Supported by a state vs not

 

I notice I am curious about this, partly because it’s not very clear to me yet.

Sometimes, shifts in perception is supported by a state. There may be a state that makes it easier to notice (what a thought may say is) all as one, all absent of any “self”, all as Spirit, all as love, meeting all as love etc.

So there is a shift in state, which invites a shift in perception, which in turn invites a shift in insight, and a shift in noticing.

When the state shifts again, perhaps into something (apparently) very ordinary again, the invitation is to keep noticing and questioning. Is it true it – the noticing, all as Spirit/love etc. – went away? Is it true this is not one, Spirit, love?

This noticing throughout changing states and experiences is in itself (sort of) a state, a state of noticing.

And it is also a shift from something that may appear extraordinary, an extraordinary state, to something very ordinary, noticing what’s already here in (and as) any state, any content of experience.

…………
…………
…………

– supported by a state – all as one, all as love, meeting with love, etc
– absence of obvious state, still notice, still find it, recognize it (and this too is supported by a state, only a different one)

 

Related posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.