What's here?

[forgetmenot]

Good morning Veda,

Okay, so we have looked at the idea of a controller, decider and chooser...which all have to do with the idea of doership...so let's look at the idea of a doer, of doership. The idea of being the doer is the the foundation of the idea of being an independent autonomous separate self.

For this exercise we are only using AE of colour (sense of seeing).

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and then:
Look to your right and notice what is there.
Then look to your left and notice what is there.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.

Okay, so when you look to the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look to the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie ‘black space’).

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen? Is there a choice in what you see, in what you are aware of?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Can you turn off seeing?

Is there a chooser who chooses what is seen?

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hello dear Kay

The idea of being the doer is the the foundation of the idea of being an independent autonomous separate self.

Amen to that. It seems to me that this and the identification with the body are the two mainstays of the illusion.

EXERCISE:
So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice' not to see? Is there a choice in what you see, in what you are aware of?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

This is so powerful. No, in either case, left or right, I have absolutely no choice not to see or what I'm aware of.

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Again, I have absolutely no choice. There's no way I can not see.

Can you turn off seeing?

No, not only can I not turn off seeing, I can't turn off awareness of anything - hearing or sensing or tasting or smelling or thinking.
I've spent the last 48 hours trying to turn off awareness and I can't. It's impossible.

Is there a chooser who chooses what is seen?

No, there is no choice and no chooser. There is no gap between what's seen and the awareness of it, no deciding or choosing function.

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Absolutely nothing. And as I sit with this, it seems to me that the only possible conclusion is that 1) if awareness is constant (and it is) and 2) if awareness can't be turned off (and it can't) then surely that means I AM awareness, no?

Much love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hi Veda,

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Absolutely nothing. And as I sit with this, it seems to me that the only possible conclusion is that 1) if awareness is constant (and it is) and 2) if awareness can't be turned off (and it can't) then surely that means I AM awareness, no?

If not….then we are all in trouble, because whose awareness would we be, if not our own! LOL

Okay…although we have touched on the body and you have seen that the body is AE of sensation…let’s just have a further look at the body.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Much love,
Kay

[dutton]

Hello Kay

This exercise on the body identification is a great one, and timely too. I'm going to take a few days to do some looking at this and will report back at the weekend.

Love to you,

Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hey Veda,

We will do a couple more body exercises...so you will get more time to look. :) I look forward to your post.

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hi Kay,

Hope all is well with you? I've enjoyed looking at the body - it really does feel like a key part of this illusion called 'I'.

Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No, there is no indication of how tall,how short, or any size at all. Without thought to tell me, the body could be the size of Everest or the size of an ant.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No

In actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No, not only does the body have any shape or form in actual experience but in fact there is no such thing as a body. That's merely a label from thought

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No, there is simply undifferentiated sensation

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No there is only AE of sensation. And in fact when I put my right hand on my left arm I discover that there aren't 2 sensations but just sensation.

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

There is neither inside nor outside because there isn't a body to be inside or outside of. There is simply sensation, located nowhere.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

The label 'body' simply refers to the AE of sensation, (and to a lesser degree sound, smell, taste and when eyes are open of color) that thought alone divides into 'parts' like leg, arm etc - and then this same thought also coalesces these imagine 'parts' into an imaginary 'whole' called a 'body'. But simple examination reveals that anything that thought labels 'body' is in fact only sensation, sound, smell, taste and if eyes are open, colour. Sitting in a chair with eyes open the AE of colour is labeled by thought as 'legs', feet, left arm, right arm, etc - but the actual experience is of something different, simply colour and sensation.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

The actual experience of the body is primarily sensation, and less dominantly sound, taste and smell. And if eyes are open also colour.

Love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hey Veda,

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

The label 'body' simply refers to the AE of sensation, (and to a lesser degree sound, smell, taste and when eyes are open of color) that thought alone divides into 'parts' like leg, arm etc - and then this same thought also coalesces these imagine 'parts' into an imaginary 'whole' called a 'body'. But simple examination reveals that anything that thought labels 'body' is in fact only sensation, sound, smell, taste and if eyes are open, colour. Sitting in a chair with eyes open the AE of colour is labeled by thought as 'legs', feet, left arm, right arm, etc - but the actual experience is of something different, simply colour and sensation.

The WORD/LABEL 'body' is the AE of thought.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

The actual experience of the body is primarily sensation, and less dominantly sound, taste and smell. And if eyes are open also colour.

Do the sensations themselves suggest in any way that they are the body, or is it thought that suggests that? Do the sounds, taste and smell suggest in any way that they are a body? Or is it thought that points to sensation, colour, sound and smell and calls them a body? So is not the body simply AE of thought? Let's have a look:-

The label 'body' is AE of thought and not AE of body
Sensation labelled 'body' is AE of sensation and not AE of body
Sound labelled 'body' is AE of sound and not AE of body
Taste labelled 'body' is AE of taste and not AE of body
Colour labelled 'body' is AE of colour and not AE of body
Smell labelled 'body' is AE of smell and not AE of body
Thoughts about a 'body' are AE of thought and not AE of a body

So label + sensation + sound + taste + colour + smell + thoughts about a body can be found and are known, but can an actual body be found? Or is the AE of the body simply thought?

The following exercise is great at looking at the 'reality' of the body. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight (ie colour) - the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’)

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hi Kay

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
The label 'body' simply refers to the AE of sensation, (and to a lesser degree sound, smell, taste and when eyes are open of color) that thought alone divides into 'parts' like leg, arm etc - and then this same thought also coalesces these imagine 'parts' into an imaginary 'whole' called a 'body'. But simple examination reveals that anything that thought labels 'body' is in fact only sensation, sound, smell, taste and if eyes are open, colour. Sitting in a chair with eyes open the AE of colour is labeled by thought as 'legs', feet, left arm, right arm, etc - but the actual experience is of something different, simply colour and sensation.
The WORD/LABEL 'body' is the AE of thought.

Ah, yes, thank you for clarifying that. I wasn't very clear either in my looking or reporting. The label 'body' and indeed any label is always and only the AE of thought, not what the label says it is.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
The actual experience of the body is primarily sensation, and less dominantly sound, taste and smell. And if eyes are open also colour.
Do the sensations themselves suggest in any way that they are the body, or is it thought that suggests that? Do the sounds, taste and smell suggest in any way that they are a body? Or is it thought that points to sensation, colour, sound and smell and calls them a body?

No the sensations themselves do not suggest they are the body. It is only thought which suggests that. The raw experience of sensation, sound, taste, smell is just that, actual experience - and it is only thought that labels these raw experiences as 'body'.
So yes, the body is simply the AE of thought. Strange but true.

So label + sensation + sound + taste + colour + smell + thoughts about a body can be found and are known, but can an actual body be found? Or is the AE of the body simply thought?

Yes, many different arisings happen about a 'body', such as sensation, sound, colour, taste, smell and thoughts but there is no actual body to be found - the actual experience of 'body' is just the actual experience of thought.

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Yes, I can see that the appearance of 'hand' and the sensation of 'hand' co-exist but are not connected at all or related in any way. Neither does one contain the other. Any imagined connection is supplied by the AE of thought.

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Yes, they appear simultaneously but have no relationship or connection with each other

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?

There is no link between the sensation of 'hand' and the image of 'hand'. In fact as I look deeper into this, there is no link between any actual experience and any other actual experience. It is only thought which supplies any link, but this link is purely thought not experience.
For example, if I'm sitting on the deck watching a bird singing in a tree, the AE of image (bird)(tree) and the AE of sound (song) and the AE of sensation (breeze) and the AE of smell (flowers) are all appearing simultaneously but are all unconnected from each other in actual experience. It is only AE of thought that connects all these together into a story of a bird singing in the morning breeze.
Somehow this feels connected to the inseparability of everything but I can't quite fathom this.

Much love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hey Veda,

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?

There is no link between the sensation of 'hand' and the image of 'hand'. In fact as I look deeper into this, there is no link between any actual experience and any other actual experience. It is only thought which supplies any link, but this link is purely thought not experience.

For example, if I'm sitting on the deck watching a bird singing in a tree, the AE of image (bird)(tree) and the AE of sound (song) and the AE of sensation (breeze) and the AE of smell (flowers) are all appearing simultaneously but are all unconnected from each other in actual experience. It is only AE of thought that connects all these together into a story of a bird singing in the morning breeze.
Somehow this feels connected to the inseparability of everything but I can't quite fathom this.

It’s like one live frame of abstraction in that moment including the thoughts and the meaning given to the moment…however, if you put the meaning aside…it is just a live frame of abstraction appearing. THIS appearing exactly as it is, in that moment. Then another frame appears. Although one frame following another points to linear time…this is how it seems to appear because of the concept of time and space.

The following clip is great because it shows how there is no correlation between sensation and sight (hand)!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... e=youtu.be

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?


(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?


(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Does the body experience? Or is the concept of the body ‘experienced’?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hello Kay,

Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?

No, there is no connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror. I mean, it's uncanny when you start to LOOK to see just how much thought is providing the whole story overlaid on top of actual experience. (Tolle:"Mankind's problem - lost in thought")

While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

No connection is found between the sensation and the image at all.

Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?

I have to LOOK hard to override what thought says but no, there is no connection between the felt sensation and the image of movement

Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?

No, the image doesn't suggest that it's either 'me' or a 'body' at all. All that is experienced is colour and shape. It is only thought that names this colour/shape 'me' and 'body'.

Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?

No, the image by itself doesn't suggest that it's a 'body' or a 'me' - or even that a 'person' exists.

Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs

No, from actual experience of image there is no knowledge of 'legs' or anything outside of what can be seen. The notion of 'legs' comes only from a mental image and a label supplied from thought.

Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

This was powerful. No, when thoughts are ignored there is no body anywhere, simply sensations that thought then labels as 'body'.

Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No, there is absolutely no 'body walking'. There is no 'body' found and no 'walking' found. All that is experienced is different sensations and thoughts about these sensations that provide the story 'body walking'.

Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’?

The sensations are not localized anywhere, they just appear as sensations, concurrent with the image of 'room'. Thoughts arise that interpret the sensations as 'walking' and interpret the image as 'room' and 'movement'.

Does the body experience? Or is the concept of the body ‘experienced’?

No the body doesn't experience. Wow, this is a big one. If the body doesn't experience, what's doing the experiencing? - and I can see that the answer is nothing and no-one - experience is just happening. It is just thought that says that experience needs an experiencer. We've seen this before, but removing the 'body' from the 'experience' brings this home even more strongly.

Much love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hi Veda,

Lovely looking with all the body exercises!

Does the body experience? Or is the concept of the body ‘experienced’?

No the body doesn't experience. Wow, this is a big one. If the body doesn't experience, what's doing the experiencing? - and I can see that the answer is nothing and no-one - experience is just happening. It is just thought that says that experience needs an experiencer. We've seen this before, but removing the 'body' from the 'experience' brings this home even more strongly.

The word "experienced" is the past tense of the VERB "to experience", so it obviously implies that something DID the experiencing. And for something to do the experiencing, it would be required to do an experiencing (knowing) of experience (known). Since there is no dividing line between knowing and known, obviously there can never be experiencing of experience.

Let's have a dabble with the idea of time.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
Can you find a point where it will end?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Dear Kay,

With your permission I'd like to take a pause here for a week or so, until next weekend. I've been under a lot of stress recently and I'm feeling the need to reboot; to disconnect with the world, slow down, get off the computer and sit on the deck in the sun and use the time off to integrate all we've covered so far.

Would you be OK with this?

Many thanks, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hey Veda,

You do what you need to do for you.

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Kay my dear,

I hope all is well with you? I am feeling much better and looking forward to continuing our exploration. In this last week I've found myself using some of the skills you've introduced and they have been wonderful. For example, seeing that all feeling is just the AE of sensation and thought has really helped me stay out of stress about the state of the world, the climate, the politics, etc... So simple yet so powerful. And just knowing how to switch out of thought and in to AE is priceless.

I also found the last question you introduced to be really powerful: "Does the body experience?" Once it is seen that the body doesn't experience, that experience doesn't need a 'platform', then experience is free to just be, free-floating, unlocatable.

OK, on to Time:

Is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

It seems so obvious now when examined, and strange that this was never seen before but - there is no time, there is no 'this moment' and there is no boundary between 'this moment' and 'the next moment' because a 'moment' doesn't exist. That imagined boundary is purely introduced by thought. So the notion of 'now' moving along the line of time is just thought, not actual experience.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Not at all. There is no 'moment'

Any actual experience of one event following another?

Even the notion of an 'event' is simply a label supplied by thought, not actual experience. What thought labels as 'events' are a series of happenings in actual experience - and actually not even that, it is simply experience.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

There is no 'present moment' or any other moment, and there is nothing moving.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
Can you find a point where it will end?

There is no beginning or ending of a moment. There is no 'moment'. There is simply actual experience happening, whether that be sensation, colour, thought, etc.... there is no definable boundary found anywhere. The notion of any sort of boundary is all supplied by thought.

How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

The whole idea of a 'now' lasting for some length of time is not reflective of actual experience but just thought. What is found in actual experience of the 'now' is simply seamless experience, no start, no end.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

The 'now' never does become the 'past'. Past and future are just labels introduced by thought and have no existence as such in actual experience. All there is is 'now' or experience.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

There is no 'past' in actual experience'. The actual experience of what we refer to as past is simply the AE of thought.

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

No there is no actual experience of 'time'. There are only thoughts that introduce the idea and label of a 'time' that progresses from past to future - but simple examination of what is reveals that all there is is experience - and it is this experience that we call 'now'. In truth even the word 'now' is simply a label supplied by thought but we have to use a word to communicate about experience, about what is, about THIS.

Much love,
Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hey Veda,

I hope all is well with you? I am feeling much better and looking forward to continuing our exploration. In this last week I've found myself using some of the skills you've introduced and they have been wonderful. For example, seeing that all feeling is just the AE of sensation and thought has really helped me stay out of stress about the state of the world, the climate, the politics, etc... So simple yet so powerful. And just knowing how to switch out of thought and in to AE is priceless.

Glad to hear that all is well! :) Yes, just seeing sensations as sensations and letting go of the labels that thought overlays the sensations with, is powerful. The meaning and story is in the label.

I can’t remember if I shared the ‘blahblahblah’ tool with you! It’s A great tool to use to see whether thought is adding “virtual layers” via stories about experience. Replace the thought itself with “blahblahblah” to see if what thought is referring to remains. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So the layers of the story, which are pure fantasy need to be stripped away, until all that remains is the bare bones.

For example, a thought appears saying “I am feeling fearful”, replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and see what actually remains. The sensation may remain…but does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘fear’ or that it is fearful? All that’s left is the barebones…which, in this case, is sensation. You can do the same with “I am confused”. Does the thought “I am confused” contain any actual confusion? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains.

I also found the last question you introduced to be really powerful: "Does the body experience?" Once it is seen that the body doesn't experience, that experience doesn't need a 'platform', then experience is free to just be, free-floating, unlocatable.

Absolutely! :) There is freedom in that as it is seen that nothing is actually happening to a body/me. :)

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

No there is no actual experience of 'time'. There are only thoughts that introduce the idea and label of a 'time' that progresses from past to future - but simple examination of what is reveals that all there is is experience - and it is this experience that we call 'now'. In truth even the word 'now' is simply a label supplied by thought but we have to use a word to communicate about experience, about what is, about THIS.

Yes! ‘Here’ doesn’t refer to a place, nor does ‘now’ refer to a time. Herenow points to the current and evident knowledge of experience (THIS), no matter what it is appearing as.

Past and memory go hand-in-hand as almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened; that a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory or general thought.

Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about the past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is a difference, how is that difference known exactly?

Love, Kay