"...and after 12 years, he was liberated into space."

[padma norbu]

Space or "Dakini's paradise" is how Keith Dowman translated it in Masters of Mahamudra.

Why do I get the feeling that the way liberation or enlightenment are described are not really what it sounds like? Yes, there is rainbow body (which is truly perplexing based on all the other kinds of "enlightenment" which appear to be more or less just a change of mental attitude/understanding), but then there is another kind of "liberating into space" which is just like releasing the grasp of the mind. Where to release the grasp? Into space, where else? There really is no place else.

I'm thinking in particular of one of the 84 tales in Keith Dowman's above-mentioned book toward the end where a woman drops a pot and to observers appears to stare blankly for long enough for someone to basically say, "Hey, what are you doing?" Then, she says something about samsara and death in poetic language using the broken pot as a metaphor and then she liberates into space. It might have said she flies off into the sky, actually. I think either expression means the same thing.

Maybe my revised understanding of "sky-goer" (dakini) has helped me somewhat in thinking along these lines. I used to think a sky dancer was "I-don't-know-what," really, but I had some vague ideas, anyway, about them being somehow female nirmanakaya beings (whatever that is). In a teaching by Chagdud Tulku about Dakini Wisdom, I learned that this is really pretty figurative language. A sky dancer isn't some being that dances around in the sky. Sky means "space" and not just empty space, but all of space. So, "sky dancer" or "sky goer" is just a reference to the manifestations arising in space. They are female because concepts, forms and emotions are considered "female" while the penetrating awareness is considered "male." I suppose this makes sense because concepts, forms and emotions are like mothers pregnant with a baby awareness inside in the same way we refer to reality as "mother nature" because she births and nurtures all us babies.

So, this brings me to thoughts about the age-old question people ask: "where do we go when we become enlightened?" The answer that comes back is usually "nowhere." So... liberating into "dakini's paradise" = space = nowhere. Well, I'm nowhere already; seems like I'm somewhere until I examine the groundlessness of my experience.

It's hard to believe a view can be stabilized to a point beyond this understanding... and to a point where suddenly we find we have various siddhis and can maybe even decompose into rainbow light if we want. HENH!? <- that's a very nasal "huh?!"

[asunthatneversets]

HENH!? <- that's a very nasal "huh?!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TFDCrcoboQ

[padma norbu]

lol, 126 view and 1 response. Thank you for your considered response, asunthatneversets.

[Dronma]

lol, 126 view and 1 response. Thank you for your considered response, asunthatneversets.

Padma norbu, you are a superstar with 142 views now!
Even more views than the video "Introduction to Dzogchen" by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu!

[padma norbu]

You know what I think is happening? The great majority of people who entered this thread were liberated into space by the end of post #1. I'm going have to go back and read more carefully.

[Adamantine]

It may be because the OP is quite long... and you propose a few things, come to a conclusion.. but don't really ask any questions exactly...

In regards to this statement

They are female because concepts, forms and emotions are considered "female" while the penetrating awareness is considered "male." I suppose this makes sense because concepts, forms and emotions are like mothers pregnant with a baby awareness inside in the same way we refer to reality as "mother nature" because she births and nurtures all us babies.

I am a little confused by the way you frame this...I'll explain how I have deciphered the term sky dancer and maybe we can figure out if we are talking about the same thing. In my understanding there are wisdom-beings that arise from the wisdom vast - openness - space that is labeled dharmakaya, in etheric visionary subtle appearances titled sambogakaya to those who are sensitive or receptive, and sometimes even in a more solid so-called physical appearance known as nirmanakaya for the rest of us who are very dense. Some of these appearances have feminine characteristics. In general, the feminine is associated with space itself, with the vast openness from which all appearances arise. This is because this space is analogous to the womb, from which human and other various sentient beings arise. So the feminine principal in general is always considered inseparable from the nature of space, and thus, feminine wisdom-beings arising from this and gracefully flowing forth beneficent actions for endless benefit could be poetically referred to as "sky dancers".

[padma norbu]

It may be because the OP is quite long... and you propose a few things, come to a conclusion.. but don't really ask any questions exactly...

In regards to this statement

They are female because concepts, forms and emotions are considered "female" while the penetrating awareness is considered "male." I suppose this makes sense because concepts, forms and emotions are like mothers pregnant with a baby awareness inside in the same way we refer to reality as "mother nature" because she births and nurtures all us babies.

I am a little confused by the way you frame this...I'll explain how I have deciphered the term sky dancer and maybe we can figure out if we are talking about the same thing. In my understanding there are wisdom-beings that arise from the wisdom vast - openness - space that is labeled dharmakaya, in etheric visionary subtle appearances titled sambogakaya to those who are sensitive or receptive, and sometimes even in a more solid so-called physical appearance known as nirmanakaya for the rest of us who are very dense. Some of these appearances have feminine characteristics. In general, the feminine is associated with space itself, with the vast openness from which all appearances arise. This is because this space is analogous to the womb, from which human and other various sentient beings arise. So the feminine principal in general is always considered inseparable from the nature of space, and thus, feminine wisdom-beings arising from this and gracefully flowing forth beneficent actions for endless benefit could be poetically referred to as "sky dancers".

We are talking about the same thing. What's confusing? The whole dialog is framed around space and the liberation into it.

I guess what is strange to me is the language used which is, I suspect, more often than not metaphorical. "Liberated into space" and "flying into the sky" sound like people are dissolving and taking off into the air like Superman. In reality, I think it just means relaxing into rigpa. Similarly, with the rather secretive subject of dakinis, the subject is given almost a fairy tale treatment of wisdom beings or maybe scary witches who hang around charnel grounds, when in actual fact mostly refers to everyday appearances and, anyway, all appearances and self-identity are supposed to be mental fabrications, e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=t3qgaH ... ns&f=false

[Adamantine]

It may be because the OP is quite long... and you propose a few things, come to a conclusion.. but don't really ask any questions exactly...

In regards to this statement

They are female because concepts, forms and emotions are considered "female" while the penetrating awareness is considered "male." I suppose this makes sense because concepts, forms and emotions are like mothers pregnant with a baby awareness inside in the same way we refer to reality as "mother nature" because she births and nurtures all us babies.

I am a little confused by the way you frame this...I'll explain how I have deciphered the term sky dancer and maybe we can figure out if we are talking about the same thing. In my understanding there are wisdom-beings that arise from the wisdom vast - openness - space that is labeled dharmakaya, in etheric visionary subtle appearances titled sambogakaya to those who are sensitive or receptive, and sometimes even in a more solid so-called physical appearance known as nirmanakaya for the rest of us who are very dense. Some of these appearances have feminine characteristics. In general, the feminine is associated with space itself, with the vast openness from which all appearances arise. This is because this space is analogous to the womb, from which human and other various sentient beings arise. So the feminine principal in general is always considered inseparable from the nature of space, and thus, feminine wisdom-beings arising from this and gracefully flowing forth beneficent actions for endless benefit could be poetically referred to as "sky dancers".

We are talking about the same thing. What's confusing? The whole dialog is framed around space and the liberation into it.

I guess what is strange to me is the language used which is, I suspect, more often than not metaphorical. "Liberated into space" and "flying into the sky" sound like people are dissolving and taking off into the air like Superman. In reality, I think it just means relaxing into rigpa. Similarly, with the rather secretive subject of dakinis, the subject is given almost a fairy tale treatment of wisdom beings or maybe scary witches who hang around charnel grounds, when in actual fact mostly refers to everyday appearances and, anyway, all appearances and self-identity are supposed to be mental fabrications, e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=t3qgaH ... ns&f=false

Well, for one, how you frame the feminine principal as being synonymous with form, as in

concepts, forms and emotions are considered "female"

when in my understanding the feminine is related to space, or emptiness.. I don't want to get too dualistic here... but in the conventional framework of form vs. emptiness I believe the feminine would be associated with the emptiness aspect..

[padma norbu]

Well, for one, how you frame the feminine principal as being synonymous with form, as in

concepts, forms and emotions are considered "female"

when in my understanding the feminine is related to space, or emptiness.. I don't want to get too dualistic here... but in the conventional framework of form vs. emptiness I believe the feminine would be associated with the emptiness aspect..

Well, first of all, I merely regurgitated Keith Dowman verbatim in Masters of Mahamudra: concepts, forms and emotions are considered "feminine" in Tibetan thought. He specifically said this and I made a note of it. He says as much on his website, but before I link that...

Secondly, emptiness is form. All of these things are forms: concept (theoretical form), form (physical form), emotion (energy form).

Thirdly, "Dakinis are associated with energy in all its functions, are linked with the revelation of the Anuttara Yoga Tantras or Higher Tantras, which represent the path of transformation, whereby the energy of negative emotions or kleshas, called poisons, are transformed into the luminous energy of enlightened awareness (jnana) yielding rigpa." (uh oh, I quoted Wikipedia for convenience.)

Compare the above with opening paragraph here: http://www.keithdowman.net/essays/woman.htm

So, back to the idea of liberating in space... what do we think about that? Easily misinterpreted language? Is going to the Dakini's Paradise really floating up into the air and/or dissolving as "liberated into space" and flying up "into the sky" seem to suggest? I don't think so...

The book "White Lotus," which examines the 7-line prayer to Padmasambhava, was the first inkling I really got that there seems to be a fantastical sort of symbolic description of reality that is really just like a suped-up version of ordinary reality, with its magical displays, endless jewels and super-beings, but beyond this is the real meaning which is that these fantastical forms are just more expressions of your real nature. Their function is probably to inspire and light up our sense of wonder and possibility. So the dream, whether a lovely dream or a nightmare, is still a dream, whether filled with wisdom beings or ignorant beings. Apparently, one can receive teachings from sort of ethereal wisdom beings, but one also receives teachings from various human teachers. I receive teachings in my dreams that don't always make sense, but you can't get any more isolated than that: I am learning something from a dream-being in my dream. I woke up this morning with these words on my lips: "causes arise from conditions and conditions arise from effects." Who was I talking to in the dream? I don't remember, but it was somebody else who told me that and I was repeating it over and over to try to understand it perfectly. Whether I learned this from a book, another person or from a dream-being or an appearance of an ethereal being (which most would probably call a hallucination) doesn't really make any difference; knowledge gleaned must be tested somehow experientially to discover its validity.

From the above linked Keith Dowman article:
"When Naropa proves his blissful detachment to Tilopa, Tilopa praises him and then gives him instruction in mahamudra. 'You are worthy of eternal bliss, Naropa, on the path of infinite reality. Look into the mirror of your mind, mahamudra, the mysterious home of the Dakini. Here the mirror of mind is the cognitive aspect of the universal plenum of non-dual reality, and the Dakini is the flux of insubstantial reflection in the mirror."
...
"The ambiguity of the word Dakini is amply demonstrated above; perhaps there is error in attempting a too specific conceptualisation, for if the Dakini is caught on the point of a nice definition she becomes a dead concept. She belongs to the equivocal language of the twilight world, where she can make a mind-changing verbal impact. The Dakini remains a profound tantric mystery, an enigma that is only resolved upon initiation, when the yogin gains experiential understanding of her."

Like I said in post #1, I know there is such a thing as rainbow body and that is perplexing to me. This is why I ended post #1 with "huh?" I don't understand why siddhis should be possible just from stabilizing a view of the way things are, but maybe since we are using a dream analogy to describe reality, reaching the Dakini's Paradise is like becoming a "lucid dreamer" of the waking world. So, if waking life is like a dream and lucid dreamers can manifest their desires in the dream world, then a "lucid dreamer of reality" can manifest whatever he likes in waking reality. That is one way of making sense of the various siddhis and rainbow body, for me, anyway.

However, the reason I started this thread was just to examine this idea of being "liberated into space."
What do we think about that? I think that, like the 7-line prayer, there are probably three different meanings.
At least two:
1. the possibility of rainbow body, which means literally dissolving into light
2. stabilizing the view, which to the casual onlooker looks like nothing is happening at all, as in the case of the mahasiddha story in post #1 about the woman who had realization in the moment of breaking a clay pot and stared blankly absorbed in contemplation until someone basically said, "hey, what are you doing? you broke that pot and now you're just sitting there like a dummy!"

[Adamantine]

Well, for one, how you frame the feminine principal as being synonymous with form, as in

concepts, forms and emotions are considered "female"

when in my understanding the feminine is related to space, or emptiness.. I don't want to get too dualistic here... but in the conventional framework of form vs. emptiness I believe the feminine would be associated with the emptiness aspect..

Well, first of all, I merely regurgitated Keith Dowman verbatim in Masters of Mahamudra: concepts, forms and emotions are considered "feminine" in Tibetan thought. He specifically said this and I made a note of it. He says as much on his website, but before I link that...

Secondly, emptiness is form. All of these things are forms: concept (theoretical form), form (physical form), emotion (energy form).

Well.. there are infinite categorizations within so-called "Tibetan thought", so I hope there is a better reference than just that one line from Keith Dowman, to provide context of what he means exactly.. For example, the solar and lunar channels in tsa lung principle, or the mother and father essences.. or the mother and son aspects when referring to Dzogchen realization, etc. . there are all these masculine/feminine differentiations made in various contexts in regards to different aspects of the path.. but I don't think it would be appropriate to try to conflate all of them into the same thing when trying to understand what the nature of the term dakini, or sky-dancer is.

As for emptiness being form-- this is a reconciliation of apparent opposites, as in "samsara and nirvana are one", this is in the ultimate view, which is why I'd said "I don't want to get too dualistic here, but in the conventional framework" I said conventional to differentiate between conventional and ultimate.. do you see? If we have truly realized the ultimate there is no need to even be talking right now. Clearly, often these things are categorized and differentiated according to different systems of Tibetan speech and metaphor, which is what I thought we were discussing..

[Adamantine]

However, the reason I started this thread was just to examine this idea of being "liberated into space."
What do we think about that? I think that, like the 7-line prayer, there are probably three different meanings.
At least two:
1. the possibility of rainbow body, which means literally dissolving into light
2. stabilizing the view, which to the casual onlooker looks like nothing is happening at all, as in the case of the mahasiddha story in post #1 about the woman who had realization in the moment of breaking a clay pot and stared blankly absorbed in contemplation until someone basically said, "hey, what are you doing? you broke that pot and now you're just sitting there like a dummy!"

I think what would be best is if another translator, like Namdrol, could kindly look at the original texts to see what it is exactly Dowman is translating as "liberated into space". I mean, I like the guy but he often makes some very colorful translation choices.

Also, in regards to ascending to the "Dakini's Paradise" I generally assumed that was literally a particular pureland. If that isn't what the original text implies, again I'd be interested to know.

[padma norbu]

Adamantine, I'm having a real difficulty composing a reply to you at the moment. I just don't understand where the communication problem is happening based on what I've written. Assuming you've read it all, I don't see what the problem could be. What's your understanding of Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri? And of rupakaya? What is Wisdom and what is Wisdom Display?

I've cited other sources beyond the "one line from Keith Dowman,' but you didn't seem to notice. So, I'm coming at this from a different angle by eliciting responses from you now rather than the opposite approach, which would be a lengthy response full of sources, links and quotes which will become a thoroughly derailing waste of time.

[padma norbu]

Well, this is interesting, I went back and reread the introduction and got a little more clarity:

"All of the siddhas who attained mahamudra-siddhi, the active expression of which has been discussed above [where Dowman talks at some length about mahamudra vs. madness], "finally attained ultimate liberation in the Dakini's Paradise." In some legends however, the final line stating that the siddha attained the Dakini's Paradise "in his own body" introduces some ambiguity. It can be inferred that his body dissolved into light and his demise (parinirvana) was a magical spiralling into the empyreum. Alternatively, the statement could be a recapitulation of his life since his enlightenment; in his ultimate mystical experience he attained the pure land where his existence was felt to be a constant dance with Dakinis, who represent the empty awareness of his pleasure. Further, the phrase rendered as "Dakini's Paradise" is ambiguous in itself and could be translated simply as "sky" or "space." For the Mahasidha Padmasambhava, the Dakini's Paradise was his homeland of Oryen, which was also conceived as a Dharmakaya Buddhafield. The majority of the siddhas who did not attain the Dakini's Paraidise were those who only accomplished mundane siddhis and, attaining immortality, or extraordinary longevity, remained on earth working for humanity. "

So, yes, there is 2 meanings (or, at least, Dowman suspects as much): rainbow body or glimpsing the pure realm. Makes sense. Although I really still don't understand why siddhis are a result of any practice, but whatever... PHEW! I'm sure glad that's over with.

[Adamantine]

Adamantine, I'm having a real difficulty composing a reply to you at the moment. I just don't understand where the communication problem is happening based on what I've written. Assuming you've read it all, I don't see what the problem could be. What's your understanding of Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri? And of rupakaya? What is Wisdom and what is Wisdom Display?

I've cited other sources beyond the "one line from Keith Dowman,' but you didn't seem to notice. So, I'm coming at this from a different angle by eliciting responses from you now rather than the opposite approach, which would be a lengthy response full of sources, links and quotes which will become a thoroughly derailing waste of time.

You cited one line from Keith Dowman, a wikipedia quote, which is not relevant, and then a link to a very long essay by Keith Dowman again. So you cite two sources, one of which is wiki which is hardly a source. What is more, although I breezed through the loooong essay by Keith Dowman and find it interesting, I do not have time to give it a very thorough read right now. If you are at a loss as to what the issue is, then I feel you are not paying attention. You say that Keith Dowman declares form as being feminine, but the link you gave has him saying exactly the opposite.. here is the quote from the first paragraph:

Further, the Prajnaparamita gave Tantra the concept of woman as the Perfection of Wisdom, perfect insight (shes-rab, prajna), which is defined as 'awareness of all phenomena as Emptiness'. However, in Tantra, since 'Emptiness is not separate from form, nor form from Emptiness', this Awareness that is the Dakini is the nondual, gnostic awareness, of which the male principle manifest as form is an aspect.

You see? I am just trying explain that generally form is attributed to the male aspect, and emptiness to the female-- this is a simple formula, and exactly what Keith Dowman himself recounts above. The first part of your thesis says something quite different. Of course, the union of the yab and yum is what illustrates the union of the two, as in "emptiness is not separate from form", as opposed to conflating them.

Furthermore, here he is explaining that nondual gnostic awareness is the Dakini-- as opposed to your earlier statement that "penetrating awareness is considered 'male'." If this is what Chagdud Tulku was saying maybe you could give the actual source, quote, etc.. for clarity.. perhaps the context is different or there is a translation issue.

[padma norbu]

booooring.

[Adamantine]

booooring.

wow, so you've chosen to be rude instead of giving an adequate response? i was just trying to help, as you seem to have some things confused.

you do state in your signature after all "I am only voicing them for some clarity and to be corrected." but if you don't really mean it, i won't bother anymore.

[padma norbu]

^ I just did that to drive you nuts since you sounded like you were getting huffy.

Chagdud Tulku's "Dakini Wisdom" teaching is $5 on DVD from Chagdud Gonpa. He says all of phenomena, which is energy after all, is the dakini.

And he says it again, too, in book form.
From Gates To Buddhist Practice: "The late Nyingma master, Chagdud Tulku, explained, "Dakini refers to the feminine principle of wisdom that manifests in female form to benefit beings. We say the lama's mind is the dakini because it embodies the inseparability of emptiness and wisdom, the absolute dakini. This absolute nature, dharmakaya, manifests as the subtle display of the samboghakaya dakini and the nirmanakhaya***, or physical form of great female realization holders in order to benefit beings." (Gates to Buddhist Practice 243) http://www.khandro.net/dakini_khandro.htm

***why do you think I asked you about Samantabhadra/dri and Rupakaya before? You didn't answer.

This jibes with Downman's opening paragraph: "Thus the totality of reality as Awareness can be represented by the Dakini alone" and subsequent paragraphs I quoted "Look into the mirror of your mind, mahamudra, the mysterious home of the Dakini. Here the mirror of mind is the cognitive aspect of the universal plenum of non-dual reality, and the Dakini is the flux of insubstantial reflection in the mirror." ...plus the bit about the meaning of dakini being intentionally obscured and esoteric.

This jibes with analysis of the seven-line prayer:
Common meaning of line 5 is "surrounded by a retinue of dakinis" and some other, deeper meanings of this line are:
"This wisdom is with (kor) its numerous manifestative powers (mangpo) emanating (dro) in the ultimate sphere (kha) as attributes (khortu)."
and
"Then the light of self-arisen wisdom emanates (kor) many (mangpo) rays and thig-les as its manifesting power (rTsal) (khortu) moving about in space (khadro)."

Both male and female are referred to as feminine "dakini," though there is also a term for the male-specific counterpart.

[Adamantine]

^ I just did that to drive you nuts since you sounded like you were getting huffy.

Chagdud Tulku's "Dakini Wisdom" teaching is $5 on DVD from Chagdud Gonpa. He says all of phenomena, which is energy after all, is the dakini.

And he says it again, too, in book form.
From Gates To Buddhist Practice: "The late Nyingma master, Chagdud Tulku, explained, "Dakini refers to the feminine principle of wisdom that manifests in female form to benefit beings. We say the lama's mind is the dakini because it embodies the inseparability of emptiness and wisdom, the absolute dakini. This absolute nature, dharmakaya, manifests as the subtle display of the samboghakaya dakini and the nirmanakhaya***, or physical form of great female realization holders in order to benefit beings." (Gates to Buddhist Practice 243) http://www.khandro.net/dakini_khandro.htm

***why do you think I asked you about Samantabhadra/dri and Rupakaya before? You didn't answer.

This jibes with Downman's opening paragraph: "Thus the totality of reality as Awareness can be represented by the Dakini alone" and subsequent paragraphs I quoted "Look into the mirror of your mind, mahamudra, the mysterious home of the Dakini. Here the mirror of mind is the cognitive aspect of the universal plenum of non-dual reality, and the Dakini is the flux of insubstantial reflection in the mirror." ...plus the bit about the meaning of dakini being intentionally obscured and esoteric.

This jibes with analysis of the seven-line prayer:
Common meaning of line 5 is "surrounded by a retinue of dakinis" and some other, deeper meanings of this line are:
"This wisdom is with (kor) its numerous manifestative powers (mangpo) emanating (dro) in the ultimate sphere (kha) as attributes (khortu)."
and
"Then the light of self-arisen wisdom emanates (kor) many (mangpo) rays and thig-les as its manifesting power (rTsal) (khortu) moving about in space (khadro)."

Both male and female are referred to as feminine "dakini," though there is also a term for the male-specific counterpart.

Well, I think some things are getting conflated in this dialogue, we were talking about useful dichotomies relative to masculine/feminine yab/yum etc. etc. And you yourself separated these by gender in your OP when you pointed out as female "all thoughts, forms, concepts" and male as "penetrating awareness". None of the above supports this, unless there is a specific quote from the DVD you cite. If a teacher writes that "all phenomenon is the dakini" then he is switching from the relative aspect to the ultimate.. beyond any differentiation at all which is not helpful for the dialogue we started regarding symbolic categorizations of gender. For example, if "all phenomenon is the dakini in the sense of feminine, then so is "penetrating awareness" which renders your original statement nonsensical. So let's stick to the relative symbolic conventions and not venture into the ultimate so quickly, or as I said earlier, there is no use in words at all.

In regards to the quote by Chagdud Tulku from Gates of Buddhist Practice: "Dakini refers to the feminine principle of wisdom that manifests in female form to benefit beings.", this is again a different matter. It is quite different than saying that all form is feminine in principle, as opposed to the masculine "penetrating awareness". It is merely saying that sometimes the principle of wisdom, arises in nirmanakaya forms that manifest female attributes. This is not to be confused with saying that forms in general are female!

In your next quote, Dowman again-- you have him saying "Thus the totality of reality as Awareness can be represented by the Dakini alone" this again contradicts your initial statement that "penetrating awareness is male". Am I missing something?

[padma norbu]

Yes, there is something you're missing there. Yab-Yum.

You go your way and I'll go mine. Already answered my own question a few posts ago. And I noticed you never answered my questions. I guess this is a one-way street...

[Adamantine]

Yes, there is something you're missing there. Yab-Yum.

I think you must not put much effort into reading other people's posts.. Just a couple ago I clearly wrote this:

Of course, the union of the yab and yum is what illustrates the union of the two, as in "emptiness is not separate from form", as opposed to conflating them.

So what is it you think I am missing then? If you think I can't help you, but that I am the one confused, then the least you could do is help me out here... unless you never took the bodhisattva vows --then just forget about me.

You go your way and I'll go mine. Already answered my own question a few posts ago. And I noticed you never answered my questions. I guess this is a one-way street...

Well, that is not accurate, and makes it seem again like you aren't really putting any effort into reading other people's posts.. if you want a solitary dialogue why post in a forum? My response to your other questions regarding the dakini's paradise was a number of posts back when I said:

I think what would be best is if another translator, like Namdrol, could kindly look at the original texts to see what it is exactly Dowman is translating as "liberated into space". I mean, I like the guy but he often makes some very colorful translation choices.

Also, in regards to ascending to the "Dakini's Paradise" I generally assumed that was literally a particular pureland. If that isn't what the original text implies, again I'd be interested to know.

After this, you found the section of Dowman's text that clarified all that in the introduction-- and posted it.. so there was no longer any need to discuss that aspect.

And if you didn't think your "revised understanding of "sky-goer" was relevant to the overall question, then why post about it? I saw something that seemed like a misunderstanding or misrepresentation so I was trying to call your attention to it. If that is not something you appreciate, then I'd use a different signature. And again, if you think I am wrong, be generous and tell me how.