they were encouraged to take up house-holding and dronism. If they weren't a form of direct pointing then they should have been more chaotic, ridiculous an truly unanswerable. No. Accoring to the buddhist philosophy the koan is meant to shed light on, all things are empty and non-existant beyond their point of origination; every thing is consciousness and only the experienced is to be believed in. Even the bible says that in the begining, there was no rain because there was no man to till the ground.

Dark matter is the universe you live in. It is the physacal expression of void, and what gives your body and everything dimension. Everything is physacly within a field or merged fields of "dark matter", and the same stuff also permeates everything and allows for the quality of 3 dimmensions. If it was not dark matter, but some type of black globual light mass type thing appearing similar to something you might DESCRIBE as a sort of " dark matter", it may have been more something in you auric field or a similar representation to your conscious from your being. As far as meditation, I practice zazen, but that is dhyana. The experiences I've had were first something I experienced in a trance like state of reverie, or a reverie like state of trance, then later I would meditate ON the negative energy fields with focus in a state of reverie, (which is the truer definition of the word "meditation"), to learn from it. It ocaisionaly pops up while sitting in dhyana, but much softer and "nicer". Part of the deal with the meditation process is the labeling of what you "watch" to learn and understand, even hear, but dhyana it's the opposite. This sounds a lot like a representation of the void duality; the original forms of yin/yang which express themselves through a variety of similar expressions. They/it does not represent itself as male-female, yin yang this or that or anything so people that see them/it usually use terms that vaguely describe them, like void, singularity arkness and light etc. What you describe sounds like a "part" in it that I i not see until later. The grouping of "yangs",( the light) is the creation of physical space. The dark energy fields(space) around the light merge and become one body because the "male"/lights are attracted to each other, but the lights themselves do not merge but have obscure orbits around eachother, and also pass through eachother. The negative fields around them do merge an stay to geather as long as the lights are clustered togeather in their orbits. If they are exhibiting color, like you say they were blue instead of whitish or brightness w/out light, then it is the "male" exhibiting curviture (the blue waveleangth) and so its showing the something with in the first stage of particle creation. The waveleangths form clusters, because they are attracted to each other which are "particles", within a field of energy that has its source in the underworld( pre-existance). The clusters/paticles also have a field of energy around them. Other colors will show too, the colors will do the same type of thing, forming clusters/particles which will either be repelled or attracted to eachother based on their colors. Blues for instance will be atracted, and if they are different shades/waveleangths, they will sort of merge forming more complex particles and share an energy field around them. Blue and yellow would be repelled, but blue and green would be attracted to a point, but held apart by an equally repelling force, green and yellow the same, because the green has similarities with blue and yellow, but is also an opposite. But we could be talking about something else for which I appologize. That is the problem with naming things like this that do not have a orthodox lexicon to describe them, it draws up images and definitions in other peoples minds that are not what we refer to that is why I generally just use the terms yin & yang, and female and male.

I've experienced things similar to what you describe. Dark matter is a higher state of void, a materiel state of void if you will. At the center of it is a form of formless, still non-existant yang, to which a field of "negative" (no conotation on the word negative) energy surrounds it. The negative energy is "dark matter", or empty space; the yin to the yang that creates it. Check out this thread and see if it sounds like something you can relate your experience to. http://thetaobums.com/topic/31745-void-experience/http://thetaobums.com/topic/31745-void-experience/

In the spirit of Tao, if you make a statement it wont be all encompassing; the contrast will arise, another aspect will reveal itself. The tao can not be linearized without revealing the fullness of its nature. When one of us makes a concrete statement in regards to tao, others are bound to see that what we are saying reveals a whole other aspect of the tao that is being spoken of. The complete reality being all at once and now can not be named in a linear fashion, to focus on an aspect of it is to blind yourself to others, so the one that is focused on reveals the aspect that was not. Part of the title of the forum is "discussions on the way" and I agree, how can there be a statement about the way that is more encompassing then the discussion that arises after? Why should the op or the maker of the statement fear contrast if they feel they have it; if their tao is all encompassing, then it will encompass the contrast, it will explain that it is not, or how it is. If their tao is not all encompassing, then it will be enhanced by the contrast, and the thread itself will be far more informative to anyone who's reading to include both contrast and support.

Is anyone else into this? Some times I tell people Im a farmer/gardener/somewhere inbetween the two, when Im cornered and they ask me "So what do you do?". Im not really an anything you can put your finger on as I suspect many of you are the same at least in essence if not also in expression. I dont ever work full time, or steadily/regularly, so I definitely dont identify with my career and my career is not my lifestyle, nor would anyone associate my "work" with , or to describe who or what I am. Among the ever growing list of what I am, and am not, I am defiitly a cultivator and a planter. I have worked as a farmer, and I have also grown large food gardens for sustenance living off grid garden-farming as part of my daily routine of just being. Planted gardens in the wild, green house and indoor, and am a fairly decent ammeture mycologist. Natural farming is something I started learning about a couple few years ago, and it fit beautifully into my way of life, and into my vision of what I want to do with my nature to grow things. I have a vision tha Ive had since I was a kid about creating a setting of at least semi-self perpetuating food and medicinal plants naturalized into a natural landscape, where very little caretaking would be required. Some of what is found in the natural farming philosophies and practice will make it more possable to achieve what I envision. Natural faarming does not claim to be a taoist method of farming, but to me it is, and my aproach even more so, but un-like regular "organic farming" which is not a practice or defined order, the traditional natural farming practices are actual methodologies, with abelief that nature has a nature, and puts a stress on mimicing nature, and doing things naturaly. Master Masanobu Fukuoka I believe is the originator of Nature Farming and author of a book called One Straw Revolution. There is also Korean Natural Faarming established by Mater Cho, who if I am not mstaken learned directly from Master Fukuoka. Korean Natural Farming is what I have been learning and am more familiar with; vs nature farming, Korean Natural Farming is a little more hands on/involved. We use micro-oranisms more intentionaly, but cultivate the stock from the surrounding wild and forests, IMO, indigenous micro-organisms. Heres a little info. Here is some about Master Cho

If you picke up rice to make the starter, you will need to grind it, either in a blender, or bit by bit in a coffee griner. You need flour or bran so grining it will produce flour. Again, just mix 1 part flour to one part water. Blend it togeather into a slurry. Use a container with a wide mouth to collect organisms easier, plus to allow for better air contact. Cover the container with a cloth an secure it with a tie, or a rubber ban. Place it outsie out of direct sun-light so it doesn't dry out. But put it some where that the critters in your area wont discover it. I lost my last sour dough starter to a fox one night. Check on it every 24 hours an give it a little stir. Probably within 72 to 96 hours you will begin to see bubbles. Once you see bubbles, give it another 24 to 48 hours, then feed it. To feed it, tranfer it to a larger container and add a fresh flour/water slurry made the same way you made the initial starter(1 part to 1 part). Blend it togeather, but this time, keep it inside. Stir it every 24 hours for for 2 days or until it is obviously active. You coul a a spoonfull of yogurt or kefir if you want an mix that in to it at this point if you want but it should work fine. Once the fed batch becomes active, (bubbles) which will happen much sooner, probably within that 2 days, you can cover with a lid and store in your fridge til your reay to use it. It shoul not mold over because its colonize by the yeasts an bacteria. Now you have starter for decomposing excrement or making yummy home made bread. This is not too dissimilar to the product called EM-4. EM-4 is often sold for breakown of excrement in septics an out houses. Its also sold for use on plants. EM-4, aka Effective Micro-organisms 4, is a prouct from japan containing laboratory grown micro-organisms, namely yeasts, lactic acid bacteria, an a photosynthetic algae. Sourough starter is a collective of various yeasts andlactic acid bacteria. You can also add a teaspoon of live vinegar, like braggs applecider unpasteurized vinegar with the mother(meaning with live culture) an mix that in the sourdough starter to add acetobacter to the list of micro organisms.

I was really suprised when I first discovered bamboo as a plant beyond what I saw of the wild stuff where I grew up in California. The first time I saw a section of black bamboo on Maui I was awestruck by its beauty. Some of the higher end bamboo, usually the slower growing stuff that grows in clumps instead of spreading by root runners, is incredibley strong and beautiful to behold. But even the "weed" or wild bamboo is an amazing resource on so many levels. The ground and soil around bamboo is also a great place to collect micro-organisms for gardening. Very rich in good bacteria.

Its very un taoish to insist that members be assertive, and to refine their ideas into linear thoughts with titles in my opinion. I don't sit around waiting opportunistically to slip my thoughts in everywhere, but it seems according to tao to not be assertive with thoughts and ideas, but to let them arise naturally. Even if it means never getting them out to begin with. Not to say that focus is unimportant and keeping in the same vein and flow of the conversation is not important or that craziness and disorder are taoish. But regimenting strictly is for asserter's of linear things, people with SOMETHING to say, rather then the spontaneous self arisingness where the Tao actually is. It seems if the Tao is going to make itself apparent in a conversation, it wont be in a controlled environment because the person speaking it would have to do so in an unintened spontaneous way. But yes, I agree that at least bringing comments around back to the conversation is important and not interjecting anything that is completely unrelated is important.

The original method the japanese came up with for reinnoculating new logs was to build new log stacks and whap the old and new stacks with clubs. It helped distribute the spore mass of the mushrooms and the damaged surface of the new logs were the innoculation points for the spores to hopefully germinate on. It was pretty random but worked well enough. Im pretty sure the log culturing was done in the forest where the shiitake grows naturally, so they had that advantage though. I believe it is alder that shiitake naturally decomposes, thati could be wrong tho but the name shiitake denotes its habitat. If Im right, the translation is "alder mushroom" Shii=alder, take =mushroom. Most Japanese shrooms have the "take" suffix as in shiiTAKE, maiTAKE, or matsuTAKE. for log culture, you want to innoculate in the spring. Take a healthy section of a live tree and innoculate befor a competitor takes hold. You want to 'noc 'em up, as they say right after you cut a section. Cut the section while the tree is still dormant and not full of sap yet; before it puts out its leaves uring dormancy but not too early. The section would idealy be about 3 ft long and not more then a foot wide, but that is ideally. You could noc up a stump with a 24 inch ddiameter, but for stacking logs and ensuring quick colinization the 3 ft length of a less then a foot wide log is ideal. If you plug the log or uses wedges in the early spring you should have shrooms in the fall. A method for ensuring repetitive flushing, usually 3 or 4 but possably more smaller flushes, is to dunk the logs-meaning, submerge them for 24 hours. This is almost shiitake specific though and doesnt necessarily mean all shrooms benifit from dunking. Other wise you can water them. But if you cultivate the mycelium on an airy substrate like saw dust or straw, you can harvest perpetually so long as the conditions for growth and fruiting are met. You can also work up mycelium as though you were growing in bags, but use it to make an outdoor bed in the groun that should produce shrooms anualy. You can ad mulch every year to freshen up the nute supply. With outdoor cultivation of fresh logs, pasteurization is un necessary. It is fairly necessary to pasteurize straw first though, but fresh saw dust, fresh wood chips and also wood products(lumber) arent necessarily things that require pasteurization. The idea of pasteurization in mushroom culturing is for alot of reasons. Sterile technique works great if you are in a controlled environment and can maintain sterile conditiond till full colinization but its a high risk atmosphere for competitor micro-organisms. its the perfect setting for contamination because you create a perfect substrate with perfect nutritional content, then kill all the inhabitants by sterilizing one way or another, then you grow it in warm conditions so if a local mold or bacteria gets in there it takes off you have to toss the whole thing. It definitely has its pros too. Pasteurizing on the other hand is when we bring the temp of the substrate up to 185 degrees and down to 120. I usually just shoot for the middle, 140 to 165 and hold it there for 30-60 minutes then let it cool down to 80ish, by then all the competitor organisms have been killed off by then, but the thermal tolerant bacteria, yeast, and acetomycetes survive and remain on/in the substrate. This biological community acts as an immune system to the prefered fungi, and in know way competes with the mushroom, in fact, it beneifits the fungus to have these creatures on there. The organisms that remain on the straw or whatever after pasteurization will hold of competitors for up to 10 days which is usually long enough for the mycelium to colonize an airy, nutritios substrate like supplemented straw or sawdust. My method has been to set the hot water heater to 175 then use the bath tub with a submerged sea bag stuffed with straw till it cooled down. for smaller batches i use large stock pots on the stove with the substrate packed into pillow cases and held down with bricks or the like. Using a candy thermotetr or a meat thermometer you can easily maintain propper temps for the hour ish it needs to be on there. Whenever doing anything like this with water you have to keep the "field capacity" in mind. Thats the water to substrate ratio. You want it saturated with water, but dry to the touch, definitely not dripping unless squeezed hard. Too wet causes anerobic conditions, too dry and the mycelium will completely dry out everything as it grows, then it wont grow onto the dry stuff. When pasteurizing, going too far over like 185 plus will kill the good organisms and leave the substrate vulnerable and susceptable to contamination. So, thouroughly pasteurize in a pillow case or a canvasish bag, then hang the bag over night, the next day it should be at field capacity and should be innoculatedd promptly. However, if you have a washing machine you can put the pillowcases in the washer on spin cycle, when its done its at field capacity, then you dont have to put off innoculation til morning. If you do a log section at the end of winter early spring, it shouldd be at field capacity already, you may even thouroughly water the tree if you can right before logging it if its been dry/ and/or if you can. Any kind of wood prouct from hardwood lumber to woodchips/saw dust should be soake submerge (wood floats) in water for 48 hours, then hung to "dry" to field capacity. Cardboar deserves mentionhere too. Same thing as far as soaking. More then 24 hours, possably boiled if its dirtyish. Mycelium of wood decomposers like oyster will grow right on there. Shiitake should too especially if the mycelium is connected to a nutrition source already. If it has a chunk of substrate on it, it will use its own nutes to colonize the card board, then the cardboard can be used to store the culture, or as spawn. My "d" key is busted so sorry for the EXTRA typos above the usual.

Knowing the male and dwelling with the female is also equatable to dhyana; the body in a state of total relaxation while the mind is locked in concentration. The body dwells with the female and the mind with male. The expressions of Lau Tsu are universal in their truth. After sitting, here is the duality and nonduality of voidness, and its being and non-being in more simpler terms. Before reality ever was, and its energy was contained in the form of perfect stillness and formlessness there was absolutely nothing. Nothing being, there was a sense of being, because of non-being being the utter reality. So nonbeing in physacal terms, made manifest the first sense of being an unphysacal thing, and both by thier nature were infinities, and the initial expressions of the sourceless source. The sourceless source is the spirit and principle of infinity, that alone has true and permenent existence, (even in the form of nothing), makes all things and no-things a simultaneous reality. The unphysacal thing attained a non-relative self awareness. The self awareness refined its physical non-being, and thus gave it conceptual form. So non-being(physical) creates being(experiental spirit of reality), and existence (spiritul aspect of non-being) creates (it's own)non-existance. The conceptual form of non- being/self awareness of the origanal state of nothing), is the first "named" of and by the Great Tao, and thus revealed the un-named aspects, and so the male aspect of nothing(the niche filling of conceptual nothingness to its completion that become appearent on the knowing of the first known ) gave rise by way of the sourceles sources being; infinity completes its name and completes the reality of voidness by giving rise in 3 "physical" forms, and with the completing of nothingness by way of the principle of infinity, all the aspects of time and existing reality, the myriad creatures are givven life as they come into being by way of the arising of oposition who in turn become unified in a collective overall self awareness who percieves the things in a state of orginasitation, and thus no form gives rise to form). The stillness of the first state is the first, the being of the male aspect is the second, and the reaction of the first aspect with the second aspect. So the transition from stillness to the physical non-physical states of reality dive rise to a spiritual state of reality; the platform for all this is the principle and existence of infintiy). The spiritual state of non-being defines the non-physacl, which causes a reaction and re-creation. The re-creation causes other spiritual beings to arise because anything that is, even by way of being not, will share in the sense of being and become self aware. The complex of nothingnes, and its self awareness's being, becomes self aware itself.. Within its self awareness, it becomes aware of the concept of differences, and becomes aware of the concept of form. When form comes into existence, it comes in the likeness of its mother; the first form and foundation of reality is empty space. This forms being causes the the state of non being to become the place of non-existence. With that, so it is again that existence creates non existence. Non existence is not a quality charecter or element that can take physacal form in our reality, but we (awareness) having come from there can return there in mind experiental spirit, and then become consciously aware of its being and non being. It was not until almost 6 years ago that I realized that it truly does not exist, and we are its exact reflection. Just as it can never come into physical being, a physacla being could never exist in its "realm"

Its not that void does not exist, as in, it is not. It has no form or dimmension, so from here, existence/4-D reality, it does not exist. Existence created its non existence, but for an eternity (and still now and for ever more,) it existed. Being defined it's non being. Rather then say it exists as potential, I would say it exists in a state of latentcy. Latent, it is completely not, except for it's sense of being. Its pseudo self awareness is what defines it, that it notices it is nothing gives it it's character, once a character is noticed, the full spectrum comes to life, so the noticing of its charecter defines it, and creates it's opposite sameness which is yang/male. The thing that Marblehead sees as singularity. The moment of males onset, is where we see the non-being nature of the original yin/female in action, it is where we see the action and form. The original female is the first state of nonexistence; the true void and is like a law of nature, the nature of reality at that point is non-being, nodimmensionalness and so that is the law. Its when the male aspect arises, that the law becomes enforces with vigilance, with infinite streangth. Key word being infinite. Because of the males inwardness, where it is trying to suck non-existences existence of females non-being into its state of non-being . The original female responds, and transmutates into the new female,(activity in response to males action, the activity is also an action, yet everything that has happened is selflessy activated, come into being selflessy by way of non-action; wu wei ). New female responds to the inwardness with all its streangth (infinite) by pulling in the opposite direction, outward. It streatches outward for infinity. When seeing this, it looks like empty space, but it is without any dimmension except in concept. About ten years ago, after having already spent a few years with the no-things, I wrote a poem to describe there nature and mind, which is one self awareness. "I am a large black spider. I sit in stillness in the south-east corner of my web. My web is all that is and there is no other. If a one were to arise within my web, at once I would engulf them and draw their energy into my regularity. I am a tiny white spider. I sit in waiting atop in the north western corner of my web, and my web is all that is. There is no other. If another were to become in my web I would quickly I would quickly absorb them. Their energy would become an aspect of my normality" With the poem or whatever I drew a picture with two spiders on a single web in their respective positions, oblivious to eachother. What the poem describes is the two bodies of the same force, each having its own awareness, but it is the same and conflated into one non-being being. A way to describe the body of void is that if a thing were to arise "within" it, void woud surround it pulling faster then light in all directions, stringing the thing out into pure energy, with infinite streangth, until that energy is disapated/ no more. Then void would immidately return to a state of latency. But the male aspect is equal and non diffusable. Because they both have the foundation of infinity, neither can wear the other out, so their interplay goes on and elaborates as it does. As it elaborates other phenomenon and qualities are noticedd, whatever is noticed becomes sentient; a creatue with THE sense of being, and a self awareness. These sentient beings are the laws of nature, the elements of time and existence, any phenomenon that is, was birthed in the dual-voidness, and as bodyless and nonbeing as the voidness; They are aspects of non-existence which at this point has evolved from the original state of nothingness to this complex of pseudo activity and awareness of the activity which evolves into a pseudo-being of mind. Yet all this and the mind included are non-existent. They never gain form or consciousness or take up space even in activity: it never comes into existence, yet it is the mother of existence creating itself into non-existence. This fundamental dimmension of reality at one point was reality, before the existence of existence, and yet it still is, but now as nonexistence. The mind and awareness of these things do exist. They exist in the realm of spirit/mind where they always have been and can thus be reached. When we see the void, it is this "place" we have reached. Everything in existence is of the same energy fabric. This fabric has a begining, and its begining is an eternal stillness without begining or end. Its an eternity, an infinite dimmension of total stillness to the point where nothing truly does exist as law, and nothing else but nothing can exist. The stillness of the fabric is original female, the stillness of Old Woman before the begining of time. The inversion of the stillness is male, and the resulting activity is new female, yet even this fabric in its activity and nuances of qualities is an eternaly negative energy, in the sense that it is a state of anti-energy. An energic state so below what we call zero energy that in relation to an energic form, or any expression of energy, it exhibits the quality of having energy, because its opposition to energy causes a reaction(described above) with it. The reaction, though dimmensionless and without trace, is its form. edit/insert- Old samurai movies often times show an archetype of this, because this is the foundation of Tao. The blind old master with a cane. Completely inconspicuous. He represents the stillness of the original female. He never agresses or advances. Keeping to peace and stillness, he wants no problems. Yet, the moment he is confronted, he responds integrating the confrontation as his own reaction. He never reaches for his sword first because he abides in stillness, he gaind the energy for battle by using his opponents, so when another draws his sword, the old blind master then draws his sword yet with greater spped. If the opponent puts his sword back, the blind master puts his back faster. If the opponent aims to kill, the blind master swipes his blade across his opponents throat, before the opponent even had his sword fully unsheathed. The old blind master returns his sword to its sheath and immediately returns to a state of stillness. The blind old master is a perfect example of voids "characteristics" and what Lao Tzu calls, knowing the male but dwelling with the female.

There is absolutely no use of products in Natural Farming. All inputs are homemade out of readily available materiels found in nature specificly in your local, not in a far off place. All of the micro-organisms are collected from an area within a few miles of the grow sight preferably, but certainly never bought as in a laboratory grown product, or imported from another region. If it was, imported or bought, they wouldn't be IMO(indigenous micro organisms.) The starters dont need to be bought. You would just need a supply of wheat or rice or oat or any kind of bran or flour. You add 1 part flour, to 1 part water, put a cover over it and secure the cover with a rubberband or twine. By "a cover" I mean a cloth type thing to keep bugs and dirt out. In about three days the culture of wild yeasts and bacteria, your sour dough starter will be active. You'll see bubbles in it. With your shiitakes, you can use your used log as spawn, and or get the mycelium to grow onto cardboard. Shiitake will grow on sawdust or straw too but youd want to pasteurize it first which is not difficult to do. Youd also want to supplement the sawdust/straw with bran or something like that. Not flour though. Innoculate the stuff, then fill bads with it and keep it on the cool side of warm for shiitakes. On that note, Im officialy handing this thread over to pythagorefulllotus to use as his gardening journal.

I'm not sure if this is more then two sentances but it says a lot more about tao, then a library of commentary.