Use this link for email & social media, & receive 1 Share Karma point for each person who follows the link.
Just as one prepares during the day for nighttime lucid dreaming — doing state checks, keeping a dream journal, developing a critical reflective attitude, and so forth — the dream yogi uses daytime dream yoga practices to prepare the ground for nighttime dream yoga. For both styles of practice, if you can become lucid during the waking state and make that a habit, you will much more easily attain lucidity while dreaming. However, the awakening sought in dream yoga — both day and night — embraces a much wider range of experience than does lucid dreaming.
One lineage of classic teachings on dream yoga was brought to Tibet by the eighth-century Indian adept Padmasambhava. A master of all of the practices of the Buddhist "diamond vehicle," or Vajrayana, many of his teachings were passed down to future generations as terma (Tibetan for "treasure"), placed in the ground, in solid rock, in lakes, and even in the minds of those who later discovered these treasures, who are called tertöns. Padmasambhava's teachings on dream yoga given here come from just such a terma — a cycle of teachings entitled Natural Liberation, secreted like a time capsule into a boulder and unearthed by the tertön Karma Lingpa, some six hundred years after Padmasambhava's time in Tibet. Both the day and night dream yoga teachings found in Natural Liberation presume a degree of mental vividness and stability derived from developed powers of concentration. Therefore, it was Padmasambhava's opinion that a subtle and serviceable mind, one honed by practicing shamatha, is indispensable for success in the practice of dream yoga.
Padmasambhava's teachings on dream yoga begin with the provocative statement, "It is like this: all phenomena are nonexistent, but they appear to exist and are established as various things." At first glance that may seem a bit shocking — even crazy. But taken in context it makes sense. By "nonexistent," Padmasambhava is not speaking nihilistically — he is not telling us that nothing exists whatsoever. Rather, he is inviting us to change our perspective on not only dream phenomena but waking experience as well. He is suggesting that our normal waking experience is just as deluded and fantastic as our dreams. This is precisely the view of emptiness we touched on earlier, for the phenomena of waking experience are no less devoid of inherent, objective reality than are dreams. So when Padmasambhava states that phenomena are nonexistent — not really there — he means that phenomena don't exist by their own nature, either subjectively or objectively. In other words, phenomena exist interdependently — their appearance to our consciousness depends on a multitude of factors rather than on their having an independent reality from their own side, so to speak. The fact that phenomena appear to our minds and that we give them conventional labels — cloud, cup, Colorado — does not mean they are ultimately real.
Although we usually apply it selectively, the notion of interdependence is not at all foreign to our thinking. Take a "tennis match." The validity of this term depends upon there being at least two opposing players, a tennis court, a net, the racquets, the tennis ball, and the rules of the game. It also depends on the players understanding the game and being physically equipped and in good enough health to play. If any of these interdependent factors is missing, you cannot have a tennis match as it is normally understood.
From the standpoint of Buddhist philosophy, all conditioned phenomena require three things for their existence: (1) prior causes and conditions (such as the parents who were the causes of the birth of the tennis players, or all of the work and planning that went into the construction of the tennis court and the manufacture of the racquets and balls); (2) the components and attributes of the phenomenon itself (the collection of players, court, ball, racquets, the rules of the game, and knowledge brought together to create a game of tennis, etc.); and (3) the conceptual designation that identifies the phenomena possessing these components and attributes (our labeling this collection of objects and events as a "tennis match"). Seen in this manner, a "tennis match" is merely a label, an abstraction. You can observe a tennis match, but you cannot find some independent object that is a tennis match. That is not its nature. It is a conventional phenomenon — we label it by convention, but there is no ultimate, absolute, tennis-match-thing to be found.
We can find many similar examples, but when Padmasambhava or other Buddhists speak of "phenomena" and call them nonexistent, they refer to everything we experience with our ordinary modes of perception. Phenomena are traditionally parsed into two domains: the personal self (the "inner") and everything else — the outside world. Normally we assume that our personal selves and the contents of the outside world really exist as independent entities. We assume that when we close our eyes the outside world does not disappear until we open them again, and based on that and other "proofs," the outside world exists in total independence of anyone perceiving it. And we certainly believe that we, too, are absolutely real. When we talk about "my body," "my beliefs," "my house," and "my spouse," we imagine that the person who possesses all of these things is some real "I."
However, if we carefully scrutinize this situation, we will discover that both the personal self and the outside world are, in the sense that Padmasambhava is using the term, nonexistent. Recall that emptiness corresponds to a "not finding" of something you are looking for. If we look for an absolutely real, independent, freestanding personal self, what do we find? Who or what is this self? If you point to your body, well that is designated "body," not "self." We usually think of ourselves as more than our body, so we may say that either the self is in the body or the self is the owner of the body (as in the common phrase "my body"). But if the self is in the body, just where in the body is it? If you point to your chest and say, "it's in my heart," you can be sure that no heart surgeon has ever seen a self there while operating. And if you say that your self is in your brain — the assumed center of thinking and the apparently centralized space situated between your main sensory organs — no brain surgeon has ever seen a self there, either.
You might retort by saying that this is a simplistic view of the self and that we really exist as something more complex and sophisticated — some kind of pattern or collection of body parts and neuronally produced thoughts, memories, and emotions. But by asserting this idea we have come back to the Buddhist idea of interdependence. Prior causes and conditions (your parents, the planet earth, etc.) contributed to the creation of your body; the components and attributes of mind and body (thoughts, emotions, and physical activities) provide the collection that is the basis of designation of the self who possesses these components and attributes — my thoughts and opinions, my body, my skill as a tennis player, and so forth. The "me" of "my body" is a mere designation — a label. Over millennia, Buddhist philosophers have searched systematically and thoroughly for evidence of an absolute personal self. None has been found. Buddhist contemplatives train for many years searching for this self to see whether there is any experiential evidence for its existence.
Using the same analysis we discover that objects in the outside world, large and small, are also nonexistent in the sense in which Padmasambhava uses the term. Take the "atom." The word originated with the ancient Greeks. Democritus (fourth century b.c.e.) proposed the atom as the smallest particle of matter and the building block of the material universe. Science much later discovered experimentally that the atom was composed of "subatomic particles," and these particles were then assumed to be the real building blocks of the universe — the atoms of the atom. But further experiments, especially beginning in 1900 with the advent of quantum physics, showed that the nature and existence of these particles depended in part on the human thinking that theorized their existence and determined how they were to be measured. For example, a subatomic particle such as an electron can appear as a particle in one type of experiment and as a wave in another. It is the mind of the scientist that designs these experiments, these methods of measurement. But particles and waves are entirely different phenomena — so what does this say about the electron itself? Does it exist? And if so — how? As the pioneering physicist Werner Heisenberg said: "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
The quirkiness of the electron is no single, isolated case. Mainstream physics now accepts that the basic components of the material universe have a nebulous, dreamlike quality. So "atom" becomes, like the personal self, an interdependent entity relying upon prior causes and conditions, components and attributes of the observed phenomena, and most significantly, conceptual designation — labeling, measuring, and experimentation that involves a growing list of subatomic particles and their often-bewildering behaviors. And if the subatomic particles of the atom are not ultimates, if they have no absolute existence, then the objective reality of all the matter supposedly composed of atoms — the whole universe — is thrown into doubt.
But we needn't base our understanding of the nonexistence of the universe on the complexities of modern physics. We can take any common object and arrive at the same conclusion. We made a cursory examination of a teacup in the previous chapter. This time let's look in more detail at another common object — a pencil, for instance. Is a pencil real? Does it exist from its own side as a pencil or is it just a label we apply to a collection? We attach this label to a thin, tubular object made of wood with a graphite center. Usually there is an eraser at one end. As the pencil is used it becomes smaller and smaller. And the eraser gets used up too, often disappearing entirely. It may get to the point where its functional identity — "a writing instrument" — no longer exists. When we ask for a pencil and are handed a stub, we may cry out, "This isn't a pencil! Give me something I can write with." Has its "pencil-ness" evaporated? Where did it go? We could also say that what we call a pencil is merely a short moment in the long history of some wood and minerals. Previously the pencil was a part of a tree and some graphite in the ground as coal, some metal not yet mined and refined, and some rubber in a rubber tree or a synthetic rubber substitute that may come from oil deep within the earth. Later on, the collection, momentarily labeled a "pencil," will disintegrate into dust, fungi, minerals, gases.
The tree, coal, metal, and so on — along with the whole process of the pencil's history and manufacture — constitute the pencil's prior causes and conditions. Its components and attributes are the collection of materials comprising the pencil and its utility as a writing instrument. And it is conceptually designated a "pencil" — an object possessing those components and attributes. But, of course, there is really nothing there that possesses these. The wood and graphite and so forth possess nothing. The pencil exists only to the mind that labels and apprehends this object as such. If future civilizations dug up a nice, sharp-pointed pencil, they might designate it as a weapon. So pencils, and all other physical objects, are nonexistent — empty of inherent existence. Their only existence is a conventional, inter-dependent one; they depend on a collection of other elements being brought together and designated — labeled — by a mind.
Furthermore, we cannot retreat to the components of objects and say that since they are real, what they constitute must be real. Wood is a collection of cellulose fibers and chemicals comprised of molecules that can be further analyzed down to the subatomic level — which, as we've seen, has only a tentative existence. The same of course goes for graphite, metal, and rubber. At this point we may start to envision "reality" as something far less substantial than we normally assume. Phenomena — inner and outer — seem to be magically called into existence by their labels.
It is in this sense that Padmasambhava calls phenomena nonexistent. Yet even though they are not real, appearances arise and are established, designated, and apprehended as various things. This parallels the way dream phenomena appear to be real to the deluded, nonlucid dreamer, and are seen to be nonexistent once the dreamer either becomes lucid or awakens. Lucid dreaming beckons us to awaken within our nocturnal dreams — to become aware that the dreamed persona that we think is us, along with all other dream phenomena, are illusory. Dream yoga asks us to go further, to awaken to the true nature of an analogous situation that we mistakenly call "waking reality."
Padmasambhava continues his preamble to the instructions on daytime dream yoga: "That which is impermanent is grasped as permanent, and that which is not truly existent is grasped as truly existent." In other words, we reify — we make real to ourselves that which is not real. This could be called the first, the primordial dream sign of Buddhism: If you are reifying, you are dreaming. However, if you awaken to this process — see how you are creating the illusion of permanent, truly existent phenomena — you are on the path to seeing things as they are, to enlightenment. The emphasis here is on discovering the process through which we delude ourselves.
Whenever craving or hostility well up within us, it can be very interesting to observe it, watch it arise, watch the object for which there is attachment or hostility, and then ask ourselves: "How does this object — a person, place, thing, situation, whatever it may be — appear to the mind's eye, how am I apprehending it?" See whether it is the case that you are apprehending it as if it were something existing in and of itself — taken out of context by its own apparent self-nature. At that moment, is this the target, the focus of your mind — this "real" object? And if it is, recognize you are dreaming. Because that target doesn't exist in the way you have apprehended it. You are mesmerized by your own assumptions about the object. Your focus is narrow, essentially an invention. The technical term for this in Buddhism is grasping.
This kind of delusion is common both in dreams and in waking reality. An example is how we often decontextualize people who appear to us either when dreaming or in daytime situations. We see someone, observe their behavior, perhaps interact with them, and come away with the opinion that this person is "smart," "attractive," "stupid," "ugly," or "a jerk." Taking the last attribute, whether the person appears in a dream or during daytime, he or she seems to us to be a jerk from his or her own side. The person appears permeated with the qualities of "jerk-ness" — inherent characteristics that are merely presented to us and we passively recognize them. It's a case of judging the book by its cover.
But we haven't read the book. If we analyze just a little we discover that the true context of this person is immensely complex. For example, this person may have parents who think he or she is not a jerk but is an adorable person. Many other people may not call this person a jerk. The person you perceive as a jerk probably does not conceive of him- or herself as a jerk. And if you got to know this person, over time even the qualities you consider jerky might be apprehended in a different way. (Conversely, there are no doubt people out there who think that you are a jerk — something to which you probably would not agree.)
Obviously, when we awaken from a nonlucid dream about a jerk, the reality of that situation vanishes like smoke. Since the dreamed person was nonexistent, the label "jerk" was also imaginary. When we view people so narrowly, whether in dreams or waking reality, we invariably decontextualize — placing absolute labels where no absolutes exist. The true context for all persons and objects is interdependence. The condition of dreaming, whether it be in the night or in daytime, subsumes a form of ignorance where we can easily misconstrue appearances. Dreaming invites us to become deluded. We can either go with the flow or wake up — check it right there and realize that although the object as we perceive it appears to be real from its own side, that appearance is illusory.
In terms of our normal mode of understanding reality, analyzing phenomena in this way turns everything on its head. But even if we are, at this point, thoroughly convinced that "all phenomena are nonexistent," our present understanding is only conceptual. In Tibetan Buddhism, conceptual understanding is likened to a patch on clothing that sooner or later falls away. It is the habituation of the practice of daytime dream yoga that will allow our understanding to deepen and prepare us for an awakening that encompasses both the day and the night. To quote Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche — one of the most prominent Tibetan lamas who taught in the West — "All dream yoga is based on the one-pointedness one can maintain on the illusoriness of experience by day."
"Consider," continues Padmasambhava, "that since all these things, which are without permanence, stability, or immutability, have no inherent nature, they are like illusions." What are illusions like? They seem to exist, but they're not really there where they appear. We have already examined our personal self, the atom, the "jerk," and a common object — the pencil. And perhaps you can agree that under analysis these objects have an illusory quality: they appear to exist independently, from their own side, but they don't. We assume they exist, but we cannot pin them down with any exactitude. We have the idea of a personal self in our minds, but phenomenologically — that is, in terms of our direct experience — we haven't encountered an independent entity that matches our conception of any of these objects. Padmasambhava now asks us to see waking reality in a new way: from moment to moment, situation to situation, person to person, view all that arises as being not permanent, not immutable, not inherently existent but rather to be appearing like illusions, appearing like a dream.
If this sounds like a nutty thing to do — to say, "This is an illusion" to everything that arises in your experience — modern neuroscience, just like physics, supports this affirmation. All of the information that appears to our senses seems to come from "out there." Earlier we touched on the fact that the colors we perceive in the outside world do not actually exist objectively, independent of perception. The molecules that make up material objects do not have color. The photons that strike our retinas are colorless, and the neurons in the visual cortex don't take on the colors that we perceive. The colors we perceive therefore do not exist in physical space — not in the objects, not in the space between our sense organs and those objects, and not in the brain. From a Buddhist point of view, colors and all other appearances to our physical senses and to mental perception all arise from the substrate. The cooperative conditions of learning, memory, imagination, along with the electrochemical processes that occur in the optic nerve, must combine to produce the subjective appearance we call "red." Red roses are not red unto themselves, just waiting for us to passively perceive them. According to the prominent neurologist Antonio Damasio, "There is no picture of the object being transferred from the object to the retina and from the retina to the brain." And it may well be that other kinds of retinas, optic nerves, visual cortexes, and conditioned minds — such as those of bees, or bats, or bears — give rise to a completely different experience of what we call a red rose. Which is the "real" red rose? There is none. The red rose is an illusion. From the modern neuroscientific perspective, the same is true for the objects of the other senses. So when we close our eyes, the world — in the unique form in which we view it — does disappear. Something is seen by others, but it isn't precisely what we see. And if those others are of other species, it may be something completely different.
In the Dhammapada, the Buddha says, "Mind precedes all phenomena." We may interpret the mind he refers to as the substrate consciousness, the continuum of awareness filled with latent tendencies, impressions, memories, habitual modes of perception, and so forth. Mind precedes phenomena in the sense that phenomena are conditioned by the substrate consciousness. It filters all, or practically all, that we perceive. When we awaken from sleep, it is said that the nightscape dissolves into the substrate. And when we fall asleep, likewise the dayscape dissolves into the same space. Note that it is appearances — not photons or sound waves — that dissolve into the substrate. Photons, sound waves, and the like are theoretical entities of science that we cannot perceive directly, so they exist relative to the systems of measurement by which they are detected and relative to the minds that conceive them. And as is demonstrated by our dreams, the substrate is a dynamo, creating one environment after another. The entire world of subjects and objects in which we are embedded — which we call "life," and which Buddhism calls samsara — out of the entanglement, the complex conglomeration of mutual substrates.
We note again what Stephen LaBerge says so astutely: "Dream consciousness is waking consciousness without physical constraints. Waking consciousness is dream consciousness with physical constraints." The crux of the matter is: What are physical constraints? What is their nature? Lucid dream researchers, with their scientific orientation, accept them as being real. Or if they are not ultimately real, they are at least of another nature from the phenomena of nocturnal dreaming — "more real" than our dreams. But Padmasambhava, and the Vajrayana Buddhist world that he represents, see all phenomena as dreamlike — empty of fixed, ultimate qualities. Certain Buddhist adepts (and those from other traditions) occasionally demonstrate this fact in public. Some tertöns, we are told, can reach into solid rock as if it were putty and pull out texts and sacred objects. Padmasambhava has left his footprints in solid rock. Modern-day Tibetan lamas have left foot- and handprints in rock and passed wooden staves through the same material.
These "miracles" are sometimes performed before large numbers of people, those who perform them altering waking reality in much the same way as lucid dreamers alter dream reality. The point is not to show off "esoteric powers" but to instill faith that the dream world may extend beyond the night to what we consider "hard reality." But to make our conceptual understanding of the "nonexistence of phenomena" a reality in our lives, we must do what these extraordinary beings have done: practice.
Padmasambhava gives us the essential, specific instruction for daytime dream yoga practice: "At this time, powerfully imagine that your environment, city, house, companions, conversation, and all activities are a dream; and even say out loud, This is a dream.' Continually imagine that this is just a dream." Another Tibetan Buddhist teaching on daytime dream yoga elaborates on these instructions, encouraging the student to "establish single-pointed meditative equipoise in the awareness, I have fallen asleep. This appearance is a dream. It is an illusion.'" Furthermore, you are to "place your awareness in a nonconceptual sphere, without focusing it anywhere. Then direct your mind to all the appearances of yourself and others, and think, All these are just appearances. They are not real.' By continually practicing in that way, at all times during and after formal meditation, appearances will always seem devoid of true existence and of fear." Now it becomes clear why the resolve and concentration derived from the practice of shamatha is essential for the successful practice of daytime dream yoga.
This practice points directly to the key difference between the daytime practices of lucid dreaming and those of dream yoga. If in daytime you complete a dozen state checks, and ten times in a row your digital clock gives you the same answer when you glance away and look back — in terms of lucid dreaming you can be 99 percent sure that you are not dreaming. And yet Padmasambhava suggests that even so, even though you are sure you are "awake," you should tell yourself you are dreaming. Padmasambhava is not inviting us to practice a self-induced illusion. He is asking us to pull the rug out from under our habitual perspective on what we are experiencing. He is reframing what it means to be awake and making this the focus of daytime practice.
Returning to the example of a nonlucid dream: as long as you are operating from the assumption that you are the person in the dream — the dreamed persona — you are stuck in that point of view. If that's who you think you really are, you've sealed the nonlucidity of your dream. You are locked into your illusory role. If a companion were to notice you are dreaming — perhaps by seeing that you are tossing and turning and mumbling and your eyes display rapid eye movement — he might whisper into your ear, "You are dreaming." And just like this companion, Padmasambhava is asking you to view the dream not from the perspective of the deluded dream persona but, figuratively speaking, from that of the dreamer asleep in bed. He is suggesting that you view waking reality from the perspective of buddha-nature. The Buddha was once asked, "Are you a god, a celestial being, a spirit, or a man?" He replied, none of the above, "I am awake."
From the Dzogchen perspective, Padmasambhava's instruction is that we attempt to see reality as it really is. We are to view not only the outside world but our own bodies as dream phenomena. As a preparation for nighttime dream yoga we practice the instructions on illusory body — to view one's body as simply a matrix of illusions. The body and its constituents are seen as no more substantial than a reflection in a mirror. Since we have not arrived yet at primordial consciousness, we use the power of imagination. So you "powerfully imagine" being completely lucid in the waking state. Doing so is a big step toward actually becoming lucid. By placing the imagination on something for which the fit is perfect — you do happen to be dreaming after all — by pretending to see things as they really are, you have created a template that matches reality. Then your imagination may open up, break down the barriers that are preventing you from seeing what is already there — that you are dreaming. And from a Buddhist perspective, from the perspective of pristine awareness, primordial consciousness, waking reality is not just "dreamlike," it is a dream. So now we try to truly wake up in what we normally and erroneously call the waking state.
In the nighttime practice of lucid dreaming, when we are able say in the midst of a dream, "I am dreaming," the reference for "I" emerges from the substrate consciousness. That is its locus. This is the ordinary, conventional "I." What is the referent for "I" when we say — authentically, with full understanding — "I am dreaming," in the practice of daytime dream yoga? Who or what is dreaming, is delusional about waking reality? This waking reality is being dreamed by primordial consciousness. This is one reason that it is said in Vajrayana that all visual appearances are the body of the deity, all sounds the speech of the deity, and all thoughts are the mind of the deity. The deity, of course, is fully enlightened — is a manifestation of enlightened mind. And in Dzogchen it is said that all beings are already enlightened and the billionfold universe is a buddha realm. In essence we are not ordinary sentient beings but enlightened beings that fail to recognize the fact. This follows the old Tibetan aphorism, "Although the sun is always shining, adventitious clouds hide it from our view."
The reality of primordial consciousness, or pristine awareness, is of course something that can be known. But it is not known just by carefully observing appearances, nor by the power of logic, intellect, investigation, and so forth. You could say that it can be known by the power of faith — but that can lead us into semantic difficulties. It's a knowing that is not simply empirical knowing by way of the senses, not a knowing by way of inference, but a knowing that is immediate, that is unmediated, nonconceptual-intuitive. The experience is one of pristine awareness knowing itself.
I would summarize Padmasambhava's quintessential instruction for daytime dream yoga in this way: with the power of your intuition and imagination keep on dropping back into the perspective from which it is true to say, "This is a dream." Sustain that. That will gradually break down the barriers between your normal dualistic mind and pristine awareness. So daytime dream yoga is moved by the power of intuition and sustained by the power of mindfulness.
B. Alan Wallace has authored, translated, edited, and contributed to more than forty books on Tibetan Buddhism, science, and culture. With fourteen years as a Buddhist monk, he earned a BA in physics and the philosophy of science and then a PhD in religious studies. After teaching in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, he founded the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies (http://sbinstitute.com) to explore the integration of scientific approaches and contemplative methods.
In this episode of Money Talks, Nadine reaches out to her Ninja friend in order to help convinces three hot ass girls to pose buck naked, while her ninja friend jumps all over the place. Then we hit Malibu in search hotties willing to play strip dodgeball. Your not going to believe the six smoker we got to play with us, and youre really not going to believe what one of them was willing to do just to make even more money. Lets just say it has nothing to do with dodge and everything to do with balls. You have to see this.
Everyone needs to bow down to these two curve goddesses. Whatever you are into ass, tits, nice pussy lips these sexy vixens have it all and love to flaunt it. It might be hard to accept that these two gluteal hemispheres are occupying the same space at the same time but once you see them oiled up ridding the cock all logic is abandoned. Just enjoy the wild action.
Today Allie and Whitney came over to have some fun, but had no idea their tits were going to be painted by airbrush artist. Whitney got watermelons for tits and Allie got pineapples. After all the painting and tittie bouncing we took the fun inside with my buddy who loves huge naturals. These girls worked as a team and fucked my friend like pros. They made fruits alot more interesting. Enjoy.
Today my old friend Nattasha came over with a friend. They had some see through shirts on with big naturals under them. Wow, I almost took my pants off when Nattasha started eating her friends pussy. I let them enjoy eachother tastes for a few minutes and called my friend over. He oiled Those big natural tits and fucked them like an animal. They tried every position in the book. Enjoy..
Wow Jenna is back and has a bomb shell of a friend. These two and their tits will make your head explode. They are just so beatiful and playfull. They started out rubbing a gallon of oil on each other. Then the pussies came out to get some sun for a lil bit. Billy was in side so they decided to get some cock to put between everything they had oiled up. Jennas friend got fucked while she put her tits everywhere. It was not over till the cock popped on these huge honkers.
We had 3 nice young ladies over at the pool today. Drew, Chavon, and Whitney. They all had some things in common. DD, DD and DD, to be exact. Barely buried beneath those bikinis, these girls shook their stuff and teased us with their pink-nippled behemoths. Not to mention that each one had a nicely shaved camel toe pussy begging for cock. We got them in the house on the couches and had them take an oral exam. They all passed...Holy shit, did they pass. Once the fucking started, we kept going back and making them take pop quizzes here and there. Whitney has some captivating titties and took a nice ass fingering. Chavon is a freak, straight the fuck up. Sweet assed, melon titted Drew had her first squirt EVER. Oh man, classic update here. Enjoy!
So check out what the fuck we have got for you this week. You know you are gonna have a great time when the chick with the smallest cup is a full D, yeah like that. Whitney, Chavon, and Honey. A set of D, DD, and E cups for our viewing pleasure. So after they were all oiled up and had been worshipped to the fullest extent, Reno came in with a vengeance. This guy dove into those huge round natural tits face first. The titty fucking, dick sucking, 69 action that came soon after was rediculously hot. Then the pussy stuffing craziness was just as if not hotter. This is one for the books fellas. Enjoy it. Really.
It is that time of year when everybody can dress and act like the freaks they really are without being bothered too much. There was a racer hottie, sexy ass cops, a sweet hot Indian, and many more sexy treats in our crew. We always have the freakiest of freaks, and they love to show us thier costums and the sweet treats that hide in them. Satine and her firend gave Josh the skeleton his treats early this year, and he gave then a huge bone of there life time. Trick or Treat.
We had a frisky set of huge tits today! We put this pair to work by giving this Hot Titty Mama a jump rope to bounce around with! I could care less if she got a good workout! We just wanted to see those tits bouncin everywhere!! And they were!!! I love a healthy set of huge natural tits!
When watching your favourite actors on television, there are times when you may envy their careers, wanting to be as successful as them and it can be quite disheartening. However, just because they got this specific role, doesn’t mean they haven’t been turned down before. Even the notorious Alan Rickman had his days where he didn’t receive the role he wanted, and that may not even be his fault. The acting industry is tricky and have various reasons why they may not accept you for a role.
When applying for a role, it is important to remember that there are many other people who are almost exactly like you applying for the same role. There may be hundreds of applicants who all apply for one role. The casting directors must make a decision early about who they want to call in for an audition. It is easy to be discouraged when the person called in is not you, but being able to understand why this may have been the case will help you from being discouraged next time.
Casting directors often have a very specific idea of what they are looking for, height, hair colour, ability to do a certain accent, and even though you think you fit the bill (or else you wouldn’t have applied for the role!) when the casting director looks at your headshot or watches your showreel. there may just be something about you that isn’t what they want on this occasion.
On the other hand, it may be that the casting director didn’t even have chance to look at your cv/headshot because they found the perfect person for the role before they had scrolled through the hundreds of applications they received. Although this isn’t great to hear, take solace in the fact that it is something that is completely out of your control and something you couldn’t have changed.
Treat every application as a potential opportunity, not a given one. Every time you put yourself forward for something, remember that at that moment in time, you have not been offered anything. If you never hear back and don’t get asked to audition, then you are in no worse of a position than you were when you applied for the role. This means that on the occasions when you do get called into the room, you will be able to appreciate it more and it will feel like more of an achievement.
There are many reasons why you may not get called in for an audition, but knowing that most of these reasons are out of your control can prevent you from being discouraged. Treat every application as a potential opportunity -not a given one. Know that you may not have been chosen because of something, as trivial as the colour of your hair. Remember that on some occasions, due to the sheer volume of applications, the casting director may have just found the right people before they even get to see your application.
RT @BarackObama: Michelle and I are heartbroken for everybody who’s lost so much in California, and grateful for the heroism of the firefig…5 hours ago
RT @beatbydrew: everyone: you really like ariana grande, huh? me: https://t.co/phQ5fkMAFA5 hours ago
The Florida-based prodco has appointed Daysun Perkins, formerly with 44 Blue Productions, as its SVP of programming and development.
Florida-based prodco Spectrum has appointed Daysun Perkins, formerly with 44 Blue Productions, as its SVP of programming and development, and to set up its West Coast office in Los Angeles.
At 44 Blue, Perkins worked on such series as Nightwatch, Wahlburgers, and the upcoming BET/Centric series According to Alex, as well as the upcoming HBO documentary project with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Prior to 44 Blue, he held stints at Telepictures, CBS TVD, Eyeworks and GSN.
“His forward-thinking approach falls directly in line with Spectrum’s unique model as the industry evolves and we continue to create groundbreaking content for audiences, networks, brands, and new media properties across platforms,” said Guy Nickerson, CEO and executive producer at Spectrum. “Daysun’s addition and Spectrum’s West Coast expansion is part of a strategic initiative to invest and grow our development efforts nationwide.”
Spectrum is behind such series as Plane Xtreme for The Weather Channel and Dr. K’s Exotic Animal ER for Nat Geo Wild.
Barry Walsh is editor and content director for realscreen, and has served as editor of the publication since 2009. With a career in entertainment media that spans two decades, prior to realscreen, he held the associate editor post for now defunct sister publication Boards, which focused on the advertising and commercial production industries. Before Boards, he served as editor of Canadian Music Network, a weekly music industry trade, and as music editor for HMV.com. As content director, he also oversees the development of content for the brand's market-leading events, the Realscreen Summit and Realscreen West, as well as new content initiatives.
Realscreen title, tagline and logo are trademarks of, and the events are produced by Brunico Marketing Inc.
We understand your decision to use an ad blocker, however realscreen journalism takes time and funding...
Disturbing footage shows a young mother get sexually assaulted in court, but what happens next is even worse
Monica Contreras was in family court for a routine divorce hearing when a court marshall ordered her into a room alone for an unexplainable drug search. There, she says he touched her butt and breasts before forcing her to lift up her shirt.
Hysterical, Contreras returned to court and told the judge what happened, but that’s when things got messy. The judge didn’t believe her story, and the court marshall was visibly livid that she would dare to tell on him.
The court marshall tried to get Contreras to say she made the whole thing up, but she refused. Eventually, he has the young mother ARRESTED for making false accusations against a police officer.
In the end, the court marshall was fired for his crime, but that doesn’t make this video any less sickening…
John Thomas McDonald Army recruiter accused of sending lewd text messages to a 16-year-old student while speaking to her high school class about joining the military
Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers hinted that he opted to shake up his team for the Champions League game
Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers hinted that he opted to shake up his team for the Champions League game against Real Madrid as a response...
The Phone Lounge in the Palms Suite on 6/28/2007. In this picture, you can see that the red patricians now hang from the ceiling at a uniform level in comparison to the staggered lengths during the filming of the series. A circular light in the ceiling above the Phone Lounge as well as the studio lighting has been removed.
About thirty years after the start of the Second Extrasolar War, the planet of Vekta has been rebuilt. The planet isn't at peace, as the Vektan leaders were coerced into accepting the remaining Helghan population after the actions the ISA took against their planet. As the agreement came to divide Vekta City to accept the Helghan refugees, the populations continued to scheme against each other.
As Shadow Marshal Lucas Kellan under the Vekta Security Agency, players are sent on spy game assignments meant to keep a Helghan insurrection from occurring. However, the Helghan have their own operative, Echo, who hopes to do everything in her power to bring the Helghan population to order.
As the game was introduced at the Playstation 4 announcement, it was revealed that the game would be released on PS4's launch day, November 15th, 2013. As Guerrilla hopes to quickly take advantage of the hardware, the game promises even more stunning visuals than before, toting increased detail, improved lighting systems, and larger areas to fight through.
Gameplay-wise, Kellan will be expected to traverse Vekta City in new ways. The Shadow Marshal will be able to perform vertical scaling and melee takedowns predecessors were unable to. Kellan also has access to top-of-the-line weaponry in the VSA's new SMG, the LSR44 (which also has a secondary pulse fire that allows it to serve as a mid-range sniping solution,) adrenaline packs to slow time down to react quicker to threats, and is also packing the OWL- a personal drone able to assist Kellan through either providing shielding, a rope slide, a second gun on the field, or as a shock weapon to stun enemies and disable electronics within the blast.
As if the series wouldn't include multiplayer again! Guerrilla revealed that it will allow for more customization in servers and player abilities than what had been possible in previous titles. While hosts will be able to create their own Warzones with intricate rules, the development team will highlight server setups the community has created. So far, post-release content has included three FREE maps, as well as paid content in 'vintage weapons,' taunts known as Spotlight Moves, Turret / Air Support Drone / other bot paint customization, character voice packs, the Insurgent Class, and other content yet to be announced. A season pass is available for players to catch most premium content in the new weapons, the Insurgent Class, some customizations, and other goods that will be announced in the near future.
For the individual looking to get onto the Warzone, there are three classes with unique abilities and 22 weapons immediately available to pick and choose from; for those who picked up the Insurgent pack, you have a fourth class that allows players to hack enemy bots and field items like Spawn Beacons and Shields and steal abilities from downed enemy players, in addition to the three 'vintage' weapons used in previous Killzone titles and one new ability for each of the three original classes. As for progression, there are 2277 challenges for players to tackle, rather than the XP progression system implemented by most games over the past ten years.
For Warzone to evolve in this title, Guerrilla has changed the amount of modes available for play. Modes like Team Deathmatch (obviously,) Search and Destroy, Capture and Hold, and Beacon Retrieval (formerly known as Search and Retrieve,) have returned. Four new modes include Capture and Move (which is similar to King of the Hill in Uncharted 3,) Capture and Connect, Beacon Safeguard, and Beacon Theft (which is similar to Capture the Flag.) It has been recently announced that Assassination will eventually be making a comeback in Shadow Fall!
For those who enjoy cooperative modes designed for a few buddies to take on waves of enemy AI, Intercept will be available in June. The story to the expansion is this: you are a part of a VSA Intelligence Squad, regularly deployed into the New Helghan territory to intercept and relay Helghast military transmissions. The job details are fairly simple- make your way to the target, set up the equipment, and protect it long enough for the data to be intercepted. The Helghast will be calling upon their own grizzled veterans if your squad is dominating the landscape, so be prepared for the tactics to change!
So as part of the Vektan Intelligence, your squadmates pick separate classes to get the job done. The Assault loadout is very similar from the Multiplayer counterpart with the exception of throwing out Health Packs. The Marksman also resembles his counterpart from Multiplayer, the Scout, with the exception of having Speed Dash and a modified LS70 that uses explosive rounds to take out multiple enemies with one shot. The Medic returns from previous titles with the ability to revive dying teammates, restock munitions with two supply boxes, and deploy the Medi-Drone. Last but not least is the Tactician, who manages the defensive strategy with Nano Shields and Turrets. Squads that can bank on successful defensive stances can earn bonuses like artillery strikes and jetpacks. Over all, the plan is to start Intercept with four levels in Helghan territory, with additional levels in the coming months.
All rights and contents of Destiny are the property of Bungie and Activision, Warframe are the property of Digital Extremes, and
All trademarks and copyrights associated with the manufacturers, trade names, brands and visual images depicted are the property of their respective owners.
Rights for documentation, written work, and other artistic content is reserved to the Rebel Alliance.
So, I consolidated a lot of info from earlier threads from Here and MDL and MSFN and posted it on the above link.
What I have realized with the following post below (in relation to the MSFN link posted above) is that I am doing something wrong with the VHDs - As a lot of steps that I have taken are from various articles, blogs and forums.
I've assembled and outlined the steps BELOW. I need to figure out where and what is wrong and how I can do this CLEANER and better from SCRATCH to avoid errors.
So, I am wondering if it has something due to the Primary OS Parition and Pre OS partition (Reserved, EFI, System, MSR) structures?
Please don't ignore the following Paragraph: I think this is a key issue where I am making some mistake with the VHDs or its Structure and Inter Partition mapping
AND/ OR they will be fine with/without Virtual EFI, System, MSR, Reserved etc. Internal to VHD i.e. Virtual Partitions that will work without issues.
Y) - Right WAY to IMAGE Existing machine: (Full DIsk w PreOS Partitions or Only OS Partition) and MAP the IMAGE to the correct part of the STRUCTURE of VHDs (as outlined above)
The operating system couldn't be located because the system registry file is missing or contains errors
You'll need to use the recovery tools on your installation media. If you dont have any installation media (like a disc or USB device), contact your system administrator or PC manufacturer
But, I think OS is working (in VMWre), but some part of the FLOW of BOOTING to Native VHD has some issue. i.e from
- While/ DUE to INSERTING the Virtual EFI & MSR partitions? - Would it be better not to have these in the VHD? Or something was done wrong with them?
- Would it be better to only IMAGE the OS Partition, and image it to a blank Partition on the GPT VHD? (Avoid conversion)
I don't mind doing a FRESH IMAGING of the OLD MACHINE. I will have to do it anyways as the OLD MACHINE has changed in last few weeks of this experiment.
PS: The last time I ran a recovery disc to try and fix the Win7to8.VHD, it ended up messing up my Host HDD Win8 booting. How can I avoid that if at all you are suggesting some STEPS to REPAIR the Win7to8.VHD
My biggest question here is this - Do VHD's need to have or follow certain STRUCTURE to Native Boot? Will some structures fail to boot?
Most likely your partitions are fine , it is the OS that is badly configured or has an issue with the BIOS/UEFI.
To recap, and unless I am missing something in the latest progresses (or lack of them) though you have been told this already, both here and on MSFN, you are still trying to do too many things at once (migrating an installed system,AND a non freshly installed system AND an OEM system AND migrating it to a .vhd AND migrating it from BIOS to UEFI AND migrating it from MBR to GPT disk).
The suggested path remains to try installing (possibly from an original DVD, or however from an "untouched" source) a new Windows 7 and/or 8)on the VHD.
Once that works, (IF it works) then we might start troubleshooting the issues connected with the migration of the old install.
To recap, and unless I am missing something in the latest progresses (or lack of them) though you have been told this already, both here and on MSFN, you are still trying to do too many things at once (
OEM system (To clarify - Its not OEM, I used SLIC 2.1 based activation on it, but now it has a MS Ultimate License on it. I can up it to Win8 using my $14.99 License)
migrating it to a .vhd AND (Upto this point is what I wanted to do - In summary: Sysprep/ Image & Migrate to VHD)
I am having to do this because of difference on the Destination Machine.. Both have to be done I guess? As windows does not work with Mixed Combination.. BIOS-MBR and UEFI-GPT work.. the other combinations do not? Or is that a misnomer?
I know what you are saying Wonko. Kinda too many stages for things to go wrong. And I think you are right, its some wierd thing related to Boot and OS.
So.. Do you think if I eliminated the Pre OS partitions when I bring the OS Partition SYSPREP IMAGE over from Old System to a fresh Simple Volume/ Single Volume partition, then it might be simpler?
I quote from the UPDATE in first post: The Win 8 and Win 8.1 Fresh Install to using ImageX to VHDs with only single primary partition is working. Windows 7 not so much. I'll try Win7 again using ImageX to VHD.
The *whatever* you are trying to migrate is - besides "old" install - an install on a BIOS machine on a MBR partition.
On MBR disks there is no difference whatsoever between an install with separate "boot" and "system" partitions and one with a single volume (of course in the case of UEFI and GPT disk you need additionally the "Efisys" partition and the "msr" one).
The difference between "install" and "non fresh install" may be irrelevant, but usually over time the install of programs or updates, or both (and in your case also the non-entirely "normal" license/activation methods you used subsequently on the install) somehow accumulate "changes" that the DISM (or imageX, though nowadays DISM is the suggested way, and historically imageX has a number of issues with hardlinks and was never recommended as a backup/restore method ) or the "generalize" step may not "like".
A .vhd (not a .vhdx ) and ONLY a "static" or "fully allocated" .vhd is nothing but a RAW disk image with a single sector appended to it, there is nothing, except this appended "Conectix" sector that contain some ID data, that distinguishes it from a hard disk image.
Make (on the old machine) a .vhd booting Windows 7 system (from a new, original, untouched, DVD), check it works there.
Try making (on the old machine) a .vhd booting Windows 7 system applying the existing image of the system, check it works there.
Test them in VMware (in UEFI mode) <- what happens? (they won't boot as well, I believe, as the install/booting was originally for BIOS, and here I think lies the issue in making them UEFI compatible).
As said earlier, I would first try the procedure ONLY on the new, fresh install of Windows 7, as it has more probabilities to contain nothing that can prevent the "migration", and only if the procedure succeeds re-try with the "real" install.
shrink, delete, or better modify partition type, or whatever, and have one Efisys and Msr partitions.
#1 Please define which is the "boot" and which is the "system" volume (i.e. "logical way" or MS one, see: http://www.multiboot....uk/system.html )
#2 Are you sure that you can add a new NVRAM entry in UEFI pointing to a bootmgfw.efi which is residing on an Efisys partition INSIDE a .vhd?
I am going to read every line carefully and try out what you and cdob (MSFN) have pointed out on FRESH Windows 7 and 8 both.
Since I will have to do these many times to VHDs, I'd like to use / choose do the way you point out.
A link or outline of best steps/ tools would be great.. something thats non-interactive or less interactive/ unattended
- Wondering if any such way can be used for Win7 to Win 8 in UPGRADE mode while saving "Settings" & "Programs" and everything.
- Some IMAGE that does not INCLUDE GPT or MBR, but IMAGES the Entire File/ Folder structure in such a way that it could be IMAGED and then DUMPED to an EMPTY or EXISTING primary partition on a created VHD (irrespective if its formatted GPT or MBR.. For e.g. how we copy files betwen GPT <> MBR)
PS: I think my original VHD was pretty much working except the.. Windows 7 / GOP Driver support issue due to new UEFI firmware (as pointed out on MSFN)
You are still in the old (IMHO twisted) way of thinking (doing everything and the contrary of everything, all at once) .
FORGET about ImageX (it is deprecated for a reason) unless (see below) it is expressly mentioned in a set of instructions[1].
FORGET about anything else but the steps in the proposed experiment (following they are numbered to make it easier to reference and made more explicit):
Test it (the copy) in VMware (in UEFI mode) <- what happens? (it won't boot as well, I believe, as the install/booting was originally for BIOS, and here I think lies the issue in making it UEFI compatible).
To make things automated, you will need to get familiar with Sysprep and Auotunattended installs, like:
BUT this is NOT at all needed now, for the sake of this experiment, FORGET about sysprep and automating until you have gone through the experiment manually.
[1] Namely ImageX is fine to deploy an install image, not so much with capturing an image from an existing install.
PS: I did use this link previously to do the conversion. But now we will do it in order you have pointed out.
Possibly also between steps #1 and #2 , but we will have to see if it's needed, however the point is that sysprepping a fresh install should work (say) in 99.9999% of cases, while sysprepping an "old" install is more likely to create issues, the idea is that if the whole test succeeds, then there are good chances that it can work, possibly with some added tweaking/modding steps, with a copy of the installed system, while if it doesn't work with the simpler "fresh" install it means that the method is "wrong" (and we will have to find or *invent* something else) or that the "migration" is not possible at all (due to GOP or *whatever*)
BTW - Also after this above steps you outlined, I have a FRESH Windows 7 install on an old HDD (installed via OLD machine).
I could try to IMAGE that to VHD after doing the VHD fresh install steps you pointed above. Same steps on Fresh Win7 install convert to VHD
2nd: Fresh Install Win 7 to HDD.. create VHD.. do all Wonko steps .. PS: What would you use for this HDD to VHD.. Disk2VHD or ImageX or something else?
The (limited) objective that I am addressing is about conversion of an installation from MBR+BIOS to GPT+UEFI mode. Equally applicable to real HDD+real UEFI as well as VHD+VM UEFI.
DISM. It's nice and fast. But I don't think you can upgrade that way..... Actually, I can't believe no one has already tried this. The old files would probably confuse the new OS too much.
MBR and GPT will ONLY matter if you image the ENTIRE hard disk. DISM will make an image of the partition, which is already "MBR/GPT agnostic". In fact, even a sector-by-sector raw image of the partition will be partition-table agnostic.
No, not if you only imaged it onto the disk/VHD. But you will (probably) need it if it has already booted into normal "machine-specific-ised" Windows, which is what you would probably do to test if it works.
Instead, try booting into audit mode on first boot (search the web and find it), and then sysprep generalize it ONCE, and select to boot it into audit mode. Then you needn't worry about it getting cozy with any one machine.
Note : This is overkill. I have, more than once, uprooted and shoved Windows to a completely new system and it has worked completely fine.
And I am pretty sure that it works nicely for a "real HDD" installation , what is not clear in your quick set of instructions (to me at least ) is WHERE/WHICH the Efysis partition you talk about is.
The hardware comprises a single "real" disk, that we can call conventionally "Disk 0" (as seen in diskpart).
disk0,0 <- the Efysys partition on the "real" disk, that will be of type "EF00" and won't be normally mounted by the booted windows to a drive letter. <- this along MS (mis)naming will be the "System" partition. i.e. where the boot files reside[1]
disk0,1 <- the Msr partition on the "real" disk, that will be of type "0C01" and won't be mounted by the booted windows to a drive letter. <- I am not too sure that this partition is actually *needed*
disk0,2 <- the Microsoft "basic data partition" on the "real" disk, that will be of type "0700" and will be mounted (normally) to drive letter C:\ <- this along MS (mis)naming will be the "boot" partition, i.e. where the Operating System resides[1]
Now you create a new file in the C:\ partition that is a .vhd, that will be used for native vhd booting, let's call it vdisk1, can you detail what happens next (rewording your previous set of instructions with more detail)?
I wasn't talking about this at all... That's why I quoted only a small part of your reply to him about converting an BIOS+MBR install to UEFI+GPT.
I suppose it could be done the usual way of mounting it and pointing a bootloader entry to the VHD using bcdedit.
I know that , in other words you posted here something that is unrelated and that does not apply fully to the case at hand.
But, even if it is not fully applicable, your "quick steps" may be very useful in other occasions but - as they are - they are not (to me at least) completely understandable/repeatable , hence my prompting you for (of course only if you are willing to) making them more explicit/clear by expanding on them.