Let’s get this over with

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
Daveop
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby Daveop » Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:31 am

Great. So when you LOOK and see there are none of these things…what is actually found? What is there?
Just experience.

And when you drop all the labels of AE…what is left…what remains? What is reality?
Experience/THIS.

Does AE have any stories of their own…or are all stories about AE thought imposed stories?
Only thoughts can tell stories. No meaning in AE.

1) Imagine holding sensation in the right hand and thought in the left hand.
Does thought, on the one hand, and sensation, on the other, know about each other? Is there a link between the two?
No - I can see how the thought itself doesn't know anything about anything, it's inert.

But - thought DOES talk about actual AE of sensation ("My chest hurts! I'm having a heart attack!"), so where does that knowledge come from? This sounds like there is a link between the two. I don't see a link in AE.
2) Imagine sensation and thought are resting on either side of a pair of scales. When sensation is looked at it gets heavier. When thought is looked at it gets heavier.
Is it possible to look at both thought and sensation at the same time to balance the scales?
No, one or the other gets attention at one time. If it happens very quickly it looks simultaneous.

What do you find when you investigated fear thoroughly?
There are two different sensations, one in the chest and one in the spine (location is thought). They're like clouds in a sky, no actual story around them or identifying names. Nothing about it is unpleasant, just thought says it is unpleasant.
If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’?
Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?
Just in thought. It's just intense.
Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined ‘tingling’ sensation?
Another neutral sensation.
Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?
A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?
Just difference in location (which is thought), a sense of growth/morphing (vs the steady feeling in the feet), and intensity (strong vs faint).
I can see how it looks like basically the same substance ("sensation") at a higher pitch.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5660
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:27 am

Hi Dave,
Great. So when you LOOK and see there are none of these things…what is actually found? What is there?
Just experience.
‘Just experience’ is such an understatement! :) What is there is Reality itself no matter how it may be labelled ie THIS/Awareness/God/Spirit/Knowingknown/Presence/Source etc. It is the ‘substance’ of all ‘things’, including the idea of a separate self. It is quite miraculous and amazing when it is seen how the simplicity of what is termed as ‘actual experience’ unfolds into a play, no different to the plays acted out on stage or plays that are called movies.
And when you drop all the labels of AE…what is left…what remains? What is reality?
Experience/THIS.
Yes…the transparent, colourless, borderless, boundaryless, edgeless, limitless no thing that is appearing as every thing and yet becomes none of those things. So this is Reality....and every thing is appearing in/as Reality. So Reality can you find an actual separate any thing?
Does AE have any stories of their own…or are all stories about AE thought imposed stories?
Only thoughts can tell stories. No meaning in AE.
Yes. The pictures/ideas that thought is ‘painting’ about all appearances, is the content of thought, and is fantasy.
1) Imagine holding sensation in the right hand and thought in the left hand.
Does thought, on the one hand, and sensation, on the other, know about each other? Is there a link between the two?
No - I can see how the thought itself doesn't know anything about anything, it's inert.

But - thought DOES talk about actual AE of sensation ("My chest hurts! I'm having a heart attack!"), so where does that knowledge come from? This sounds like there is a link between the two. I don't see a link in AE.
Knowledge, which is thought based is part of the dream called life. In the story of the dream there is a baby born who learns all about what he is and what life is through a process called growing up! This is all learned knowledge, and it seems that all this knowledge is needed to navigate life...however, we are not using thought based knowledge to learn to see what is actual and what is fantasy. What is actual is known...not via thought based knowledge...but is known because You are self aware and there is no experience and experiencer. Do you need thought to tell you when colour, sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation arise? Or are they simply known?

If you take a careful LOOK. Is there colour AND smell AND taste AND sensation AND thought AND sound. What is it that adds the 'AND'? All there is, is coloursmelltastesensationthoughtsound = experience appearing exactly as it IS.

So what is it that says “this sounds like there is a link between the two”? Without thought, how is this known exactly?
2) Imagine sensation and thought are resting on either side of a pair of scales. When sensation is looked at it gets heavier. When thought is looked at it gets heavier.
Is it possible to look at both thought and sensation at the same time to balance the scales?
No, one or the other gets attention at one time. If it happens very quickly it looks simultaneous.
Yes, exactly! Let’s look at this further!
This exercise will help with seeing how thought points to there being a correlation between sensation and sight. This exercise also helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight (ie colour) - the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’)

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?

What do you find when you investigated fear thoroughly?
There are two different sensations, one in the chest and one in the spine (location is thought). They're like clouds in a sky, no actual story around them or identifying names. Nothing about it is unpleasant, just thought says it is unpleasant.
And how is it known that there are sensations happening in TWO different locations?

Maybe redoing the head exercise might help?

Please IGNORE all thoughts and images of ‘head’ and ‘fingers’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...

Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’.
Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?

Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them
If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’?
Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?
Just in thought. It's just intense.
How is it known that the sensation is “intense”? Is 'intense' like 'tingling' actually known, or are they simply labels that overlay AE and makes a story of AE?
Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?
A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?
Just difference in location (which is thought), a sense of growth/morphing (vs the steady feeling in the feet), and intensity (strong vs faint).
I can see how it looks like basically the same substance ("sensation") at a higher pitch.
And without thought saying “at a higher pitch” are they not simply the AE of sensation? What is it that gives them their story of difference?

Is the actual experience of thought different just because the content of the thought is different?

Can you find a 'you' that is separate to experience to know that there is a difference?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Daveop
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby Daveop » Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:15 am

So this is Reality....and every thing is appearing in/as Reality. So Reality can you find an actual separate any thing?
No.
So what is it that says “this sounds like there is a link between the two”? Without thought, how is this known exactly?

That's thought. You would have to say there are two objects to link between them.
Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?
color + thought about object hand
sensation + thought about object hand
If you take away the thought it's just color and sensation appearing in the same experience, without a link.

During the exercise I scratched an itch, which was definitely not what the color looked like before I closed my eyes. So it was obvious the color wasn't connected to the sensation.
And how is it known that there are sensations happening in TWO different locations?
More thought. Mainly this was due to needing to describe the exercise. It was one experience.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?
sensation + thought
Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
Sensations + thought
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them
No.
How is it known that the sensation is “intense”? Is 'intense' like 'tingling' actually known, or are they simply labels that overlay AE and makes a story of AE?
Just thought.
And without thought saying “at a higher pitch” are they not simply the AE of sensation? What is it that gives them their story of difference?
Thought comparisons.
Is the actual experience of thought different just because the content of the thought is different?
Not sure I understand this question... All thought gets the same amount of attention.
Can you find a 'you' that is separate to experience to know that there is a difference?
No, no comparer. This brought a sense of quiet for a while.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5660
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:09 am

Hi Dave,

Great job with your last post :)
Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?
color + thought about object hand
sensation + thought about object hand
If you take away the thought it's just color and sensation appearing in the same experience, without a link.

During the exercise I scratched an itch, which was definitely not what the color looked like before I closed my eyes. So it was obvious the color wasn't connected to the sensation.
Nice! With the scratching of the itch, did a thought instigate the scratching, or did you just become aware that you were scratching? Just another way to see how thought is not the catalyst for action/movement.

Here is a great clip that shows there is no correlation between sight and sensation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... e=youtu.be
Is the actual experience of thought different just because the content of the thought is different?
Not sure I understand this question... All thought gets the same amount of attention.
The question is asking if the actual of thought differs just because of what the thought is pointing to? Does that change the value of each thought, or is all thought just AE of thought ie no hierarchy of thought? For example if the content of an appearing thought was about being happy (“I am feeling happy”), and the content of another thought was about being sad (“I am feeling sad”)….are the thoughts different because they are pointing to different content, or are both thoughts, “I am feeling happy” and “I am feeling sad” simply AE of thought…ie no differences between them?

Can you find a 'you' that is separate to experience to know that there is a difference?
No, no comparer. This brought a sense of quiet for a while.
So from the beginning of this investigation to now...how are you feeling?

So let’s have a look if there is any merit to the idea that thoughts arise and subside in the head/forehead itself. It’s a little like the hand and sight exercise!

It is generally believed that thoughts are coming from the head somewhere around the forehead. When we try to trace back the origin of a thought, it is often believed that it's coming from the forehead, because the attention automatically goes to the sensation of the forehead. Investigate this carefully as often as you can throughout the day.

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one of the 'residence' of the SENSE of self. Or rather say, the sensation that is labelled as forehead is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self. Close your eyes and look to see what the AE of the ‘forehead’ is. Then look at the following questions.

What is the forehead in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Daveop
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby Daveop » Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:15 pm


Nice! With the scratching of the itch, did a thought instigate the scratching, or did you just become aware that you were scratching? Just another way to see how thought is not the catalyst for action/movement.
Yes, it happened without me having anything to do with it.
The question is asking if the actual of thought differs just because of what the thought is pointing to? Does that change the value of each thought, or is all thought just AE of thought ie no hierarchy of thought? For example if the content of an appearing thought was about being happy (“I am feeling happy”), and the content of another thought was about being sad (“I am feeling sad”)….are the thoughts different because they are pointing to different content, or are both thoughts, “I am feeling happy” and “I am feeling sad” simply AE of thought…ie no differences between them?
They are both equally thought. No hierarchy.
So from the beginning of this investigation to now...how are you feeling?
I do feel different. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on exactly what is different. I haven't had an aha moment, just a gradual... something. I have been paying more attention to the environment around me. Meditation has been more fruitful when it involves noticing what is happening.
What is the forehead in the actual experience?
Sensation + thought about a forehead
So, can a thought come from a sensation?
No. I'm not sure where they come from to begin with!
Can a thought come from a mental image?
No.
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?
No, just thought about a forehead.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?
No, just thought.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
No
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?
No, it was all thought.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5660
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:29 pm

Hi Dave,
The question is asking if the actual of thought differs just because of what the thought is pointing to? Does that change the value of each thought, or is all thought just AE of thought ie no hierarchy of thought? For example if the content of an appearing thought was about being happy (“I am feeling happy”), and the content of another thought was about being sad (“I am feeling sad”)….are the thoughts different because they are pointing to different content, or are both thoughts, “I am feeling happy” and “I am feeling sad” simply AE of thought…ie no differences between them?
They are both equally thought. No hierarchy.
Yes…there is no hierarchy in thought. Thought is simply thought and it is only thought that says some thoughts are more important than others.
So from the beginning of this investigation to now...how are you feeling?
I do feel different. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on exactly what is different. I haven't had an aha moment, just a gradual... something. I have been paying more attention to the environment around me. Meditation has been more fruitful when it involves noticing what is happening.
Yes…mostly it is a gradual process and that is why it is important to LOOK constantly and consistently throughout your day, every day. The realisation of 'no self' itself can be very subtle and not be an actual aha (light bulb) moment. Other aha moments come when the penny drops around something that you have investigated and seen the reality of.
So, can a thought come from a sensation?
No. I'm not sure where they come from to begin with!
You can’t find where a thought comes from for one simple reason, it’s not a thing. Just like colour, sound, smell, taste and sensations are not 'things' either. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is THIS/experience.
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?
No, it was all thought.
Yes, so continue to notice this when the idea of thinking is appearing. Notice how the focus automatically goes to place labelled as the head/forehead, especially when ‘concentrating’ is happening. Become familiar with this, and when you become aware of it…explore it again to see that all that is known is sensation + thoughts about the sensation, and by so doing it starts to change your perception of what it actually IS.

It's also believed that both 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the image 'of the eyes' appear with it.

So another SENSE of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image, right?

Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Daveop
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby Daveop » Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:43 am

Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?
No and no.
Color is just there as color.
Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?
No, no.
Just thoughts about eyes, unconnected to anything.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5660
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:16 am

Hey Dave,

Okay...so at this point in time, I would like you to go back and re-read your thread from the very beginning and redo exercises that you feel a pull to redo. Actually redoing them all would best! When you have re-read....and please take your time in doing so, and take your time redoing exercises...let me know what happens, eg if some things become clearer. and how it felt as you re-read and redone. And if frustration, resistance or resentment arises when reading about having to reread and redo....it is an opportune time to look and see what the frustration etc actually IS.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Daveop
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby Daveop » Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:01 pm

Hello Kay,
I need to take today off anyway. I will post again in 2-3 days.

User avatar
Daveop
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby Daveop » Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:17 am

Kay,
I'm still here. Working on this for one more day.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5660
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby forgetmenot » Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:01 am

Hey Dave....take your time and thank you for keeping me in the loop.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Daveop
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby Daveop » Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:22 am

Hello again Kay,
I've gone through the thread again. Spent a couple of days out of commission, but made some new insights and added more questions for myself. I kept going back to the teacup and apple exercises, as they seemed the most useful. At one point I realized that the whole process of a mind thinking is also a thought story, and it somehow unraveled. I think I'm starting to understand that when thought falls silent, the rest of the world is the real me.

I kept running into the idea that I am the one who knows - not just as a witness, but all knowledge. I couldn't find a recipient. It still feels like there's a knowing over here and a known over there, even though I get that it's all "here". Maybe the body exercises will change this when we get to them.

I appreciated the refresher, although I'm afraid I've already forgotten half of it!

Hope you're well.

Dave

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5660
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:08 am

Hello Dave,

All goes well here….thank you for asking. It was great to hear that reading your thread again brought new insights and was useful, and I am glad to see you are ready to continue 

If you have questions about what we have explored so far…please ask away. Other questions most likely will be answered as we continue with our exploration. If not, we can look at those ones later.
At one point I realized that the whole process of a mind thinking is also a thought story, and it somehow unraveled. I think I'm starting to understand that when thought falls silent, the rest of the world is the real me.
Nice! Yes, without thought….all there is, is THIS appearing exactly as it is. Even thought is THIS appearing exactly as it is. It is only the content of thought (what the thought is referring to) that is nonsensical.
I kept running into the idea that I am the one who knows - not just as a witness, but all knowledge. I couldn't find a recipient. It still feels like there's a knowing over here and a known over there, even though I get that it's all "here". Maybe the body exercises will change this when we get to them.
The seeing that there is no ‘here’ and ‘there’ (no me in here and a world out there) is the most difficult to see through, and you may not see through it within this exploration. Having an understanding is okay to begin with…as it is that understanding that will keep the fires burning in order to keep going deeper and deeper until an experience arises that shows you there is no ‘here’ and ‘there – no object/subject split. It then becomes a knowing although everything will still appear as being separate objects.
I appreciated the refresher, although I'm afraid I've already forgotten half of it!
That’s okay. Your thread will always be there for you to read again and again whenever you wish to.

Okay, so let’s begin to have a look at the body.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?


Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Daveop
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby Daveop » Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:50 pm

Can it be known how tall the body is?
No, no sense of size
Does the body have a weight or volume?
Aha. I'd always thought that a feeling of pressure meant weight, but it's just a feeling. No weight. No volume - again, no sense of size.
In actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
No. AE is sensation, thoughts about a body. These are not a body shape or form.
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
No.
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
No. Just a sensation, not even identifiable as body or chair.
Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?
No inside or outside.
"Sensation" (+thought of body) and "sound" (+thought of fan) happen in the same space.
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
Sensation and thoughts about a body. (And at times, color and thoughts about a body)
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
No AE of body, like no AE of apple or AC fan.
There's no real difference between experience labeled body and experience labeled not-body, it's all experience.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5660
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Let’s get this over with

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:15 am

Hey Dave,
Does the body have a weight or volume?
Aha. I'd always thought that a feeling of pressure meant weight, but it's just a feeling. No weight. No volume - again, no sense of size.
And what is the actual experience of “feeling of pressure”?
Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?
No inside or outside.
"Sensation" (+thought of body) and "sound" (+thought of fan) happen in the same space.
So I would like you to sit quietly somewhere for at least 10 minutes. Close your eyes and ignore ALL thoughts and mental images of the body. Now just focus on the sensations themselves (that are labelled as body).

Can you actually locate the sensations? Do they have a particular location?
Can you find anything within the sensations at all, including a body or any specific parts of a body?
Can you find a ‘me’ within the sensations at all?
Are the sensations actually solid?
As you observed the sensations what did you notice?
Some sensations seem to be more dense, but can you find 'denseness' in the actual experience of the sensations?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
Sensation and thoughts about a body. (And at times, color and thoughts about a body)
The WORD/LABEL ‘body’ actually refers to AE of thought.
Thought points to sensation and LABELS it ‘body’.
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
No AE of body, like no AE of apple or AC fan.
There's no real difference between experience labeled body and experience labeled not-body, it's all experience.
Lovely, yes…no AE of a body.

Image

Looking at this picture and just working with the colours, thought says that the yellow, peach and green areas are particular parts of a body and that the body is an object called 'me'. Thought also says that the other colours are something else. Is there a division between the body and not-body, or is that division imagined? And seeing that divisions are only ever imagined, could a body ever really be present at all?

Thought also says that the blue and tan colour is called a ‘door’, and that there is something behind the door.
How is it known that there is something behind the door?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 37 guests