Early Morning Insight

58 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 6:05:34 AMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Good morning ☀️

I had a thought about Rumi’s line: “What you seek is seeking you.”


For a long time I took that pretty literally — that what I need will come to me at the right time.


But this morning it landed differently.


It feels like the deepest truth is that there is no separate seeker.

The one who is seeking and what is being sought are not two.


Maybe the point isn’t to “get somewhere higher”…

Maybe it’s simply to notice that what we’re looking for is already here, as awareness itself.


Reflecting more, maybe the gift here is simple: a small rest from seeking. Not an answer, but a recognition that what we’re looking for may already be here.


Has anyone else experienced that kind of quiet shift?



Jeff Angelson

andyw...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 8:00:18 AMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff, All,

This resonates with me Jeff, particularly your last phrase "quiet shift."

It sometimes seems to me that all this seeking, pointing, searching 
can be a form of grasping in itself. It seems that I can be as "attached"
to seeking as anything else.

We seem to be attempting to come to understand, to know, to realize,
something which is beyond the ability of language to realize.

In fact, it seems that whenever we use language, or even have a thought,
we are existing in a dualistic state of being, as thoughts / words have meaning,
meaning is based on conditioning, and conditioining separates.

It seems to me the most pure, honest, truthful response or state of being is simply silence.

But, as human beings, it would be somewhat of a challenge to exist in a 
state of silence for too long, for practical and existential reasons. 

So, we are left with the beautiful paradox of our existence,
to be human (thought) and divine (silence) at once.

Peace,

Andy
  

 


  

--
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/CAAUbiCS8yFb09_2gBBsaA6kXfD51kVyy6fmiuJwNuT5Mojsizw%40mail.gmail.com.

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 8:30:02 AMFeb 1
to Diehards google
Jeff, Andy,

I really resonated deeply with both your emails, leaving me without much to say. Yes, it seems to me that the seeker who seeks wholeness is already whole and not realizing it. What it seeks is what it is. Seeking can't live in a vacuum by itself, separate from all relationships. The seeker is all relationships showing up as a seeker. And yes, Andy, for me, I've come to a place where I hold the silence and being human, not putting one above the other, but embracing “both" as equals/not separate.

🕊️

Paul

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 9:26:25 AMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul

Paul, thank you again—your words have stayed with me. I’m noticing something in my own experience and wonder how it lands with you.


Moving into presence isn’t just recognizing that ‘everything is included’ or that ‘seeking is unnecessary.’ Thought itself takes energy. When it truly lets go, that energy doesn’t vanish—it can become clarity, aliveness, even bliss.


Staying present with all that life throws at us seems to require the single-pointed focus of a man on fire searching for the pond to jump into—a devotion, a core desire.


I’m curious if this sense of the lived middle—the energetic shift between contraction and release—resonates with you now, or how you would describe it from your perspective.”




Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 9:30:08 AMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Yes Jeffery,
Love the simple way Rumi put it. 
The seeker disappears in the sought. No individualization. 
All action arises spontaneously without a doer. 
It is our default position and thought is a movement away from that. 
This is why in crises the body jumps into action bypassing the mind. Thought slows spontaneous action. 
Love peace and joy! 


Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Feb 1, 2026, at 4:05 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:


--

Janet Asiain

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 9:55:15 AMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Nice thread, Jeff/Andy/Paul/Rani. What you describe is penetrating, resonating. And yet how irresistible it is to explain it! Oh well —

One little thing: I don’t think it’s intended, but it might be possible for a reader to imagine a sort of multi-tasking operation (think/not think, words/silence, etc/etc). Whoever mentioned simultaneity might have been closer to the actual. 

Or is it more that silence can be realized all the time, with speaking/doing only erupting when necessary for physical survival? Analogous to the mystics who repeat the Jesus prayer without cessation, going about life’s activities in the meantime, or as an overlay?

Just some speculations, not really important. 
Decorative thought, that’s all. 

Janet A


Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 10:43:19 AMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Janet Rani All

Wow, both of your reflections really resonate.


Janet, I love the idea of silence as a constant backdrop, with words and action erupting only when needed—like a mystic repeating a prayer while moving through life.


Rani, your point about action arising without a doer fits beautifully here. Thought can slow it, but life moves seamlessly when we step out of the way.


I’m wondering: what if silence is actually holding everything—thought, action, experience—not empty, but sustaining and allowing it all to arise?


Rumi said it perfectly: “Silence speaks.” Thought and action are like ripples on the surface of this deep, holding presence—moving, appearing, interacting, yet never separate from the depth beneath.


Do others sense this holding presence beneath all activity, or does it feel fleeting?



Jeff Angelson


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 10:47:48 AMFeb 1
to Diehards google
Jeff, just a very short, quick question. What if all the activity is also the presence, all at once?
-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCTG3PwBr4KQSqz5iqVx4ZA%3D9aBBOkkVQ00YbAE7EyVn6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 10:52:54 AMFeb 1
to Diehards google
WOW! Is everything being everything all at once? We cannot stand outside being everything. There is no place to go.

Paul


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 10:58:27 AMFeb 1
to Diehards google
👌

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/E898B453-6E89-4F87-BE52-21AC42F88978%40paulrezendes.com.

Janet Asiain

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 11:10:07 AMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
I would like to mention David Bohm’s quantum physics more-than-imagery discovery of what he called the implicate and the explicate orders, where the two are never separate. The explicate (manifest) unfolds  from the implicate (silence, ground, what have you) and re-enfolds back into it, where it has effect on what unfolds subsequently.  (Sounds a little like the ocean and the waves, no?) At least that’s what I remember from reading that I only barely managed to understand partially! 

Janet A

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 11:34:19 AMFeb 1
to Diehards google
Janet and everyone,

Yes, it seems to me Bohm was saying the same thing. The part contains the whole. The whole is being the part, or is the part, as the ocean is the wave. There is no separation. Yet there is a separation that is as real as no separation. The whole is the separation. They 'both" exist simultaneously, just like the ocean and the wave. Just my take on it.

🕊️ 
Paul


Sunhee Kim

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 12:09:20 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, Diehards google
All,

A paradox: No separation yet there is a separation.  

Who makes or thinks there is a paradox? Does “What Is” imply there is a paradox or our mind labeling as a paradox (an idea) because our mind can’t understand or grab?

If there is no separation, who perceives there is a separation? 

What if “Yet there is a separation that is as real as no separation.” is a thought?



Sunhee 

On Feb 1, 2026, at 10:34 AM, Paul Rezendes <pho...@paulrezendes.com> wrote:

Janet and everyone,

Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 12:11:31 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul, Janet, Everyone,

What comes up around this is that before there were any words, any thoughts, expressings etc, around all this, there was never any separation or no separation/wholeness. These contrasts or specifications are brought forth by our human condition, it seems to me. 

Separation is more than a word, it is ongoing experiencing. Is this experiencing of being separate, if we look closely, actually separate from anything? Is it separate or even not separate, or is there no such framework present at all? Do these distinctions only come in when we think about it? Do we need to define any of this as being whole or separate when in its midst?

This seems to say that the distinctions we make have their meaning but are not capturing what is happening right now (which is themselves). 

Sorry for going off here. I don't mean this as a rebuttal to anything, or to say there is anything limiting in speaking about all this (as I often do!). Just looking at it....   -Dan


To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/EF52F0AA-54AF-4484-BA96-FBBA5464861D%40paulrezendes.com.

JIM PETERSON

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 12:19:44 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Sunhee, Dan, and All,
 
Thank you Sunhee and Dan.  You have said better than I could what is coming up in "me."  What happens when all the conceptualizing "about" stops?  What remains?  We tend to have our pet conceptualizations about "what is."  What if those just fell away?  
 
Okay, time to stop.
 
Jim

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 12:33:09 PMFeb 1
to Diehards google
Jim, Dan, Sunhee,

OK, nothing to say? No more emails. No trying to communicate. Is that where we're at now?

No use going to zoom meetings or even having the Diehards?

Paul

JIM PETERSON

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 12:46:03 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Hey Paul,
 
Is that what you're feeling?  I hear a sense of loss in your words.  To completely stop communicating via language would be a great loss to me also.  As a clinger, I don't have anything against clinging.  I'm not trying to change what is happening.  The change is what is happening.  I'm saying the conceptualizing can stop sometimes, and and we are just being what is happening.  The explaining and conceptualizing is always there for us to come back to.  We can explore in that way also.  Can't we engage in both without giving up anything?  Is it possible to actually give something up anyway?  
 
Just my current musings.
 
Jim

Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 12:49:05 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Does the stillness of the Ocean remain still despite the roaring turbulent or gentle waves? That’s how I understand Jeff’s question. 
Love peace and joy 
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Feb 1, 2026, at 9:10 AM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:



JIM PETERSON

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 12:54:38 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
A quick addendum: Are the explaining and conceptualizing really any different from what remains when we stop?  The waves are also the ocean, right?
 
Jim

Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 1:01:55 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jim, Paul, and All,

Paul, for me all of this is exploring. It is not making any statements about what is valid to do or say. Just looking at it, that's what this feels like, nothing more. And it might all be off-base, which is interesting in itself. As is often said, words are pointers, nothing wrong with this.

What seems to be coming clear is this (which may already be obvious): being separate exists within experiencing, nowhere else. And even this experiencing is not separate from anything. We may call not being separate wholeness, oneness and so on, but whatever these words refer to is not experienceable. Yet, our minds tend to put these on the same plane as if they are distinct or even opposites. It seems to me these words point simply to the absence of this experiencing of being separate, full stop. However this absence might be defined or pointed to, well, it is not within my experiencing (and at the same time is my experiencing as it actually happens). Not known, in this sense. But our minds may easily turn this into something it knows....  -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/BD3A28DF-5D07-4263-8F00-254C69FBB6B4%40paulrezendes.com.

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 1:11:52 PMFeb 1
to Diehards google
Jim,

Exactly what I was trying to point to! The concepts are coming from the ocean of wholeness trying to point back to itself. The concepts are as real as anything else. Everything is creating change. Nothing is outside the whole, nothing is less than the whole. I'm always interested when people use the words “only" or “just”... just concepts, only concepts. What does that mean?

Paul







Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 1:12:37 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Sunhee, All

Yes — and perhaps the paradox only arises when thought enters.”


Jeff Angelson


Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 1:22:41 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul Dan Paul Sunhee Everyone

Paul, I hear your concern and appreciate how much you care about the dialogue and the group — that care itself is meaningful. Perhaps this is the natural rhythm of inquiry: sometimes words arise, sometimes they rest. The quiet in between is part of the dialogue, not outside it, and your presence — even in stillness — contributes. I’m curious how others are experiencing this pause; what does it feel like for you in the silence?



Jeff Angelson


On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 12:33 PM Paul Rezendes <pho...@paulrezendes.com> wrote:

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 1:29:20 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jim Everyoe

Thank you, Jim, for sharing your reflections.


In this thread, I notice thoughts, silences, and different ways of being showing up. Perhaps each of these is part of the same unfolding inquiry, appearing differently for each of us.


I wonder how everyone is experiencing this pause — in words, in quiet, in the space between — without needing to resolve or agree.



Jeff Angelson


Janet Asiain

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 1:40:21 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul, Haha! And I thought Bohm was over my head! I don't think I understand a word of what you're saying here. The tables are turned!
What you said about the part being the whole, though, is definitely one of the things Bohm talked about (the hologram, right?) that always baffled me. I know he was making a scientific statement but it sounds like the purest mysticism to me. Beautiful, of course. The farthest I can get with it is that the holographic image is a kind of reflection of the whole. But I don't think that's really the idea. I don't expect you or anyone else to try to explain this to me! Although you are welcome to try.

Dan, Interesting that you felt you had to reassure everyone that your reflections weren't intended as rebuttals. Because they sometimes do tend to have that effect, at least on me. It's actually more like what you say makes everything else sort of irrelevant! This is not intended as a criticism, just an observation. Like I said to Paul, I often barely understand what you write, but I usually like it anyway.

Winter wandering,
Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCT%3DhPtz0gGjTdH7Cpife8%2BTnmLmUSQtGFis19-S2tQKqg%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 2:02:47 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Dan and everyone


Hi Dan,


Thanks for this—it resonates a lot. I’ve noticed that too: the sense of separation only shows up within experience, and even that experience is not separate from the whole. Sometimes in meditation, or when I’m walking fully absorbed in nature, there’s literally no skin barrier between “inside” and “outside.” In those moments, it feels like the field itself is all there is, and the usual sense of “I” simply drops away.


I think what I’m experiencing in those moments is exactly what you point to: the absence of separation, which can’t really be grasped as an object or known conceptually—it just is, as experience itself. And yet the mind so easily tries to turn it into “something to know,” even when it’s really just the natural flow of awareness.


Your reflections are helpful in giving words to what feels ungraspable.


—Jeff



Jeff Angelson


Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 2:10:46 PMFeb 1
to Diehards google
Janet,

Maybe you understand it more than you think. If everything is being everything, then nothing can be without everything being what it is. In other words, nothing can exist outside of being in relationship with everything else. Everything depends on everything to be what it is. I hope that doesn't sound like a play on words, for me it isn't. It's actually pointing to something. I'm not trying to teach you something I think you don't know. I think, in some way, it's all already understood.

Paul 

Janet Asiain

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 2:34:54 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Well done, Paul. I understand what you’re saying. I still don’t get “the part is the whole” but that doesn’t seem to matter in the actuality of living! At least not at my level of understanding! Janet A

Janet Asiain

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 2:36:41 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
In fact I reckon that the only words of others that I do actually “understand” are those that express what I already “know.” J

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 3:05:19 PMFeb 1
to Diehards google
Janet,

YES, I get it.

Paul


Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 3:07:41 PMFeb 1
to Diehards google
Janet,

Down deep, I think you already "know" this, but it's not intellectual.

Paul

Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 5:14:03 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Jeff, likewise. I very much appreciated what you shared here, it sounds like we are on the same page. 

All the best, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCS5XO9KMvnCD_k4NtAFncMras05NFW7BWn60Zz_7BPyDw%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 1, 2026, 8:06:59 PMFeb 1
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Dan Paul 

I didn’t see this earlier. I think it’s true  as Paul says that everything is being everything
Or that prescience is being presence all at once —-
something is landing for me experientially.

At times it feels very clear that there isn’t a separate ‘me’ inside looking out.

It’s more like presence is simply being everything at once — no real boundary between inside and outside.

I’m not claiming to understand the totality of the universe.

Just noticing that the sense of separation is thinning, and what remains feels like wholeness or Oneness.

Does that resonate with what you mean by “nowhere else to go”?




Jeff Angelson


Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 10:10:20 AMFeb 2
to Diehards google
Everyone,

Jeff, 

Is it possible to experience being the whole universe? Is the experience of being a separate body from other forms, the wholeness we seek? Is the experience of being this separate body from other forms itself whole and in relationship to everything else?

Paul


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 10:40:29 AMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul, Jeff, All,

Paul, I'm fully with you here. I sense you are pointing to our tendency to see how we are experiencing as somehow limiting or incomplete. As if we are meant to somehow experience something else. In this sense of incompleteness is there actually anything missing? Maybe we simply haven't looked fully at the sense of incompleteness for itself. We may tend to take this feeling to mean there is something else we need to be or experience, as if this is true. In noticing this very tendency happening, what is there?

There seems to be an assuming operating or underlying all this. Maybe this assuming hasn't been noticed before....  -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/22AAF391-3D74-4070-9AC5-4E9479B6238D%40paulrezendes.com.

JIM PETERSON

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 10:46:47 AMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul and All,
 
Couldn't resist the rhyme.
 
Paul, are you saying with your questions that the wholeness we want to experience IS the separateness that we experience?  In logic, a theorem is basically tautological, which just means that one something is exactly the same as another something.  That's what the equals sign (=) communicates.  If x = y, then y = x.  So I'm just asking if you can reverse the logic of what seems to be your statement.  Separateness = wholeness; therefore, wholeness = separateness. The question you ask that is the most compelling to me is: Is it possible to experience being the whole universe?  Can we answer that with a "yes" or "no"?  Can we experience only separateness, and that's somehow the wholeness we seek?  Or, can we experience only wholeness, and that's the separateness that we are.
 
Not sure I'm making a lot of sense here.
 
Jim

JIM PETERSON

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 10:56:22 AMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Dan,
 
I really appreciate your unearthing the "assuming" in all of this.  Is it all about what we feel, what, in other words, we experience?  Is that why it's difficult to see exactly eye to eye.  We are all feeling and experiencing in somewhat different ways.  And yet we want to reach perfect agreement at the level of ideas.  So, we are attempting to translate our personal unique experience into impersonal conceptual communication.  And that's not easy to do.
 
Jim

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 10:57:59 AMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Dan Paul Jim Everone

Paul, Dan —

Yes… I really love where both of you are pointing.

Paul, I don’t know if it’s accurate to say we “experience being the whole universe” in some grand or total way. The mind can turn that into a concept very quickly.

But experientially… there are moments where the sense of being a separate person inside a body, looking out, begins to soften.

The body is still here.

The world is still here.But the feeling of a hard boundary —

“me in here, life out there” — thins.And what remains feels very simple…just this.

One field of happening.

Not two.

So maybe wholeness isn’t somewhere else.

Maybe it isn’t an escape from form, or from being a body.

Maybe even the experience of being this body — with its sensations, limits, location — is already an expression of the whole, already in relationship with everything.

And Dan, what you add feels like the quiet heart of it.

That subtle sense of incompleteness…

the feeling that something is missing…

can operate almost invisibly in the background.

And the movement is so quick:incompleteness → therefore something else is neededsome other experience some arrival.

But what if the invitation is simply to pause…

and look directly at the sense of incompleteness itself…

without immediately believing its story.

In that noticing, the question becomes very immediate:0Right now… before the next thought about what should be different..

is anything actually missing?

Maybe this moment, even with its boundaries, even with its humanness…is already whole.



Jeff Angelson


JIM PETERSON

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 11:14:49 AMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,
 
I feel really connected to your exploration here.  I translate your description of the boundaries "softening" into this: there is an increasing sensitivity to whatever is arising without judging it.  When it comes to assumptions, it seems to me that they are like those fish that hide among the reeds in the river.  Hard to catch, much less see, because they don't arise into consciousness.  If we really see our assumptions...well, maybe what I'm asking is can we really see our assumptions?  They are so crafty at hiding.  Maybe that's why the "seeing" can't be forced.  This seeing happens, or it doesn't.  It's a gift, grace.  It can be easier to believe we can notice the assumptions in others than to actually notice our own.  
 
Okay, just some more digging around.  Probably much ado about nothing.
 
Jim

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 11:30:16 AMFeb 2
to Diehards google
Jim,

I have no idea why you did this. The logic is very hard for me to follow. But if you're asking, yes, I'm saying form is formlessness and formlessness is form. I don't know what that means to a very logical brain. I haven’t got one, and a very educated logical brain is not going to get that anyway.

Paul


Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 11:39:05 AMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul Dan Jim Everyone

The search is over.

There’s nothing more.

All is here.

I am



Jeff Angelson


Kevin Charest

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 11:43:23 AMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
I would say the answer to your question Jim is yes :). Us logical brains need to stick together. Not like these “others!”  

~Kevin



Kevin Charest, PhD, CISSP


JIM PETERSON

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 12:03:16 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Thank you Paul,
 
Well, I was just playing, exploring.  Maybe I shouldn't do that on this forum.  Yes, I'm educated, and I have a background in logic.  I can't help that; that's the way it is.  Am I now supposed to stamp out my education and logic?  Is it really true that "a very educated logical brain is not going to get that anyway."  Or is that an assumption?  Since I love you as a friend and mentor, I "assume" you meant your statement to reveal something, to point to something.  There are a number of people on this forum who are educated and have a working knowledge of logic.  I don't think you mean to be insulting us.  So what do you mean?  Or, better, what are you pointing to?  Or, if you're insulting us, that's okay.  Maybe what I wrote came off in a way that I did not intend, and I "deserve" to be insulted.  The fog of inquiry, so to speak.  In my world, you can do nothing wrong.  You can't insult me even if you do intend to do so.  My respect for you does not waver, because I'm always learning from you.  And I think I know where your heart is.  So what's interesting to me in all of this is the awareness of one's assumptions, or lack thereof.  Educated or uneducated, assumptions accumulate in the body/mind.  It seems to me that anyone can wake up.  How could I deny that potential to anyone? Maybe that's what you were pointing to.  Form is formlessness; formlessness is form.
 
Jim

Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 12:14:36 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jim, Jeff, All,

Jim, I appreciate what you are sharing here in your response to me. Yes, it seems what we have in common is our experiencing and our sharing about it. Maybe all that is involved is simply listening (including listening to our own listening), and maybe out of this something unexpected comes. Now, where are our differences or boundaries.....?

I'd like to explore this a bit further here, if it is possible. This assuming, it is not a thing, an object, a notion etc, as Jim is pointing out. It is actual, moving in us wordlessly in any given moment, it's felt sense. What if we simply follow its lead (moving with it effortlessly), see where it takes us, what it reveals.... It is not something we know, it is alive (unknown).....  It seems to assume there is something true about us.....  And if we want to do this to get an answer or anything else, might this reflect this assuming moving as well (somewhere else to get?). So this is available to move with and free to move.... 

Jeff, what if the believing in the story is the assuming.... Can this believing freely move, take us by the hand and show us itself....? Maybe we don't have to figure it out at all, just allow it to show us wordlessly. Whatever words come are perhaps now secondary, only reflecting what it shows us about ourselves (nothing to hold onto). In a sense, the words are also wordless, they arise from wordlessness, the actuality of what is happening itself. It's coloring book doesn't need to be filled in by us.....  

Is there an assuming that there is not supposed to be a sense of incompleteness? What if it doesn't actually matter if there is this feeling of incompleteness or not.....? If it does matter, even better, let's see where it goes....

Enough from me for now, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCQB3ABYdY-s3M4gTG6SP0a9cFYY2M%2Brr4tQ%3DpFSJGZpUg%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 12:26:08 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Dan, All

What if the story is just believing moving, showing itself, taking us along without asking anything of us? Words follow, not leading, just reflecting.

And incompleteness… maybe it’s not really incomplete at all—maybe it only seems that way. If we let it be fully, without rushing, we see more clearly. If something does call for completion, fine—if not, fine too. Either way, it’s just the showing itself, alive.




Jeff Angelson


Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 12:29:11 PMFeb 2
to Diehards google
Jim,

I never go around insulting anybody. What I meant is, logic is not going to understand that formlessness is form and form is formlessness, or to say it another way, emptiness is form and form is emptiness. This is not something for the logical mind to understand. I truly think "you" understand that. So when we're pointing to emptiness is form and form is emptiness, we're not trying to communicate with the logical mind. As Paul Hedderman would say, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the Buddha. My son called me, and he had a totally different interpretation of what you were saying. When presented with that kind of logic, it just goes right by me, and sometimes I misunderstand what you are pointing to. I have my limitations.

Thanks, Jim,

🕊️
Paul



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 1:07:25 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
I am going to try to explain Oness. I know it’s a fools errand so bear with me. I think this could be a very interesting thread. 

One Field


Life is deeply relational. Trillions of cells in our bodies communicate constantly—chemically, electrically, mechanically—listening and responding to one another. The body itself is in continuous exchange with the environment: sensing, adapting, breathing, metabolizing.


This interbeing extends outward: billions of people, each thought, each word, each action, continually shapes the living field. Every communication matters. Every moment, the field updates, shifts, responds. Nothing exists in isolation; the Whole is alive, always changing, always participating.


Perhaps this is what the wisdom traditions gesture toward—Akasha, Brahman, God, Christ Consciousness, Logos, Tao, Ein Sof… Not separate from life, but the living depth expressing, receiving, and becoming—right here, right now.


The One appearing as the many, and the many participating in the ongoing life of the One.




Jeff Angelson


Janet Asiain

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 1:44:57 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Whoa there, Paul. I read your posts. They’re often as logical as they come. That’s not a mutually exclusive category, by the way. 

But education is another animal altogether. It feels like there’s a chip on your shoulder around it. Like I and others here should apologize for having college degrees, or worse. 

Anyway, it feels a little out of line to say to anyone that they’re too logical and educated to “ get it.”

Would you at least be willing to explain what you mean by education? Since you mention it, or your own lack of it, rather often.

Excommunicated?
Janet A

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 2:03:28 PMFeb 2
to Diehards google
Jeff,

Thanks, I appreciated that… Cool!

Paul

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 2:26:15 PMFeb 2
to Diehards google
Hey there Janet,

I guess I'm not communicating very well, but that's nothing new. What I'm pointing to is that I don't think education, meaning formal education, helps when it comes to waking up to a false self. I think it can often get in the way. I think even a lot of “awake" educated PhDs would agree with this. No matter how much logic we have learned, logic is not about waking up.

Personally, you know I'm dyslexic, although I've seen you frame that differently than my experience of it. I get a kick out of all the people here who are very educated and have very articulate and clever left brain capabilities. I really am amazed to watch it play itself out sometimes in the Zoom groups and find myself unable to participate. I watch Paulette and her cousins talk on a zoom group, and they're all very clever and laughing at each other's cleverness, and I can't participate because it just goes right by me, and yes, I feel left out. Those are my limitations that I live with. More recently, for instance, when Jim wrote his email to me, I misinterpreted it. My son, who has a PhD and has a very good left brain capabilities, got it right away.

By the way, I really value my very educated wife who often has to explain emails to me that I can’t really understand. I just don’t get the nuances sometimes.

And also, you’re not excommunicated...

🕊️
Paul


Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 2:50:03 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeffrey,
I had a vision about what you just articulated here. When I was trying to understand oneness. I cried out to the Universe to understand it. The vision was trillions of cells are born, maintain, do their job and die, the cycle repeats. The cells may or may not be aware that they constitute a ‘person’ Rani. Similarly all of you exists in consciousness. So I am so happy that you had a similar experience.
Love peace and joy! 

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Feb 2, 2026, at 11:07 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 3:54:58 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Jeff, I believe we are saying the same thing here. Believing/assuming may be showing itself all the time, we may just overlook it as we move as if it is true. It is not as if we are not supposed to be blind to it (taking it to be true). It is just a wonder for it to show up for us, without a "how" (which might be in the midst of looking for a "how"). Comparison/expectations are really not part of the picture at all, that's falling away..... -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCRYCn3kYFRpTK2Fh0GiruqBeRxXt2eTweU10Bs-VKtQXg%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 4:22:21 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Rani, 

Rani, yes… and even more beautifully:each cell carries the DNA of the whole person within it.

So in a way, the entire human is present in every cell — even if the cell isn’t aware of the full being it belongs to.And perhaps we are like that too:

each of us a local expression of the Universe, carrying the imprint of the Whole within us, whether or not we recognize it.


Love, peace, and joy 🙏




Jeff Angelson


Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 5:31:58 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Yes that’s how I saw it. 
Thanks
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Feb 2, 2026, at 2:22 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 2, 2026, 9:09:07 PMFeb 2
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul Dan Rani Janice Everyone 

I have been thinking about what we have posted today. It’s akin to what we talk about so frequently. 
Here’s a different take on it. 

Have you ever noticed that the boundary of your body isn’t as solid as it feels? I’d like to offer a small bridge from what we often talk about.


The body is not an isolated object. The heart, brain, and nervous system generate measurable electromagnetic fields that extend beyond the skin, and the body is continuously exchanging energy and signals with the environment—through heat, sensory input, subtle vibrations, chemical molecules, and more. Even biologically, the body functions more like an open, flowing process embedded in a larger field of interaction than a sealed unit. You might notice the warmth of the air, the gentle pressure of clothes or the floor, the movement of blood and heartbeat—all reminders that the “inside” and “outside” are intertwined.


This makes me wonder: how much of the sense of “inside” versus “outside” is really fixed, and how much is just the way we normally perceive ourselves? When I sit quietly and attend to the skin, I can feel these subtle flows—my heartbeat, my pulse, the air on my skin, the warmth or vibration of the environment—reminding me that the “inside” and the “outside” are not truly separate.


Even though this is a small reflection in words, its implications are huge experientially. It opens a doorway to sensing the continuity we often discuss more abstractly, and invites a subtle shift in how we normally experience separation.


I offer this as an invitation for reflection and discussion.



Jeff Angelson


Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 3, 2026, 8:47:45 AMFeb 3
to Diehards google
Everyone,

Jeff, 

I found what you wrote here to be interesting, and I certainly could resonate with it. I would just like to add: yes, the inside is the outside, the observer is the observed. As you were pointing out, what we experience is our senses and how they interpret the environment we seem to be in. As I've said many times in trying to point this out, the forest isn't what you or I experience the forest to be until we bring our senses into it. How the forest appears is because of who we are and the kind of senses we have. When a bat or a butterfly flies into the forest, it is quite a different experience as to what the forest is. There is just no separating anything out. Even the sense of being separate can't be separated out.

Thanks again for your email, Jeff.

Paul

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 3, 2026, 9:18:36 AMFeb 3
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul Everyone

Thanks Paul , You have been a patient mentor for me. 

Think of the forest: a bat, a butterfly, and we ourselves each experience it differently, yet none of these experiences exist apart from the forest itself. Everything we perceive — sights, sounds, thoughts, feelings — arises in awareness, like reflections in a mirror. And like overlapping fields in a system, each action, thought, or perception subtly changes the whole. Oneness is this living, dynamic field in which everything affects everything else, yet nothing is truly separate. It’s not something “out there” or “inside you” — it is the inseparable, ever-present space in which all experience arises.




Jeff Angelson


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 3, 2026, 9:20:51 AMFeb 3
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff, just sharing a brief impression or question around what you shared. Where is the sense of our bodies showing up? Is it within our own consciousness, in a very immediate and alive way? Is it in fact our consciousness, which includes all the sensory impressions coming from our bodies? Can we separate our bodies from the experience or sense of boundaries (or not), related to our bodies? Are there any actual boundaries within our consciousness, or are the boundaries part of our consciousness, not separate from them?

Sorry for so many questions! -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/D27D1588-680E-4AD8-87CD-A99714B2FFB2%40paulrezendes.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 3, 2026, 11:20:02 AMFeb 3
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Dan Paul Rob All

Dan — I see it this way: consciousness is the space where everything appears, including our bodies and even the sense of boundaries. Boundaries aren’t separate; they arise within consciousness itself. Our body isn’t outside of consciousness — it’s consciousness sensing and expressing itself through the body.


As Rob said, it’s like trying to know infinity — which is why we have the infinity symbol. Consciousness holds everything, vast and ungraspable, yet intimately present in each experience. Feeling this directly shifts how we live: conflicts, separations, and fears are no longer outside enemies but phenomena arising within the same field, allowing us to respond freely, inhabit our bodies fully, and rest in presence rather than reaction.


Sitting in silence, not doing, I notice that everything — body, mind, boundaries — is held within this stillness. It feels as if silence itself is the medium of reality. Why did Rumi say “Silence speaks”?


Just sharing my sense — curious to hear how it lands for you.



Jeff Angelson


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 3, 2026, 3:36:56 PMFeb 3
to Diehards google
Thanks Jeff. I should have clarified what I mean by consciousness. I'm using it to refer to our experienced reality, both so-called physically and psychologically (even as these are clearly not separate). So for me, this is very observational. There doesn't seem to be any sort of boundary within this experiencing. A sense of boundaries is this experiencing, not surrounding it. At least as from here.

As to silence, this again brings up what came up earlier: is the speaking silence itself? And is silence or stillness an experience? Or is experiencing, whatever its nature or seeming qualities, of the same nature as what we call silence?
-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCTODVT4wmoiWDKdUJZBzbjOva-Z-gTsSHBgVv%3D7fJpJ%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 4, 2026, 7:19:52 AMFeb 4
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Wrote this after sitting quietly with some early morning stillness…


Early Morning Thoughts


Reality is already moving

before I name it.


A thought rises — and is gone.

A feeling comes — and softens.


Even this sense of “me”

is not something solid,

just a current in the stream.


Nothing stays long enough

to become certain.


And maybe freedom isn’t

figuring it all out…


but relaxing

and letting life flow.


The river doesn’t get stuck.


Only the hand

that tries to hold it.



Jeff Angelson


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 4, 2026, 8:37:23 AMFeb 4
to Diehards google
Thank you Jeff, I thought this was quite beautiful. And it seems even the grasping hand is the river, but I sense you appreciate this.

From here, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCS7XRNpwHL7Qxtpppgs0%2BOCFW4YegYXGwstMXOgx7dc_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 4, 2026, 9:04:18 AMFeb 4
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Yes! Finally Thank you

Jeff Angelson


Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 4, 2026, 9:15:15 AMFeb 4
to Diehards google
Jeff,

Beautiful!

Paul

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 4, 2026, 11:54:52 AMFeb 4
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Paul 🙏

Jeff Angelson


Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Feb 4, 2026, 2:05:10 PMFeb 4
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
🫡👌🙏🏻💐💜
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Feb 4, 2026, at 5:19 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 9, 2026, 8:04:09 PM (11 days ago) Feb 9
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Dan Paul All

Dan, I appreciate how you framed this. What you say about “thinging” resonates — it works as an approximation, until it doesn’t.


Your question about whether there are distinct fields feels key. For me, when the inquiry goes far enough, the question itself drops away — what appears as many fields is experienced as one continuous reality, with distinctions arising only in description.


That’s all I mean by “One Field” — not a physics claim, just a pointer to what’s present prior to segmentation. Models help, but they arrive after the fact.


I also appreciate you noting the AI-generated nature of the video. I’m holding it lightly, as a provocation rather than authority. Looking forward to the Feynman clip.



Jeff Angelson

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 12, 2026, 6:28:01 AM (8 days ago) Feb 12
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

What’s been clarifying for me lately isn’t a new idea, but a quiet noticing:

function continues, ownership is assumed.


The body–mind orients, responds, remembers, speaks —

not as something separate, but as activity arising with the field itself.

Each movement, each perception, each thought

is an excitation — and the field keeps changing.


Nothing is fixed.

Function arises with the field as it changes,

which means this — whatever we call “life” — is always new.


When the sense of ownership softens, nothing disappears.

Experience doesn’t collapse.

What remains is pattern and flow — intelligent, responsive, unowned —

the field expressing itself as form, moment by moment.


I’m reminded that the Buddha cautioned monks against teaching “no-self” as a doctrine — not because it was false, but because turning it into a belief misses the point. It was never meant to be something to hold, only something that loosens what we cling to.


Seen this way, One Field doesn’t feel like a metaphysical claim.

It feels like continuity without an owner, movement without an agent,

differentiation without separation.


When nothing needs to be defended or carried forward,

each day can be met as it is — unfamiliar, alive.


Not knowing becomes a feature, not a problem.

Beginner’s mind isn’t naïve — it’s responsive.


This is what keeps it exciting.

Stay curious.



Jeff Angelson

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Feb 12, 2026, 9:25:02 AM (8 days ago) Feb 12
to Diehards google
Everyone,

Jeff, 

Again, that was really beautiful!

Peace,

Paul


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Feb 12, 2026, 9:56:26 AM (8 days ago) Feb 12
to Diehards google
Jeff, I'm with you 100%! Curiosity and the action of unknowing may be one and the same. -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCRtA9m4h8r3Dj3k%3Dk%3DDMxfTMQq9wUy8c1UBwpzCc%2Byzsw%40mail.gmail.com.

Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Feb 12, 2026, 11:10:28 AM (8 days ago) Feb 12
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, Diehards google
Jeffrey,
As I recall from my reading Budha  was asked about no self. He kept quiet. Which is the perfect answer to a question if you have no self. 

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Feb 12, 2026, at 7:56 AM, Dan Kilpatrick <kilp...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 12, 2026, 11:15:17 AM (8 days ago) Feb 12
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
That’s true he did keep quiet one time.  He also did admonish Monks that taught no self for the reason I noted.  It ties in well in general with Buddhist teachings. 

Jeff Angelson


Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Feb 12, 2026, 4:52:21 PM (8 days ago) Feb 12
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Dan Paul

Thanks.. that means a lot 

Jeff Angelson


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages