Illusion of the ME

[Jason]

Hey y’all,
Been wanting to make a video about this for a while now but I happened to have a free evening tonight and decided to write it out instead. It’s about oneness and the ME and it’s my attempt to show the illusion of it all. There are jokes so feel free to laugh. And remember, I’m just an idiot here having fun, doing what THIS wants done. 😘

Please enjoy!!


“Illusion of the ME”


We all have a viewing port to this thing we call life because we were all given these meat sacks to experience it through. The port is the viewpoint of that thing that’s looking out your eyes. It sees the thoughts, the senses, and life happening. It rarely moves and it’s been the one ageless thing that’s been the same your entire life. It’s “your” viewpoint. Our minds slap a label on it and calls it ME. They say “that’s my experience” “those are my thoughts” “this is my life.”

But where does that ME end and the rest of the world begin? And even more does the ME really start with awareness of thoughts and emotions or does it actually begin with the AWARENESS of the awareness of the thoughts? 😜

Let’s leave that in the backseat for a second and go find where the Me actually ends. As we go keep asking yourself where does my “me” start showing up? Where does ownership or “mine” pop up? Is there a clear line where it is definitely ME or is it just fuzzy edges where I sorta care but it’s not really me ME?

First stop. Imagine the farthest planet in the known universe. Do you care about it? Probably not. You never even thought about it until right now if I had to guess. There’s always that one person who’s gonna say “I care about everything” fresh from reading an Advaita blog but let’s ignore them. For most of us if that planet exploded tomorrow we wouldn’t even blink. No ownership. No “me” out there.

Let’s come closer. Farthest planet in the Milky Way. Same answer for most. Nope.

Closer. Jupiter’s moons. Maybe if you’re an astronomer or you named one after your dog but for most people it’s a no ME edge found here answer.

Closer still. Earth. MY Earth. Suddenly there’s a little rumble of ME. This is our rock. I care about this rock of all the rocks floating in the universe. It’s the rock that houses ME!!! But is that the edge of ME? Probably not yet.

Let’s zoom in. A tiny island in the Pacific inhabited only by monkeys. They’re fighting over food and killing each other. Do you care? Most of us no. No one is protesting saying we need to stop the monkey slaughter!!! If it sank into the ocean it’d just be a blip on the news and maybe a science article.

Closer. America’s borders. For some here’s the ME edge starting to show up. My country. My people. MERICA!!! Ownership and care are way stronger here than for that first planet in the far reaches of space. But why America and not São Tomé and Príncipe (small island nation few know even exists)? Because this land houses “me.” But is that the edge where everything else ends and the ME begins? Probably not.

Closer. Your state. You might care more about it than other states but is that the edge?

Closer. Your town. More caring. It’s YOUR town. But is it the start of the ME?

Closer. Your house. Now we’re cooking. People will die for this. Shoot others if they break in late at night for this. The people inside are “my people.” My family. My children. Is that where the edge of ME finally pops up for ya?

Closer. Your body. Now for most this is the hard edge. This is MY body. I’m the only one who can see through its eyes, hear through its ears, and poop out its butt. It’s ME! Yea!!! We’ve found it!

But wait….
If you lose an arm is it still you? Does the ME instantly die when it’s cut off or is it somehow split in two?? In fact if you lose all limbs, is the ME still there? If yes then the ME can’t be the body. It has to be the thing experiencing the body.

Closer. Thoughts, feelings, sensations. The mind chatter, emotions, aches and pleasures. Surely they are ME right?? But they appear and disappear constantly. When they disappear does the ME disappear too or does something stay?

Closer still. Pure awareness. The thing seeing and experiencing everything. Does it ever change? Move? Some say it can during out of body stuff but there’s always still a viewpoint even in those experiences.

But wait… it goes away when you sleep… Hmmm. If it does then how do you even know how you slept?

Closer!!!!

What about the awareness… of the awareness of thoughts and life happenings?

Now here’s where the zoom stops and we get to what I call the fundamental. That thing that is aware of the awareness of thoughts and life happenings. That thing is in all things. That’s the real “ME” although we’ve shown no edge between it and everything else so can we agree that the word ME is just an imaginary line?

There’s no real line. You can’t have the fundamental without everything else appearing. And you can’t have everything else appearing without the fundamental. That’s the whole joke of it all. Our minds want to break it into to two when it’s so obviously one thing. Like the front and back of a coin. One blob of existence showing up in itself… to itself.

We pick an arbitrary point (usually the viewing port) and call that ME then pretend there’s an end border somewhere (usually our bodies edge) where the me ends and the world begins. But when you actually look for the edge it’s not there.

One giant blob.
That’s the best analogy I can give your minds.

What can you do with this new found knowledge and why did I share it? Nothing and because THIS obviously wanted me to try sharing a pointer like this. Haha. Sorry to rain on your parade if you expected something deeper. I’m just doing “my part” of the whole blobs wishes.

Also your “me” won’t get what I’m pointing towards because the “me” isn’t real as we’ve shown so nothing really to do there either. Only THIS, God, Oneness, whatever label you want use here to point towards the totality that you are, will ever wake up and get this. And it wakes up to its self.

So is it really even waking up?!?!? Or is it just playing a cosmic joke on itself pretending to forget it’s just one big blob? 🤣🤣

You can’t control awakening or seeing through illusions of selfhood just like you can’t know Santa isn’t real until you know Santa isn’t real. So relax. Stop trying to “get it.” Enjoy the ride. Give up all the trying and just live life. That is what all the “enlightened” masters are doing. They are just living normal everyday lives. Your mind wants something special. But that special thing is THIS right here, the NOW moment. So enjoy it fully! Live in it fully attentive! The awakening and stuff will work out exactly the moment “you” (a.k.a. me, we, fundamental, god, oneness, THIS, enter infinite other words) wants it to and not a second faster. I know that pisses off some of the imaginary Me’s but ignore them.
NOW. That’s it’s. Focus!!! It’s super simple. 😜

With Love,

The “Nut Kicker” as Doug so loving referred to me as,

Jason

[Janet Asiain]

‘Jason’ and Diehards,

“If seven maids with seven mops should sweep for seven years…” 

Illustrating: All the logic in the world doesn’t and can’t erase the sense of separation. 

Even the logic doesn’t quite work, if what it boils down to is two sides of the same coin. That still sounds like separation to me.

Why can we not accept that our conceptual minds don’t and can’t grasp the unified wholeness? And that our non-conceptual minds don’t and can’t speak about it? 

My ME’s parameters are much bigger than those described in this amusing if dismissive scenario, by the way. Those monkeys, the moons of Jupiter — definitely part of my identified awareness. Not as strongly as my home and family, sure, but far from a matter of indifference. And I’ve never been anywhere near an Advaita retreat or been able to get past page 3 of an Advaita book. 

This wider identification would make it all the more challenging, I suppose, if I thought it was a problem. 

Good luck to all of us as we stumble merrily along! 

Janet

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CCFD908D-BBDD-41B7-B6E4-6593ECFACBD1%40yahoo.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Here is something I put together for a different group 

I feel that Wholeness ( Oness) and Sense of Self are both parts of This.. Separation and Oness coexist. 

The Experience of Oneness

The experience of oneness is often described as a profound dissolution of the boundaries that normally

define “self” and “other.” In this state, there is no longer a sense of being a separate individual looking

out at the world; instead, awareness feels boundless, inseparable from everything it perceives. The

flow of life is experienced as a single, unified whole in which thoughts, sensations, and external events

arise within the same field of consciousness. There is a deep stillness and clarity, as if the usual chatter

of the mind has fallen away, leaving only the direct, unfiltered presence of what is. Love and

compassion arise naturally, not as emotions directed toward something outside oneself, but as an

expression of the inherent unity of all existence. Time seems less linear, the present moment expands,

and the usual divisions between subject and object, inner and outer, dissolve into a seamless reality.

Uniqueness and Oneness

Yes — uniqueness and oneness can absolutely coexist, though at first they might seem contradictory.

In the perspective of oneness, everything arises from and exists within the same underlying reality —

like waves in a single ocean. Each wave has its own distinct shape, movement, and timing, yet it is

never separate from the water that forms it. In the same way, every person, tree, star, and moment

expresses a unique pattern of qualities, while still being inseparable from the unified whole. From this

view, uniqueness isn’t a challenge to oneness but its natural expression — the infinite diversity of forms

is how oneness plays, explores, and experiences itself. In fact, the beauty of oneness is that it allows

for limitless individuality without any loss of connection to the source.

Poetic Reflection

Uniqueness is the dance of oneness—

the way the One sings through countless voices,

paints in endless colors,

and blooms as every leaf and star.

Each form is distinct, yet made of the same essence,

like ripples born of one lake.

In the heart of oneness,

nothing is lost in being different—

and nothing is truly separate.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP4%2BEq5MaGHkSim5YnStU3YXciLZYCxQWCRNS-vra8%2BeYg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Jeffery,

That was all very interesting! I would like to try and add something: there is something going on here that happens even “before” co-arising. I might suggest that in the same moment in this now, the observer is determining what the observed is and vice versa. In that there is no subject-object, there is just an experience. Where is the self in that? Where is the separation? I'm not saying anything different, just trying to point to “things" in a different way.

Paul

[Rob LO]

That might be another "n" sight

Maybe, perhaps Paul!

🙏💙🙏

Rob

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/91546B7D-8579-415F-B877-F1EE775100CF%40paulrezendes.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Paul, Jeffrey, Janet, Jason and All,

Just coming in here briefly from left-field. Regarding oneness, clearly there is "something" happening when there is a sense of oneness. The question for me might be whether oneness is actually an experience. It seems to me that there is the falling away of experiencing ourselves as separate, it was never true in the first place. So it may be this falling away that is being experienced, the absence of experiencing ourselves as being separate. Absence doesn't seem experienceable or definable, to me. 

Something along these lines was coming up last night: We are now in tune with the rhythm and movement of life itself as it has always been, naturally and without effort. Freedom, no longer bound by self-concern, which is to be in love with all of life's manifestations..... This is what I hear Jeffrey pointing to. Yet, we remain the human beings we are. It just may be that our interactions with all of our circumstances now have a different nature.

And I am with Paul here. The sense of being a self, separate, is part of experiencing. One cannot separate this experience from experiencing, in the sense that me/we are in its very movement. If we look closely, me/we is the experience taking place, along with its seeming object, unavoidably. Where is the dividing line.....? I am the object I see, feel etc, inseparably. -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/91546B7D-8579-415F-B877-F1EE775100CF%40paulrezendes.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Paul , Dan et all 

Point taken. Beautiful.. thanks!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoDjmAhzhnN2hcGY0NN3ttVgDVYYTD5SRgRPuG_9P3t%3DxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards,

👉👆👇👈  — 🤗

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCSAUJ-jdPd_XBR2%2BRRPG0sTK5pTa4ab2ALpbp7A8wb%2Bkg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob LO]

Yes, Janet there are multiple in a pluralistic and simultaneously holistic world (my world view, currently) perspective ways to observe, seek, feel, perceive and think about the paradox ... 

I plan to quote the eloquence of Watts as reported by Oliver Burke man in his helpful to me book "Antidote: Happiness for people who can't stand positive thinking!"

Quote: The argument goes as follows: that no matter where you draw the boundary – even if we could agree on a place at which to draw it – you would not really be drawing a boundary, in the conventional sense, at all. Because (here it comes) the very notion of a boundary line depends on it having two sides. When you think about it, it doesn’t make much sense to describe a boundary as something that keeps two things apart. It makes more sense to describe it as the place at which they meet – or, more accurately, the place at which they are exactly the same thing (my embolden). The inside of the boundary relies for its very existence on the outside, and vice versa; they are, inextricably and by definition, part of the same whole. You simply can’t have the peak of a wave without the trough, or darkness without light. 

This is the insight behind the ancient Chinese symbol of yin and yang, but there is nothing religious or even especially ‘spiritual’ about it. It is merely the conclusion, Watts argues, to which rigorous thinking must lead. 

There cannot be a ‘you’ without an ‘everything else’, and attempting to think about one in isolation from the other makes no sense. Nor is this some vague, insipid, flowers-and-incense observation about how ‘we are all one’. It holds true on every level, from the most abstract to the most concrete. Yes, it is true that you wouldn’t be you without the relationships you’re in, or the community to which you belong. But you also wouldn’t be you if it weren’t for all the physical objects in the world that aren’t you. We spend our lives failing to realise this obvious truth, and thus anxiously seeking to fortify our boundaries, to build our egos and assert our superiority over others, as if we could separate ourselves from them, without realising that interdependence makes us what we are. ‘Really,’ Watts wrote, ‘the fundamental, ultimate mystery – the only thing you need to know to understand the deepest metaphysical secrets – is this: that for every outside, there is an inside, and that for every inside, there is an outside, and although they are different, they go together.’ That phrase ‘they are different’ is important. The case being made here is not that boundaries don’t exist – that the ‘true’ way to perceive the world would be as some big, boundary-less mess of stuff, like half-melted ice-cream. The fact that ‘you’ and ‘everything else’ are intrinsically interconnected needn’t mean you don’t exist. Our sanity depends on maintaining a coherent sense of self, and on setting healthy boundaries between ourselves and others – and neither Alan Watts nor Eckhart Tolle wishes to imperil your sanity. Instead, the conclusion to which both their thinking leads is that the self is best thought of as some kind of a fiction, albeit an extremely useful one – and that realising this, instead of doing everything we can to deny it, might be the route to fulfilment.

For "me" this individual person labelled for convenience Rob, Rambling Rob, Bro, Orb whatever ... and simultaneously an entangled life form embodied within inter-being within a multiplicity of nested ecologies at many scales from cosmic to microbial the quote (words) from Watts resonates along with most of Bohm's ... with the experiences in my embodied Trinity of "head<>heart<>gut" and Bohm's Poem (aka Janet's Label) 

But as with everything here on Diehards ... The words, written or when read and sometimes spoken out loud in the space where "I am" and "am not"

It is that Tao that cannot be spoken that is "behind, before, between and beyond" the experiencing that in Essence is closer than close, SOURCE .... 

🙏💙🙏

Rob L-O

Bohm's Poem: 

https://lifebeinglife.wordpress.com/2020/08/16/search-results-and-bohm-maps/

From the Inter-subjectivity of

<>head<>heart<>gut<>

<>heart<>gut<>head<>

<>gut<>head<>heart<>

Whatever "ONES" starting pointER!

🙏💙🙏

🤔🤦‍♂️🤔

Or the illusion / delusion of "ME"

Image at the end of at: 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP7buCcP45gBNjOuDC4Zt82rac6nk7k544t72uVf8zA0Rw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Rob L and Everyone,

I was appreciating your view that there are many ways to frame and express the mysteries of life. In looking at it, it seems difficult for it to be any other way. One thing that came up for me was the possibility that, with all this richness and variety, these various expressings might have the same or similar source. Unidentifiable and undefinable, out of the blue, and at the same time undeniable.....  -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPa3K%2B4vFASb20pbsHWBHr%2BK%3Dg%3Dsio%2BL2NLtuhKm_qC43ejfnA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Schmit]

Jason, DIehards,

Thanks for your musings Jason. I did really enjoy it!

"But wait….
If you lose an arm is it still you? Does the ME instantly die when it’s cut off or is it somehow split in two?? In fact if you lose all limbs, is the ME still there? If yes then the ME can’t be the body. It has to be the thing experiencing the body."

I'm really splitting hairs here, but this type of inquiry seems to come up a lot in spiritual discussions/inquiries into awareness, and I always wonder why it seems to be limited to the limbs/fingers/toes? Why not extend it to the obvious, the head? I know I'm nitpicking here, but really the answer to the question "where does the me go?" changes quite significantly when you change the question in this way, and if one is to say that the ME can't be the body, then why not go to the extreme and then try to answer the question?

I'm not advocating materialism as "the way it is", because obviously no one knows. But sometimes I think there is a hint of doubt in some of these musings, and a thin layer of coverup in trying to explain it all.

Now here’s where the zoom stops and we get to what I call the fundamental. That thing that is aware of the awareness of thoughts and life happenings. That thing is in all things. That’s the real “ME” although we’ve shown no edge between it and everything else so can we agree that the word ME is just an imaginary line?

Of course saying "that's the real me" is an opinion, just as someone might say the projections of the brain "is the real me".

Again, I really enjoyed your writings. Just wanted to spew out what was coming to mind!

Scott S.

[Jason]

This goes out to Scott Schmit. It wouldn’t let me reply directly to him. Here’s what he posted. 

“Jason, DIehards,

Thanks for your musings Jason. I did really enjoy it!

"But wait….
If you lose an arm is it still you? Does the ME instantly die when it’s cut off or is it somehow split in two?? In fact if you lose all limbs, is the ME still there? If yes then the ME can’t be the body. It has to be the thing experiencing the body."

I'm really splitting hairs here, but this type of inquiry seems to come up a lot in spiritual discussions/inquiries into awareness, and I always wonder why it seems to be limited to the limbs/fingers/toes? Why not extend it to the obvious, the head? I know I'm nitpicking here, but really the answer to the question "where does the me go?" changes quite significantly when you change the question in this way, and if one is to say that the ME can't be the body, then why not go to the extreme and then try to answer the question?

I'm not advocating materialism as "the way it is", because obviously no one knows. But sometimes I think there is a hint of doubt in some of these musings, and a thin layer of coverup in trying to explain it all.

Now here’s where the zoom stops and we get to what I call the fundamental. That thing that is aware of the awareness of thoughts and life happenings. That thing is in all things. That’s the real “ME” although we’ve shown no edge between it and everything else so can we agree that the word ME is just an imaginary line?

Of course saying "that's the real me" is an opinion, just as someone might say the projections of the brain "is the real me".

Again, I really enjoyed your writings. Just wanted to spew out what was coming to mind!

Scott S.”

Scott,

I really enjoyed your response and you’re exactly right!! I limited it the way I did because without the main chest or the head you’re not going to be living in this form anymore, so I find that to be a stronger pointer toward the false-me illusion. But you’re right, pointing using a cut off head works too. 🤙🏼

In thinking a second more on it…I also think it depends on the audience and their level of understanding. It’s kind of a koan type of question, so making it harder might work for advanced folks but just sail over the rest of us normie’s heads. I can totally hear myself saying, “Well, if I lose my head then of course the me isn’t there—I’m dead!” and then completely miss the pointer being given by ya. So I guess me being a dummy and assuming others are like me, I kept it simple. Hahaha. 

You said: “Of course saying ‘that’s the real me’ is an opinion, just as someone might say the projections of the brain ‘is the real me’.”

I agree completely and disagree completely at the same time. It is an opinion, for sure, because it’s being said through a meat sack with a brain using words to communicate an idea. But it’s also pointing toward something beyond the words, so in that way it’s also “fact”, or at least whatever that word is trying to point to in this context. I don’t love using the word fact because it locks people into a rigid idea, and then they think there’s something to know, push back against the word, and totally miss the pointer. But in this moment, “fact” just feels like the right word so I’m gonna use it!   

I direct this next part to no one in particular just adding my two cents here: 

Any time we speak or communicate, it happens in duality. So whatever I say, or anyone says for that matter, has to be given some grace. When we talk about oneness, no-self, or anything in that space, words are always going to fall short. There will always be a “yeah, but what about this opposite thing?” that could follow whatever gets said. So I encourage just looking at where the pointers point and not at the signs themselves. Although I can hear some saying “yeah but the sign is THIS too”. 🤣 Yes it is. You are right. Now look where it’s pointing and ignore the mental push back noise for a second. It will make your journey on the path if you’re still on it go a lot quicker. 

Or it won’t. 😜

See what I did there. 🤣🤣🤣

“I feel sometimes like we are a bunch of fish trying to explain water to each other.” —Nut Kicker 🤣🤣🤣🤣 

With love, peace, and hair grease…  

-Jason

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards

 Sorry, Jason (and all who try to use words to “point to” a state of being other than duality, if that’s what you’re pointing to). I don’t buy it. 

The problem with words is that they are abstracted from material reality and can only “point” to other aspects of material reality. Or duality, if that’s the word you prefer. So they obstruct and hinder and entrap even further, unless they’re in the form of koans (or some forms of poetry), which use words not to explain anything logically, as words used in any other way can only do. 

Koans (and poetry) actually baffle the logical mind and so force it to give up, be silent, and allow another (generally unused) faculty to do the perceiving. And no words can express what is perceived by that utterly non-verbal faculty. 

But then trying to solve the riddle of existence using the logical faculty, whatever else one thinks one is doing with it (“pointing”) is a sort of koan in itself, leading to the terminal frustration that can facilitate a breakthrough. I just wonder sometimes if this stage on “the path” doesn’t get mutually reinforced by the kind of conversations that take place here. 

The only person who appears to escape the trap is Dan, whose words are quite impossible to grasp with the logical faculty, or at least with mine. They seem to come from a mind that is actually floating out there somewhere instead of tearing up the shoreline looking for a way into the water. 

The usual meta-commentary from yours truly, ignore or discard if it is gibberish or worse. The Krishnamurti inoculation seems not to wear off!

Janet

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/1BDC9563-64E2-4CA7-9B99-0836B530B9B2%40yahoo.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Janet,

You said in your email: "The usual meta-commentary from yours truly, ignore or discard if it is gibberish or worse. The Krishnamurti inoculation seems not to wear off!”

Sorry, but you hit it on the head for me. You are indeed inoculated with the Krishnamurti thing. It seems like it's hard for you to hear other ways of expressing things. By the way, I'm not looking for a meta-commentary from anyone.

Paul (bald and without hair grease) 😆

I agree completely and disagree completely at the same time. It is an opinion, for sure, because it’s being said through a meat sack with a brain using words to communicate an idea. But it’s also pointing toward something beyond the words, so in that way it’s also “fact”, or at least whatever that word is trying to point to in this context. I don’t love using the word fact because it locks people into a rigid idea, and then they think there’s something to know, push back against the word, and totally miss the pointer. But in this moment, “fact” just feels like the right word so I’m gonna use it!  <88a22b07-8123-4085-a8ff-51534507384c.png> 

I direct this next part to no one in particular just adding my two cents here: 

Any time we speak or communicate, it happens in duality. So whatever I say, or anyone says for that matter, has to be given some grace. When we talk about oneness, no-self, or anything in that space, words are always going to fall short. There will always be a “yeah, but what about this opposite thing?” that could follow whatever gets said. So I encourage just looking at where the pointers point and not at the signs themselves. Although I can hear some saying “yeah but the sign is THIS too”. 🤣 Yes it is. You are right. Now look where it’s pointing and ignore the mental push back noise for a second. It will make your journey on the path if you’re still on it go a lot quicker. 

Or it won’t. 😜

See what I did there. 🤣🤣🤣

“I feel sometimes like we are a bunch of fish trying to explain water to each other.” —Nut Kicker 🤣🤣🤣🤣 

With love, peace, and hair grease…  <9322bc42-9cfa-46c9-bec5-72532ca42b5e.png>

-Jason

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/1BDC9563-64E2-4CA7-9B99-0836B530B9B2%40yahoo.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP4PyyadBsT8eXMZU3ddAUCZqwmdcKwMWZxxJYQxPY%3Dt0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Why sorry, Paul? I feel blessed. But I should have stopped myself from articulating what you and possibly nobody is looking for here. 

As I believe I said clearly in my meta-comment,  a necessary purpose may be served for those engaged in trying to explain and clarify the “nothing to see here” view of life and meaning. I’ll do my utmost to stop trying to undermine the agenda and stay on the sidelines henceforth. Carry on!

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/37DEA2C3-3071-4937-A8FB-66DCD13E3D22%40paulrezendes.com.

[Jason]

Janet,

I love this!! Your posts always entertain me!! Thank you!

My response:

There is no “state of being other than duality” because it’s all one thing, and I love that you are restating my point of not paying attention to the words I use. You’re exactly right! Ignore them and look where they point without using your mind!!!

Material reality and non material reality are both mind created parts of the whole of reality. It all shows up together as one big thing, even the parts we can or can’t see, hear, touch, taste, feel, or imagine. 😜

Can you find the koan and poetry in my pointers? They are there if you want them to exist. And you might find there’s some attachment to this idea that only koans and poetry and Krishna and Dan can be pointers for yourself. I contest that if that thought is dropped EVERYTHING can be a pointer for ya. The chair you sit in, the roof over your head, the food you eat, the insect buzzing around your head while outside, the wind, the heat or cold, the hang nail you got, even a dummies words like mine… EVERYTHING can point for ya if you pay close enough attention.

I love that you find Dan to be the most clear for you, that is awesome. Many folks take years and years finding a teacher (or person who points for them) who they resonate with. You got Dan and he doesn’t even cost the price of a retreat or anything!!! 🤣

To be honest with ya, Dan often talks over my head with his pointers. I have to really think about what he’s saying to understand sometimes. Same with Paul at times. So maybe that’s why you don’t resonate with what I’m saying. I’m a dummy, I try to speak to all us simple minded folk who are trying to find the peace beyond peace without jumping through mental hoops. Simple words and simple pointers. Maybe you like the complex flavor a bit more. Haha. 

I love your meta commentary, keep it up! You’re a perfect in your expression of THIS! 

-Jason

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP5FLaJ1Xg6Ee3RZAXMwN0QQ3UHH5qZm7652bqyCa5Q%2BvA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Thanks Jason. Delighted to amuse! 

Words aren’t just words ya know. They aren’t random, like chairs. They get strung together in subject/predicate sentences that convey meaning whether you think they do or not. I’d be thrilled to read some that weren’t. Want to give it a shot? You might surprise yourself. You might surprise both of us. 

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/71C978C2-06C2-444C-A6DA-C9FEA958F850%40yahoo.com.

[Jason]

Janet,

Are we arguing Janet? 🤣🤣🤣

I’m just messing with ya, I love the back and forth!!!

Are you sure words aren’t random like chairs? Do you know that for absolute???

Words do point to meaning, I agree, but what actually gives them that meaning?

The word “chair” has no meaning to someone who doesn’t speak English, our minds are the ones assigning the meaning.

And who controls the mind? The universe! Yea!! So no matter how the words line up, it’s still the universe pointing to itself, because it’s only ever one thing. Fancy Krishna words or dumb-dumb Jason words, all pointing to the same thing/no-thing. Meaning pops up in each form exactly as the universe sees fit to interpret it.

Found lips in a galaxy form during an old wasabi of qualified butter state cows.

There ya go, my best attempt at words strung together with zero meaning. Surprised?!?! 🤣🤣🤣

And guess what, even those nonsense words point right back to THIS!!! Look at how they make the mind go “what the f?!?”.  🤣🤣🤣

Last thing… words are just monkeys banging on pots until the mind strolls in and calls it a symphony. 

– Jason

Cheers!

On Aug 20, 2025, at 4:12 PM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP6BqNWu6RdfC27k2hEzLO4y2BY1AhC6uDXtnXsx1wXExA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Jason, I got a real kick out of your last email here on the Diehards. Can't wait to see what comes next.

LOL,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/068ABC81-B743-4A88-82A5-1EE698C64B34%40yahoo.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Absolutely, Jason, if only words could be liberated from all that pesky syntax. Then they would indeed be just like chairs. “Found lips in a galaxy form during an old wasabi of qualified butter state cows” is an achievement, though. Happy to have inspired it. 

Your muse, 

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/22965E91-67EF-4F2E-B0AC-C642EA1C0527%40paulrezendes.com.

[Jason]

Question for ya Janet. If I gave you $5,000,000 would you jump out an airplane without a parachute? 

If so why and if not, why not?

I know it seems out of left field but go with me for a second and I promise it will lead somewhere relevant to our convo. 

-jason

On Aug 20, 2025, at 8:55 PM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP4SdKgTHqcG0q8M59iLtmp12zY00yo8YKcZUH1sOz2ZmA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Haha,  Jason, quite a manipulative question but it might be fun to know where you’re going so I’ll bite. 

Taking the question on face value, then, and without any of the several provisos that leap to mind, no, because then I’d be dead (and I really like being alive) and of what use would $5 mil be to me?

On the other hand, if the money would save the life of my child, for example, I’d  have to think again. 

OK enough of my ambivalence, what’s the purpose of this leading question? Go! Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/9F64CCBE-9E0B-4014-80D4-438E872A7A80%40yahoo.com.

[Janet Asiain]

PS (Jason) I break a cardinal rule of dialogue in engaging in this kind of extended back and forth when there are other people in the room. So I invite anyone who’s reading following Jason’s lead here to answer the question he posed to me, and for him to wait until others have to respond. 

[Jason]

Janet,

I’ll save the “cardinal rule” thing for the end, let me get to the pointer first.

You called my question manipulative, which makes it sound like I was trying to attack you, but I promise that wasn’t my intent. Just doing my odd way of pointing. 

You said, “no, because then I’d be dead (and I really like being alive) and of what use would $5 mil be to me?”

That’s actually the most common answer to this type of koan question. It shows how the mind jumps to thinking it knows the context when it really doesn’t. If I say “jump out of an airplane,” the mind assumes I mean a plane in the sky. But I was actually talking about a plane on the ground, only four feet off the ground. With that info, I’m guessing your answer would change.

In seeing your reactions to my pointers, I wonder if that’s what happens with ones outside of Krishna or Dan style. Instead of leaving room for the possibility of depth, the mind jumps in, slaps a label on it, and assumes it already knows not allowing to pointer to full hit beyond the mind. Could that be happening?

Almost everybody’s mind does this in some way, so this isn’t a personal attack. It’s just pointing at how the mind shapes what we think is true instead of letting the truth show itself right in front of us. I could be wrong in thinking I see that in your responses, so I offer this only as a possibility for exploration, with as much humility as I can. 

I know my own mind loves to jump in, which I find hilarious. Minds are funny little creatures when you actually watch them. Half the time I have to ignore mine when reading people’s texts and just give them the benefit of the doubt, because the way I read it often wasn’t their intent at all. That’s funny to me every time.

Now, about the “cardinal rule.” Maybe I’ve got it wrong, but I thought this forum was for discussion, back and forth, to fuel inquiry together. We talk, people read, and they jump in if they want. So my invitation is, don’t limit yourself. If you’re “doing it wrong” or too much, I’m sure Jim or Paul or whoever’s running things will say something. Growth happens outside our comfort zone, so go all in.

And just so you know, I’m a sarcastic idiot most of the time. Ask my wife, she’ll tell you how much I embarrass her polite southern soul 🤣 But it’s always said with love and fun, never attack. I know spiritual groups can get serious, but life doesn’t have to be. Realization can be light too. So if I came off harsh, forgive me, I’m not an enemy. Just another you, in a different form playing with form. 

I love how you do your “Janet things.” You’re amazing, and I especially love the big words you drop like syntax, predicate, ambivalence, and of course Krishnamurti. I’ve heard his name a million times, maybe someday I’ll actually read him. Though honestly, from how folks describe him, he sounds serious, and if I walked into that china shop with my dumb bull energy, I’d probably end up offending everyone 🤣🐂🐂🐂

So I’ll close with love and joy.  Love ya and I’ve enjoyed our conversation!! 

Go with peace, joy, and socks that don’t match. 😜

– Jason

Cheers!

On Aug 21, 2025, at 6:49 AM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP7wV%2Bx9z%2BTRzZoY4HckULQnv8GALJFiUoGAMTCYJQa9yA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Thanks Jason, same here. Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/E07F1F9B-5230-4039-8D71-F6746EA2953B%40yahoo.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jason, Janet, Paul and Everyone,

I just now took a look at the latest string here, and not really knowing what to say, I'll say this. I sense some wonderful playful love moving in all this, although how could I possibly know. Maybe just some plain old good fashioned humanness..... If so, refreshing!

I noticed Janet said something about what I sometimes share, which really kind of caught me off guard. I guess this is because when I share things, it generally feels as if I don't really know what I'm saying, or if it really communicates anything. It just comes and goes..... 

So here is one of those that came up in a recent morning, for what it's worth. It may well change itself as it comes up again: 

Life is not about “what” is happening, it is about what is happening now.

The second moves with whatever is arising, now. Nothing is being specified (as X Y or Z), preferred or excluded, moving toward or moving away. And what may be happening now may be specifying, preferring, excluding and so on, which is the first one. What a beauty to behold!

Thanks for listening, -Dan

Oh, and PS: Regarding Krishnamurti, it is also a wonder to behold how we may be looking through all the words we might have absorbed from him, or really, from any person. This does not exclude anyone, each movement is equally beautiful!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP606%3DT3Tv2YUQAitVrUnHsPWrtF%3DFD6O7MQu9S4T8_3sA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason]

Janet,

A prime example of something flying over my head because I’m too dumb…🤣🤣🤣

Dan said “ The second moves with whatever is arising, now. Nothing is being specified (as X Y or Z), preferred or excluded, moving toward or moving away. And what may be happening now may be specifying, preferring, excluding and so on, which is the first one.” 

Seriously though nothing but love for ya Dan and all your writings. They  cause me to have to do mental gymnastics to try and understand and leave me often wishing I was smarter but I’m envious none the less of your crafting! Keep it coming! 

-Jason

Cheers!

On Aug 21, 2025, at 4:54 PM, Dan Kilpatrick <kilp...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoDSXBY4JTuya10QDK4f3TZYrbWPr%2B9eeQRVDUpk7uGTUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Jason,

If you are like me and not left brain-oriented, plus I'm dyslexic, I often have a really hard time wrapping my brain around the left-brain use of words. I sometimes have to get Paulette to interpret for me what Dan, Janet, Rob Lo, and others are saying here. It just doesn't register for me, and that's my shortcoming, not theirs. I often have to go to the dictionary.

Oh well,

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/7A913DEE-3113-43D5-8F79-5DF271FC7951%40yahoo.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards,

I need someone to explain to me the difference between "left brain" use of words and the other kind. I think we're on a slippery slope here.

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/B6587341-F33E-4A1D-B668-72DEEF7FAB59%40paulrezendes.com.

[Scott Schmit]

Janet, Diehards,

I appreciate the meta-commentary. As long as we're being respectful, what's the harm? Personally, I glean more insight from some of your musings than I do from others. Isn't that the point of having many voices?

Scott S.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jason and All,

Jason, no dumbness there that I can see! Sorry if the wording is obscure, just how it came up. It seems to be juxtaposing our default way of experiencing with the revealing of this experiencing as it unfolds in the moment. In awareness. Awareness is moving with it all undividedly, in whatever way our experiencing might move. It's all free to move and reveal itself as it moves. This moving is not a "what" but it experiences in terms of whats, including the experiencing of itself. You can sense this as the mind grabs onto things. Living is not a content....

The experiencing of ME is just as alive as the hummingbird flying around our flowers earlier today. The hummingbird is not a what.

At least this seems to be what this is about at the moment, but I might be missing it even though it came up for me. Maybe it will open up further, who knows.

Thanks, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP6P%3Dfu%3D2Q%2Btv4x-vGsGc7dO1nZ1B4XSk1nSMv6xe%3D1NKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason]

Haha. I’m lost in your words again Dan. Haha. 

I think I agree with what you said??? 

The universe sure enjoys making the simple seem very difficult through your forms words to my forms mind. Haha. But that’s the fun in it all I reckon. Gotta have simple folks like me and complex folk like you to balance the scales! 😂😂😂

The experiencing of ME is just as alive as the hummingbird flying around our flowers earlier today.

I do fully agree with this statement! All is alive and all is experienced because all is… “       “… THIS or One or or Not one or whatever sign post we want to include here to point towards what we are trying to capture which can’t be captured in words. 

Jason, no dumbness there that I can see! 

Look again because there is a mega gap in the writing styles and word usage when pointing to the same thing. Haha. One of us is fifth grade level and one is writing PHD’s in word usage. 🤣🤣🤣

-Jason

Cheers!

On Aug 22, 2025, at 5:30 PM, Dan Kilpatrick <kilp...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoCw4Ct1T9YZr0c5v_C-OUrkkfOexdn2kD_0K5YZPRu0NA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason]

Janet,

Come on now. You, of all people, know what left brain, right brain means. Don’t be coy! 🤣🤣 

How can we be on a slippery slope? We are just using a bunch of words to point to something that can’t be defined by words. ANY word, no matter how perfectly placed will fall short. 🤣🤣 That’s what’s so funny about the many expressions of THIS… super educated people (I’m guessing you and Dan fall into that category) right on down to the dumbest of the dumb can awaken.  The brain isn’t needed to do so. 

If anything, the only slope here is the one we are sliding down with laughter! 

-Jason

Cheers!

On Aug 22, 2025, at 10:41 AM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP6P%3Dfu%3D2Q%2Btv4x-vGsGc7dO1nZ1B4XSk1nSMv6xe%3D1NKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Thanks Jason, I really appreciate your total openness and simply moving with how things are moving for you. REally! It seems the same thing tends to happen here, so I guess we are actually in the same boat! Maybe in this sense nothing is fundamentally different between us, even as our expressing and so on might seem quite different. And just to add, to me language is just language. Yes, it can have its own beauty etc, but I have known some folks that could communicate directly without words. So I appreciate very much that it is really what the words might be pointing to, which may be from where they arise (without possibly knowing for sure).

How can there be a "source" that is not already here? Our minds tend to automatically look elsewhere as if there is an elsewhere...... 

And I fully agree with what you shared here with Janet in your latest email: There is no first grade or PhD in any of this. No one is achieving anything here. Living is moving as it will.....

Okay, enough from me. Just one more thing coming up here this morning, just for fun. As I left the bathroom this morning, it occurred to me that cleaning the bathroom is like making a mandala. It's designed to no longer be! Hope this one gets across.....  ☺️🙃  What a joy life can be, even in the bathroom!

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/5A19509B-EB87-426E-8501-ADFC82266EF8%40yahoo.com.

[Jason]

Dan you were so close to a full email that I understood. Then you dropped “making a mandala” and lost me. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

The only Mandala I know is the former President of South Africa. And I think he spells it differently. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Of course we are in the same boat! And there is nothing different between us other than we appear to be different manifestations of the One. I think everyone can communicate directly so I agree with ya there as well. We’re just a bundle of agreements!!! Woohoo!! 

-Jason

Cheers!

On Aug 23, 2025, at 12:34 PM, Dan Kilpatrick <kilp...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoD%3Dpr1SonXQQfs%2BVrHtGgph%3Do-a7S%3DV2tY432nQ_PE2WQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards

Cleaning the bathroom! 😂 Leave it to Dan!

Of course the mandala expands to include the cleaning and maintaining of everything, including myself, just daily life if deeply experienced and understood. The beauty of watching it all wear down and out and disappear, as I do the same. Holding all this as sacred space. Sometimes it feels like it 

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/661F75F3-2240-49A8-85E6-52C194B402B1%40yahoo.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Janet, Jason, All,

Jason, yeah I didn't know what a mandala was when I was younger. Here is what Google says: These complex diagrams are created using various mediums, including sand, which is then ceremonially destroyed to symbolize the impermanence of life and detachment.

The impermanence of the cleaned bathroom was the point, which I'm sure you get! I do not resonate with the word detachment though. To be detached implies being distant from, to me. Impossible! I'd rather be fully "in" and see where it goes. Who knows, I might even disappear! Life is too full to be detached. Not identified with might be the point here, but honestly, I'd rather be fully identified than detached, since being detached is still to be identified, living in the illusion of not being identified. And in this might be all possibilities.....

And Janet, the bathroom can be quite an enlightening place! This is where I truly realized that I no longer wanted to smoke, for example, decades ago. The whole thing ended. And I am with your words here. It feels like a transforming to me, living always alive and moving and never static. There seems no place to land or to compare with, in all of it. No separate parts....   

Thanks for sharing, Jason and Janet, -Dan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP5rEs0Myh1UZ1oXpzj3QaTZwwG473hBBH-ZoPXpZjnhcg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards

Are “identification” and “attachment” the same thing? Not to me but I’m not sure that you weren’t using those words interchangeably, Dan. 

“Identification” seems to indicate an illusory oneness and “attachment” an illusory separation. 

Maybe an indescribable melding of both meanings might produce one of those illuminating “third things?” The inexpressible “answer” to a koan —

Janet

PS Department of Who Cares: Isn’t a mandala also a picture of cosmic order, which is enduring yet ephemeral? Tibetan mandalas are, anyway, I think.  Navajo sand paintings the same (get erased)  although I don’t know that they have the same cultural significance. I think they’re only made as part of healing ceremonies. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoDRgeM5qW7dubdqt%2BiRPmwGoTjYsxrh0x9x62Us%3DkZ%2BTA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Janet, those two words really don't point to things, but to an inward movement in us, right? So to me they are one and the same movement, revolving around a center that everything is in relation to. It moves in a circle, and it is all ME. And in saying this, I don't mean the word ME in a pejorative way. It is the felt sense that we are experiencing in our actual living. So when there is the sense of the other, that other is ME. ME can't escape that it is never separate from what it sees.

The identifying is the experiencing of all this inner movement as being true, factual, actual, like the hummingbird flitting by, not an inward "reality" being experienced***. That seems to be the illusion taking place, at least from this vantage point. And the question might then arise, so if this movement is an illusion, then what am I actually? Maybe I am not a "what", but the entirety of experiencing taking place, ongoingly, which can never be fixed in place or time. Never actually separate. No words or concepts are going to cage or define this, imho. Yet words may somehow arise from and point to it, and possibly communicate. This might be the true significance of words, at least in this domain. Never apart from where they arise, but really one and the same, perhaps. And this "where" might be right here and now!  -Dan

***And yes, our experiencing the hummingbird is also conditioned by our condition, but not in the same way. The hummingbird is not psychological, best we can tell. As in the case of the car coming down the road, I wouldn't want to test its actuality by standing in front of it......

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP6eWiXAmpo8%2BNQw_x75jHUFj8RE6ZAiVCTE1QZ2110ikQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards,

The light just went on, Dan. You (and others here) mean to say that the "inner world" is illusory. As in "doesn't exist"  Although cars and hummingbirds do. Is this overly simplified summary more or less on the money?

Just because I think I finally get what you're saying doesn't mean I'm signing up --- but hope you will confirm or deny what I think I got!

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoALhaJSPhL-2eLYDfMLXhoSK0CZmQ7SG7g6TKKLraODjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rene]

Hi All,

Seems like it.

Rene Salazar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP7UeL6P9jTXtCj0Cwf-5HsKj15P1X3beL1e1W9za8_Qog%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Diehards,

What are we saying here? It seems to me it's not inner or outer. So what have I got wrong? It seems to me that object-subject collapse into experience. It's not either out there or in here. It doesn't have a location. What am I missing?

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPGEE-X0MxWX9qeW6%3DkM_GSvRx5gOCxa-%2B3BAiiadEa0Q%3D3c2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rene]

Could it be both arising and thought confusing itself with the things? Where the word is not the thing. Somewhat like the second arrow analogy. Just not a noticing of it's workings?

Rene Salazar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/1E90275A-0487-4296-9B33-E74486AE2373%40paulrezendes.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards,

Seemed like Dan was distinguishing between "in here" (definitions of words) and "out there" (cars and hummingbirds). Maybe I got it wrong.

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPGEE-UR3xLvZYg%2BSBiqsbGn%2BTnn6LPaqfrAjeg%2BUJso2_Jf5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob MacDonald]

Is it necessary to distinguish between in here and out there?  Seems like an idea of separation that indeed could be a way of seeing the world, but, if investigated, sure seems illusory... 🙂

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP7s9OwXwd7LDrja7nLwD-cypgPOrMMSJMKonZYf7Z%3DsuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Schmit]

Rob, Diehards,

Necessary in what way? It certainly seems necessary to do so (distinguish inner/outer) in the pragmatic, everyday lived experience way (as Dan mentions with the car), but perhaps not in the more abstract, ethereal way.

Maybe I'm missing something too.

Scott S.

[Rene]

Maybe the idea of it is, but possibly not the fact? 

Rene Salazar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAN6ZE8L-%3Drt-ZRj_-GMXDCxYGd9F3368WyNcPG3eqZ%3D1NbW%2BTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Somehow, we need to have Dan come in here and explain what he really meant. I don't think he was meaning that there is an inner or outer reality. I don't think he was separating it out at all, but only he can tell us.

I think that when there is a clear understanding that object and subject, the observer and the observed are the same. They were never separate. They can only appear together as an experience. At least that's how it seems to me.

Paul Rezendes Photography oh, I'm working on this. I got some. I saw a video I put it on watch later of Christian saying the observer in the observed the same I'm gonna listen to it and see if it says then I'm gonna combine the podcast with the Christian thing when I take a little, this window or is that gonna be too much for you to recycle the fresh air? Don't even have to open it all the way well as long as I get cold.

3833 Bearsden Road

Royalston, MA 01368-9400

USA

Tel: 978 249-8810

pho...@paulrezendes.com

http://www.paulrezendes.com

Photography

Check out our new rotating images on our home page: http://www.paulrezendes.com

Search Online Photo Library:  https://www.agpix.com/results.php?agid=PaRe12

Drone Photos: http://www.agpix.com/results.php?agid=PaRe12&keyword=drone

Videos 

On Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/user84556629

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO0dHJqaQ7irSCKZSTBmSaQ

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAN6ZE8L-%3Drt-ZRj_-GMXDCxYGd9F3368WyNcPG3eqZ%3D1NbW%2BTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

All,

Ignore my email. I wasn’t finished with it and it wasn’t edited. Sent by mistake, so please ignore!

Thanks,

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPGEE-XvqfM98%2BpH9bQfSWZc7OUAm4Rc%2BaUnj6NotzRt%2B1XEDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Thanks Paul, Janet, Rene, Rob, Scott for coming in here. 

Yes Paul, I was actually pointing to this at a later point, that there is really no way to localize any of this experiencing. So just looking at how "inwardly" was being used here.....

There seems to be a movement happening that sees itself divorced from the senses, from what is going on that is not within its domain. Separate from all this.....  Psychological might be a better word for it perhaps, but this also does not imply that it is separate from what else is happening in us. Our psychology is the body moving in this way. It just seems to create a seemingly separate reality (within itself) that is illusory, which intrinsically is all about ME. So I guess we use words sometimes as a shortcut that are imperfect or can be misleading.....

But the central point seems to be coming into contact with this sense of a separate reality. When there is no identifying with this, meaning no need to be anything, then whether this reality is moving doesn't really affect anything. So there is no need for any of it to stop or get out of the way. It is there to be revealed for what it is. What other possibility is there? But we tend to assume or wish that it would all just go away. Maybe we are missing something in looking at it all in this way.....   -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/DE4E1688-0C8A-44A4-AB4C-421F233E003B%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Dear Diehards,

Somehow, we need to have Dan come in here and explain what he really meant. I don't think he was meaning that there is an inner or outer reality. I don't think he was separating it out at all, but only he can tell us.

I think that when there is a clear understanding that object and subject, the observer and the observed are the same. That they were never separate. They can only appear together as an experience. At least that's how it seems to me.

Here is a video by K. talking about the observer and the observed are the same.

If you listen carefully, it's interesting that when K. talks about the observer, he is talking about the psychological observer, the thinker of the thought. I think that's pretty clear. Below I'm going to put the Buddhist podcast which talks about the observer is the observed. In this case, it doesn't matter whether it's a psychological or physical observer. They still are not separate but the same.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/24E8557F-A7DE-4A5A-8549-D8B5FB2EED93%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Dan,

I agree with your previous email. What seems to complicate things here is creating a psychological observer. If the psychological observer falls away and is seen for what it is, there is still an observer… Right? There is this physical observing. The physical observing is what it observes, even if there is no psychological observer. But when the psychological observer comes in and usurps the physical observer, then because the observing changes, the reality changes. I hope that was clear.

Initially, the physical observer is creating a division, and when the psychological observer comes in, it creates an additional division. When these all collapse, then there's just this experience. At least that's how it seems here.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoCU%2B3AHR5X0PqjdSQyr1VQjaVkHs76q6r7Y0NxN71960g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards,

I don’t believe an adequate response to my question can be made without reference to Dan's post. 

I  was trying to Point To the endless difficulty of maintaining the non-separation model in actuality, as opposed to theory, quantum or otherwise. What I Know Is true and what I Experience as true aren’t the same thing most of the time. 

What about the of you, if we’re honest?

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAN6ZE8L-%3Drt-ZRj_-GMXDCxYGd9F3368WyNcPG3eqZ%3D1NbW%2BTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Janet and Diehards,

If you are an indigenous person or you spent most of your life in an intimate relationship with nature and its interconnectedness, it is a visceral experience. It is not something you read about in a book. It is something you live, and that is my experience.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP5KGX75wpwmj5YoeQOKowmE6eKb%3DB8Mv8k74xkUx_mpLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Thanks Paul,

I agree with what you shared here as well. It has come up for me before as our physical conditioning creates the perspective of being localized and "approximately" separate physical beings. As Scott said, this is a physically necessary approximation. This way we don't get run over by cars. And somehow flowing from this is a concrete psychological entity that exists only in its own self-created reality. The functional approximation, which is not cerebral, now becomes a psychological reality with all its concerns arising out of feeling isolated from everything else. And it can seem more concrete than physical reality. 

I feel something is worth bringing out more fully here, which is, as you said, the falling away...... This is an action that doesn't involve any observer, it seems to me. It is actually in the nature of existence itself. That which is false, when intimately revealed, can no longer continue. None of this comes from experience nor is it experienceable as action itself, yet it affects our (human) experiencing, again as you pointed out. So this action can only be acknowledged, that it happens. The human being has nothing to do with this action, even as they are wholly changed....  -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/63A7582C-026A-46FD-9E81-7A7556E08A95%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Thanks, Dan. Very well articulated. I couldn't agree more!

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoCr-_KofFyDDoExghfm2B%2BNcGEWGg0ULF5%2Bx0_zpbLCBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

I believe you, Paul. But those groups don’t include not everybody who talks about non-separation, etc.  Sadly not me either, although I tend not to talk about it, as you may have noticed. The first thing is to recognize where/who one actually is, wouldn’t you agree?

Janet 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/0B99C585-E058-4A09-BB09-7BD34E3BB7A7%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Janet,

Yes, I agree. I have been able to communicate about this with people in a "deep way". That is my experience. It can be understood at a deeper level than mind. If I wasn't sure about that, I wouldn't bother being involved in all these zoom groups and this dialogue group.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP5W8S_rk6fgvjXOY9TfUiBqhB9b3qD5mr4U%3Dn5MmTppbA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Janet Paul et al

When I sit in silence and bring awareness to the body I can sense its vastness, emptiness and aliveness. After awhile with focused attention the boundary of the body falls away and I am everywhere and everything. The body is like a virtual portal to the absolute.Form appears and disappears. When it appears I recognize it as part of the whole but not separate from anything. Just how it is for me. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/21934170-80D8-49BB-A46E-A36AA06DF598%40paulrezendes.com.

[Rob MacDonald]

Hi Everyone,

A few quick thoughts...

Janet, out of curiosity, do you have a practice of some sort that you regularly do?  (Meditation, yoga, prayer, etc.)  No need to share if this is too personal a question, hopefully the connection is evident below.

Paul, I think what we sometimes miss in these discussions, especially operating from an analytical position, is that the mind wants to understand and own this, when the more I look for myself, there's nothing here to be owned/claimed/understood.  That is why zen / non-duality has been freeing for me, because I have just recently realized that while I have no ill-will against Christianity, it dawned on me recently that part of the trap of Christianity can be that we get so focused on 'my' soul that needs to be saved, or 'my' sins, when the whole time Christ is actually pointing to a "daily dying of self".  It's hilarious because the whole time I was a Christian it was hiding there in plain sight. 

I think something can be transmitted through the Zooms, but ultimately we are left with pointers and experiments on looking at the world of experience through a different lens, which is a very personal, unspoken movement that seems to happen at a heart level, more than a verbal / thought level, but nothing is excluded here... I have just found the path that leads from the head to the heart is overgrown with thorns and vines... you can go that route, but it's a tough walk. 🙂 

Lastly, I appreciate what Jeffrey added above.  Practice and pointers are not necessary, but when employed, they seem to be able to move us from one perspective of experience to another perspective of the same experience.  Like if you were in a mountain valley, first looking over a lake in the valley from the shore of the lake.  Then you hike to the peak of the mountain and can also look at the lake, but from a different vantage point.  Nothing in the physical scene changes, just your vantage point, which opens up views of other parts of the landscape that may have appeared hidden while on the lake shore.

Just a few musings...

-Rob M.

   

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCTxNUO%3DZfFL0_2eOKCrV1jQTuUWRNFveETN_LbixutOcg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards,

No, Rob M, I don't have a formal regular practice. Mine is a zig-zaggy path! Now you see it, now you don't! I suppose many people reading this will say "Aha!" So it goes.

But despite the superficial irritation I express here sometimes, I'm pretty trusting of life, the universe, the everything, and don't feel a need to make the kinds of efforts I'm advised to make if I want to reach FILL IN THE BLANK  Maybe I'm too relaxed about it all?

I do think about being/getting ready to die, if indeed there's anything I can do about it, as that looks like the Next Big Thing. And I do think I might try some measured steps in that direction, just to be sure there's nothing too big left lurking in the depths.. Yet I'm not in serious denial or resistance, so I guess that's something. Would be nice if I got to float along a while longer, but couldn't complain if the universe said, "Nope, that's it!" sooner rather than later. Anyway, it's been an amazing and wonderful ride so far.

More than you asked for! TMI?

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAN6ZE8%2BuGnGUo3SzYQA8suVq9-uPebxeHExFRLb5QtF1efEXoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Janet and Everyone,

Janet, I find myself returning to your earlier email when you said "the lights just went on". I'm wondering if something was being missed here in all the subsequent discussion about how words were being used etc. This discussion seemed to take over the picture. So just to return to the original pointing once again, we tend to be living in a virtual reality, one that seems as real as (or more so than) what we might call the physical world (or choose your favorite word), which we are. There can be a felt sense of this reality, of its unreality, as it exists within us. If this is what you were noticing in the  lights going on (however it might be expressed), then that is worth appreciating, imho. This intimate sense is not conceptual, it is a sort of immediate realizing, in the moment. It doesn't have continuity as a conclusion it seems to me.

All of our pointing to each other is imperfect, necessarily. For example, I have heard the question asked a number of times: What is seeing this? There may not be a "what" that is seeing (as a source of seeing) but simply seeing itself happening. Yet, the words are quite secondary to where the words arise from. Action may occur without regard to the wording. They are quite unimportant seen in this way, seeing/action is....

Anyway, this was rumbling around under the surface and I wanted to bring it out. Not out of personal importance but because I felt something might be overlooked.  Thanks Janet, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP4LJ1sEAEyfrMYr-aTrR4U0pbfSYWhNfwa96QBkPatWug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Dan, Diehards,

Yes the "experience" of the light going on is wordless and non-identified. It's a right-hemisphere event, in other words, to bring it back into the body, where all our experiences occur.

I am wondering why everyone finds the ME such a problem, something to be dispensed with. Why does it have to be "separate" instead of just another arising in form? Unless all arisings in form are separate (from what? each other? the whole? I don't see why it should be from either). 

It's true that, unobserved (by whatever aspect of mind that is not the ME), it will become a problem as it accrues to itself all sort of nonsense that is in fact ephemeral (I think this word is a better descriptor than illusory): opinions, beliefs, conclusions (habitual thoughts), and habitual emotional states. But the psychic organizing principle that is the ME is not separate or any kind of problem. At least I don't see it that way. 

Maybe this is why I float along in such a "What, me worry?" fashion. 

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoAAGXvig00YvAq5YyYC2tC0vmLN2FO%2BC1hEGnM%2BFoUU9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rene]

Hi All,

What's coming up for me is that the me or thought, doesn't really know what "this" is, nor what "it" itself is. 

Seems to me.

Rene Salazar

Paul

Paul

Paul

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-group+unsubscribe@

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Rene, sounds accurate to me. In fact, how else could it be, in really looking at it now.

Thanks, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPGEE-XQGO52nMULWfEuGOuW7HBgmrakm%3Dfr8vE%3DyAhs2p%2BM0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob MacDonald]

Janet, 

We are kindred spirits in the wandering sense, I am starting to read and learn more about formal Zen practices, thinking I need to 'get serious' or 'get more disciplined', when that still small voice reminds me that 'practices' are okay, but everything we think we need is never separate from whatever shows up in this moment.  And the thief gets caught red handed, because it is the mind that delivers the news that this needs to be different somehow.

Not entirely sure how deeply I believe this, but an acquaintance who claimed to be able to do energy work told me on multiple occasions that my energetic profile was that of a frayed, live wire, or lots of sparks, all over the place... Not sure how I can ever verify that, but I often come back to that when this journey feels like a roller coaster, instead of a stroll down a serene nature trail.  No doubt why a single set practice or belief system never seems to fit. 🙂 

-Rob M.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPGEE-XQGO52nMULWfEuGOuW7HBgmrakm%3Dfr8vE%3DyAhs2p%2BM0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Rob M.,

I've been meaning to get back to you about your first email, and now you just sent this one in. I'm hoping I can address both here, as there's a lot I would like to say, but I'm not sure I can find the words or if they will come up… 

If you're coming from the teachings of K., you will probably not see practice of any kind as an option. I think insights come in various “ways." Whether a person might be listening to someone trying to communicate verbally or one might be sitting in some kind of formal meditation. I have come to a place where it seems to me it doesn't matter whether thought/effort is moving or not, whether you're doing a practice or not, or whether the thought becomes silent or not. We don't know how insights happen, at least I don't. However, it's been my experience that one can communicate with another person through words, and insight happens that way. But an insight might happen while you're meditating as well. For me, the most powerful insight I ever had was when thought was moving; as you say, it got caught red-handed, and that was one of David Bohm’s best quotes. Something comes in that's observing the limitations of thought as it is moving; there is clarity despite incoherence.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAN6ZE8%2BfBPGKUXYfcAxxBL51QvhZoKf8bfRoZFxD35DYKg6uvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Rob M, Diehards,

Rollercoasters are great for those with the stomach for them. It’s all great, none of it needs to be different than how it feels at this moment. There’s not just one story or explanation, and trying to agree or insist on one is a mistake. 

I was trying to say that the psychic center that can turn into ME once it gets itself encrusted with habitual thought and emotion is just as real as anything else that arises in this interdependent embodied state. Some things have longer shelf-lives than others. Thoughts/flowers dissipate quickly, a human personality/oak tree lasts much longer. It’s all real and holds everything any human being needs to know. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! More of an anti-story, maybe. 

Also I  wanted to ask Paul if intimate exposure to nature is required for the experience of non-separation. I ask because that’s the set of circumstances that always gets brought up when I start asking my tiresome questions. 

Janet

[Rob MacDonald]

Janet,

You reflected something important back at me here.  Terming something as a 'roller coaster' is definitely merely a way of orienting to and/or perceiving a given moment.  

Lately I have been having these moments of waking up coughing in the middle of the night that require getting out of bed and hacking up all sorts of stuff from my lungs or my stomach, not entirely sure about the root cause.  Nevertheless, it has been fascinating to see an evolution of how 'me' orients to moments like this.  There can be exhaustion, fear, frustration, etc. that consistently arises, yet over time there is far less 'story' around it.  Like, "Oh, this is awful" or "I am going to die" or "I have a presentation tomorrow, and now am getting even fewer hours of sleep".  Not to say those thoughts disappear, but there's far less investment and ownership in them, or suffering over why this moment should be different.

Not sure if this really relates to the overall thread, but appreciating the dialogue for reflecting a moment of this illusory self introducing it's latest editorial review of how life has / is / will be... even as "I" try to wax philosophical from the puddle of mud with Jason. 😂❤️ 

-Rob M.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP5uFNBn2LOvyDP5Rz3%2BgxHw1CCX_ktTTX5uXRj8NOTsqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Rene, Janet, Rob, All,

Just wanted to return to Rene's last email about thought/ME moving (as if it knows, etc). Is it our tendency to receive all of this of which we speak through thought itself? Is thought looking at ME in this way, as if it knows itself (as Rene was questioning)? When something makes itself apparent in us, does it often turn into something now known? When we speak of ME, do we tend to speak from what we know? Or is it coming from an intimate sense of ME?

In other words, how are we actually looking at all of this? This is not meant as some sort of challenge or as a kind of problem we have, it's about what might actually be going on. Something quite remarkable, perhaps!  When the sense of ME is immediate and present, it does not feel known, does it.....?

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP5uFNBn2LOvyDP5Rz3%2BgxHw1CCX_ktTTX5uXRj8NOTsqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Janet,

You asked in your email: "Also I  wanted to ask Paul if intimate exposure to nature is required for the experience of non-separation. I ask because that’s the set of circumstances that always gets brought up when I start asking my tiresome questions.”

I recently experienced communicating with someone about this, resulting in a deep understanding about what we will call inter-being. It seems to me we can come to an understanding that's deeper than the thought process about how we're all connected, whether it's through a visceral experience in nature or a deep inquiry into our nature. At some point, you come to a place where you can't understand how anything can live in a vacuum, or be what it is by itself. That just seems impossible. There's a default understanding there. I can't make that happen for a person, although it has been communicated, but if we dig deeply into our separateness, we may have an insight into an understanding that it's the whole universe showing up that way. At that point, we can't understand how it could be different. I hope that makes some sense. I'm not always good at articulating this stuff. Just throwing out what comes up.

❤️

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP5uFNBn2LOvyDP5Rz3%2BgxHw1CCX_ktTTX5uXRj8NOTsqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob MacDonald]

Paul,

That has been my experience as well... I haven't dabbled much in the works of K, short of what others have offered here, but from this point of perception there have been very few 'insights' via meditation, and other moments where there was just an unspoken, felt sense (which I don't even want to attempt to wrap words around) that arose between work meetings seemingly out of nowhere.  

LOL, this may work for others, so not meant to make light of what might work for others, but in my early days of meditation, I was really trying to get it right... use headphones to play meditation music with the right frequency, etc., etc., and after a while I felt so silly because my intent was like I was trying to woo the universe to show me some love 😄  Again, if you use any of these tools, not offense meant or intended, at least for me these things were more about the head trying to find a formula, rather than the heart being open to whatever arises without expectations.

There's a documentary out there I recently watched, "Zen for Nothing".  During the movie there are quotes from Zen master Kodo Sawaki.  This seems to sort of fit:
"As long as you say zazen meditation is a useful thing, something isn't quite right.  Zazen is nothing special.  It isn't even necessary to be grateful for it.  You want to become a buddha?  What a waste of energy!  Now is simply now.  You are simply you.  Wanting to become a buddha by practicing zazen is like sitting on a train bound home and being in such a hurry to get home that you get up and start running inside the train," 

[Rene]

Dan and all, 

Well, what's coming in now is about depth. Is the depth that is being explored purely in thought? Is it thought looking at it's depth ness? Is that a fact or is there a factual depth that is not that? Is there any one there to do this if that's the case? 

Trying to sounds smart,

Rene Salazar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoCj9WbjNvj1G%2BsOrTnqt%3DxCMkuzUSDxDfGz45mG4-_%3DPA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Rob M and All,

I've been appreciating very much your recent interchanges and sharings here. It brings this up to me right now. Fundamentally it may not matter what we engage in, as much as what is moving when we do. So the "what" we are doing may simply contain or reflect from where we are coming from or looking. So in this sense, it may neither matter, and simultaneously also wholly matter, what we are doing or what is going on. Because it is in and from those very circumstances that from where we are coming, or the consciousness we are living in, suddenly makes itself evident. 

In other words, we are really speaking about now, not some other moment or anywhere else than right here and now (is there a different moment or elsewhere actually, that our minds' don't create?). Now is all the circumstances moving all at once, in which all this is revealing itself, it seems to me.

Anyway, I am probably being very obscure once again. Sorry, and at the same time oh well!  -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAN6ZE8KJ%3DU6qU994EK9eQcDZpmN%2BCaXcrDwyOhgEH5wRNi5GRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Thanks Rene. Not exactly sure as to what depth is pointing to here. Maybe I am out of my depth! But regarding exploring, it seems to me that what is actually being explored is our consciousness, our sense of reality, which may contain many unconscious assumings. It is my sense that it is this that is being explored, as you suggest I believe, by no one. But there may be an exploring (or revealing) nonetheless. Maybe it is our minds that create the pressure to identify an explorer....  It all seems to be right here and now, even as it all is not apparent, apparently. 

And the question that arises is what else is there other than our consciousness? I don't see how I can speak of anything other than this, as I wouldn't know, and as I am not aware of all of it. It's all I got.... But one thing about it, this consciousness sure seems to be in flux and never static.   -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPGEE-Wx%2BOq6y-2Pzde2ff-s_7%3DB0GiCCN%3DAbXBbHtPqWro7BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Rob M.,

I found your paragraph here interesting: 

LOL, this may work for others, so not meant to make light of what might work for others, but in my early days of meditation, I was really trying to get it right... use headphones to play meditation music with the right frequency, etc., etc., and after a while I felt so silly because my intent was like I was trying to woo the universe to show me some love 😄  Again, if you use any of these tools, not offense meant or intended, at least for me these things were more about the head trying to find a formula, rather than the heart being open to whatever arises without expectations.

I think Dan was pointing to something here too, and now I'm going to try: by doing all that, what you described above, as that was a moving, there was a seeing of its limitations. That seeing was its own action and learning. It seems to me that you can't separate the doing from the seeing. Both had to happen for the learning.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAN6ZE8KJ%3DU6qU994EK9eQcDZpmN%2BCaXcrDwyOhgEH5wRNi5GRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Rob M , Paul, Dan et al

I’m wondering if this movement ( seeing) is coming from the body. After all nearly all of the cells in the body contain the individual genome of the person. The body is constantly communicating and doesn’t use words bypassing almost entirely the left brain and its concepts. There is a direct knowing ( insight?) I find the more somatic meditation I do the more attuned I become to the information coming from the body. When I try to rest in awareness I find it there in the body. 

[Paul Rezendes]

Jeffrey,

Are the psychology and the body different/separate?

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCTAGfE57KChVK0Hiuxt8hvcuAbrL8VSz5ggeOmO6RiL%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Paul 

Body wisdom is immediate and experiential. Psychology is interpretive and narrative. The body is always accurate. 

[Paul Rezendes]

Jeffrey,

Where does the psychology come?

Paul

Paul Rezendes Photography

3833 Bearsden Road

Royalston, MA 01368-9400

USA

Tel: 978 249-8810

pho...@paulrezendes.com

http://www.paulrezendes.com

Photography

Check out our new rotating images on our home page: http://www.paulrezendes.com

Search Online Photo Library:  https://www.agpix.com/results.php?agid=PaRe12

Drone Photos: http://www.agpix.com/results.php?agid=PaRe12&keyword=drone

Videos 

On Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/user84556629

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO0dHJqaQ7irSCKZSTBmSaQ

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCTS22BfW4awUpQ%2BVMYe%2BOTOfMn%3D0xg%2BL4-DTFiy78sPWg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Rob M All

I wonder what happens if I say resting in awareness or something along those lines ie abiding in presence instead of meditation. 

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Paul , All

Psychological insight comes when the unconscious bubbles up to conciousness. We see things more clearly based on past reflection. It’s conceptual and analytical. This is accomplished in the left hemisphere. 

 The connections between the body and left hemisphere are very minimal. 

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Rob M, Jeffrey, Paul, All,

Something was just coming up around all this. All there ever really is this moment, not in a philosophical way but an immediate way. At some point our consciousness "falls into" or aligns with this here and now. We are no longer moving psychologically as if there is some other moment/elsewhere (there is a felt sense in the body of this moving in us, a la Jeffrey here). No need to be anything....  Even if moving in this way occurs it now has a quite different significance, like a show taking place in realtime. And making plans to go to some other place tomorrow still functions as it will without interference.

Jeffrey, it occurs to me that the psychology or intellect is also a movement of the body. It has a felt sense as well, that can be moved with, revealing its actual nature. We tend to move as if these are separate within us, as if we are living in a separate psychologically created reality. But they actually are moving together, the psychological realm and the body realm. It all seems a singular movement, at least to me. One is not preferable to the other, in this sense, since they are divisible. But awakening to our being caught in this alternative (unreal) reality can happen. When the psychology loses its meaning, the senses may come to the fore, which is perhaps being in the body fully in a very natural way. At least as I see this now. 

I see other emails have come in, so will close this for now. Thanks guys,  -Dan

[Paul Rezendes]

Geoffrey,

Sorry, I didn't finish my sentence in the previous email. I meant to ask, where does the psychology come from?

Paul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCS%3DhEzYDEGPi40cVnOoFZV1TGRi75xBHLua5ndoAPDpGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Wow, sorry, correcting at least 2 mistakes here (more?): 

First paragraph:  "All there ever really is, is this moment,"      Second paragraph near the end:  "One is not preferable to the other, in this sense, since they are indivisible.  -Dan

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Paul , Dan Rob All

I see that we might say based on Dans communication and where I sense you are going Paul that it’s all one movement. I feel however that I know truth when I  feel it. When things align there is an opening in my chest and a feeling that I know is truth. The opposite is also true. Except when I am acting out of alignment there is constriction , tightness and other than pleasant emotions 

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Thanks Jeffrey. The question comes up, what is not happening in the body? The brain is certainly the body as well, as are our thoughts and so on, it seems to me. We are moving as if there is some other (psychological) realm, and are often identifying with it, giving it its own reality, right? We experience this realm as so very real, in the body. And when the unreality of this experiencing makes itself unavoidably clear, when we are not separate from its moving in us, the truth of this is its own action. The body/mind are really not separate from one another. Fear is the mind expressing itself in the body. Maybe like you and me, they are not really separated....

Hope this makes some sense, -Dan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCTZ%2BOH0%2Bz2dGVJMBfUu1hgbJWVpKn%3DAtOesWsTVH5cmsQ%40mail.gmail.com.