LOOKING IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES
“Looking from an illusion, for an illusion, is delusion.”
For what?! For something. Something that is never really found as far as permanence is concerned. ‘Something’ is that ‘thing’ that attracts us causing unnecessary effort and dogged stubbornness in getting ‘it’s’ consummation. It is a tiresome venture with no happy ending.
But we still ‘believe’ we can do it. But there is no ‘doing it’ because ‘doing’ cannot get it done. And what we are ‘looking’ for can’t be found ‘where’ we are looking nor by ‘what’ is ‘looking’. Lastly, the inherent ’belief’ is another fictional element that has no basis in reality, increasing delusion.
‘Looking’ itself is farfetched in that ‘that’ activity is futile, because when Everything Is Present, where could you effectively ’look’?
This futility is compounded by not only no satisfactory finding, but the shallowness of ‘what we find’. What we find is always temporary and unfulfilling. Satiation and contentment do not arrive.
So, a thought arrives that we dearly need something or somebody. The thought appears to be valid, but whose thought is it? This thought’s illegitimacy is immediately found out upon the above reflection. The illusory ‘me’ really needs nothing as it is an illusion. The ‘me’ is the neediness.
But let’s say that we skip over that boulder and go on with this particular thought. Going with, greeting, and harboring this thought results in a clear preference for leaving Beingness. The Fullness of having ‘no thought’ is replaced with a ‘thing’ aka thought.
Already the dissatisfaction has arrived due to the separation. Needing that something or someone becomes a ‘push’. Just the ‘push’ is uncomfortable. We now grasp from the wrong type of emptiness. Discomfort accelerates and then we may engage in further action to consummate the desire, completely losing our center.
We just threw Beingness under the bus and now expect to get the happiness and satisfaction that was never there to begin with, through this superficial engagement.
Any desire for something or someone, by the ‘me’, has the capacity to bind and stop connection with Self, by the the mere ‘looking’. This action is clearly, upon introspection, is coming from a deficit, a neediness that supplants Fullness (remarkably). Also, the seeming necessity of courting the desire must be questioned.
This superficial viewpoint, this extremely narrow path of ‘me’ first, is what seemingly upends the fullness of Being. The strength of the desire is artificial and impure from the standpoint of the un-necessariness of ‘looking for’ any ‘thing’, e.g. externally-based happiness, for and from the path of ‘me’.
Looking from an illusion for an illusion is delusion. This is the wrong view, yes?
Beingness is the true foreground but is seemingly only Present in the background. Seeing Everything from what is usually the backdrop, is now switched to the proper view (foreground first) that negates the silliness of the very restricted path of ‘me’ first. Beingness Is Everything anyway. Getting it right is a matter of ’Seeing’ not ‘looking’, from Beingness.
In the ’Now’, backdrop becomes foreground. This reversal is the start of ’Seeing’ from Emptiness. Subsequently foreground/background become meaningless as there is no real reason to have a distinction in Oneness.
So, there is no need to ‘look’ for anything. Just ‘looking’ is an indicator of a misstep. The synchronicity of Beingness is implicitly Present. Being fully Present in this Moment without any cause to commit to any thought, is enough. A constant falling into our true heart, integrates all that is already integrated.
Ceasing the ‘looking’ will result in no ‘wrong places’. Follow the ‘heart’ home to Here and Now.
Be that. Love that. Love Is effortless. Daddy’O
Thoughts by themselves are not independent. They are dependent on something, as they are ‘things’.
Having a thought that provides a solution of losing the ‘my’ of attachment, is just another thought that also attaches itself to the illusory self because it is being done for the ‘me’, a close relative to the ‘my’. This prevents the new ‘thought’, that tries to dislodge the ‘my’ in thoughts, to be trapped in the same trick bag. The ‘me’ can’t 
This brings us to perceiving, knowing, seeing and the other verb-like aliveness that never stops moving while still being the ’Stillness’ that is distinct and prior to thoughts and thinking. This ‘
The number of thoughts are reduced as their unnecessariness is exposed from this perspective of Everything first in foreground. Be in Everything first, then thoughts if necessary.
Love Loves Everything. 
In ‘no view’ there are no preferences. If there were a preference a view would be served.
Is there really a need to have a view if all views are being served? All views can be served if all views are really ‘one’ view, which is ‘no view’.
Since all ‘persons’ are illusory, as in a dream, there is no need to have any view. If there is only ‘one’ then is that really a ‘view’?
In order to have a ‘view’ there needs to be an alternative view, yes? There are no ‘real’ persons so is there really an alternative view? There is only one ‘view’ i.e. ‘no view’.
So what’s the problem here? We all seem to have a view when there is no need for a view. Having a view means we are creating something that is clearly superfluous.
However, at the same time we demand to have a view for each ‘person’. Obviously, when we lose the need for a person we lose the need for a view. The ‘person’ demands a view so that the ‘person’ can come seemingly alive to demand its illusory life.
To wit, the compounding of investment in a ‘person’ just keeps on growing and growing. The ‘view’ then opens to enormous interest that is again, compounded.
’No view’ cannot be reached as there is no distance to go and nothing to reach. Going ‘here’ cannot be reached as it is ‘here’ and ‘now’. Going outside of ‘here’ is pure illusion. Leaving ‘here’ to find something ‘there’ requires time and that is an illusion called future. Only a ’seeming’ ‘person’ would look for an illusion.
‘No view’ is the fullness of spaciousness with everywhere to go while going nowhere. Holding something that doesn’t exist is stopping (seemingly) the flow that never stops flowing.
Love Is loving all views while Being no view. Daddy’O
What is obvious is not normally called out due to its ‘obviousness’. The strength of ‘obviousness’ is that it does not need to be called out. To call it out, is to make a point about what we take for granted. What we take for granted is so apparent it normally needs no calling out. ‘It’ offers a consistency of performance, that its failure to be, would ‘un-ground’ us.
As a default and response for ‘obviousness’ to never leaving the scene, we look to the unstable phenomena that comes and goes, for assurance, stability and reliability, to keep us sated and situated in our world.
Going with the instability of phenomena, we wonder why we can’t seem to settle down without having the jitters. When we accomplish some substantive goal, soon afterwards, we lose that satisfaction and then pine for another accomplishment, ultimately never being satisfied or fully sated (contentment), after any goal that we feel will give us what we want.
But everyone is doing it, so it must be right. Wrong.
Ergo, the view of seeing and glorifying the obvious (phenomena) versus being the ‘obviousness’ may need to be adjusted. If stability and contentment are the ultimate barometers of standing steadily in a seemingly changing world, then perhaps we were (or are) standing on shifting ground.
That’s the point. ‘Obviousness’ is so there that it cannot be an object of interest. ‘It’ Is Us. Us as just ‘there-ness’ without any phenomenal dynamic. If we had an interest in ‘obviousness’ as we do in phenomena, we would fan separation.
So, if we want to be ‘that’ ‘obviousness’ that is seemingly overlooked, we push away from ‘obviousness’ when we desire to be that ‘obviousness’.
Love Loves Effortlessly, Daddy’O 
Love Is Everything and Everything Is Love. Love loves Love because It Is Itself Loving, Loving It’s nothingness and openness. The characteristic of ’no conditions’ and/or no thing-ness, allows Love to Be Everything. ‘It’ Is only Love.
Similarly, ’gifting’ (as described here) is potentially a verb without a landing or need to become a noun. ‘Gifting’ can be a form of Loving if one responds from pure Love when giving freely with no need for ownership or remuneration. ‘Gifting’ then becomes a vehicle for Love.
Gifting of trinkets or things is essentially a cover for expressing pure Love.
For some, direct Loving can be a threat if the heart is armored and protective. ‘Gifting’ is not as direct but the ‘Love’ is right there, before the gifting, during the gifting and after the gifting. When no-one owes anyone after the gifting, including the need to reciprocate, the gifting has probably given Love.
Parrying Love through a thing is what makes the ‘thing’ worthwhile. Without Love, the thing is just a thing with no inundation of Love Present and resonating. Constantly coming from the field of Love, ‘things’ take their place as temporary phenomena, and ‘Loving’ Is Present as the permanence of Being. ’Things’ can then become a conduit for expression of Loving but not for attachment to phenomena.
The distraction of a gift often lowers the defenses of the receiver to receive rather than ask ‘Why?” The receiver may need a reassurance to accept, but less so if Love is given directly from the heart first and then the gift. Love never stops Loving regardless of the circumstances in this or any transaction. Love has no stops.
‘Gifting’ a gift is essentially gifting Love. When is Love not Loving or gifting? It Is in the nature of Love to Love. It Is who we Are. A gift is not needed for Love to be Present. But sometimes it is just more fun to pretend we need a gift.
It Is all Love Loving Love, Daddy’O
The object seemingly hides the Subject and the illusion is created. But it is an illusion. There is ‘nothing, that comes after the ‘I Am’, except seemingly so. To try to correct the illusion of ‘this’ and ‘that’ is to engage in illusion. There is no ‘this’ and ‘that’.
When we bypass the conditioning to stop at the ‘person’, we upend the conditioning and create the space necessary to traffic the infinite Being-ness we Are. The stops are interruptions of the flow of Being Being Being, as seen from the seeker’s viewpoint. Being never stops Being.
The Presence of Being Being never leaves even when we seemingly ‘stop’ at the ‘person’. All ‘that’ is contained in the dimensionless-ness of “What Is”. However, in the illusion, limitation, contraction, and suffering are part of that gestalt.
Is there such a place as somewhere where there isn’t a starting point or endpoint? There is, in the illusory sense of our Reality creating a false reality. Essentially, ‘this’ illusory place is much like a dream. A dream is inherently false, temporary, and surely illusory.
The ‘person’ is unequivocally believed to be real, as juxtaposed to the dreamt character. Is this belief really necessary or does investment in a false character cause missteps in the wrong direction?
When we wake up from sleeping we go back into time, that is now versus what happened. Time tells us we slept and dreamt. In this context there is no dream, no character, and no presence of a character. Easy.
We do not want to wake up from this waking dream because of the investment and strong belief in losing something that cannot be found except conceptually.
Perpetuating this fraud of ownership is the inherent stipulation of the continuity of the ‘person’ when there is no real substance to that stipulation. There is no owner, or doer, or thinker or feeler. These ideas, sensations, thoughts, feelings, and things done, is Life just happening. There is no ‘person’ to have a life. Life is lived through our vehicles. Our vehicles may have names but the substance of Life Is all names (and forms).
Continuity of Life is sustained despite the birth/death of all forms. Continuity and formlessness is expressed through forms. To create an unsustainable ‘person’ is to miss the eternal continuity of Life.
We Are the ‘Priorness’ before time shows up. We Are the timeless continuity of Life ‘just’ happening with no ‘person’ needed to witness as there Is only the witnessing or ‘Knowing’. Everything has the ‘Knowing’ in it as there Is only the ‘Knowing’.
Take no steps and We Are here Now, Fully.
There are no stops in the ‘flow’. If the ‘flow’ had stops then it wouldn’t be the flow. The appearance of stopping is a result of the ‘person’ pulling out of the flow and stopping to be the ‘person’.
When the ‘person’ is stuck on the ‘known’ then the foreground is believed to be more important than the background. When in reality, it is the background that gives the foreground its very existence, lest we forget the essential and priorness of the background.
Instability with many ‘stops’, characterizes this foreground. Flow is made difficult while It’s nature is easy. Flow is defined by a constancy of movement. Flow has no lines of demarcation built into It. It Is fluid as fluid can be. It Is verb as it has no noun-ing.
Verification of unnecessary ‘stops’ is easily accomplished when realizing a ’stop’ is a noun and the ‘known’, as well as often a false identity. It is not ‘the Knowing’. The ‘Knowing’ is a verb that never stops as It’s nature is ‘flow’.
‘Flow’ is in the background in that the background has no stops. Flow is effortless, in that background is spaciousness with no walls at all. Walls of ’stops’ are created by creating a ‘person’, who is not sustainable without the ‘stops’. The ‘stops’ are always in time and in the foreground. The foreground has rampant instability as ‘things’ rise and fall.
Seeing from the background is Seeing from the Spaciousness where there are no stops as no lines are drawn. No lines drawn mean no artificial separateness from ‘flow’.
Spaciousness, flow, Oneness without an artificial ‘person’, allows Love to flow everywhere. Once a ‘person’ is created, then Love is separated and can no longer be Love. The ‘person’ stops the fullness of Love, seemingly.
The ‘Knowing’ Sees the experience but is not touched by the experienced. Even in the foreground where ’stops’ abound, the ‘Knowing’ is knowing the known.
EMPTINESS FILLS EVERYTHING
Emptiness fills everything- yes? Could it be another way? What is emptiness?
Can we even begin to describe it? Describing ‘It’ would be a mind trick in that the built-in barrier of mind (thought) does not have the bandwidth to find ‘It, as ‘It’ is not a thing. To describe ‘It’ is to leave the substance of experiencing it for words. Experiencing ‘It’ via awareness, is more apt to find (See) this empty field of nothing. ‘It’ is Us without a person or focus on the personal. It is our original face that has no birth/death. This ‘indescribable’ has Presence only Now.
If always Present, what then is the occlusion that seemingly blocks Its splendor? ‘Presence’ is existence without the limitation of time. This Presence is prior to the subsequent overlay of time. Time allows the mischaracterization of whom we are to be established as prior to the Priorness. Priorness is essentially the Source of everything to include time. Using the limitation of words, there is nothing prior to the Priorness.
To create a ‘something’ or ‘somebody’ and characterize ‘it’ as us, is distorting time and creating an illusory self supported by a lot of past and future.
The apparent occlusion in Seeing ’Emptiness’, is the accumulation of all the lines needed to be drawn to create an illusory self that becomes an obstinate barrier to Seeing the ‘Self’ of ‘Emptiness’.
To awaken from the ‘dreamt’ takes no time and we lose essentially nothing despite it seeming like everything. The ‘dreamt’ had absolutely no impact on the ‘Dreaming’. Again, We Are the ‘Dreaming’. There are no lines ever really drawn except in the ‘dreamt’ . The ‘dreamt’ means nothing to the ‘Dreaming’.
Ergo, there is no-one to receive any thing because there is no-one but the ‘Emptiness’. There is no-one to love -just Loving. Being nothing allows us to be everything. Having expectations is having lines drawn. Emptiness without any lines drawn, is our true nature. The vehicle of the body is then used by ‘Emptiness’ to dream the dream of something while freely being the nothing of everything.
When the ‘me’ collapses, it most often, easily reassembles itself, given our tenaciousness of
The key part in the reassembly, is the re-identification with the illusory self.
This ‘thinking’ and ‘believing’ in the fiction we create, seemingly displaces the Presence of Priorness to be prior.
But the ‘me’ persists. But what persists more is the container of everything that ‘Is’. The Isness cannot be surpassed as it is before time. Staying with the ‘Isness’
If the identity shifts from the foreground of illusion to the background of stable groundlessness, we have the essence of being Being. Without the loss of belief in the illusion, our natural engagement with Priorness is halted.
There is no ‘person’ to get anything, to include experience or
“Isness” does not require an illusory person to do It’s business.
But what we will do, is say to ourselves “That I need to get it”. ’That’, is the continued creation of false self, period.
‘Getting it’ cannot be gotten by ‘getting’, only by Being It. And stopping the doing of trying to get ‘it’, can allow Being without the unnecessary distraction and effort.
