Thought Ontology Unlocks the Cognitive Limits of Natural Science

The first principle: thought is identical with the thinker; mind and matter are one.

This corrects a widespread misconception — that the body is the self, and thought is a mere function of the body. Under this view, matter is regarded as inherently real, while thought is seen as derivative. But in truth, what we perceive as matter is a kind of illusion. It is thought itself that is primary. Mind and matter are one.

This point will be demonstrated from three perspectives:

1. modern scientific explanation,
2. philosophical inference,
3. empirical verification within the framework of thought ontology.

The second feature of thought is its immense elasticity — infinitely expansive, infinitely contractive.

It can stretch outward without boundary — to encompass the entire cosmos — and inward beyond any discernible limit, contracting to dimensions smaller than any known particle. Thus, “its greatness admits nothing outside, and its minuteness admits nothing within.”

In practical terms, we can contemplate the infinite vastness of the universe or the extreme smallness of subatomic particles — or even smaller, to the point of thought becoming ungraspable.

For clarity, we name the expansive mode of thought “surface-thought” and the contractive mode “point-thought.” These terms are provisional, introduced only for ease of discussion.

The third feature of thought is the instability at the interface of thought states. This instability arises not only at the transition between ordinary states but also at the threshold between derivative and higher-order thought states.

At the boundary between two thought states, qualities of both coexist, rendering the interface unstable. In contrast, the states on either side of the interface are highly stable.

For example, once one is fully situated in the current thought state, that state is difficult to exit. Likewise, once absorbed into a state of Dhyana, one remains stable within it. Reverting from it also requires deliberate effort.

The same is true of returning to the fundamental state of thought — the source of all thought — which is profoundly stable. Moving from this fundamental state back into the ordinary state is just as difficult.

Thus, the interface between two states is marked by instability, while both sides of that boundary are characterized by deep stability.

Since mind and matter are one, the instability of thought interfaces manifests directly as the instability of matter itself.

Conversely, the stability of thought across a given domain translates into the stability of corresponding material states.

This insight is particularly relevant to quantum mechanics.

Let us consider the transition from our current, lower-level thought state to a more advanced state. In doing so, one must pass through a transitional boundary — a zone we might call the “meditative absorption of the desire realm” (欲界定).

The inherent instability of this boundary expresses itself materially as the quantum uncertainty observed in microphysical phenomena.

Quantum physicists attempt to observe subatomic particles through focused attention, yet their concentration lacks the purity of advanced contemplative absorption. They therefore rely on instruments, which reveal the material instability corresponding to their thought instability — because mind and matter are one.

When we return to the lower state of thought, the thought process is stable, and thus material reality appears stable. Similarly, if we move beyond the limits of conventional scientific thought — i.e., beyond the cognitive boundaries within which quantum mechanics currently operates — and ascend to higher derivative states such as Dhyana, the microphysical world again exhibits stability.

From the standpoint of thought ontology, then, the instability observed in quantum mechanics is not ultimate. It marks only a transitional interface. The true micro-world, rooted in the higher thought state of Dhyana, is stable — even governing the lower world from above.

All so-called miraculous transformations or “supernormal powers” take place in this higher domain.

For instance, in meditative absorption, when sages manifest phenomena in the mundane world — such as producing an object at will — the result is precise. One does not attempt to manifest a radish and accidentally produce an apple. There is no randomness, only stability.

Once we cross the unstable interface and enter a higher thought state, stability is restored — both mentally and materially. This is the world of Dhyana.

The transition itself involves a flickering phase — as one moves from Stillness to Meditative absorption. Before the opening of the “heavenly eye” (天目), one experiences a threshold phase characterized by intermittent flashes — like the flicker of an old television screen. This visual instability arises because Stillness is being disrupted, while the new state of Dhyana is not yet stable. It is a liminal zone.

This explains the instability of both visual phenomena and quantum particle states observed during this process.

In meditative practice, one will encounter this flashing light stage — a perceptual precursor to deeper absorption. It is the tangible expression of the unstable interface between thought states.

Why is it unstable? Because two incompatible qualities coexist: one state undermines the other. For example, Dhyana must be built upon Stillness. Yet the focused attention of Dhyana disrupts the tranquility of Stillness. Thus, attention remains unstable, and the thought state flickers — which is mirrored in the instability of material microstates.

Once one passes through this threshold, however, everything again becomes stable.

Due to the limitations of even the most advanced scientific instruments, current science remains bound to the present cognitive state — that of selective attention and conceptual focus.

If scientists cannot transcend this state, their research will remain confined to the transitional interface — incapable of surpassing quantum mechanics toward a higher scientific horizon.

Therefore, to break through the current limits of science, one must resolve the problem of thought state itself.

Thought ontology offers the path of empirical verification to lead us into those higher states. Once scientists begin to engage in direct contemplative inquiry, adjusting their own state of thought, they will be able to investigate science from a higher cognitive vantage — and thus discover deeper layers of reality.

-Master Qingliangyue

The Macro World

The Speed of Light and the Supremacy of Thought

Ordinary people assume that the speed of light is the fastest in existence. Yet the speed of thought far surpasses it—not only in magnitude, but also in its remarkable freedom and controllability.、

This freedom manifests in thought’s capacity to accelerate or decelerate at will. Its controllability becomes evident through rigorous training, by which the movement of thought can be wholly governed. That is, one can freely enter any state of thought, return to the fundamental state of thought at will, abide in stillness, and enter meditative absorption as one chooses.

What must be achieved, then, is not merely the ability to exit from one’s current state of thought, but also the capacity to return. In any given thought-state, one should be able to enter, dwell, and withdraw freely. This is the mark of mastery: to no longer be a slave to thought, but to become its sovereign. Such mastery entails complete control over the dynamic processes of thought.

We have long assumed that the speed of light is the ultimate limit. In truth, the speed of thought transcends it by orders of magnitude. From this vantage, many phenomena commonly referred to as "supernatural"—such as seeing the future or the past—can be interpreted in light of relativistic principles. Once we accept the existence of states that exceed the speed of light, it follows naturally that such states permit access to time itself—to both past and future.

But why, then, do we not perceive these realities? This question lingers for many. The reason lies in the instrument of perception: we rely on the eyes to see, when we should be seeing through thought—through all states of thought. The eye is merely an optical device. Much of our scientific observation remains fettered by this visual apparatus. The vast array of scientific instruments we have built merely extend the reach of our sensory organs; they are auxiliary tools of perception. Yet these very sensory organs often become the chains that limit our vision of the world.

To truly observe the world in a scientific sense, we must abandon these perceptual crutches and instead perceive directly with thought—with the mind itself. Only through this direct experiential engagement can we attain a genuine understanding of reality.

-Master Qingliangyue

Wormholes

Quantum Mechanics

In the Microcosm, Particles Remain Indeterminate Prior to Observation, Existing in a Blurred Superposition of All Possibilities

This is because mind and matter are one. Before observation occurs, our thought remains in a macro-level surface state—that is, most people remain in such a diffuse, non-focused mode of awareness. Correspondingly, the material realm presents itself as a superposition of all possible states, undefined and indistinct. The particles, too, exist in an indeterminate condition. In this sense, the microcosmic world exists in a state of uncertainty. The consciousness within the micro-world and the objective world can no longer be separated—this is the very meaning of the oneness of mind and matter.

When Observed with Conscious Intent, Particles Manifest Determinacy

The crucial point here is “observed with conscious intent”—this is key. In general, when people observe the world, they do so passively and diffusely, operating in a surface-level state of thought. But when one observes with deliberate intent—when volition (cetanā) arises, and focused attention is applied—then the mind, which had once been expansively oriented toward the vast universe, now collapses inward to a single point of observation.

According to the principle of the unity of mind and matter, when the mind focuses with such intention, the corresponding material state also collapses into a definite micro-particle, manifesting a state of determinacy. Initially, the mind was unanchored, spread across a plane of indeterminate possibilities. Now, in focused observation, the mind locks onto a single point, and the material world reflects this by manifesting the particle aspect of matter with determinacy.

A Subtle Distinction: Determinacy of Form vs. Measurability

It must be noted, however, that while particles may appear in a determinate state, this does not imply complete measurability. Because micro-particles exist in the quantum realm, and because even focused attention is inherently unstable, the act of measurement remains subject to uncertainty. The micro-particle may be seen to manifest as a determinate state, yet the precision of its measurable attributes remains limited—this is the essence of the uncertainty principle, even under focused observation.

Quantum Vacuum

Let us now consider the quantum vacuum. The so-called quantum vacuum refers to the lowest energy state of a system, whose equations obey wave mechanics and special relativity, representing a mysterious zero-point energy field. In contrast, classical physics regards vacuum as "nothingness," an empty space with nothing in it. However, in quantum mechanics, this vacuum is far from being empty; it is filled with continuous energy fluctuations and various virtual particles.

In the ontology of thought , as long as there exists the relationship between observer and observed, and the necessary conditions for the formation of matter, then matter must inevitably arise. Therefore, a true vacuum can never exist.

That is to say, in the ontology of thought, a genuine vacuum is impossible because thought can reach everywhere, and wherever thought can reach, matter is inevitably generated. Consequently, there is no true vacuum in this framework. In fact, based on classical quantum theory, the quantum field is a concept of spacetime quantization, which explains the process of particles continuously appearing and disappearing in vacuum.

Let us briefly consider the applied research in quantum mechanics on vacuum. Quantum mechanics studies the phenomenon of matter emerging from "nothingness"—a concept also found in ancient Buddhist teachings and empirical observations. All matter arises from the void. Virtual particles and antiparticles in the vacuum are continuously created in pairs. The pairing of matter corresponds analogously to pairs of opposing thoughts in our mind. Due to their inherent instability, these particles appear and vanish instantaneously.

This explains why we observe virtual antiparticles constantly being created in pairs—one-to-one. The mind-matter unity (心物一体) manifests in the material realm as this paired creation.

Why do they vanish instantaneously? This is due to the instability at the interface of our observational thought. If a strong field is applied in space, some virtual particles may accumulate sufficient energy to become real particles. This describes the mechanism where energy from the field stabilizes virtual particles in the vacuum, turning them into real, observable matter.

Modern science has not yet mastered this mechanism. But in the ontology of thought, mastering thought itself resolves this problem. This idea relates to the phenomenon of supernatural transformations (神通变化), which arise from the power of intention. When thought reaches a stable state, matter gains stability—meaning matter can spontaneously arise from stabilized thought. Future supernatural transformations will follow this principle.

Next, let us look at the quantum entanglement experiment. The explanation is simple under mind-matter unity: no matter how far apart ions are separated, they remain unified with our thought—they are all part of ourselves. Hence, they exhibit the same state simultaneously.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Physics

The uncertainty principle, as discussed earlier, arises from the instability of our thought at the observational interface. Correspondingly, the material state exhibits instability. When our thought reaches a higher state—achieving meditative absorption (定)—the stability of our thought directly manifests as stability in the material state. Thus, the true microscopic world is stable rather than unstable.

The instability we currently measure is determined by our present state of thought. In our current mental state, the limit of our cognition necessarily appears as instability, because we are only capable of reaching that boundary. Once we transcend this limit and enter a meditative state, the microscopic world becomes fundamentally stable.

Schrödinger’s Moon

At that time, Schrödinger proposed the example of the moon. Because microscopic particles are subject to uncertainty, when you do not observe them, they exhibit wave-like behavior — meaning their position is uncertain and non-local. Based on this, he speculated that the moon, when not observed, might not exist in a definite state. In scientific terms, it would be in a kind of diffused or dispersed state, only disappearing at a much slower rate. This was his assumption.

For us, however, the situation is different. The macroscopic and microscopic correspond to completely different states of thought — fundamentally not the same. In other words, their material constitutions differ, so the states of matter they present are also different.

We cannot apply the microscopic observations to the macroscopic without any analysis. While the microscopic world is related to the macroscopic, they are also distinct. This difference is important to understand.

Macroscopic thinking is a superposition of “faces” (plane-like, holistic states), whereas microscopic thinking is a superposition of “states.” Another key point concerns the state of matter: when we do not look at the moon, even though we do not use our eyes to see it, as long as you are thinking about the moon, you are still “seeing” it. That is to say, wherever your thought reaches, you should be able to see. If you cannot see, that is due to the limitations of the eyes.

So in our view, even when Schrödinger looks at the moon with his eyes, he is observing it. When he turns his head away and does not look at the moon, as long as he is thinking about the moon, he is still observing it. Because thought is the thinker itself; wherever you direct your thought, you inevitably “see” that place. If you cannot see, it is because you rely solely on the eyes, which are merely tools. You cannot say the moon does not exist just because the tool fails to see it.

Understanding this also clarifies Schrödinger’s cat. Schrödinger designed this thought experiment to address the correlation problem between the macro and micro worlds. He wanted to apply microscopic observational rules to the macroscopic, to resolve the contradiction between the two.

Scientists have employed many methods to resolve this contradiction, including the use of probability, which we will discuss later. These explanations often feel forced.

This is because they do not understand that the formation of the microscopic and macroscopic worlds is based on different states of thought. Schrödinger’s cat experiment suggests that, like microscopic particles, the cat itself should be in a superposed “dead and alive” state.

But in our observation, this is not so. The cat, as a macroscopic physical entity, has a definite state. The stable state of thought determines this. If you put the cat inside a black box, you cannot see it; but if we put the cat inside a transparent glass cover, you can clearly see the cat is alive, not in a half-dead, half-alive indeterminate state.

The crux of Schrödinger’s experiment is: do you think the cat is alive now? But because the particle has a decay state, it can trigger poison gas at any moment. If you believe the cat is alive, but at that instant the particle triggers the poison and kills the cat, then when you open the box, you see a dead cat — thus breaking your initial reasoning.

You might think the cat is dead, but if the particle did not change and did not trigger poison, when you open the box, the cat is alive. This logical mutation questions the contradiction between micro and macro worlds.

For us, this issue is easy to resolve because the two are fundamentally based on different material foundations. Not seeing the cat does not mean not thinking about the cat. If you think about it, you see it. The reason you don’t see it is simply that you rely on your eyes; you should use your thought to observe. Once this is understood, the problem disappears.

In the ontology of thought, these experiments are easily solved and the problems easily found. But in quantum mechanics, they are difficult to solve because physicists do not understand mind-matter unity. Although science has researched this far, it has not elevated the understanding to the crucial theoretical level, nor grasped the theory holistically. They do not know the ontology of thought, nor Buddhist philosophy, so they cannot resolve these issues.

The Double-Slit Experiment

The double-slit experiment is a prime example of this phenomenon. Let’s discuss the entire process of the experiment.

At first, the observation is done using a beam of electrons to see whether matter behaves like a wave or a particle. Initially, the scientists observe the entire beam of electrons as a whole — in other words, they observe the collective behavior. At this point, naturally, the behavior shows a macroscopic, holistic (plane-like) thinking state, which manifests as a wave pattern.

Next, an instrument is set up to observe through which slit a single electron passes. That is, your attention shifts to individual electrons, watching how each electron behaves. This means your thinking transitions from a holistic (plane) state to a focused (point) state. At this moment, matter naturally presents itself as particles — the wave behavior disappears. When the observation instrument is removed and such focused observation stops, we return to the holistic thinking state, and the wave pattern reappears.

Now consider observing the electron just before it reaches the detection screen. Here, the act of observation again acts as a kind of hint or suggestion, implying that electrons are individually observed after passing through the screen. Because of this hint, the thinking state remains focused and point-like, meaning the particle state dominates and the wave state disappears.

Scientists often have the misconception that when you observe the electron in this way, it means the event of the electron beam passing through the double slit is already completed in a particle state. They think that the wave behavior collapses only when the electron is observed at the screen, and thus that the electron had to be a particle when it passed through the slits.

But in fact, this is not the case.

The speed of thought is extremely fast. When you observe the electron’s particle state just before the screen, your thinking rapidly shifts — because thought moves very quickly. This rapid shift causes the “hint” or focus on particle behavior to be projected backward onto the earlier part of the experiment, namely, the electron beam passing through the slits. In other words, your thinking’s state at the detection screen influences your conception of the electron’s state at the slits, retroactively imposing the particle state on the earlier moment.

This leads to the mistaken idea that the past can be determined only after the fact — that history is “decided” retroactively. Such a misunderstanding arises precisely because there is no knowledge of the ontology of thought and the study of thinking itself. People lack any concept of the speed of thought and regard thought as simply a mental idea, ignoring its material nature.

In reality, thought has material attributes, and matter has thinking attributes. Mind and matter are unified — they cannot be separated.

The Multidimensional World

Currently, scientists and mathematicians speculate about the existence of multidimensional worlds. From our perspective, the multidimensional world truly exists. We can even use certain methods to allow people to verify the multidimensional world and freely enter and exit these worlds.

Within the multidimensional world, we mention a particular kind of world — the world of one person.

Scientists studying multidimensional worlds generally consider all worlds as common or shared worlds. However, in reality, there also exists a “one-person world,” which is reached through deep meditative absorption (dhyāna). A person who pursues stillness to an extreme can eventually enter this one-person world, where one can still see beautiful landscapes and rivers, but only that single person exists.

This differs somewhat from what ordinary scientists understand, so we briefly discuss this point.

Next, a classification of multidimensional worlds: multidimensional worlds can be classified according to states of thought, because mind and matter are unified. Under the same thought state, there correspond many material worlds, but these material worlds can be further subdivided.

Specifically, multidimensional worlds can be divided into “the world of meditative absorption (dhyāna)” and “ordinary scattered worlds.” The scattered worlds themselves branch into many worlds, and the meditative absorption worlds likewise contain many worlds. These different worlds share common characteristics but also have their individual particularities. The classification of these worlds is very complex and we will not delve into it here.

Now, regarding the intersecting compatibility of multidimensional worlds: why are multidimensional worlds mutually compatible and intersecting? It is because the world is a unity of mind and matter. Our thoughts possess this compatibility.

For example, now many people are thinking of the sky outside, the external world. Countless people are thinking simultaneously, yet their thoughts never obstruct one another, never cause traffic jams. Therefore, our thoughts have great compatibility, and so the material worlds also have great compatibility.

Where then are other worlds? Other worlds exist beside and inside your body and mine.

Using Buddhist terminology, where is the Pure Land? The Pure Land is right beside you, inside your body — it is not separate in space or time. So, we need to understand why multidimensional worlds are intersecting and compatible: this is because our thinking is in a holistic (plane-like) state. Everyone’s holistic thinking state is compatible and intersecting. Thought never experiences traffic jams or blockages, so the world cannot experience congestion either. Thus, multidimensional worlds stack layer upon layer, intersecting and compatible.

We cannot just sit on a spaceship flying to some place far away — there is no such thing as “far away.” There is no separation from the present moment.

Quantum Mechanics and Probability Theory

This also addresses the relationship between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds. Scientists observe uncertainty at the microscopic particle level, then try to apply this uncertainty to explain the macroscopic world’s determinacy and stability.

Scientists think that since the macroscopic world is composed of microscopic particles, and since microscopic particles are uncertain, the macroscopic world’s certainty must be explained by probability.

From our point of view, this is also mistaken.

Scientists should have first asked: why is there uncertainty at the microscopic level? The reason is that their observation state is problematic, and the thinking state they use is unstable.

Under such observation conditions, the instability of the thinking state directly manifests as instability in matter.

Once the stability of the thinking state is resolved, microscopic particles will also exhibit stability.

Furthermore, macroscopic and microscopic worlds are not mechanically composed of one another. Therefore, we cannot simply apply the microscopic behavior to the macroscopic world without any analysis.

Appendix:

Student: Let me now retell the wave-particle duality experiment that the teacher just explained. I’ll restate the principle behind the double-slit experiment. The experiment uses two screens placed one behind the other. The front screen has two vertical slits.

If electrons are particles, we can compare them to billiard balls. When we fire these billiard-ball-like particles through the slits at the back screen, they should create two vertical bands corresponding to the slits. That would mean electrons behave like particles.

But if we throw two stones into water, the resulting waves pass through both slits and form an interference pattern on the screen behind — alternating bright and dark fringes. This happens due to the wave properties of diffraction and interference: when a wave crest meets a trough, they cancel out; when two crests or two troughs meet, they reinforce. So if the electrons passing through the slits create interference fringes, then they are waves. But if they form only two vertical bands, they are particles.

The initial experiment used a photon gun to fire photons through the slits, and the resulting pattern on the back screen showed alternating bright and dark fringes — an interference pattern. This demonstrated that electrons behave like waves.

However, if electrons are waves, we encounter certain paradoxes. For example, if we shine two flashlights onto the ground simultaneously, based on wave interference, we should expect darker shadows due to destructive interference — but this is not what we see in reality. This suggests that if light were purely a wave, it would lead to unexplainable phenomena.

What if photons are particles then? We’ve all seen raindrops striking the water’s surface, creating ripple-like wave patterns. If photons behaved similarly, as waves, we wouldn’t be able to determine their precise positions. Yet when we look at the stars in the night sky, their positions appear stable and pinpointed — not scattered like wave ripples — suggesting that light might also be particle-like.

To investigate further, scientists conducted another experiment based on the previous setup. This time, they added a detector beside the slits to observe the electrons. Originally, the pattern on the back screen showed wave-like interference fringes. But with the detector in place, the interference pattern disappeared and two vertical bands appeared — as if the electrons had become particles simply because they were being observed.

So what does this experiment ultimately tell us?

It shows that an electron, when unobserved, exists as a spherical probability wave — a formless, virtual presence in the universe. And since you, I, flowers, and stones are all made of electrons, it follows that everything we perceive exists in a virtual, non-material wave state — until it is observed. The moment you observe it, it instantly becomes real — a definite, point-like particle.

In other words, it is the act of observation that collapses the wave into a particle. Without your presence, all things in the universe remain virtual, as non-substantial waves. Because of your presence, the formless becomes form. What determines whether an electron appears as a wave or a particle? The answer is: you. Observation. Consciousness. A sentient being. This is the true nature of the universe. This is the unity of mind and matter — mind and world are not two.

I once read in The Record of Teaching and Practice (Chuanxilu) that the great Ming philosopher Wang Yangming went on an outing with a friend. His friend pointed at a flower in the wild and said: “You say there is nothing outside the mind, yet this flower blooms and withers deep in the mountains — what does that have to do with the mind?”

Wang Yangming replied: “When you are not looking at this flower, it and your mind both return to stillness. But the moment you observe it, the colors of the flower become vivid and real — then you know, this flower does not exist outside your mind.”

Another famous story is from the Sixth Patriarch Huineng. Once, a Dharma master was lecturing on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, and a wind blew the temple’s banner. One monk said, “It is the wind that moves.” Another said, “It is the banner that moves.” They argued endlessly. At that moment, Master Huineng said, “It is neither the wind that moves nor the banner — it is your mind that moves.”

I believe this expresses the same principle as the double-slit experiment.

-Master Qingliangyue

On the Macroscopic and Microscopic

Student:

May I ask a question? Earlier, I saw in the teacher's paper that material forms like molecules are still considered macroscopic relative to what is truly called “microscopic matter.”

When I read about quantum physics, I noticed that even though molecules can be broken down into atoms, and atoms into electrons, the electrons are extremely small. In terms of physical scale, it's said that the distance between the atomic nucleus and the electron is comparable to the distance between the Earth and the Moon — with the rest of the atom being mostly empty space. If we take the electron to be about the size of a sesame seed, then the atom would be as large as the Earth–Moon distance.

So I wanted to ask: at the level of electrons, can we consider that to be the microscopic material state as discussed in the science of thought?

Teacher:

Our definition of the microscopic is based on the relationship between a material state and a corresponding state of thought. Only under this condition do we consider it “microscopic.”

This is similar to how the world in meditative absorption (the Dhyana state) governs this current world — higher-dimensional or higher-level worlds govern the lower ones. Only when such a governing relationship exists can something be called “microscopic” in our system.

So our definition of the microscopic does not depend merely on physical size. Rather, it depends on whether the state of matter corresponds directly to the focused state of observation — that is, to the meditative, concentrated state of consciousness.

For instance, if you are observing a molecule, and its degrees of freedom are not accessible to focused observation — that is, it corresponds only to ordinary, distracted cognition — then it remains macroscopic in our terms.
But if it corresponds to a focused, concentrated state of mind — especially one attained through meditative stillness — then and only then can we regard it as microscopic.

So again, the essential point is not size, but whether or not it is linked to the mind — to thought.

This distinction is important because our goal is to redirect the study of quantum microphysics toward the ontology of thought — to guide inquiry through the study of consciousness, and thereby explore higher dimensions of matter. That’s why our definition of the microscopic differs from that of conventional science.

Student:

Then may I ask one more question, teacher? Based on what you just said, does it mean that “microscopic” is not necessarily small? And “macroscopic” is not necessarily large? For example, if under a state of deep focus and concentration one is able to observe with great subtlety a large-scale field, then could that be considered “microscopic” as well?

Teacher:

What you're referring to is the world in meditative absorption — a world experienced in Dhyana. In such a world, all phenomena — the entire realm — can be perceived with absolute clarity.

In that realm, distinctions like large and small lose their meaning. The perception of minute realms and vast realms are equally clear and direct. So even what appears to be a “macroscopic” realm, when fully perceived in a meditative state, becomes part of the microscopic — a microscopic macroscopic realm, so to speak.

When one first trains in entering meditative absorption, one begins by focusing on a single point. But once true Dhyana is attained — that is, a high-level state of consciousness — what one perceives is not just a point, but an integrated whole. One gains holistic awareness of the microscopic world.

And this mode of thought is entirely different from our ordinary state of consciousness.

So in our system, “microscopic” is defined in relation to attentiveness and its correspondence. This definition only applies to the current level of scientific and cognitive development, since the most that conventional scientists can reach is this basic level of attentional awareness.

Hence, for us, “microscopic” refers specifically to states of matter that are linked to attentive states of thought. If the material manifestation does not correspond to such a focused mental state — in other words, if it’s disconnected from contemplative consciousness — then it cannot be considered microscopic.

-Master Qingliangyue

Universe

Dark Matter

Our observation is confined to the range determined by our current faculties—eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. That is to say, if your observation cannot transcend the limitations of these sensory faculties, you will be unable to perceive beyond them. Thus, we refer to that which lies beyond as “dark matter.”

In fact, there is no such thing as “dark matter” in the absolute sense. All matter can be observed—only that the eye cannot see it.

We can observe without relying on the senses of the physical body; we can observe not with the eyes, but with thought—with the mind. When we observe with the mind, all so-called dark matter becomes fully perceptible. Therefore, for us, there is no such distinction as “dark matter.”

Because thought is identical with the thinker, we are utterly clear about our thoughts. And in the same way, we are utterly clear about all material existence.

Holographic Theory

The holographic theory is a doctrine that explores the holistic relational characteristics and laws inherent in phenomena.

Its basic principle is that each part contains the complete information of the whole.

In the ontology of thought, due to the elasticity of thought, the part and the whole are one and the same. Based on the principle of the unity of mind and matter, we deduce that the local inherently contains the characteristics of the whole. Matter has no absolute distinctions of size, interior and exterior, or proximity and distance. This modern holographic principle serves as empirical confirmation of the fundamental laws of the ontology of thought.

The Boundlessness of the Universe

The Limitation of the Fleshly Eye and the Transcendence of Thought

First, we must touch on the definition of the self: What is “I”?

In the common view, the self is the body, and thought is a function of the body. But for us, this is not the case—thought is the thinker itself.

That is to say, when asked “What is the self?”—undoubtedly, it is thought that is the self. The thought of the present moment is the you of the present moment; not the body, but the present thought is who you are.

Now, when we speak of science in relation to this, another concept comes into play: the unity of mind and matter. When discussing thought, we must understand the characteristics of thought—its tremendous elasticity.

This elasticity means: nothing is larger than thought, and nothing is smaller than thought.

What does it mean that “nothing is larger”? Close your eyes—imagine as vast as you like. As vast as your thought can be, that is how vast you are. Your body, your image, your entirety extends across the universe.

What does it mean that “nothing is smaller”? It means thought can contract to a state of absolute interiority, smaller than any particle.

Because mind and matter are one, when thought is in a vast state, it coincides with the boundlessness of the universe.

Thus, the reason we perceive the universe as boundless is because thought is boundless, and mind and matter are unified. The universe is ourselves.

Why then can we not see the edge of the universe?

We build spacecraft, optical instruments—still, the boundary remains unseen. In truth, we should be able to see it, because the universe is us. If the universe is the self, then the self should be able to perceive itself.

Why can’t we? Because we are using our eyes. The limitation lies with the eye.

The eye, as a physical optical device, cannot reach distant realms. Therefore, we must see with the mind.

Let us understand this: to see with thought is entirely possible.

A person who engages in spiritual realization will immediately understand this point. When we say to see with thought, it means to cast off the body, to transcend the body, to open the “divine eye.”

Now, do not imagine the divine eye to be yet another kind of eye. Do not be bound by form. The divine eye is not an actual eye—it does not “exist” in that sense. The divine eye is yourself—it is your present awareness. So do not mistake the divine eye as a physical organ. That would be a fundamental error.

The Nature of Cosmic Motion from the Perspective of Mind-Matter Unity

The expansion and contraction of the universe occur simultaneously. According to the principle of the unity of mind and matter, these are but the polar tendencies of thought.

One thought turns inward—this is contraction; the next thought turns outward—this is expansion.

One contracts, one expands—thus arises the apparent motion of the universe.

Light, Thought, and the Transcendence of Space-Time Cognition: From Relativity to Mind-Matter Logic

Light is the foundational concept in relativity; other concepts in the theory are built upon the constancy of the speed of light.

Here, light is regarded as one form of matter, corresponding to the derivative state of thought.

Light has a certain speed, but thought moves far faster.

Relativity suggests that as speed increases, time slows. At light speed, time halts—hence, concepts such as time reversal.

But thought surpasses the speed of light by far.Thus, thought can indeed perceive past and future.

Why don’t we see them? Again—because we are using the fleshly eye.

The eye is the obstruction.

The core idea remains: see with thought.

We cannot say this directly in social discourse—saying “see with the divine eye” will be dismissed as superstition. So we simply say: use thought to observe.

That way, the concept seems new and intriguing, and can spark interest.

Instability of Thought-State Interfaces and Their Relation to Quantum Mechanics

At the interface of two states of thought lies an unstable zone, for it simultaneously holds the characteristics of both states.These characteristics are often contradictory. Specifically, as we transition upward from our current state of thought, the state we seek is based on Stillness. Yet the act of focused attention—Dhyana—disrupts Stillness.

Thus, a kind of instability arises. This interface instability is essential to understand. It directly relates to quantum mechanics.

-Master Qingliangyue