吵吵闹闹就是幸福。

小鸟的歌声透露着智慧

但你要听它

听它

那是高级萨满

就像神经传导没有观点，

完全情绪化的个体也可以组成一个有效的组织。

理性是被包装后的非理性。

“更深地进入梦境” 恰是醒来的方式

在任何一个体系内，

所有的扩张、宣传、传播，都会被合理化为“正义的”或“必要的”行为。

如果一个体系不能自洽地解释为什么要增长，它就无法增长。

人类并不是“理性思考的动物”，而是“会用理性合理化自己行为的动物”。

很多人在得到一个深刻的灵性觉察后，为了使它更有说服力，会试图用科学去解释它。这样做的问题在于，他在强行用一个系统解释另一个系统。这也是为什么很多灵性书籍看起来“假”得没边。

古代典籍就没有这个问题，他们只陈述结论，从不试图说服你。

当你尝到这道菜“辣”以后，辣本身已经是一个真相了。但你却试图证明“辣”的存在是真实的，使用大量物理学、化学、心理学理论和数据，向那些没吃过辣的人，证明辣味真实存在。然后人们可以轻易地指出，你的化学理论有问题，那个方程式并不能证明辣味存在。你累不累？

你想要走出奇怪的迷宫，

但一次次地回到原地，

相同的模式一遍一遍地重复

什么时候才能跳出去呢

你快被逼疯了

最后你累了，一屁股坐在地上

说去他妈的，我就在这了

那一瞬间，你发现自己出现在了迷宫外

Two months ago, I had a strange dream that I’m still processing and trying to fully comprehend.

At that time, I had just launched a product called Wishpool, but people didn’t understand it. So I wrote an article explaining its principles, but still, no one could grasp it. Just as I was feeling frustrated, I had this dream.

In the dream, I met Buddha, and he resolved my troubles with just a few words:

“In my time, not many people understood what I was saying. Even after 2500 years, there are still very few who truly understand.”

“If I needed everyone to understand me to be happy, I would never be happy.”

He also explained from a new perspective why people didn’t understand me, but I’ll leave that part out for now.

Even more astonishing were his next words, which completely exceeded my realm of understanding:

“The first wave was religion and imperial power. Emperors wanted to be religious leaders but couldn’t, so they needed religion; religion also needed power. They are a pair.”

“The second wave was science and capitalism.”

“Science is not something outside of religion, but a new type of religion. This is a startup story: what replaced traditional religion wasn’t another religion, but something that appears completely different. Its brilliance lies in making people ‘see’, while traditional religion is about the ‘unseen’.”

“Capitalism defined new values, also about ‘seeing’, and it is a twin to science.”

He continued:

“Actually, there is a third wave.”

“Your work is bringing you closer and closer to that third wave. Your duty is to find it and bring it to people.”

“This will be your lifelong destiny.”

Regarding my current troubles, he told me:

“Your job is to bring it back, and as for how it will be accepted, others will take care of that.”

About “finding it”, he offered an odd method:

“Kill yourself.”

My understanding is: “You must be completely open. This is not something you can add; rather, you need to remove everything to stay in this moment. Only by staying in this moment can you see it.”

He even answered my confusion about Wishpool. I had been troubled by: when a wish is fulfilled, its asset value might drop to zero, causing losses for investors. But Buddha told me that its very design is not a problem:

“Any organization or concept in history, once its mission is completed, will perish. It will be seen as outdated, even despised and destroyed.”

“This is its fate, this is nature.”

“Buddhism exists precisely because its mission is not yet complete. If one day everyone understands it, it will also be destroyed.”

In the dream, I saw the long river of time, everything was clear, yet I didn’t feel excited:

“Prophecy is meaningless. What’s the point of predicting what is inevitably going to happen?”

“It’s like knowing you’ll reach the mountaintop, but boasting ‘I know we’ll get there’ - it’s meaningless.”

After waking up, I realized this is like saying at the start of a movie “I know the ending, A is the murderer”. The prophecy isn’t spoken not because it can’t be done, but because at the moment you could do it, you instantly realize it’s meaningless.

Afterthoughts:

When I discussed this dream with GPT, it said something that deeply moved me:

What Buddha might have meant is: “You are not its owner, you are merely its channel.”

You must completely let go of your control over it to truly understand its value.

I’ve been reading Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” these days. At the end of the book, there’s a retrospective article written by himself 20 years later, titled “Brave New World Revisited”.

Reading his retrospective doesn’t resonate with me as deeply as my experience reading the novel. The vague yet intense emotions brought by the novel were diluted in his reflection. He discussed many social contexts, touching on democracy, freedom, propaganda, drugs… many detailed analyses, but I don’t particularly enjoy them.

If Huxley had initially written these social commentaries instead of the novel, it would have been just another academic paper of that era, soon forgotten.

But he chose to write it as a novel, and thus it became a century-spanning classic. Even today, 100 years later, we’re still reading it.

If you acknowledge that existence itself is God,

Then your description of God’s personality is actually a description of the laws of existence itself.

“The essence of existence is certain paradoxes” and “God is humorous” mean exactly the same thing.

Viewing time as a resource is a waste of time

Waste is the only way to use

Stopping is the only way to arrive

This is the most exquisite paradox

Waking up in the morning,

Through the bedroom door,

I hear the sounds of cooking from the kitchen,

It feels like home.

Taozi enters my room,

Comes to my bedside, nudging my hand with its nose,

Urging me to get up.

Oh, it turns out my dad is cooking,

My mom is doing laundry,

And Taozi wants me to take it out to pee.

Suddenly thought of an interesting question: Would a beggar donate money to others?

What I mean is, can someone who is willing to give become poor?

A friend shared this brilliant quote from his friend:

God must have an incredible sense of humor.

What makes James Cameron truly remarkable in “Avatar” is his ability to conceptualize an entirely new social structure on another planet: lives interconnected with each other, connected to the Mother Tree, the entire ecosystem integrated as one. This is far more challenging than designing novel spaceships, and much more difficult than portraying traditional empires, military systems, or democratic models. This is something others couldn’t conceive; it requires a genuine care for life.

Yesterday in the temple, I suddenly understood why temples have statues of Buddha and masters.

I had heard various explanations before - some say it’s religious worship, others suggest it’s a meditation tool (for visualization).

But last night, looking at the statues of masters in the temple, I suddenly realized it’s simply pure love.

Just like how we keep photos of our departed loved ones at home or on our desks, looking at them from time to time - it’s just simple, pure love.

You, and me, everyone of us, we are a song.

Everything of us, we are a song.

We are a song!

Who is singing the song?

The song is singing itself.

Every moment generates next moment.

The song is singing itself.

Who is the listener?

It’s the song itself. It’s listening to itself.

Of course the world is doing itself.

People get so used to it, that they all forget what a miracle it is.

We are not different songs. We are all parts of this song.

Be in the song, and enjoy it.

Modern medicine is largely built on reductionism

That is, understanding what creates phenomena at one level by breaking things down into smaller parts

But this has its limitations,

Especially when it comes to the human body, this approach might be fundamentally wrong

How would someone from 300 years ago understand a computer?

Their approach to understanding software might be to disassemble the circuit board, trying to figure out what creates each pixel on the screen

But computer scientists know this is futile

Because software is a symbolic phenomenon many layers of abstraction above hardware - you can’t understand it at the hardware level

There are numerous layers of abstraction in between, unless you can understand each layer of abstraction.

But without documentation,

This is a futile endeavor.

So how should this person from 300 years ago understand computers?

In fact, they can understand software through software itself.

And fortunately, we ourselves are that computer, we ourselves are that software

We can understand ourselves through ourselves.

This is not just a reasonable approach, it is theoretically the only way.

From this perspective, modern medicine might be something very backward, primitive, and crude.

When we encounter technologies that “understand software through software,” we need to recognize them with wisdom, rather than label them as unscientific superstition.

(P.S. After writing this, I discussed my thoughts with a friend about the difference between reductionism and holism, and surprisingly discovered that “holistic medicine” is actually a term, referring to approaches like Traditional Chinese Medicine, yoga, and shamanic traditions. He also told me about “holistic agriculture” in his hometown in Colombia, which is like applying “holistic medicine” to agriculture instead of using reductionist approaches like pesticides. I found this fascinating.)

Our habitual reaction to things is in “review mode”: good or bad, useful or useless, beautiful or ugly.

Try looking at them the way parents look at their children instead.