Peter offers (in German) a lovely description of lying in bed with his homesick and crying grandson, chanting a mantra; he says, “I imagined that we were both transparent Giant Bodies.” Then he contrasts that to a time later that day when his grandson did not want to do what Peter wanted: their two bodies became very solid and opaque. This he traces to the emotion of anger, which seems to sustain the usual world view. So is anger the opposite of open? Can blessings make the world transparent? Can they be communicated?
All good questions. I think I would start from the other side of the question (as you indeed tried to do). How does emotion show up in a giant body, one that is “just interactions and shining outlines?” Is there “room” for it? If we enter a transparent way of seeing, one that is “released to space,” are we more free of the “cramped” character of lower space (TSK p. 55). Emotion seems a good way to explore this, even though we are working right now on a “purely” physical level.
Ron offers provocative and helpful reflections on space. Space is very much associated with freedom, and our stuckness in patterns and situations that we are not happy with reflects an inability to appreciate space. I especially like what he says about occupying multiple fields of space simultaneously. This is related to TSK Ex. 6 in particular, and that would be a good place to try it out.
I have some obligations to deal with at the moment, so I will have to postpone commenting on Arthur’s Post till tomorrow.
Jack
I have appreciated VOK pp 4-8 in relation to exercises such as the Giant Body series. A good discussion of the power of imagination in inquiry and transformation.
Best wishes,
Bruce