Re: this is your world -- not being separate

[Guest guest]

>i don't think i understand yet what it is to not be

> separated from others. it's beyond me. at least i can't speak

from

> experience...or my memory has faded.

Hi ,

for me my point of reference are the moments when I'm totally

involved in something, which might be listening to music, or

writing, or making love, or cooking, or walking in nature, or

talking with someone. I may completely lose track of time, and have

lost my sense of identity, I " m in a state of " flow. "

This is not a continued state of being, only some of the time. Those

are moments that I don't feel separate. Of course, I can only notice

the absence of separation when I step back a little, because at the

moment itself there is no separation. I need to reflect on what is

happening, which introduces " me " in the scene again. Although

sometimes it seems like I can be aware of what is happening without

having the point of view of a " me " .

I'm still exploring all these experiences and sensations...

Do you have those experiences?

Maybe what I'm describing is not what means, but it's the

experience that comes closest to what I think she means.

I'd be happy to hear from you or from anyone else what they think is

meant by " not being separate. "

Love,

Eva

[Guest guest]

Dear Eva,

Today, my understanding of what is meant by " not being separate " is

exactly like the moments in life that you described. Simply put, it

is when I have forgotten to be aware of an " I " . " I " does not seem to

exist for me until a thought appears. When a thought (and that is

any thought..a happy, sad, fearful, joyful, etc. thought)appears then

that is when " I " " me " appears. When thought appears I seem to move

from reality to illusion.

Love, Steve D.

> >i don't think i understand yet what it is to not be

> > separated from others. it's beyond me. at least i can't speak

> from

> > experience...or my memory has faded.

>

> Hi ,

>

> for me my point of reference are the moments when I'm totally

> involved in something, which might be listening to music, or

> writing, or making love, or cooking, or walking in nature, or

> talking with someone. I may completely lose track of time, and have

> lost my sense of identity, I " m in a state of " flow. "

> This is not a continued state of being, only some of the time.

Those

> are moments that I don't feel separate. Of course, I can only

notice

> the absence of separation when I step back a little, because at the

> moment itself there is no separation. I need to reflect on what is

> happening, which introduces " me " in the scene again. Although

> sometimes it seems like I can be aware of what is happening without

> having the point of view of a " me " .

>

> I'm still exploring all these experiences and sensations...

>

> Do you have those experiences?

>

> Maybe what I'm describing is not what means, but it's the

> experience that comes closest to what I think she means.

>

> I'd be happy to hear from you or from anyone else what they think

is

> meant by " not being separate. "

>

> Love,

> Eva

[Guest guest]

I'd be happy to hear from you or from anyone else what they think is

meant by " not being separate. "

*****The sense of separateness is absolutely necessary for this

phenomenal world to function as it does. That doesn't mean that it

isn't illusory. Both states can exist simultaneously, the illusion

being simply an expression of the infinite out of which it arises.

The illusion of separation is very powerful. ALL our senses compel

us to believe it. And ALL our cultural and personal upbringing

points to this separation. I suspect the world, the universe, as we

know it, would not exist, as we know it, if this illusion were to be

seen through by all sentient beings. It is absolutely essential for

the " game " to continue.

But that doesn't mean it isn't an illusion.

To see this is to awaken to the fact that the external world that one

has always believed existed prior to one's self, is, in fact, a

creation, moment to moment, in the consciousness which one is. That

is all Eva or Andy is: an arising of the infinite in phenomenal form

generated through a localized consciousness and brithed by

Consciousness, the Infinite.

All that is seen, heard, felt, smell, tasted, and thought by any

sentient being is not happening " out there " beyond the bodymind

complex. (There is no " out there. " ) It is happening within the

localized consciousness from which the entity is birthed moment to

moment. There is no " out there " .......all there is, is

Consciousness, arising, moment to moment, in phenomenal form. This

is not only a 7000 year-old teaching; it is what quantum physics has

been seeing (and proving) for the past 20 years.

So...when you are sitting across from another person, the

misunderstanding is that there is this world, this " externality " to

you...that the " real " world around you genuinely exists prior to your

being conscious of it. Your conditioning and your senses inform you

that this other person is " over there " sitting separate from you, six

feet away.

In fact, there is no " over there " and there is no other person

sitting sparate from you. What is happening is there is

consciousness taking form and shape in the manifest object known

as " Eva " and in that arising consciousness the " other " person appears

to be " over there, " separate and apart from you.

To begin to grasp the illusory nature of this realize that you only

know this other person as a result of a complex series of mechanistic

steps that occur in your consciousness: there is sight (a complex

process in and of itself!), which triggers memory (extremely

complicated), which provokes language and associations, and from all

that, and more, the " other person " who is separate from you, is

birthed. In fact, though, this other person exists ONLY in your

consciousness, that animating energy which is " Eva. " It is the

belief in an " external " world that moves the illusion forward. There

is nothing external to any of us. Each of us, expressions of the

moving Consciousness, is the entire universe.

And yes, each " other " shares a similar, but not necessarily

identical, experience in her or his " own " consciousness. The Total

Architecture which births this phenomenal universe clearly maintains

a balance between similar and dissimilar, else the entire structure

would collapse in chaos. So, I am sitting next to Eva, I see

the " other " person six feet away. In that, Eva and I agree. But

exactly " who " that other person is, is an individual creation in each

of our individual, localized consciousnesses, each a phenomenal

aspect of the infinite. In this way, our " world " functions and chaos

doesn't reign.

[Guest guest]

Today, my understanding of what is meant by " not being separate " is

exactly like the moments in life that you described. Simply put, it

is when I have forgotten to be aware of an " I " . " I " does not seem to

exist for me until a thought appears. When a thought (and that is

any thought..a happy, sad, fearful, joyful, etc. thought)appears then

that is when " I " " me " appears. When thought appears I seem to move

from reality to illusion.

*****Steve ~ would it be more accurate to say that is self-

referential thought which constructs the " me-network " ?

I have found " working " thoughts, such as " pick up the hammer, " or " a

car is swerving into my lane " are, in and of themselves, " empty " of a

sense of " me. " At least on a conscious level.

Sometimes, following such " working " thoughts, there are self-

referential thoughts, such as " ...ummm...is the hammer the ?right?

tool...boy if I don't use the ?right? tool I could really screw up

this job....oh no!!! " and then the " me-network " appears.

Or, while driving, " That car is swerving into my lane, I better watch

out! That jerk over there in the red SUV could really smash into me,

cause an accident, maybe even kill me. " See? Now there is a " me " in

the equation.

I perceive a difference between thoughts which simply state what

seems to be so at the moment and *reactive* thoughts which spin out a

story of either woe or joy. Non-reactive " working " thoughts seem to

happen in the absence of a sense of " me, " while the " thinking "

thoughts give rise to an entire " me-network, " the stories which

construct the sense of self.

And " we " can control NONE of it! :-)))))

[Guest guest]

Dear Andy,

You said: " *****Steve ~ would it be more accurate to say that is self-

referential thought which constructs the " me-network " ? "

My response is: " I don't know, you could be right? "

However, I am in awe of how well the Ego Mind works to divide and

separate what is, in order to avoid seeing What Is. "

" Self-Referential Thoughts " vs " working thoughts " ? is too complicated

for my peanut brain.

I am going to stick with my original thought of " any thought " .

Love, Stevie D.

For me, Andy, they all infer a " me " that could be The Doer.

>

> Today, my understanding of what is meant by " not being separate " is

> exactly like the moments in life that you described. Simply put, it

> is when I have forgotten to be aware of an " I " . " I " does not seem to

> exist for me until a thought appears. When a thought (and that is

> any thought..a happy, sad, fearful, joyful, etc. thought)appears

then

> that is when " I " " me " appears. When thought appears I seem to move

> from reality to illusion.

>

>

> *****Steve ~ would it be more accurate to say that is self-

> referential thought which constructs the " me-network " ?

>

> I have found " working " thoughts, such as " pick up the hammer, "

or " a

> car is swerving into my lane " are, in and of themselves, " empty " of

a

> sense of " me. " At least on a conscious level.

>

> Sometimes, following such " working " thoughts, there are self-

> referential thoughts, such as " ...ummm...is the hammer the ?right?

> tool...boy if I don't use the ?right? tool I could really screw up

> this job....oh no!!! " and then the " me-network " appears.

>

> Or, while driving, " That car is swerving into my lane, I better

watch

> out! That jerk over there in the red SUV could really smash into

me,

> cause an accident, maybe even kill me. " See? Now there is a " me "

in

> the equation.

>

> I perceive a difference between thoughts which simply state what

> seems to be so at the moment and *reactive* thoughts which spin out

a

> story of either woe or joy. Non-reactive " working " thoughts seem

to

> happen in the absence of a sense of " me, " while the " thinking "

> thoughts give rise to an entire " me-network, " the stories which

> construct the sense of self.

>

> And " we " can control NONE of it! :-)))))