What is the inner-self?

[_Z_]

What is the inner-self?



I just wanted to get ideas on this, as I am perplexed! There is apparently inner-self and an inner most self. I am wondering what the ‘it’ factor is within us:

[I may have used this analogy before a few times lol].



A camcorder attached to a computer can mimic our vision, yet there is no ‘it’ seeing! The same applies to all of our natures.



So is ‘it’ the experiencer, the observer or are these overlaid on top of the meaning of inner-self?



What then is the inner-self overlaid upon? Is the ‘will’ primary perhaps like the prime mover in god - mirroring his nature?



So what is the philosophers’ stone of this – that is to say- whatever we describe ourselves as, we appear to be something other than that something! Same applies to any given thing, like when we try to describe god, spirit etc.


come on lets see what your made of!

Z

 

[Silverbackman]

According to Hindu philosophy the inner self can be arranged in 5 parts or less called the koshas or Sheaths;

1. Sheath of Food (Annamaya Kosha) – outer body
2. Sheath of Vitality (Pranamaya Kosha) – inner physiology
3. Sheath of the Mind (Manomaya Kosha) – sense faculties
4. Sheath of the Intellect (Vijnanamaya Kosha) – mental and cognitive powers
5. Sheath of Bliss (Anandamaya Kosha) - superconsciousness

Sheath 1 and 2 are called the physical/gross body
Sheath 3 and 4 are called the subtle/astral body
Sheath 5 is called the causal/soul body

Here is an interesting article about these koshas;

http://swamij.com/koshas.htm#anandamaya

 

[_Z_]

thanx siverbackman, that was most enlightening!

Atman, the eternal centre of consciousness

Hmm I can see this as like the nucleus of the atom-self - universal concept of the form of our essential nature at it’s most reduced.

Ananda is a whole different order of reality from that of the mind

Fascinating!



A sheath is like what I call an overlay I presume.



This too is let go of, so as to experience the centre



Woh-ha – yet another level!



The atman appears to be exactly the same as that fundamental nature of existence that is indefinable – the place where all trains of thought come to an end. I am then seeing the divine centre as like a universal atman – its form is beyond infinity. This [universal atman] then I presume is Brahman?



This may sound a little strange yet I had an interesting vision of this once, I have been trying to put meaning to it ever since! My future also flew in front of my eyes.



Funny how one can match meanings as we learn! Perhaps it is all laid before us.


Z

 

[Arizona]

I had this interesting analogy come to mind once. It is like the most inner I see as the absolute. For example, Fathers tool box. We are given His tool box and in it are His principles for example. Their nature is absolute and their blueprint. We however are given the tool box and we get to wield those things in it. This then would be the inner self. We can bend them and use them but we cant change their nature. If we wield them according to thier approval or their nature we get to experience them as God designed them but at the same time according to our own individual expression. So we get to paint on the canvis but the colors and the brushes for example are already fixed. What we paint is individual. We can bend the tools by how we apply them but we are not the originators of them. We cant change their nature. But if we use a screwdriver for a hammer we can add a lot of unnecessary work and hurt our hands in the process. It is because of this that the screwdriver doesnt change its nature into a hammer. Just because we get a blister doesnt mean that there is something wrong with the tool. This is a good thing.

 

[_Z_]

Interesting, Arizona.

oh and hi!

I think you are right as concerns the usage of the toolbox! Yet if we take a file we can change the tools! By this I mean that: yes the human machine is given, and cannot be changed, yet what of the occupier? If we traverse incarnations without changing then life is a pointless exercise in my opinion, perhaps our gennetics are simply a safe guard, so we may only change after a long period [physically]. Then there is evolution, is it caused just by mutation or does the occupier have a say? The design of the universe is set for the manifestation of humanity [and all other forms that arise] as a ‘tool’ for spirit – perhaps there is no other meaning than to live ones life.



The inner-self remains curious as to the question of it ‘directing’ [the will etc.] who give us the main part – if at all. Or is it simply that our primary nature is a mirror of the universal primary nature, and this is why we have the main part in the theatre of life!

 

[Arizona]

Interesting, Arizona.

oh and hi!

I think you are right as concerns the usage of the toolbox! Yet if we take a file we can change the tools!

Hi Z, well no. We never wield the tools directly. For example, illustratively, we get a mirror image of the tool box. What we do with those tools has the potential to manifest according to how we wield them but we still cannot change the nature of the tools themselves. So if we use a file we can alter the usage of the tool we just changed but then the tool doesnt work right which is a good thing. It is because the nature of the toolbox is consisant that we can only break ourselves against them and never really break them. We do not wield the Law, or the toolbox, directly. We are given carbon copies for example. In this carbon copy there is an ellement of the Law called Provision. It guaranteens that even if the tool is turned upside down in nature depending on our intent in using it it still maintains its nature and blueprint. Even the barbon copy. The tool box is not wielded directly. This is the safety net of all things in this saga. This is how all things are exposed and kept in a place of safety until all is resolved. This is also an eternal principle. All things that are manifested are birthed through the Law and is only an illustration of the unseen. Those thing Inside Father. Once those aspect of Father are birthed out it contains in it the law of Provision. So we can turn things upside down in our own hands but the concequences are only for the ones wielding it. How we may wield it does not change the nature of that which we are working with. That is why when we wield incorrectly it hurts. Thank God. But because we dont wield it directly the Original is in a place of safety. Make sense? So in other words what someone else does cannot mandate what its outcome will be pertaining to you. Because each of us get to wield that copy and it will only affect the wielder. So then, no devices formed against me will prosper... No one else can mandate what really happens to us even by the same tool. Because the same tool bends differently for each one depending on intent. For example, we judge ourselves.

By this I mean that: yes the human machine is given, and cannot be changed, yet what of the occupier? If we traverse incarnations without changing then life is a pointless exercise in my opinion, perhaps our gennetics are simply a safe guard, so we may only change after a long period [physically]. Then there is evolution, is it caused just by mutation or does the occupier have a say? The design of the universe is set for the manifestation of humanity [and all other forms that arise] as a ‘tool’ for spirit – perhaps there is no other meaning than to live ones life.

When we wield those tools and we do it correctly those principles manifest within us and we are fused with them. This is the meaning of we are transformed into the image of Christ. The tool box doesnt change but we are formed up by how we wield the tools. The fiuge it takes on is relative to the identity that Father made us. But the nature of the tools are always the same. Some bend this way and some that way yet in both where the same tool is wielded correctly diversity is birthed out. Contrast then Dynamics.

The inner-self remains curious as to the question of it ‘directing’ [the will etc.] who give us the main part – if at all. Or is it simply that our primary nature is a mirror of the universal primary nature, and this is why we have the main part in the theatre of life!

The main part was given in the form of our mind. The mind is the wilderness and the battle field for our growth. Predestination and Free-will are both true. We were predestined to exist and to be extended and to be given a mind to wield the toolbox. But we have the Free-will to bend inside of it. But we cant ever leave the toolbox that was given. We just bend ourselves in it. We use our free-will or participation in doing that. It is like a sphere within a sphere. We cant change the outer sphere that was predestined but we can bend the sphere of free-will to freely express who we are within the predestined identity we were given. Both are true. There are no paradoxes. All paradoxes are just misunderstood pairs that are weighed one against the other, separated, instead of brought together. Love thy Brother. No accusations, no matrix.

But yes, the main part is Nature and it is the workings of Provision in the Law that all things are brithed out of that maintians it perfectly. Provision also guarantees balance. Balance is a principle by which all things are exposed eequally.

 

[_Z_]

Arizona,



What then is the origin of law? That is a rather concrete image you paint with that toolbox of yours, it makes an interesting point thought. Whenever I get a contrast I tend to put them on the scales and find their universal balance. It’s opposite I then see as this:



What is primary nature of existence? Or which is the subtler - Is it the toolbox or the inner-self [the atman]! The inner-self is ‘one’ with the ‘universal inner-self’ or ‘Brahman’ as Hindu’s say [I like to keep my skeleton philosophy as godless]?

To cut a long story short, you cant arrive at a static reality, on the one hand we have the prime-mover as part of the inner-self [?], then we have the toolbox which it utilises – perhaps the two are harmonies of one another! Somewhere along the line there has to be some play between the two, or else only the status quo is achieved.



I just like to see things as more fluid.

This is the meaning of we are transformed into the image of Christ. The toolbox doesn’t change but we are formed up by how we wield the tools. The fiuge it takes on is relative to the identity that Father made us

What like Christ is a mould or something! The perfect exemplification of humankind? Hmm again, this is a very rigid view! Humanity is magnificent in its diversity, and reality is a continuum without end – personally I would place such notions in the cosmic blender, so as to see a more fluid visualisation of the flow. Then again I suppose we are built of many external things – yet not entirely moulded?



What is the inner-self in Christian philosophy then?! An area avoided like the plague aint it! I.e. philosophy of self and universal self/being/mind etc. shame really as it leaves people like me way out in the cold.



is god like brahma and brahman as one? does god then have an inner-self the same as ours [everythings].

Z

 

[Arizona]

Arizona,



What then is the origin of law? That is a rather concrete image you paint with that toolbox of yours, it makes an interesting point thought. Whenever I get a contrast I tend to put them on the scales and find their universal balance. It’s opposite I then see as this:

I will paint a picture for you of the Law. A sphere within a sphere within a sphere. Now, the inner sphere is the Core of God. Of all things unseen and unknown, or, not yet manifested either to the individual or perhaps all. Outside of the very Core are two rings of darkness. One spins in one direction and the other spins in an opposing direction. Reverse poles. One ring manifests the mind principle and the other ring manifests the body principle. These two rings are the Womb of creation. From within the Core thought or the mind of God comes out. When it does it first goes through the ring of mind and the thought takes on the realm of mind and its nature. Then the same idea that just transended the mind realm goes through the second ring of the physical realm. It then takes on the nature of that realm. The Core seeing it from the outside if you will emits light. The light of Christ if you will. The light goes through the darkness of pure unmanifested law and then form is the result. Dark for example contrasts the light and form is seen. This does not mean that darkness in this case is evil. It is unknown. It is pure law cast out of two like principles of one single thought. Then we have creation of whatever form it is. Mind, matter, idea, object... whatever. But the same thought takes on a likeness of the realm it was manifested in. That is a picture of creation and the law. Provision is a part of the law that is always unseen, that hidden part of things. Its job is to always maintain perfection, balance or oneness. It maintains His prefect nature in all things even if the thought is mishandled.

What is primary nature of existence? Or which is the subtler - Is it the toolbox or the inner-self [the atman]! The inner-self is ‘one’ with the ‘universal inner-self’ or ‘Brahman’ as Hindu’s say [I like to keep my skeleton philosophy as godless]?

Simply put, Liberty. That is the behavior of creation. Liberty. This is also the very function of Grace in a world/mind that has the potential to mishandle those tools.

To cut a long story short, you cant arrive at a static reality, on the one hand we have the prime-mover as part of the inner-self [?], then we have the toolbox which it utilises – perhaps the two are harmonies of one another! Somewhere along the line there has to be some play between the two, or else only the status quo is achieved.



I just like to see things as more fluid.

Yes, me too. Dynamics is fliud. There is no static reality as the toolbox is as vast as Father Himself. Never ending. Oneness means that in at least one aspect everything, every form, is unique. We wield the tools relative to oneness but not relative to nature. Relative to behavior but not relative to nature. Ever fluid and unique.

What like Christ is a mould or something! The perfect exemplification of humankind? Hmm again, this is a very rigid view! Humanity is magnificent in its diversity, and reality is a continuum without end – personally I would place such notions in the cosmic blender, so as to see a more fluid visualisation of the flow. Then again I suppose we are built of many external things – yet not entirely moulded?

No not molded. Still ever vast as the law of oneness is always the law. It is because of Christ and who and what He is that we are able to be a part of a place in Father called Reserved. When Jesus defeated the flesh, dna, it was a provision for the sonship who are adopted by receiving the same nature as Him. In this there is a place that Father created in Himself, the Core acutally, whereby we will know Father face to face. It is very intimate. This is about as unmolded as it will ever get. But without understanding this I can see where people would consider it molded. But it is quite the opposite completely.

What is the inner-self in Christian philosophy then?! An area avoided like the plague aint it! I.e. philosophy of self and universal self/being/mind etc. shame really as it leaves people like me way out in the cold.



is god like brahma and brahman as one? does god then have an inner-self the same as ours [everythings].

Z

Yes, christians have a problem with the word self as they are taught that it equates to separation of God by their identity. However, it is the self, the ideneity, that was extended that He fellowships with. There is nothing wrong with self. It is the selfish-self that is the problem. I do understand that is a difficult step in christianity for a lot. Not all of course. But it is because of rhetoric of mere ideas as to what things mean that dont get applied in practice so it doesnt get resolved. Mind games that are ment to never be practiced so the games can remain hidden and wisdom not realized. A thought cant be realized until it is tried in practice. Mere thoughts will never bring realization. The very method of manifestation mandates it, or, it is seen by its behavior. Behavior however can be mimcked so the friut is nature. Behavior is a provision to understand nature but it is not what defines it.

I may sound rigid but I am wanting to explain difficult things as simply as possible. I feel that as our converstation grows you will see how utterly Dynamic this all is and how vast it is. And if possible I would like to introduce you to the person of God. It is a blessing that can only be experienced when done. It is also so helpful to understand our history so that we can say, ok, I get it, and move on. Once things are understood better we get over that hurdle.

 

[_Z_]

Well that was interesting – as concerns law. Sounds very similar to the druidic notion of divine centre, which is also of three parts- with the light at the centre then spirit and manifestation- I don’t think it turns though [not in druidic philosophy]. Every point in the universe is the centre, [and the outside!] so when we say centre I think we should include this modern scientific definition of the universe as our basis. Thus movement would seam abstract to its shape- so to say.

So law kinda pops out of these churning centres? Law is not physical yet the physical operates by it, I just cant see how it can be seen in the context of linear time – I could be wrong on this – so how can it be created? It appears to me that it simply is!

Simply put, Liberty

Yeah, I would say freedom is a part of spirit.

Oneness means that in at least one aspect everything, every form, is unique.

The atom-self [self in its most primary form] is unique like god is then? I.e. the two forms of oneness [now there’s a paradox].

When Jesus defeated the flesh, dna, it was a provision for the sonship who are adopted by receiving the same nature as Him

I don’t agree with all of this as it only subscribes to the Christian belief system – none shall enter except by me – kinda stuff. I think most people can get in to eternity with little difficulty – god is not malicious, and the great mother is all-welcoming, well as long as you have not harmed her other children, but she will still think of all even the most evil – as her children, thence teaching them via life and adversity.

Lots of ways to get their. But I can see there is fluidity in your philosophy! I was particularly impressed by your earlier posts.

And if possible I would like to introduce you to the person of God

Err this is not a conversion thread thank you, but I do believe in open discussion and my ‘god’ path remains open, - perhaps a little off topic here though.

i have a few ideas of my own as concerns god - i done a 'what is god' thread when i first arrived

 

[Agnideva]

The atman appears to be exactly the same as that fundamental nature of existence that is indefinable – the place where all trains of thought come to an end. I am then seeing the divine centre as like a universal atman – its form is beyond infinity. This [universal atman] then I presume is Brahman?

Hi Z,

Yes, you got it! This is the essential teaching of monistic Hinduism. The embodied Atman and the Universal Atman (Paramatman) or Brahman are one and the same. In other words, there is no atomic self and the universal self as such, but only the Self. The Self is indefinable, dimensionless, beyond shape, form, time, space, and causality.

A.

 

[wil]

Great discussion....

And in following it...that tool box, when I use the tools and create something that I didn't intend when I picked them up, when time stood still, when I used them in ways that I was not taught (and building some on what I was), when I gleefully toiled for hours...to me I was with my inner self.

Not the observer, but the observer of the observer.

I used to have issues regarding the no one can get there but through me thought, and then I accepted no one can get there but through my nature, through thinking acting like me. Then that bothered me, until I realized the in my nature meant with dedication, purpose, faith, a mission, a desire...and allowed me to get lost in the world where time does not exist...and come back into this one with revelation and/or peace and/or a creation that was not of my doing. Well it was, but of which I cannot take credit.

Of course the realization becomes that I can't take credit for anything...and then I step to I have to take credit and responsibility for everything.

 

[_Z_]

Agnideva, hi - glad you came!

In other words, there is no atomic self and the universal self as such, but only the Self

.



Does this idea not belong to the same school of thought as reality and illusion? Essentially, we keep reducing until we arrive at nothing [aka oneness]! We then disclude everything that is not part of this ‘reality’ as being real. Thence the soul, atom-self and spirit etc, not to mention the entire universe – are all false realities!



This is an area of philosophy that I have considered greatly. For me it is all in the interpretation:

If we said for example that, ‘for oneness to be itself then there may be no other’! Then this shuts everything else out in the cold as not real or of the oneness.



If however we use the notion of infinity as oneness [because it may not be arrived at by building up to it], then we may still have the universe and all manifestation as belonging to the same reality, thus are equally real!

I think the journey to oneness is a path of understanding what we are and what the relative natures of existence are. Once we arrive ‘there’, then we no longer need to eliminate everything else to obtain the purer view, the oneness is at our centre.

I find this perspective, allows me to see it all in a non-dualistic way and at the same time in a universal way!



I am sure that somewhere in Hinduism there is a similar way of seeing things – it is a universal religion is it not? It seams ‘the teacher’ is so, regardless of religion!





Z

 

[Agnideva]

Hi Z,

Agnideva, hi - glad you came!

Always happy to be here

Does this idea not belong to the same school of thought as reality and illusion? Essentially, we keep reducing until we arrive at nothing [aka oneness]! We then disclude everything that is not part of this ‘reality’ as being real. Thence the soul, atom-self and spirit etc, not to mention the entire universe – are all false realities!

There are a few monistic philosophies in Hinduism, the most famous happens to be Advaita Vedanta. This is the one you speak of, I think. Advaita Vedanta argues that there’s only one Reality – Brahman; that all else is but an appearance, a superimposition of the ‘unreal’ on the Real. ‘Unreal’ and ‘illusion’ here does not mean non-existence from an experiential dimension, but from an absolute standpoint. In other words, the world is ‘unreal’ only because it is transient; it is a relative reality. One of the central themes in all Hindu schools is that the universe came into being at some point, and will cease to be at some point (this goes on in cycles). Advaita Vedanta takes this idea and says: that which was not in the beginning and will not be in the end, is necessarily not in the middle also . Just as experiences in the dream-state are realized to be appearances within the mind when we wake up, so are experiences of the waking-state (existence of world, atomic souls, etc.) also like a ‘long dream.’ When true knowledge dawns and we ‘wake up’ from the ‘long dream’, then we realize those experiences too were ‘unreal’.

If however we use the notion of infinity as oneness [because it may not be arrived at by building up to it], then we may still have the universe and all manifestation as belonging to the same reality, thus are equally real!

I think the journey to oneness is a path of understanding what we are and what the relative natures of existence are. Once we arrive ‘there’, then we no longer need to eliminate everything else to obtain the purer view, the oneness is at our centre.

I find this perspective, allows me to see it all in a non-dualistic way and at the same time in a universal way!

Personally, I’m inclined to agree with you. There are entire schools of Shaivite and Shakta monistic philosophies that argue just these points you raised. There is difference within the sameness – the world and the individuality of the Self are all equally real as the Ultimate Reality. There is difference to a certain depth, underneath which there is nothing but sameness. In this approach, there is no need to deny the reality of any entity. As you say, one cannot build up to that infinity, one has to be a ‘part’ of it all along. The oneness is in the center; it can be realized and experienced. The Oneness is differentiated and undifferentiated, the Oneness is Atman and Brahman. These positions I find are a good balance between absolute monism and absolute dualism.

I am sure that somewhere in Hinduism there is a similar way of seeing things – it is a universal religion is it not? It seams ‘the teacher’ is so, regardless of religion!

I see Hinduism as more of a universal religion in many regards (although for quite a few centuries it has been tribal in nature). I’m surprised sometimes to find out how many different ideas that we think of as modern were once thought up by the ancients. In Hinduism, alternative and radical interpretations are possible because it does not stem from the teachings of one person.

Om Shanti,

A.

 

[wil]

I’m surprised sometimes to find out how many different ideas that we think of as modern were once thought up by the ancients.

with research I think this applies to most all 'modern' thought

 

[_Z_]

The Oneness is differentiated and undifferentiated; the Oneness is Atman and Brahman. These positions I find are a good balance between absolute monism and absolute dualism.

Is it then also true that the interaction between the self and oneness is also mimicked when we become one with something. Thence when there is union between things we are performing the yoga of oneness. Thus the essential nature of our being is mirrored in thought and action according to a universal principle. All manner of oneness eh! – Funny how even a term that means absolute unity can be logically split apart into the multiple example of itself – yet this is a contradiction of its very meaning.



‘Once it is written it is lost’. A fundamental druidic philosophy.

alternative and radical interpretations are possible because it does not stem from the teachings of one person

yep, I agree. I think you get more of a stable sub-frame with singular teachings, yet as you say less diversity – this [solidity – inflexibility] in turn means that the teaching will splinter and diversify, yet each with their version of ‘the’ truth.

 

[Arizona]

Great discussion....

And in following it...that tool box, when I use the tools and create something that I didn't intend when I picked them up, when time stood still, when I used them in ways that I was not taught (and building some on what I was), when I gleefully toiled for hours...to me I was with my inner self.

Not the observer, but the observer of the observer.

I used to have issues regarding the no one can get there but through me thought, and then I accepted no one can get there but through my nature, through thinking acting like me. Then that bothered me, until I realized the in my nature meant with dedication, purpose, faith, a mission, a desire...and allowed me to get lost in the world where time does not exist...and come back into this one with revelation and/or peace and/or a creation that was not of my doing. Well it was, but of which I cannot take credit.

Of course the realization becomes that I can't take credit for anything...and then I step to I have to take credit and responsibility for everything.

Yes Will, once we reach out and put one of those tools in our hands what does come into play then is responsibility. And in my experience we will weild it unti the thought is finished. Take with care. And also yes to that all things are nature for nature.


Bandit,

I was not so much saying that receiving Jesus is the right to eternity in that post. I was talking about a place in Father that He created for initmacy. This place will surely know Jesus as He is the personification of Fathers heart and intimacy. I was not talking about salvation either but I do understand how that was misconstrued.

Smiles everyone !

 

[Quahom1]

What is the inner-self?



I just wanted to get ideas on this, as I am perplexed! There is apparently inner-self and an inner most self. I am wondering what the ‘it’ factor is within us:

[I may have used this analogy before a few times lol].



A camcorder attached to a computer can mimic our vision, yet there is no ‘it’ seeing! The same applies to all of our natures.



So is ‘it’ the experiencer, the observer or are these overlaid on top of the meaning of inner-self?



What then is the inner-self overlaid upon? Is the ‘will’ primary perhaps like the prime mover in god - mirroring his nature?



So what is the philosophers’ stone of this – that is to say- whatever we describe ourselves as, we appear to be something other than that something! Same applies to any given thing, like when we try to describe god, spirit etc.


come on lets see what your made of!

Z

Inner self is a spoiled child that needs its ass kicked, and told to grow up. Fortunately as we do grow up we are designed in such a way that we can't kick our own butt too hard nor pat our own backs too hard (try it...see?)

Unlike the psychiatrists and psychologists insistence, I don't want to be a child. I want to be a man, with all that entails. I want the accolades and the responsibility, and accountablility. I want to become mature and wise.

I don't mind being called "seasoned", because it notes my stature in life and longevity, as well as experience, and hopefully courage, serenity and wisdom.

Is that what you were looking for?

v/r

Q

 

[_Z_]

Inner self is a spoiled child that needs its ass kicked, and told to grow up

I see what you are saying. I would say that a child is only partially formed on all levels including the spiritual. This does not mean that the inner-self is childish, as I believe that the inner-self is eternally complete, just the ingredients in its belly [nucleus] change.

Yes I want to be complete too [a man], I wonder if there is another kind of complete, where the soul is no longer locked into the cycles – the eternal adult. I presume in the Christian view, this would be an angel? Then if we begin as coarse, eventually we refine our attributes until we are angelic or perfected selves.

Did we then begin as angels i.e. is this the original state – our own ‘inner Adam’?

 

[wil]

Inner self is a spoiled child that needs its ass kicked, and told to grow up

Interesting if our supposition started there as definition...and not to say it isn't appropriate...but I was mistakenly headed down the path of the I AM, the oneness, the allness, the higher self I suppose...but is it possible that we've come full circle?

Did we then begin as angels....or....we refine our attributes until we are angelic or perfected selves.

angel, angelic, already been in this plane...taking time out from this plane, or not having headed here yet...maybe you observe before you get to play?

where the soul is no longer locked into the cycles – the eternal adult.

no more cycles...no more learning...might as well sit around on clouds all day listening to harps....

 

[earl]

"What we call 'I' is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and when we exhale. It moves; that is all." (contemporary zen master), Shunryu Suzuki

Take care, Earl