direct experience over intellectual understanding

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:33 am

Hi Kelly,
character of Kelly are also simply known- so knowing cannot “belong” to her. But when I focus on this I find myself identifying with a knower
Who/what identifies with the knower? The character Kelly identifies?
I find myself identifying with a knower
When you say “I find myself identifying” – then what do you mean by the word ‘myself’ exactly?
Who identifies? – really look for this ‘think’ who performs the act of identification.
And so whenever I am identified with being a “me”, there is always “other”.
“When I am identified with being a ‘me’” – so WHO is the ‘I’, who identifies being a ‘me’?
I struggle with this because experience continuously shows up in the form of a perspective from the character of Kelly. There’s always the continuity of her experience so it makes it appear very personal even though I can’t ever say that Kelly “owns” experience.
Is there really a continuity, or the story about the character creates itself, like Kelly having a continuous experience is created, one thought at a time?

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:49 am

Hi Vivien,
Who/what identifies with the knower? The character Kelly identifies?
Well it’s just thoughts posing as the character of Kelly that “identify”.
When you say “I find myself identifying” – then what do you mean by the word ‘myself’ exactly?
Who identifies? – really look for this ‘think’ who performs the act of identification.
It’s thoughts posing as the subject of experience (even though those thoughts are still also known).
“When I am identified with being a ‘me’” – so WHO is the ‘I’, who identifies being a ‘me’?
Just thoughts again! It’s just sooooo convincing.
Is there really a continuity, or the story about the character creates itself, like Kelly having a continuous experience is created, one thought at a time?
Yes, the “continuous” experience is created one thought at a time but regardless, it still appears as a continuity of a character, which I can’t shake.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:56 am

Hi Kelly,
Yes, the “continuous” experience is created one thought at a time but regardless, it still appears as a continuity of a character, which I can’t shake.
You don’t have to shake it. We are not after to change how the illusion appears. It’s enough to see it for what it is.

And what it is which could have a power to shaking off the continuity of the character?
Is there another me outside of the story about the me-character?

Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:39 pm

Hi Vivien,
And what it is which could have a power to shaking off the continuity of the character? Is there another me outside of the story about the me-character?
No, the character is only the appearance of its continuity! I keep trying to look at that over and over again whenever the “me” shows up. That whenever “I” feel hurt or sad or whatever, that’s all there is to it. There is no sadness AND me who’s being affected.
Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?
When I think about it I see that but in day to day life I never see it because everything centers around these thoughts that construct the story. When I see that they are an overlay on sense experience- I can’t help but wonder why- why does this whole intricate story arise out of plain and simple sense experience. The thoughts continually reinforce the character over and over again and that’s what remains prominent, no matter how much I try to “see through it”.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:48 am

Hi Kelly,
V: Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?
K: When I think about it I see that
But why do you think about it? Why don’t you look in this very moment?

Your replies have to ALWAYS come from looking in the moment, and NEVER from thinking.
With thinking you are just wasting your time.
but in day to day life I never see it because everything centers around these thoughts that construct the story.
You have to integrate looking into your daily life. Without that the chances to see through the self is very minimal. In order to succeed you have to look about hundred times a day, even if for just 10-30 seconds each.
When I see that they are an overlay on sense experience- I can’t help but wonder why- why does this whole intricate story arise out of plain and simple sense experience. The thoughts continually reinforce the character over and over again and that’s what remains prominent, no matter how much I try to “see through it”.
You see, you are thinking again. You are wasting your time.
Thinking is a dead-end.

Why don’t you spend your time with looking instead?
Is it utterly clear to you that you cannot get anywhere with thinking and speculating about it?

Are you willing to put more effort into looking?
Are you willing to incorporate looking into your daily life?

Please tell me, what happens on the days when you don’t reply? Do you look at all?
How often do you actually look (and not just think) in a given day?



Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:20 am

Hi Vivien,
V: Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?
K: When I think about it I see that...
V: But why do you think about it? Why don’t you look in this very moment?
But I have to think about it in order to see it. I have to compare a specific thought with direct experience to see the difference.
Why don’t you spend your time with looking instead?
Is it utterly clear to you that you cannot get anywhere with thinking and speculating about it?
Again, I feel that thinking on some level is integral to looking. It continues to feel very circular because I look and look for a separate self and never find anything other than sensory experience and thoughts- it’s like I keep trying to find something that’s not there. The looking also continuously reinforces “the looker” which then feels like I’m chasing after my own tail.
Are you willing to put more effort into looking?
Are you willing to incorporate looking into your daily life?
Yes, I desperately want to but the looking always turns into contemplating! So it always takes me down a dead end road.
Please tell me, what happens on the days when you don’t reply? Do you look at all?
How often do you actually look (and not just think) in a given day?
I’ve slowed down in my replies because I feel like I just keep saying the same thing over and over, which is never “right”. The thought to “look” arises probably about 50 times per day but it always turns into thinking about it since I look and never find.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:57 am

Hi Kelly,
I have to compare a specific thought with direct experience to see the difference.
Yes, there are some thoughts with looking, but only when asking the question.

Only the question, like: “Is there a me outside of the story of me?” is a thought, everything AFTER that is NOT a thought. LOOKING comes AFTER this thought question.

SEEING happens without thought.

And after SEEING/LOOKING thoughts are used to express what has been seen as clearly as possible without adding extra.

So we can say that thoughts are ‘framing’ looking, but in the moment of looking and seeing the focus in NOT on the thoughts, but rather on looking and seeing.
Can you see this?
Yes, I desperately want to but the looking always turns into contemplating! So it always takes me down a dead end road.
When you recognize that you are contemplating and not looking, then stop, and turn the attention to looking again.

The thing is that sometimes you give nice replies as if you could see something, but those are more of an intellectual understanding than a deep, experiential recognition.

And unfortunately, I cannot help you with that.
I cannot look instead of you.
I just can comment on when you are not looking, and pointing at where to look.
But you have to find the way how to actually look and not just contemplate.
The looking also continuously reinforces “the looker” which then feels like I’m chasing after my own tail.
So the illusion of the looker appears. So what?
We are not after to stopping the illusion, we are after to SEE that it’s indeed just an illusion.
And the illusion of the looker are free to appear. It's just an illusion, nothing serious, nothing real.

It seems to me that one of the ‘problem’ with your looking is that you are putting way too much emphasis on the appearance of a looker, instead of investigating the reality of the Kelly-character.

You have to look ‘inside’ thoughts, and answer is there… not outside.

And since your focus is not on the me/Kelly character but on the appearance of the looker, thus the Kelly-character seems very real in your everyday life. Since it’s not really seen to be only a fictional character.


Try to watch a film today or a little video with a story. When watching it one can become so much enwrapped in the story that one doesn't hear outside noises, forgets about everything else and yet one knows it is a film. Played and acted out - not happening, didn't happen at all.

Later…
Look at the story of the life of the character you seem to be.
Is there a difference?


For the following days, please turn the attention of observing the story about the character Kelly.
Just look and see how the story is emerging from one thought at a time.



Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:56 am

Hi Vivien,
So we can say that thoughts are ‘framing’ looking, but in the moment of looking and seeing the focus in NOT on the thoughts, but rather on looking and seeing.
Can you see this?
Yes, I see what you mean, but in the seeing, there is never a seeing of any-thing that is a separate self so there is no seeing in that sense, there’s no finding of anything. It’s never an epiphany, it’s almost more like a loss of interest in looking because there’s never any finding.
It seems to me that one of the ‘problem’ with your looking is that you are putting way too much emphasis on the appearance of a looker, instead of investigating the reality of the Kelly-character.
But they appear to be the same thing! The looker=doer=Kelly. Even though the looking and the thoughts just happen- without any real volition.
Try to watch a film today or a little video with a story. When watching it one can become so much enwrapped in the story that one doesn't hear outside noises, forgets about everything else and yet one knows it is a film. Played and acted out - not happening, didn't happen at all.
I did this last night. But what happens is that during it, there’s no “thought” of it not being real. There’s emotions arising in relation to what’s happening to the characters- as if I was a real event happening in front of me. Then afterwards, there’s the thought that arises of - oh that wasn’t real.
Later…
Look at the story of the life of the character you seem to be.
Is there a difference?
It’s tough to compare the two because in the life of the character I see to be, I know “I” am not an external witness of all these events happening, like how it is when watching a movie.
For the following days, please turn the attention of observing the story about the character Kelly.
Just look and see how the story is emerging from one thought at a time.
As I tried to do this today - I again felt very caught up in the “I” as Kelly the doer. Rather than life just happening, occasionally without commentary, there is this constant arising of - oh let’s take a look at this thought and see the story it’s telling, now this thought, etc etc. It automatically emphasizes the aspect of Kelly the looker/witness is which continues to reinforce the reality of the character. This is why it becomes so challenging for me to look because I often feel more caught up. When there’s less “self-consciousness” there’s a lack of self altogether. This is what is so difficult about trying so hard to see how it is.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:45 am

Hi Kelly,
Yes, I see what you mean, but in the seeing, there is never a seeing of any-thing that is a separate self so there is no seeing in that sense, there’s no finding of anything. It’s never an epiphany, it’s almost more like a loss of interest in looking because there’s never any finding.
If seeing that there is nothing there results in loss of interest or boredom, then it’s not seen. Then it’s not an experiential seeing, but an intellectual knowing. You might THINK that it’s an experiential seeing, but it’s not.

Discovering that the self which has been believed to be ‘myself’ is not there, it has always been imagined only, is a very surprising and for some even a shocking experience.

Imagine discovering that something so fundamental as learning that you were actually born on Mars. Wouldn’t you have a response of surprise, delight, or horror, or even a "wow, that's weird"?

Can you imagine feeling bored or having no interest if you discovered that you were actually born on Mars?


When the self is experientially seen through, it’s not possible to lose interest. Since that is THE biggest discovery about ‘myself’ and is very interesting to see how the illusion of the self-mechanism operates. It’s in utter contradiction in what I’ve believed about ‘myself’ in my whole life. To see this is quite shocking and amusing at the same time.

If you don’t have any surprise and interest when it’s seen that there is nothing at the center, that Kelly is just a fictional character, then it’s not seen. You just THINK you see it. You are operating from the BELIEF that there is nothing there, and when looking is attempted, thoughts just appear “there is nothing there”, “there is nothing to find”. You are operating from the position of “I already know there is thing there” without actually SEEING that there is INDEED nothing there.

This belief of “I already know” is a very ‘dangerous’ one. It's a dead-end.
When I already know something I am closed. I’m closed to actually SEE what is happening, since I ALREADY KNOW.

Seeing through the self comes from the position of not knowing.
It comes from openness. And not from the closed circuit of “I already know”.
But they appear to be the same thing! The looker=doer=Kelly. Even though the looking and the thoughts just happen- without any real volition.
This is the first time that you say that the looker = Kelly.

This is big!

So far our investigation went to the direction of finding some mystical unfindable theoretical looker / observer being outside of experience.
Which is vague and theoretical.

Kelly is something ‘solid’. Something that seems real.
Kelly-character is the one that needs to be investigated.
It’s tough to compare the two because in the life of the character I see to be, I know “I” am not an external witness of all these events happening, like how it is when watching a movie.
Of course not! There is no external witness! The external witness is imagined.
There is no witness whatsoever.

And the me-character, Kelly is NOT OUTSIDE of experience, she appears AS PART OF experience.

So it’s easy to investigate the Kelly-character, since she is constantly dancing as the central, focal point of experience.
She is constantly imagined to be there. All experience is believed to happen to this CENTER.

What you imagine to be an ‘outside witness’ is actually in the CENTER of experience.
It’s in the middle.
Everything revolves around this central character.

So far you’ve wasted your time and energy for searching for a mystical outside witness or looker, while it has been at the CENTER OF EXPERIENCE for the whole time.

Turn the attention inside, to this CENTER.

Kelly is NOT outside, Kelly is like the Sun, everything revolving around her.

I would like to ask you to read this post many times (at least 10) slowly and digesting every word of it.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:51 pm

Hi Vivien,
Can you imagine feeling bored or having no interest if you discovered that you were actually born on Mars?
Ha, no definitely not!!!
If you don’t have any surprise and interest when it’s seen that there is nothing at the center, that Kelly is just a fictional character, then it’s not seen. You just THINK you see it. You are operating from the BELIEF that there is nothing there, and when looking is attempted, thoughts just appear “there is nothing there”, “there is nothing to find”. You are operating from the position of “I already know there is thing there” without actually SEEING that there is INDEED nothing there.
You make a very good point here Vivien, and this is definitely something that I’ve been very blind to. I have such a strong belief that indeed there is no separate self, but in reality, “I” am constantly acting and thinking and doing as if there were. I think the challenge now is to drop either a belief that the separate self is, or isn’t, and just see what’s happening. So when I am sensitive to that, I see that thoughts are constantly whining about how things are making Kelly feel, or how Kelly will feel if something is done a certain way, or how Kelly will act or react. And then when there is looking at this, there is the notion that Kelly is looking, Kelly is struggling to understand, etc. Can you give any more specific tips on how to look at these occurrences? Because I still do feel like I am actually looking, and not finding a Kelly entity... but what am I not seeing?
So far you’ve wasted your time and energy for searching for a mystical outside witness or looker, while it has been at the CENTER OF EXPERIENCE for the whole time.

Turn the attention inside, to this CENTER.

Kelly is NOT outside, Kelly is like the Sun, everything revolving around her.

I would like to ask you to read this post many times (at least 10) slowly and digesting every word of it.
I have read your words over and over, thank you Vivien for your insight. And I do see this. Because Kelly can appear both as the one who experience is happening to and also as the one who witnesses all experience. It’s like never ending angles of perspective, all under the guise of Kelly. But those perspectives are never outside experience. They are all what is experienced. Even the “witnessing” is still an experience. As you say, they are always at the center, it could never be otherwise. It’s this constant feeling of being the subject of experience- whether it’s the looker, doer, thinker, perceiver, or witness.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:50 am

Hi Kelly,
You make a very good point here Vivien, and this is definitely something that I’ve been very blind to. I have such a strong belief that indeed there is no separate self, but in reality, “I” am constantly acting and thinking and doing as if there were. I think the challenge now is to drop either a belief that the separate self is, or isn’t, and just see what’s happening.
Yes, exactly. You’ve adopted a new belief of no-self, and this new belief is trying to cover up the underlying belief in the self. And while you are holding onto any belief, looking cannot happen.

You have to let go, and be open to actually look.
So when I am sensitive to that, I see that thoughts are constantly whining about how things are making Kelly feel, or how Kelly will feel if something is done a certain way, or how Kelly will act or react. And then when there is looking at this, there is the notion that Kelly is looking, Kelly is struggling to understand, etc. Can you give any more specific tips on how to look at these occurrences? Because I still do feel like I am actually looking, and not finding a Kelly entity... but what am I not seeing?
You have to incorporate looking into your everyday life. This is essential.

Whatever you’re doing during the day, even when busy, LOOK:
Where is the one that’s doing this?

Look at this again and again and again. We are constantly doing things, almost constantly making decision, so you will have plenty of opportunity to look.

Look at doership and decision making as often as possible during the day. Let me know what you find.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:40 pm

Hi Vivien,
Whatever you’re doing during the day, even when busy, LOOK:
Where is the one that’s doing this?

Look at this again and again and again. We are constantly doing things, almost constantly making decision, so you will have plenty of opportunity to look.

Look at doership and decision making as often as possible during the day. Let me know what you find.
I’ve been on a mission now more than ever to look as much as possible. So on the one hand, every time I look at “who” is doing an activity or having a reaction or making a decision- there is absolutely nothing behind the appearance of an activity, or reaction or decision. The more I stay with looking, the more I see how everything flows on without any interference from some separate entity. I feel like I see this, but at the same time it still feels very uneventful and not surprising so I’m not sure if I could still be deluding myself in some way that I’m blind too. And the most solid form of Kelly still seems to be the perceiver or witness. I can see that ultimately there is not Kelly making decisions, but I can’t escape the notion of Kelly being the subject of experience from this point of view. I still keep seeing everything as subject/object, perceiver/perceived. Kelly still appears to be the knower of experience from this point of view. I can’t help but keep going back to the notion of not being able to see the subject directly, just like an eye cannot see itself. All that can be known is what’s perceived. How can I get out of this bind?

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:19 am

Hi Kelly,

We are going back to the basics. We are going to investigate thoughts very thoroughly.

Please sit, doing nothing for a few minutes. Watch thoughts coming and going.
Can you trace a thought back to where it came?
In the same way, can you follow a thought to its destination?
Can you tell where thoughts come from and go to, without using any imagination or speculation?
And the most solid form of Kelly still seems to be the perceiver or witness. I can see that ultimately there is not Kelly making decisions, but I can’t escape the notion of Kelly being the subject of experience from this point of view. I still keep seeing everything as subject/object, perceiver/perceived. Kelly still appears to be the knower of experience from this point of view. I can’t help but keep going back to the notion of not being able to see the subject directly, just like an eye cannot see itself. All that can be known is what’s perceived. How can I get out of this bind?
Next time, when thoughts come up saying “I’m not being able to see the subject directly, just an eye cannot see itself”, or any similar thoughts like "Kelly is the knower of experience from this point of view", investigate:

Are you the one who thinks this thought?
Have you made this thought to appear?
Is it your doing?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:01 pm

Hi Vivien,
Please sit, doing nothing for a few minutes. Watch thoughts coming and going.
Can you trace a thought back to where it came?
No, it just appears out of thin air! Even a thought that has an explanation about where it comes from- that too still just appears out of nowhere.
In the same way, can you follow a thought to its destination?
Thoughts are a bit trickier in this sense because they appear to all be linked together in this logical continuum- but that too is just a thought. That the nature of a thought stream is only created by individual thoughts appearing claiming that. Ultimately there is no way to follow a thought to any kind of destination- it disappears into nothingness just like how it came.
Can you tell where thoughts come from and go to, without using any imagination or speculation?
No, definitely not! Anything that could be said would be imagination or speculation. I know I need to keep looking at this over and over again when “reasoning” appears and then other thoughts claim that it’s “very convincing”.
Next time, when thoughts come up saying “I’m not being able to see the subject directly, just an eye cannot see itself”, or any similar thoughts like "Kelly is the knower of experience from this point of view", investigate:

Are you the one who thinks this thought? Have you made this thought to appear? Is it your doing?
Again, that’s what feels so tricky about seeing this because it can’t be based on anything “logical” since that will always be another thought. “I” never MAKE thoughts appear or think a specific thought- even though thoughts constantly claim that. But there is absolutely nothing behind a thought. All these thoughts keep appearing to try to gain different perspectives, to see things from different angles, to be convincing, to see clearly, to “get it”. But thoughts can never “do” any of those things, only appear to. Looking at thoughts in this way helps to clarify what we’re doing again, so thank you Vivien for drilling this in. I see that the only reason “I” keep getting caught up in content and explanations is because thoughts keep saying so. But I need to be like a hawk and remember to look every time those thoughts appear- to see that they arise out of nowhere. There’s no “I” creating this stream of logic. Every possible explanation that appears is only the story just unfolding.

Ignore the content, look for the source.... that’s what I need to keep doing.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:28 am

Hi Kelly,
No, it just appears out of thin air! Even a thought that has an explanation about where it comes from- that too still just appears out of nowhere.
Exactly!
No, definitely not! Anything that could be said would be imagination or speculation. I know I need to keep looking at this over and over again when “reasoning” appears and then other thoughts claim that it’s “very convincing”.
YES! Please do so, it’s essential.
But there is absolutely nothing behind a thought.
And this is what you have to see repeatedly.

Try an experiment.

Try to create a thought. Any thought, from scratch. What do you find?

Do you notice how thoughts seem to appear, hang around for a while and somehow pass, and then the next thought come?

What is making thoughts to appear?

Now try preventing a thought from appearing. Is it possible?


Please literally try to this. Don’t just think, but actually do it.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests