Friday 27 November 2020

DTHING X 6 MO X 3 MO X 2 WKS X 48 HRS PALLIMED 63-248 X DTH IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT IS CERTAIN X 3 BN SECS

 




wilts



####################




#############################

dwm 

Enjoy Nature to Improve Mental Health During COVID


#####################


"It is health that is the real wealth, and not the pieces of gold and silver."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

########################
ABD- One of the main things that attracted me to it was that it encourages you to question everything, don’t believe anything, but try it out and experience it yourself. Come to your own conclusions.
ADVAITA  BDH DHRMA 

###########################
ABD
Religion is like a language you choose to learn. Why do you choose to learn a language? Reasons vary but its generally accepted that the selected language is what speaks to the learner. And that it is not the 'right' language. There are other languages as well. The selected language is merely what relates best to the learner.


############################

I'm an atheist, skeptical, biased towards evidence, involved in serious studies on the science of the mind, psychology, neuroscience, etc. Therefore, Buddhism is the best 'language' for me.
################

So where does the idea come in where a difference in opinion automatically means you should be angry

###################

Have you tried letting go meditation? You let everything go whatever you come across during meditation. It could be anger, greed, jealously, frustration etc but you simply let them go through mindfulness.

LET GO MEDITN- SAG-JF SADNESS ANGER GREED JLSY FRUSTN BXMS 

###################

IRRITN FRUSTN ANGR#

 B   Keep up the practice. Little by little things won't bother you as much. Or if they do bother you, you won't let it drive your actions as much. Through meditation and reflection you'll start to see that these moods pass, these moods of anger. And so you don't have to do anything for the feelings to go away. Just let them be. Don't encourage the feelings. Let them be.

If you're about to say something rude, leave. Learn to see when the anger is bubbling up.

Little by little, keep up the practice. And it's good that you asked this question. It means you care. That's essential, caring is essential.


#########################


B AJAHN NAYANMOLI


summary notes on some Dhamma essays written by Ajahn Nyanamoli, who has a YouTube page called Hillside Hermitage. I'm posting in case anyone is interested, or might find them useful. Keep in mind that I'm not a sotapanna, so I'm not claiming to know what I'm talking about. Also, for reference, I think many of the essays are descriptions of and/or elaborations on the Mulapariyaya Sutta (MN1):

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you."

Papañca-Saññā-Saṅkhā Summary

All dhammas have intentional significance. That is, all dhammas point to or signify other phenomena. For example, a perception of a rock will signify ‘rock as an object, external to myself’. Or a red octagon will have the significance of ‘stop’. This is known in Pali as ‘nimita’, i.e. signs, tokens, or characteristics.

Ignorant action follows the grain of the significance (i.e. pointing) of dhammas. For example, acting out of sensuality or ill-will, getting lost in thought, etc.

Such action proliferates the emotional significance which dhammas have for oneself. They become more pressuring, and more difficult to restrain oneself in regards to.

Restraint and appropriate attention / peripheral awareness go against the grain of the significance of dhammas. Doing so starves away the emotional significance which has been conditioned towards dhammas.

The arahant has completely removed all such emotional significance. He is therefore no longer pressured, at all, by anything.

Resistance and Designation Summary

Perceptions are determined by matter. This means that matter is inaccessible to perception, because any percept one has is on account of matter, and so cannot be that matter.

When one takes for granted the significance of ‘matter’ within a percept, one conceives the significance of matter within perception, to be that matter on account of which one perceives. Thus matter ‘finds footing’ in perception.

Since the putthujjana is responsible for such conceiving, the matter is his creation, and he thinks: it is ‘my’ ‘matter’. Since matter determines perception, he conceives perception to be his own as well. Since he assumes matter and perception to be owned, he assumes the existence of an owner – Self-view exists.

When he ceases to conceive a percept of matter as matter, knowing instead that matter is inaccessible to perception, he ceases to regard it as his own. He is not responsible for that matter (as he was responsible for conceiving it), so it cannot be his. Ceasing to regard matter as his own, he ceases to regard perception (and the other aggregates) as his own, as perception is determined by that matter which he does not own. He therefore ceases to assume an owner-creator of experience – Self-view ceases.

Determining Determinations Summary

Determinations are ‘that because of which’ one perceives, feels and cognises. Therefore, no perception, feeling, or cognition can ever be that determination, because of which one perceives, feels and cognises.

Not knowing/understanding that there is nothing external to the aggregates, the putthujjana assumes that there exists something external to the feeling, perception, and cognisance which is felt, perceived, and cognised.

This external thing is taken (or conceived) by the putthujjana to be the determination for the feeling, perception and cognisance. But since, in reality, there is only feeling, perception, and cognisance, this assumed external determination of the feeling, perception and cognisance must itself be a feeling, perception, or cognisance.

Through conceiving, determinations ‘find footing’ in feeling, perception, and cognisance. In other words, determinations exist for the putthujjana, on account of his conceiving of feeling, perception or consciousness as the determination of feeling, perception and consciousness. Their existence is a mistake, but they exist as a mistake. With ignorance as condition, determinations manifest.

One determines one’s ‘assumed-determinations’ by assuming a feeling, perception, or cognisance to be that because of which such determinations are there, namely, the ‘real’ determination, e.g. matter.

That because of which (the real) determinations are, cannot be determined. I.e. one cannot get ‘under’ the real matter and influence (determine) it with one’s intentions. One cannot even perceive or attend to the real matter.

Understanding the determination (e.g. matter), one will cease to assume that it can be accessed (intentionally influenced, perceived, felt, or cognised). With the cessation of assumption of access to determinations, one will cease to assume perception, feeling, or cognisance to be the determination. Ceasing to assume perception, feeling, or cognisance to be the determination, determinations cease. With the cessation of determinations, the assumed-aggregates cease, and one becomes an arahant.

Infinity of the Mind Summary

The structure of the mind is inherently infinite, i.e. there is no limit to the degree to which the phenomena which make it up can be in the foreground or background (i.e. peripheral). This feature is described as the ‘brightness’ of the mind in the suttas.

The inherently ‘bright’ mind is superimposed by defiling obstructions, i.e. avijja or ignorance. These obstructions are said to make the mind finite. However, the infinity of the mind is structurally precedent to ignorance regarding it, while they are both there simultaneously present. This means that ignorance does not affect the mind, it just covers it up, so to speak.

The infinity of the mind is atemporal. Every phenomenon that is present, there is a context peripheral to it. On the other hand, eternity is a temporal notion that implies a thing endures infinitely within time. One could regard the structural infinity of mind as a ‘vertical’ feature and eternity as a ‘horizontal’ notion.

The uninstructed worldling confuses the notion of infinity (no beginning, no end) with the notion of eternity, or rather identifies the two. In this way, a present experience is regarded as eternal or permanent. What a puthujjana does not see is that eternity implies infinity, but the infinity does not imply eternity. In other words, because he equates infinite with eternal, his citta is regarded as permanent; he regards his Self as permanent.

If one would be able to see the infinity without eternity, or even to see it as impermanent, the notion of Self, and everything else that depended upon it (which required the notion of permanence), would cease without a remainder. Knowing infinity as something present (i.e. arisen) but impermanent (for the very reason that it has arisen on its own accord), clears the mind of any obstructions, any superimposed interferences with the infinite structure.

Not Perceiving the Feeling Summary

Feeling cannot be thought, it cannot be perceived. What one perceives is one’s perception, what one feels is one’s feeling. Feeling and perception are simply there, superimposed, independent and different in nature.

One has to learn how to feel, or how to know ‘that because of which’ (determination, e.g. body) the feeling is. This means knowing how to discern feeling from that which perception is. This cannot be done by separating feeling and perception and examining them individually.

If the superimposition of these two completely independent simultaneously present domains is understood, the assumption of an independent thing, outside of feeling and perception ceases to be ‘a bridge’ for the two.

Thus, that ‘[assumption of a] thing’ which identifies (as the same, different, both, neither) the unidentifiable feeling and perception makes them manifest in that identity—feeling and perception come to exist. The identity feels, the identity perceives—I feel, I perceive. (Self is identity assumed between aggregates?)

One can be aware of what one feels; one can also be aware of what one perceives. Through understanding that because of which one is aware of, one knows the feeling and perception structurally cannot overlap or merge or be ‘bridged’ or identified; This makes the assumption in regard to feeling and perception (as the same, different, both-the-same-and-different, neither-the-same-nor-different), redundant, irrelevant, not worth maintaining. Why? Because it does not and it cannot make any difference to the structural order of things (feeling feels, perception perceives) ... Fully understanding that whichever way one’s thought (assumption) goes, the feeling cannot be identified as (the same, different, both-the-same-and-different, neither-the-same-nor-different from) perception, leaves that feeling and that perception just standing there—indifferent to each other.

It is the nature of the superimposition that breeds this indifference, since concern is in its nature always in relation to something.

Thus, one thinks it is this sight (sounds, smells, …thoughts) that is felt. Because of that feeling one sets upon to ‘affect’ those sights (sounds, smells, …thoughts), sets upon to change them, modify them, adjust them, pursue them, avoid them; one gets entangled in the sights (sounds, smells, …thoughts) on account of what one feels when they are. Knowing that feeling is just there, being felt; and perception is just there, being perceived, makes further entanglement impossible, and any entanglement that was there is made redundant, disowned, dropped down, never to be picked up again. Why? Because it was structurally impossible to get entangled in the first place, but until one has fully understood that, one’s ‘not-knowing-that-one-cannot-be-entangled’ was one’s entanglement. When one understands that the arisen things cannot structurally relate to each other—feeling feels the feeling, perception perceives the perception — concern becomes impossible or inconceivable—suffering completely ceases, never to arise again.


#######################

MARANASATI

ULTIMATE HYPOXIA

B ON CALL FROM DTH

THE SECOND U R CONCEIVED U R LIABLE TO DTH

APPRECATE LYF WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DTH

LAST MEAL, LAST DAY , LAST BREATH CONTEMPLATION

#########################

Suddenness of death as a determinant of differential grief experiences

Pages 92-100 | Published online: 06 Dec 2018

Previous research has shown that bereavement following the loss of a loved one can often produce a variety of physical and psychological effects for the individuals left behind. Specifically, the suddenness and violence of a death may be particularly important determinants of subsequent negative psychological functioning. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the grief experiences of individuals bereaved by different causes of death, specifically focusing on the suddenness of the death. Adult participants completed an online survey including demographic questions and psychological measures. The results suggest that individuals who lost someone to a sudden death reported more negative outcomes and impairment than individuals who lost someone to a more expected death. These results suggest that the cause and circumstances surrounding the death may play an important role in an individual’s grief and bereavement experiences


SCD X RTA X ORGAN FAILR X CA - SUDDEN NESS OF DTH SPECTRUM 



####################


The Buddhist practice of mindfulness of death explained. Establishing the mind upon the context implicit in one's existence --- one's own mortality. Death is the possibility that is certain.

################

“We seek the power to ward off big evil (death) by reflexively embracing small terrors and small fascinations in the place of overwhelming ones.” - Ernest Becker


################


The wise man don't love life to the point he would die for it. The life is not worth of suffering... it's a game where everybody loses...

###################

LOSE LOSE GAME OF LYF


###################

LYF DTH WHATEVER

####################

DOUGLAS-

"The pine stays green in winter... wisdom in hardship."

###################

OWN BXMS DTH IS AS INCONSEQUENTIAL AS A STONE BEING SHATTERED SOMEWHERE X GV UP AND LET GO GULAG

#################

The Suddenness of Death…and Life

December 11, 2014 — 2 Comments

“He’s just…gone.”

I sat on my brother’s bed shortly after they took my dad away and I said that phrase over and over. That’s it. Period. The story he told with his life was finished. He wouldn’t add anything else.

That’s one of the many strange things about an unexpected death. One minute they’re here…the next they’re gone. That’s it. It’s different when someone is going through a lengthy illness or has reached the end of a long life. It’s still sad and painful when we lose them, but there’s a preparation that takes place. There’s time for saying goodbye. You can ask questions you’ve been wondering about and reminisce with them. When my grandpa passed away, it made sense. It wasn’t a shock. It was incredibly painful to lose him, especially for my dad, but it certainly wasn’t unexpected. Once he died, we mourned his loss, but thanked God for the long life he lived and the example he was for all of us.

I wish we could have done that for my dad…30 years from now.

But, as sudden and as painful as my dad’s death was and continues to be, today I was reminded that life happens just as suddenly.


My friends Phil and Lindy just had their first child, a baby boy named Ellis. He’s adorable, which makes sense because they are basically the cutest couple ever. In fact, they both worked at the hospice center my grandpa was in when he passed. On one of his last days awake, Phil brought Lindy in the room to introduce her to my grandpa. My grandpa then asked for her number. “You go ahead and call the front desk and you’ll get her, Ed!” Phil told him. Classic.

So anyway, I see these pictures of little Ellis and I say to Julie, “Look at that guy…suddenly, he’s just…here!” Obviously a lot goes into making a baby – what with calling Storks ‘R’ Us and all – but ultimately, one second there’s no baby in your arms and then in the next instant…baby time. It’s mind-blowing if you think about it.

And today I’m grateful for the reminder.

For me, this week has been maybe the hardest yet since dad died. I’m not sure exactly why, but I’ve been really emotional. So, it was nice to be reminded that new life comes into the world every day, too. Wee little Ellis, my friend Katie’s twin baby boys, my friends Chris and Lindsay, my friends Mark and Christy, my friends Andy and Jackie, my friends Mitchell and Carolyn…babies, man. They’re pretty awesome.

I tried to think of a profound way to end this, but I think you get the point.

Cherish the memories of those you’ve lost and celebrate the new lives of those you’ve gained.

And the next time the opportunity presents itself, snuggle a baby close, put your nose to the top of her head…and breathe deeply.

Then smile.


##################


5 MIN OR 50 YRS X PERIPHERAL AWARENESS OF DTH


###################













DEVONIAN X 4 HUMANS TO FEED EXTRA EVERY SECOND x Let nothing perturb you, nothing frighten you. All things pass.Patience achieves everything.~ Teresa of Ávila

 






############


LIMBS AND LUNGS GOING TO GET HANDY


###########

LUNGFISH


############

LANDED




###############


TICTALIK


###############



###########################

 'Waiting to see if we die of Covid-19 or starvation'


############################




HAWAIIAN FRESHWATER

##############################










Adi Shankaracharya Brahma Jnanavali - Asangoham Asangoham

PHORMIUM VARIEGATA

 



PV


#######################

Onward, Forward, Godward
by Swami Sivananda

HOW FREE AM I!

 

O free, O gloriously free,

Am I in freedom from birth and death,

From pain, sorrow, karma and nescience;

All that dragged me back is rent asunder.

 

How free am I,

How thoroughly free from cares and anxieties!

It is the grace of the Lord.

I am purged now of all impurities,

I dwell in the abode of silence,

Nothing can disturb or distract me.

 

I have won, I have won!

The wave of bliss sweeps over me now,

The breath of freedom sweeps over me now.

Nityamukta svarupoham,

I am eternally free rasa or essence.

 

No bending, no kneeling,

No "Good morning, Sir",

No "Ji Huzur, sir",

No "Obedient servant",

No "I beg to remain";

But I am Emperor of the three worlds,

Atma Samrat, Svarat, Self-king.

 

Suddhoham, Buddhoham, Niranjanoham,

Samsara Maya Parivarijitoham.

Pure, fully illumined, spotless,

Free from the taints of samsara am I.

 

a) Karma - Cause and Effect

b) Nitaymukta Svarupoham - I am the Eternally Liberated Self

c) Rasa - Essence

d) Atma Samrat, Svarat - Self King.

e) Suddhoham, Buddhoham, Niranjanoham - I am Purity, Wisdom, Perfection

f) Samsara Maya Parivarijitoham - I am victorious over the illusion world of rebirth


############################

The Movie of Life: Understanding Advaita through Film


In the old days a movie theatre used to be known as a “bioscope”. From the perspective of Advaita, this is a beautiful word, loaded with meaning. “Bioscope” is a combination of the Greek words “bíos” = life and “skopéō” = I look at. So, when I’m at the cinema, I am looking at life. Now, according to Advaita, you are always at the cinema, namely, the cinema of Consciousness, witnessing the movie of life. Thus, ever since Ramana Maharshi, film has been a beloved metaphor among Advaita teachers.

The peaceful screen

Especially the relation between screen and film is frequently used to clarify the relation between Consciousness and the phenomena appearing in Consciousness. Just as the screen is not dependent on the main character appearing in the movie, so Consciousness is not dependent on the person we are so intimately aware of. In other words: C
onsciousness isn’t personal, because the person is just one of the countless objects appearing in Consciousness. Consciousness is trans-personal, the Universal Self underlying everything and everyone.

All our thoughts, feelings and sensory experiences appear in Consciousness, but do not touch it. Consciousness remains unmoved, just as a movie screen remains unaffected by the film appearing on it. It doesn’t matter what kind of film it is – war movie, romcom, slasher movie, porn flick, historical epic, psychological thriller – the screen in itself remains the same: empty, colorless, spotless, receptive to all images. In the same way, Consciousness can host all possible experiences, thoughts and feelings, but is not affected by them.

There can be intense sadness, but the Consciousness perceiving this is not sad. There may be happiness, but the perceiving Consciousness is not happy. There may be confusion, but the Consciousness witnessing this confusion is not confused; it is rather absolutely clear. Whatever appears in Consciousness, the latter always remains the same: pure, empty, light, spacious, boundless, open to all possible phenomena. As the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.5.1) puts it: Consciousness – the Self, the Atman-Brahman – is “the one who is beyond hunger and thirst, beyond sorrow and delusion, beyond old age and death.” Thus, Ramana Maharshi used to say that E
nlightenment is like realizing you are the movie screen and not what appears on the screen:

The burning house from Lynch's Lost Highway.
"So many pictures pass over the cinema screen: fire burns away everything; water drenches all; but the screen remains unaffected. The scenes are only phenomena which pass away leaving the screen as it was. Similarly, the world phenomena simply pass on before the sage (jnani), leaving him unaffected." (Maharshi 1955: 457)

The self-aware screen

From the viewpoint of Advaita, however, the comparison of Consciousness with a movie screen is not entirely perfect. After all, this analogy leaves a number of separations intact, namely, between the screen, the projected film images, the projector and the popcorn-eating audience. To make the film metaphor better suited for Advaita, we should add that all these elements are one. That is to say, Consciousness is like a television or computer screen that produces the film appearing on it and is simultaneously its own audience, i.e. the screen perceives itself. Rupert Spira in particular uses this metaphor of “the self-aware screen” to great effect. His book Being Aware of Being Aware is almost entirely built around this metaphor:

“Knowing or being aware is in the same relationship to all knowledge and experience as an aware screen would be to a movie. Unlike a conventional television screen that is being watched by someone sitting on a sofa, the aware screen of pure knowing […] is watching the movie of experience that is playing upon it… However, just as the screen tends to be overlooked during a movie due to our fascination with the drama, so […] awareness itself usually remains unnoticed due to the exclusive focus of our attention on the objects of experience… Just as the screen never appears as an object in a movie, although it is fully evident throughout it, so knowing or being aware never appears as an object of knowledge or experience and yet shines clearly within all knowledge or experience.” (Spira 2017: 15-17) 

Identifying with the main character
As the quote from Spira indicates, the medium of film is also suitable to explain the Advaitic view on ignorance (avidya) and how it works, i.e. the mechanism of superimposition (adhyasa). Ignorance, according to Advaita, consists in the fact that we, as Consciousness, confuse ourselves with what appears in Consciousness, especially the person whose fortunes and travails we experience from within. Superimposition means that we project the properties of the perceiving Consciousness – such as immutability – onto the perceived person, with the result that we suffer: after all, body and mind change constantly, eventually they deteriorate and in the end they die…

George Costanza realizing
his essential nature as the
popcorn eating witness
of the movie of life...
Something very similar to superimposition happens with a good film: we sympathize with the main character to such a degree that we feel what he or she feels. We become excited when the main character is in danger, we get angry when he or she is treated unfairly, we feel romantic when he or she falls in love, and so on. In this way, we temporarily forget who we really are, the popcorn-eating viewer slumping on the couch. Likewise, in ignorance, we forget what we really are, the witness (sakshin), as we confuse ourselves with the fascinating life we are witnessing. And so we suffer: we see the ups and downs of the main character in the movie of life as our own ups and downs. Enlightenment, to repeat, is the liberating insight that we are not – or not just – that character, but first and foremost Consciousness, the spotless white screen on which (and to which) the film of life appears.

Point-of-view shot
It is a legitimate question, however, why film should be better suited to clarify the nature of ignorance than, say, theatre. After all, with a theatre play you can also sympathize with the protagonist to such a degree that you forget you are only a spectator. In addition to the film metaphor, therefore, Advaita teachers also sometimes use the comparison of Consciousness with a cosmic theatre that writes its own plays, creates its own decors and actors, and is its own audience as well. Ramesh Balsekar, for example, says: “Consciousness has produced this play. Consciousness has written the script. Consciousness is playing all the characters. And Consciousness is witnessing the play. It’s a one man show.” (Balsekar 2006: 245)


Nevertheless, film has a great advantage when it comes to understanding how ignorance works. Film has the extra dimension of camera work, which allows the director to play with the perspective from which a scene is shot. This playing with camera perspective can make empathic identification with a movie character almost irresistible. This holds in particular for the so-called point-of-view (POV) shot, where the camera takes the position of one of the characters: the viewer sees what the character sees. The hero runs through a city centre in a wild chase, grabs his gun and finally shoots the bad guy; with a POV shot, you see the scene almost literally through the eyes of the hero. Remaining an impassioned spectator is then nearly impossible.

With POV shots, you are irresistibly pulled into the character from whose perspective you see the scene unfold. In the light of Advaita, we could say that Consciousness is the most brilliant film director who uses only POV shots. Thus, we continuously see the film of life from the main character’s perspective – and we not only see it, we also experience smelling, hearing, feeling, thinking and willing from that individualized perspective. In that sense, conscious experience is the ultimate POV shot, including all sensory and psychic modalities. This makes for a very compelling movie, vastly more so than anything Hollywood can hope to produce. Complete dis-identification with the main character in the film of life, then, is almost impossible.

But not completely impossible. Overcoming ignorance becomes possible to the degree we see through the illusion of identification with the main character in the movie of life. And seeing how POV shots function in film is a great help in this. Just as a POV shot is in the film you are watching and is not your perspective on the film, so the individual perspective of experience is not a perspective on experience but in it. The perspective of experience seems to be the perspective of the perceiving Consciousness, but in reality the perspective is ingrained in the experience which is neutrally perceived by Consciousness.

In short, the perspective is in the observed, not in the observer. The observer himself is without perspective or – what amounts to the same thing – the observer perceives everything from “God’s point of view”. For Advaita, after all, God is Consciousness, Atman is Brahman. In Brahman’s cinema there is only one spectator, watching an endless film with countless main characters.

Embracing the movie of life
The film metaphor, however, must not be misunderstood. Its meaning is not that we are merely screen and spectator in one, that is to say, pure Consciousness, as if we have nothing to do with what appears in Consciousness, the movie of life. As if we have to give up all identification with the main character and every involvement with the other characters in that movie. Sometimes Advaita seems to advocate such cold detachment, but ultimately that’s not what Advaita is about.

To make film an even more suitable metaphor for Advaita, then, we also need to eliminate the duality between film on the one hand and the screen-spectator on the other. That is to say: what appears in Consciousness is ultimately not separate from Consciousness itself. So, instead of a conventional film screen on which the images are projected from outside, it is better to compare Consciousness with a television or computer screen that itself produces the images appearing on it. In a similar way, the film of life is an expression or manifestation of Consciousness itself. As soon as this is recognized, the cold detachment that Advaita at first seems to suggest suddenly tilts into its opposite, into all-embracing love. Francis Luc
ille, the teacher of Rupert Spira, explains this dialectical turn as follows:

“It is necessary to make this distinction because we usually identify with an object, a fragment. We don’t think “I am the table, I am my clothes, I am my car”. However, we do think “I am my body and the rest is not me”. In order to remove this identification the Advaita tradition uses a two-step process. In the first step it says “You are not that which is perceived, you are the perceiver”. In this step we reject everything that is perceived as not being ourselves. We reject the table, the car, the clothes, the body, and the mind, and this leads us to the experience of pure consciousness. Then, as the universe of names and shapes reappears, it is understood to reappear in the light of consciousness, out of consciousness, as a projection of consciousness. Therefore, the second step is: “Everything is consciousness. Consciousness is the source and substance of everything.”” (Lucille 2006: 109)

When we realize “I am that Consciousness”, the cold detachment of the first and negative phase turns into the all-embracing love of the second phase, as if you suddenly find yourself embracing the entire world with your consciousness – which, in a way, is indeed the case. You realize that your essence, pure Consciousness, manifests itself in all phenomena, being “the source and substance of everything”. You literally become the Love that lets everything be. In a sense, you are again your body and mind, but to the same extent that you are the entire universe. The limited identification with the body-mind is exploded to cosmic proportions and becomes identification with reality-as-a-whole. You are no longer that singular main character in the film of life, from now on you are the film as a whole, with all its characters, dramas and changing stages – a film which you now experience as the most intimate expression of your deepest essence.

References
-Francis Lucille (2006), The Perfume of Silence, Truespeech Productions.

##########################################


#######################



#########################

SIBLINGS SEPARATED AT BIRTH



##################

SPIRA


##################

JUST MERCY PRE ELEC EXECN VISUALISN EX OF FAVOURITE BEACH


#################


DPOSAD- AB 

##################



################


#####################



#################


I M WAC SCREEN X BXM  X  OPP MAYA PLAY 


#####################


###############



''''''''''''''''''''''#####################




#################



################



###############


ORDOVICIAN CEPHALOPODS