Non-doership from facebook - Ernest

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
Empty Mirror
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:34 am

Non-doership from facebook - Ernest

Postby Empty Mirror » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:45 am

Nick F: Hi Ernest. Welcome to LU. What brings you here?
August 24 at 1:00pm • Like

Ernest S: In short, to know the truth at its deepest core.
August 24 at 2:34pm via • Like

Ernest S: One item came into mind. To be more specific, to "know" "non-doership" in the gut, as obvious, not just intellectually. (Yes, I've been exposed to too much Advaitic Vedenta themes.)
August 24 at 3:36pm • Like

Empty Mirror: to know non-doership first know whether you are the thinker of thoughts
August 24 at 3:42pm • Edited • Like

Ernest S: Cute. Empty Mirror:, your question befits your name.
When I look within I don't see anything. Blank.
Do I think these thoughts? If I do, it's only a "belief".
More thought. When I look again within, I can't
even make sense of the question
"are you the thinker of thoughts". Blank.

August 24 at 6:24pm via • Like

Empty Mirror: What's cute about it Ernest? If it's only a belief then obviously doership is also only a belief, so what's the problem? If you're clear that there's no thinker how could there be any a doer? Or are you not clear that there is no thinker of thoughts?
August 24 at 10:14pm • Like

Ernest S: If I take on the position "I am the thinker" this itself is a thought. Same if I reverse the position "I am not the thinker". Another thought. I cannot identify the origin of the "I" behind this. There is no thinker. There is thinking. "Doership" is just a belief. This I get intellectually. Yet in practice, say in a court of law, in practice people can ask what I was thinking, what was my intention, what was I planning. It refers to an individual body mind. That's why I don't "get it" in my gut. In practice, I swim in a whole social ethical complex of meaning which assumes agency, individual responsibility. Is this just simply thought? (Seems to trivialize things.) In child rearing, an important habit in life is self discipline. Perhaps we all function in a trance, in a great social myth regarding agency. "Doership" vanishes when one looks too closely. But somehow it functions.
August 25 at 3:11am • Like

Empty Mirror: You say: “In practice, I swim in a whole social ethical complex of meaning which assumes agency, individual responsibility. Is this just simply thought? “

The answer is yes. And why should it trivialize things? There never has been a thinker of thoughts so how could it trivialize anything if that fact is noticed or remarked upon?
You say: “Perhaps we all function in a trance, in a great social myth regarding agency. “
If there is no thinker then how could there be a we? “We” implies that there are a number of individual thinkers.
You say: “"Doership" vanishes when one looks too closely. But somehow it functions.”
Exactly. Life just lives itself, and knows of itself living itself.
So if doership, when examined closely, is seen through, do you find a place for any individual or “personal” I?

August 25 at 9:15am • Like

Ernest S: No, I cannot find a personal "I". There is spaciousness.
There are "things happening" in spaciousness.
But I need to munch on this some more to see why
there's something in me that's not 100% convinced.

August 25 at 11:58am via • Like

Empty Mirror: Munch away, and let me know if you can find this "something" :)
August 25 at 12:01pm • Like

Ernest S: In developmental psychology, one of the basis for the formation of "I" or "self" in the infant is the process of localization. The basis is the individual body. I can move "my" arms. I can move "my" body forward. But I cannot move my mom's or someone external to me. I have no control over the walls in the room. Yes I know this is "thought", or maybe not quite this advanced in the infant. But it is the "mechanism of identification". And it occurs at a very visceral bodily level. A sense of "locus of control" is highly correlated to the "I" or "sense of self". This is a feeling that is very hard for me to shake off without some "work". In other words, it is not "obvious".
August 25 at 12:22pm • Like

Empty Mirror: Everything is always deeply "local" but does this "local" have a location? Try reading what you just said but remove the words "I" or "me" from it. Does there HAVE to be a "me" or an "I" involved in all of that or is the "me" and "I" in there just an added idea?
August 25 at 3:11pm • Like

Ernest S: ‎"I" and "me" are imputations. I try the following experiment.
1. "Choose" to lift my finger up. Then down. I can "choose" to lift
it up and down, control the timing. Keep doing it. Up and down,
up and down.
2. Keep going, but remove all thought. Where is the "person" in
this? Where is "choosing"? It only occurs from the thought.
(Creepy ...)

August 25 at 3:19pm via • Unlike • 2

Ernest S: Also, "local" does not have a "location". These are just thoughts. Is there a "you" and "me"? If I take my experience literally, there's only "me" or "this experience". But am I in danger of falling into a form of Solipsism, a mistake that Philosophy 101 students are aware of?
August 25 at 3:51pm • Like

Empty Mirror: Forget about any labels of anything, we're not trying to label anything here. We're talking about direct experience. And you have said that there if you take experience "literally" (which is a euphemism for without any stories added on) "there's only "me" or "this experience"." Or you could really have just said that you are "this" - ALL OF IT exactly as it is right now :)
Monday at 2:47pm • Edited • Like

Empty Mirror: See any separation anywhere here without the idea of an "I" or a "me"?
August 25 at 4:41pm • Like

Ernest S: There is only "this", at this moment, which feels like "self", or
"self-nature". (I cannot say it's "me" as an individual, or as separate, because this feels like a contraction. But when one opens to it, there is something that feels very familiar, very intimate, same as "myself",
seamless, does not have any "parts", does not "come and go".) That is my
direct experience.

August 25 at 5:18pm via • Unlike • 1

Empty Mirror: ‎:)
Empty Mirror: very nicely put :)
Empty Mirror: This is reality. Welcome home :)

August 25 at 6:12pm • Like

Empty Mirror: Ok let me ask you some standard questions then:
August 25 at 6:23pm • Like

Empty Mirror: ‎(1) Is there a "me," at all, anywhere, in any way, shape, or form? Was there ever?
(2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts, and how it works.
(3) How does it feel to see this?
(4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion?
(5) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

August 25 at 6:23pm • Like

Ernest S: ‎(1) There is no "me" in any actual sense, anywhere, in any way, shape or form. E.g. "What was my face before my parents was born"? (Famous zen koan.) If I did not exist then, then my current existence has no "solidity" as imagined. It comes and goes. That's a little bit of reasoning and intuition. But the direct experience right now is, which is all I can answer for is "no", there is no "me" (except in some symbolic or mythical sense)
August 26 at 5:27am • Unlike • 1

Ernest S: BTW, these are *excellent* questions. I'll munch on them for awhile. I might not answer them in order, though I just did the first one. Right now, I'm starting to see the "interface" (or distinction) between the "actual experience" and a "symbolic universe" (thoughts, concepts, words, language).
August 26 at 5:30am • Unlike • 1

Ernest S: ‎(3) This is not a new experience for me. I first saw it while meditating back in the 1980's. I was diving into the very thing I feared the most: death. At that time, I said "Holy shit. I never even existed the way I thought I did." The result was a lifting of a weight off my body. I lost my fear of death, since "there was no-one to die" or "I was already 'dead' anyway". I appreciated beauty, esp. that of nature and was content to "not exist" since I could not imagine anything I can contribute would be any better would be worthy of survival. I was glad that Life/God or whatever greater power that can create so much beauty would continue to exist. Everything was simpler. This was a "fresh off the boat" experience. This lasted for a few months. Then old habits reasserted itself. Things became dry and the realization became a memory, an intellectual understanding, and the "search" resumed. But it was my first introduction into the significance of the themes mentioned by Buddhism, such as "anatta".
August 26 at 12:17pm • Edited • Like

Ernest S: ‎(3) Right now, it's "nothing special". I'm well aware of the issues. There is no sense of a "problem" (ultimately) or "dilemma". I can accept contradictions. Things can trigger me. I still react like a normal human being. I cannot claim anything special. But it comes and goes in a blip. It doesn't stick. My center of gravity is resting in another place, maybe you can call it as "no-thing". There is also a little bit of energetic phenomenon (Shakti) that also keeps me kind of "hooked" (maybe like a "drug").
August 26 at 5:56am • Like

Ernest S: ‎(2) The discipline of developmental psychology will have a field day on this issue on the issue of the emergence of the separate self. But for me, I would identify 3 major components. 1. The mechanism of identification. 2. As a major factor in the mechanism of identification is the sense of "locus of control" as well as the feeling of "doing". 3. A coherent story about "self and others" when navigating in the world with other body-minds. One e.g. of the mechanism of identification is watching a movie. If I feel identified with the character, I feel like is is myself while in the spell of the movie. The mechanism is not confined to just one body-mind. It can be flexible. It can occur in the notion of "we" such as family, nation-state, ethnicity, or even all of humanity. A powerful factor in the mechanism of identification is the sense of "locus of control". I can move my arms and legs. But I cannot move yours. The body is a fundamental basis of part of this. One practice in Advaita Vededanta is noticing "I am not my body" etc. In the internet age, the sense of locus of control can extend to video games. In a first person shooter game, my nervous system gets hooked to the character on the screen. If I get shot, "ouch" (though not as intense as real). In online virtual worlds, such as Second Life, one can create and live in as an online avatar. Related to both these mechanisms is an overarching "story" of "self and others" when navigating through the world with "other body minds", esp. in the teenage and young adult years, "finding one's identity", one's uniqueness as separate from others.
August 26 at 8:40am • Edited • Unlike • 1

Empty Mirror: Hi Ernest, Thanks for your reply. I have a big day here today, so I'll have to give these a read later in the day.
August 26 at 9:34am • Like

Ernest S: No problem. At your own convenience.
August 26 at 11:07am via • Like

Ernest S: ‎(4) To guide someone else, asking the person to develop one skill is esp. important. That is to distinguish between direct experience and thought. The first is characterized by perception, sensing, stillness. The second is characterized by movement in the mind, a "story", moving parts, words. It is not simple, not direct. To start to notice "illusion", one needs a different ground to stand on. One might ask what is there when everything is void. Something is there even though there is void, else how is it that the void is known. Or you might ask through waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, what is always present. What is that Place whereby all things take place. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition the revelation of Self (or the perception of self nature in all things) begins to take place. Perhaps this is the same as "Buddha Nature" in Buddhism. I don't know. At some point these begin to be so self evident, obvious, constant, felt, that the other stuff seems secondary, and seen as the illusion.
August 26 at 11:22am • Like

Ernest S: ‎(5) What pushed me over to look was needing clarify the difference between direct experience and thinking. I have a tendency to get into my "old habits" again, which is predominated by thinking. There is one crucial distinction I would like to make. There's a difference between suppression of thought and seeing through thought. One can also say "there's no doer" simply by not thinking about it. But this is different from seeing the "doer" in thinking as it is, not real. It seems arbitrary. It hit me in a flash.
Monday at 3:45am • Edited • Unlike • 2

Empty Mirror: Hi Ernest. I'm busy reading your answers, and one question comes up from answer number 1. Do you believe that the universe could exist without you here to witness it?
Monday at 8:03am • Like • 1

Empty Mirror: You say: "I was glad that Life/God or whatever greater power that can create so much beauty would continue to exist". What are your ideas about God or a greater power now?
Monday at 8:15am • Like

Ernest S: Do I believe the "universe" can exist w/o me to witness it? As for "belief", "Yes". As for actual experience, "No". The best time to observe this is between dreaming and waking up, just as one is about to wake up, the "universe" re-emerges. But the Self is very clear from which it emerges. If I were to be a critical scientist, I would state that what disappears and reappears are *representations* of the actual universe in the mind, that the universe has an objective reality of its own. This is by theory, inference, not direct actual experience. What science calls "knowledge" is knowledge of the *particulars* of phenomena, such as being able to "predict" it based on inferred "laws" or hypothesis. But this is different than the direct experiential knowledge described in Advaita Vedanta. I want to be fair to both sides on this matter.
Monday at 11:21am • Edited • Like • 1

Ernest S: I don't have particular conception of God or greater power other than the *feeling* God is love and that there is a greater process unfolding which I don't understand. Call the term a placeholder for this. I certainly don't feel "separate" from God. Just as there is a brain and heart are separate organs, there are different "intelligences". "Seeing" , even without the movement of thinking, is one form of intelligence. But the language of Love, devotion, resting, abidance, faith, trust, unknowing, sacrifice will not make sense to the brain. It belongs to another type intelligence. But one needs to "feel" into what gives life, richness to "know" this. And these are direct experiences too.
Monday at 10:34am • Like

Empty Mirror: I’m glad you say that it’s only a “belief” that the universe could exist without you here to witness it, and that direct experience does not suggest such a thing. As for scientists and their views, I have my own theory about how the universe came to be.

I say that it started with a vague distinction between light and dark, and vague sensations and sounds. Then bright light and indistinguishable loud noises, and bright colours, appeared. Then suddenly there were indecipherable sounds and colours and shapes and sensations and tastes and smells and textures.

Over time these coalesced into distinguishable sounds and images and sensations, and eventually concepts were formed around these perceptions. Soon concepts combined with one another and thoughts (concept strings) began to appear, and all of the colours, textures, sights, tastes, sensations, and perspectives began to evolve into a thought story about people and planets and a big bang……..and the story even includes scientists who discover/create new stuff. In fact they have recently created/discovered a thing called a Higgs boson ;)

Monday at 11:33am • Like

Empty Mirror: You say: "I certainly don't feel "separate" from God. Just as there is a brain and heart are separate organs, there are different "intelligences". What do you mean by different intelligences? Do you feel that there might be an intelligence here other than you?
Monday at 11:36am • Like

Ernest S: Both are me. Maybe like light sight and sound, the modalities are different. But despite the different modalities, the feeling of Self is complete. Strangely enough, the heart feels like "me", but even more so.
The only time it seems "different" though not really different is
when seeing notices it. It "seems" different from the seeing.
But even "witnessing" esp. if one takes it too far, makes
it practice, seems like a duality. In other words,
witnessing and that which is witnessed. It has the feeling
of detachment.

Monday at 1:23pm via • Edited • Like

Empty Mirror: Do you see that any ideas of a God or higher power is just thought projection appearing in "this"?
Monday at 2:40pm • Like • 1

Empty Mirror: You said: "This was a "fresh off the boat" experience. This lasted for a few months. Then old habits reasserted itself." Do you see that 'the experience' was just another experience, and actually no different to the experience of seeing a sunset for example? Do you see that 'the experience' has nothing to do with the'seeing' of this, and that old habits are also just experiences, exactly like "the experience". There is no experiencer, so there is nobody and no thing to be affected or changed by ANY experience.
Monday at 2:58pm • Edited • Like

Ernest S: Yes, I do. It's more a manner of speaking.
Monday at 3:00pm via • Like

Empty Mirror: It's remiss of me not to have told you that I like your answers Ernest. :) I'm sometimes too focussed on looking for any sign of confusion to bother acknowledging signs of clarity.
Monday at 3:03pm • Like

Empty Mirror: Do you feel entirely clear about all of "this". Do you have any doubts?
Monday at 3:13pm • Like

Ernest S: I have absolutely no doubt about "this " or Self. I came to LU more to clarify for myself other claims such as "doership". Needed to go deeper on this since it was not obvious. Unlike other issues, where you can sit still and "see", being active, planning (and I do plan my day oftentimes), and then executing makes it more challenging. Now that I see it's not quite that, as I described, like the rope is not the snake. It's not the story I just described, except when I'm inside the story. Actually, I'm not too bothered by being "confused" nowadays, or "contradictory". These are mind stuff. Reality is still One despite this. And I rest in Being.
Monday at 3:46pm • Edited • Like • 1

Empty Mirror: Nice :-)
Monday at 3:54pm • Like • 1

Empty Mirror: I agree. It seems that the doership thing was your only hurdle. I'll ask a couple of other guides to take a look at this thread, and confirm my opinion, and if they do we can let you in to the area where all of the real action happens :)
Monday at 5:09pm • Edited • Like

Empty Mirror: Hi Ernest, a couple of people have taken a read of this thread, and their opinion is that your posts lack a "lightness" to them. There comments were that there seems to be a lack of joy and freedom in your replies. I need to ask you two further questions if you don't mind:
1. What difference has this realisation made in the way that you view life?
2. If you are not the “I” what are you?

Tuesday at 9:41am • Like

Ernest S: That's probably true if you're going for the "feel". I think part of it is my academic training which tends to bring a technical style to my replies. (Plus, I like to hit a problem from all angles.)
Tuesday at 10:53am • Unlike • 1

Empty Mirror: That was my take on it :) So how about the two questions above?
Tuesday at 11:04am • Like

Ernest S: ‎(2) The phrase "I am" or the "I sense" feels like a contraction to me and is actually uncomfortable. What I notice is spaciousness, Being, Self (in the sense that all things sensed feels like "myself", or part of this "self nature"). Contradicting what I just said a little bit, "I" feels like the Place where all things comes and go (waking, dreaming, nothing, dreaming, waking ... probably the plethora of past lives, life, death, life, ... all over again) (This part doesn't feel like a contraction. It is utterly freeing in that it's beholden to no attributes, attachements, including bliss, consciousness, ...)
Tuesday at 11:10am • Unlike • 1

Empty Mirror: Nice answer Ernest, and definitely good enough for me. I would been happy with an answer like "I am 'this'", or I am "nothing", but yours was better than either of those. I particularly like your last sentence :)
Tuesday at 11:20am • Like

Empty Mirror: I've asked for other guides to take a look at your thread and give me their opinions. They may ask you more questions but I certainly don't need to. My name is John btw, and I use this name because my surname is VERY unusual, and with my full name and Australia as my location, my home address becomes public knowledge. I don't like the idea of sharing personal information via any organisation, and only joined facebook so that I could take part in this forum. Hence the 'cute' name :)
Tuesday at 11:38am • Like

Ernest S: ‎(1) It is true that joy and freedom does not exude from me. Truth and seriousness of purpose has always been part of my body-mind makeup, even prior to awakening. I do feel happy overall. The awakening (of some form) has eliminated by fear of death from me in the existential sense. (I still fear the physical suffering along the way, say, if were to get cancer.) I am not as uptight as I used to be. It may not seem like much to some people, but then you should've seen me before. Rick Archer made a very good distinction. Do not confuse understanding with realization, realization with liberation. I am NOT at the stage of liberation. It's easy for me to talk about these things. I can abide in the Self in most normal circumstances. I am usually happy, filled with bliss, when quiet, or in a Satsang. But then, I am not a soldier in Afganhistan. I am not racked with pain when dying of cancer. <p>Life is mainly a matter of listening on my part, to what gives me "life", joy, passion. This usually indicates the next step I should take. I'm not really a big one on "awakenings" (as an event) any more, so maybe this may be part of the missing lightness and joy. It's not new for me. Rather, I want to be "fully functional", "competent" 24/7 in the awakening. More recently, I have been less focussed on "seeing" or "awakening" to a new way of being, a "falling into the heart". This has a kind of richness that can be felt bodily. I don't have a conscious way of "seeing" life. It's more like it's taking me along for whatever purpose given this body-mind, this incarnation.
Tuesday at 11:52am • Like

Empty Mirror: Hmm. I thought that you had answered both of my previous questions with your previous answer, and it said enough for both in my opinion. But this reply has me a little confused again. What do you think "the stage of liberation" would be? Happiness is not a pre-requisite for freedom. The pain of cancer, or the horrors of war, could still be experienced in complete freedom. I fact they can only ever be experienced in pure peace and freedom.
Tuesday at 11:59am • Like

Ernest S: There is a place where it's always free. It is untouched. But I cannot say this, at least for myself at this point, in life, in the body-mind, that this always is the case. At least, it doesn't always feel that way for me. As for happiness, I did not mean it as a pre-requisite for freedom. Just the way it is for me, all things averaging out. I'm sorry. You're way ahead of me here. I cannot say cancer or the horrors of war is an experience of complete freedom. Perhaps it *could* be experienced that way. But for me, this is theorectical.
Tuesday at 4:23pm • Edited • Like

Ernest S: I suppose "liberation" for me means more than just Self, inherently, always, already "liberated ("untouched"). Your description, i.e., in the actual living of life, say in a war, or with cancer, and experiencing this as freedom would describe the criteria I would place on myself for using the word "liberation". I could probably quit my job, give my assets away to the poor, live on the street, and be happy. But I'm not there.
Tuesday at 4:30pm • Like

Ernest S: BTW John, thanks for revealing your name. I also have a need for privacy and hope these FB postings are confidential (within the group). I have a thirst for the truth. But I prefer to stay out of "spiritual politics", live a normal, relatively comfortable, anonymous, private life.
Tuesday at 5:02pm • Edited • Like

Empty Mirror: Yes they are kept confidential and anonymous in this group Ernest. As for war or cancer, do you see that even if there was the experience of war or cancer, nothing could be different about "this"? Do you see that whether you were living life "on the street" or exactly as you are living it, there could be nothing different about the 'seeing' of things? What difference could giving away your money and living on the streets make?
Tuesday at 5:00pm • Edited • Like

Ernest S: Absolutely. It's nothing other than "this". But this doesn't mean my body-mind doesn't have preferences.
Tuesday at 5:05pm • Like

Empty Mirror: Preferences are just the natural play of "this". They aren't your preferences. They're preferences that have developed through the 'story'. If things don't pan out according to preferences does it make any difference to "this"? If you suddenly lost all of your money and ended up in the streets, that's obviously not what you would prefer, but would it make any difference to that underlying peace and freedom?
Tuesday at 5:08pm • Like

Ernest S: Not the underlying part. Perhaps the overlying part. There would be some place that would not like it.
Tuesday at 5:22pm • Like

Empty Mirror: Would that "place" be you? What is it that has preferences? Do likes and dislikes have any effect on "this"?
Tuesday at 5:25pm • Like

Ernest S: I think putting it in traditional language, it's like I get the Atman part. But not so much with the Brahman part, at least not in my gut. Yes, I know these are just concepts as well as a division. It's still always "this", including the dislike, even if at the instinctual level if not conceptual.
Yesterday at 3:05am • Edited • Like

Empty Mirror: Yes, it's similar to instinct. It's like an 'underlying knowing'. Of course the 'story' remains as alive and apparently 'real' as ever. And that is part of the beauty and magic of it. The dream becomes lucid but loses none of its wonder. Everything is a wonder. Even feelings of sorrow are a wonder. I had cause for sorrow about two years ago, and it was noticed that the sorrow had an incredible fullness and depth to it. It was noticed that sorrow in itself was a rich and glorious expression of 'beingness'. In itself it was a perfect and exquisite expression of the richness of 'being'/'this'. Are you able to see this? But of course before the depth and richness of the sorrow was noticed there was just the sorrow. So the dream was playing out as normal but because it's lucid, things like sorrow can be seen for what they are. Do you see how you are beyond any possible 'suffering'?
Yesterday at 8:08am • Like

Ernest S: I get this when I enjoy a good tragic story.
I have been watching Battlestar Galactica (2004),
first two seasons. A rather un-flattering mirror
on the human race. But it has it's own kind of
tragic beauty, in the roughness, in the sensations,
even the horror (like all the electrical equipment
going out silently on the Vipers as the Cylon
smart missles come streaking towards their
helpless prey.) (A high definition TV helps.)

Sorrow and sadness
are actually easy emotions to deal with and
indicates a degree of psychological integration.
The harder emotions are fear, anxiety, anger,
along with physical pain. Yes, I can see
that which is beyond suffering. But it doesn't
always seem that way with some emotions.

I suppose one can focus on the physical
senstations beyond the interpretation.
These will come off as a kind of "energy",
"life force". Then there's the issue of what
is one's "inner relation" to the phenomena.
Is it avoidance? Grasping? Can one be
"OK" with it? Even "love" it? I've been
told this the basis of "suffering" in the
phenomenal world. I'm still a neophyte
in dealing with this aspect.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

23 hours ago via • Like

Empty Mirror: There can be no "inner relation" to anything. There is not one thing separate from anything for any relationship to exist. There is only a PERCEIVED relationship. When there is fear, or anxiety, or pain, there is just life expressing itself in ways that we have stuck labels on and called fear, or anxiety, or pain. Is this clear to you? As for being a neophyte in this, it does take a while for this to settle in intellectually, and we have an 'after-care' forum on the forum to deal with that. I had to chuckle at the HD TV comment :)
23 hours ago • Like • 1

Empty Mirror: In my opinion you're as clear as anyone "fresh off the bandwagon", so I'm going to ask the other guides to have a look at this thread again. They may ask you a couple of questions or else they may ask me to.
23 hours ago • Like

Ernest S: Understood. "Inner relation" was an unfortunate term, a limitation of
language. But so is the feeling of "separation". It is all "this", the same Self. Actually, it's not hard for me to get it intellectually. It's the other way around for me, in the actual living of life, which is really more at issue
For me now.

19 hours ago via • Like

Empty Mirror: Ernest, your thread has been checked by a number of guides and all have confirmed :)
41 minutes ago • Like

Empty Mirror: I'll take care of some admin now, and will get them to open all of the groups to you. There's also a whole lot of "support" stuff for those fresh through the gate, and an "after-care" section where you can clear up any uncertainties. I look forward to seeing you on the discussions. I think you'll find them interesting :)

Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests