EMPTINESS INVITES FULLNESS
Is that not how the Universe operates? Emptiness first, then creation and phenomena. And is it a rolling emptiness? Emptiness Is ‘that’ that never ceases. Its nature is eternal emptiness.
And how are we set up? Like the universe?! Or like the separate ‘me’ gone wild? The latter, I presume, fits most of us most of the time.
Isn’t that a disconnect especially when we are often trying to connect? The ‘trying’ is automatically a disconnect in that ‘trying’ moves on a false pretense. There is no ‘trying’ and there is no ‘not trying’.
It Is just the ‘Is-ing’, isn’t it? But the loading of all that stuff of ‘me’ seemingly occludes the Self called ‘Is-ing’. All that stuff is literally stuffed in a little pocket called ‘me’. The imposition of limitation is the nature of ‘me’. Consequently, artificial limitation and the overcrowding of space with junk, yields less than satisfactory use of emptiness.
We are used to all that hoarding that a ‘me’ requires. Being overpacked, we grudgingly let go. Fear of the illusory future, compounds the ticket to freedom. Present and Presence is not felt/realized due to conditioned response, especially the fear of losing stuff.
Emptiness has no fear, as fear is used to hoard. When we are empty there is no chair for fear to sit upon. No fear, no future, no hoarding of temporary stuff, and no cathecting of objects requiring a holding penalty. Emptiness is sufficient to Itself. Fear and Emptiness are not compatible.
Emptiness is faceted with a nuanced ‘openness’. Since the field is no longer cluttered with ‘me’ stuff, it is easier to continue the freedom to naturally Be. ‘Openness’ is the anti-clutter solution to prevent a return to the status quo of hoarding.
‘Openness’ is not falling for the shiny objects that typically draw us out of Self. ‘Openness’ recognizes the rise and inevitable fall of stuff, which concludes that a pursuit would be meaningless to Its substance. Seeing the mechanics of clutching any position as antithetical to Being, freedom commences without a return to the dumpster dive.
Not holding anything or any position, mimics the Divine hand, in that ’that’ direct experience quantifies as true upon testing. Instead of drawing a line through a circle to represent ‘me’, the circle remains infinitely full of limitless lines that could be drawn through the circle. The circle is always uncluttered. Preferences are essentially ‘no preferences’. Consequently, there is no ‘me’ left to draw a line.
‘No preferences’ does not wholesale exclude all preferences entirely. ’No preferences’ would practically mean that not a single ‘preference’ would become a dictator to Self. The body/mind will naturally have preferences but to the degree that they always fall short of controlling outcomes that are normally effortlessly taken care of by Self. Carmel lattes are still ok. Selling your soul for a trip to Disney World is not.
Freedom is freedom from the consequences of having preferences that bind and rule Us. This ‘letting go’ is not to be managed as management is too bossy. What is lost is the noun called ‘me’ and as the tyrant (me) that will never be satisfied. What is there to be managed when there is no destructive tornado of me? What is managing the trillion processes each second in the body/mind? Who manages the coherence and physical laws of the universe?
“Our essential nature of pure Awareness has no agenda with the mind, body or world. It is like empty space, completely allowing, and yet indifferent to whatever appears within it. However, it is not a cold, distant indifference: it gives its substance utterly and intimately to whatever appears within it. As such, it is a loving indifference. Be knowingly this loving indifference.” -Rupert Spira
Emptiness beckons Fullness. There is no need for a solution as the solution is prior to all manifestation. Dropping back to nothing is nothing seeing nothing but nothing. That is where everything starts.
Be nowhere and nothing to Be complete. The resistance is the holding of spurious stuff. Being empty of everything becomes Us.
Love the Love, Daddy’O
EXPERIENCE ARISES IN EXPERIENCING
‘Experiencing’ is constantly moving. ‘Experience’, conversely, has essentially stopped once out of the Now and placed itself in linear time called ‘past’.
However, when ‘experience’ is merged with ‘experiencing’, then there is no difference between ‘experience’ and ‘experiencing’, just as the Now is fully Now and only the Now. The parsing out to ‘time’, in past (or future) ‘nouns’ and kills the aliveness of the Moment, as ‘time’ is only a derivative of Now-ness-ing. The Now cannot actually be parsed, as parsing would attempt to cut up the uncuttable. The Now is full as full can be without being fuller. There is no excess. There is no deficiency except ‘seemingly’ so.
‘Experiencing’ Is the Now. This moment called ‘experiencing’ is verb-ing without pause and without effort. In order to have an ‘experience’, we would have to create a noun to have the ‘experience’. Creating a ‘noun’ is fine. But a ‘noun’ is essentially is a stopping of ‘experiencing’. ‘Experiencing’ goes on to see the ‘noun’ arise and fall. ‘Experiencing’ never stops despite the seeming finality and stasis of ‘nouns’.
The ‘noun’ created and commonly called ‘self’ or ‘me’, is a contracted limitation of Being or ‘experiencing’. It is artificial and unreal due to its inherent loss of aliveness. The ‘aliveness’ is there despite the noun-ing, but is seemingly muted and limited by the overlay.
Moreover, the heralding of ‘experience’ is essentially the stopping of ‘experiencing’ and the throttling of the ‘experienc-er’, clearly valuing ‘experience’ over ‘experiencing’.
There is nothing wrong with ‘nouns’ per se except when ‘nouns’ or ‘experience’, are used for identity and self-knowledge.
Despite the above, all there is to ‘experience’ is the ‘knowing’ of experience i.e ‘experiencing’. Even when ‘experience’ is a noun, it’s essential nature still remains ‘experiencing’ through the ‘knowing’. The ‘knowing’ of the ‘noun’ ultimately undermines the noun-ness of the noun.
Notably, the ‘experiencing’ or ‘knowing’ is never really limited except that it appears to be limited. Experience arises in experiencing. Everything arises in experiencing. We Are the ‘experiencing’ non-stop.
Lastly, ‘experiencing’ is synonymous with ‘what’s happening’. ‘What’s happening’ never really stops to wait for ‘what’s happened’. “What’s happened’ is dead and done. The aliveness is not extant there as it is illusion. ‘What’s happening’ is never done. It Is the aliveness Being and Knowing Itself Now ad infinitum
“Know your Self as the Knowing in all that is known.” -Rupert Spira
All ‘that’ is in the Now as the Now, never stops and waits for ‘things’ to catch up. ‘It’ (experiencing) can only Be the Now, as the Now Is everything always. What Is happening Is the Now experiencing the Now as Knowing Itself.
The phenomena of experience, like all phenomena, is ultimately part of the emptiness and un-contracted Self of experiencing. The contraction of experience is not the perennial Source. The ‘experience’ is a stopping point. Be alive Now with experiencing the ‘what’s happening’ in every single Moment. ’That’ emptiness is Full.
Love the Love, Daddy’O
Why the adjective of ‘causeless’? If happiness is event-based, then the adjective is problematic. If happiness is event-free, then the adjective is appropriate.
Event-based happiness is the ground of temporariness and insufficiency. Event-free happiness is free of any event having any effect on happiness.
Then, perhaps the definition and clarification of what happiness is, may need to be articulated. What is taken to be happiness, more commonly, is the pleasure we experience between two moments we don’t especially like or feel good about. Essentially, ‘pleasure’ is surrounded by pain and/or insufficient pleasure.
In any case of refining ideas of pleasure/pain/happiness, we find a binding by/of time and temporariness. Consequently, the optics of insufficiency surround even the faux happiness we experience (when we actually experience this pleasure). Hence, “Why does this have to end?”
True Self is not bound by any ‘thing’ of a temporary nature. ’Time’ itself is binding in that it is temporary and unstable. Time is an overlay of timelessness. Only timelessness has the stability to give time illusory traction. Time can seem to drag or speed, depending on circumstance/experience. Time can appear to disappear in deep sleep.
True Self Is always Present Now. And ’Now’ is not a moment in time. Time is in the ’Now’. And the ’Now’ never changes from Being the Now, much like true happiness.
Being ‘One’ with universal stability is Being ‘One’ with Everything/Nothing, as distinctions are for manufactured understanding.
Causeless happiness Is the ‘Isness’ more than any quality we may arbitrarily distill. “Causeless Awareness” is no different than “Causeless happiness” except in the academic sense. The ‘Isness’ Is Everything. There is no sorting to do. ‘It’ Is just Being.
The nature of ‘Being’ is fullness, silence, love, and happiness. There is never ‘any’ need to push for what is. Pushing only moves us away from the sought. And ’seeking’ is ‘pushing’.
Event-based happiness is sought and nurtured. This is ‘pushing’ disguised as ‘good’ effort.
Event-free happiness is Present and It’s nature Is ‘Full’ with no need to ‘do’ anything. ‘Being’ is wholly sufficient, always. If there is a lacking or event-dependence, then it is ‘self’ clearly not abiding in event-free ’Being’.
“Our essential nature of pure Awareness gains or loses nothing from the entire human adventure.” -Rupert Spira
We Are the ‘Causeless-ness-ing’ free from any binding or temporariness.
The arising and falling of temporary structures does not effect the absolute stability of Beingness/Happiness/Awareness/Love. Freedom from temporary structures means we don’t become a container for event-based happiness and temporary pleasure. We Are what remains when ’nothing’ is ‘nothing-ness’. Be Happy.
May Chassis rest in the Fullness.
Love the Love, Daddy’O
SEEING FROM EVERYWHERE
Seeing from Everywhere is essentially being free to Be. To ‘Be’ because our freedom is not overly refined by any object. Being-ness Is without objects/things/concepts/thoughts. Being-ness is prior to all that and therefore not ‘needing’ any of that after-ness.
Seeing from Everywhere is not limiting the unlimited, of which we Are unlimited, first. No limitation is a seeming characteristic of an undefinable Being-ness. Contrarily, limitation is the over-refining of our identity as an object. Mind and thoughts are objects, as they rise and fall and appear and disappear. Mind and thoughts essentially objectify the concept of limitation through this constant coming/going. There is no sustainable permanence to this fickleness, to especially include the ‘me’.
The heavy gravity of ‘me’ soaks up and truncates infinite bandwidth into a single point. Whereas ’Openness’ can move from the ’unlimited’ to a very ‘limited’ object we call ‘me’. Being an ‘object’, the ‘me’ is clearly and unambiguously limited, as its nature is illusory and unstable. This ‘me’ is a primary false reference point, especially when processing the phenomena of life. There is an implicit distortion in ‘me’ as it cannot See any thing but objects. Therein lies limitation.
The ‘me’, most importantly, cannot directly See Being-ness, as there is no capacity to process this prior-ness. The ‘me’, upon testing, cannot get prior-ness while being coopted by the limited object-ness of ‘me’. Ergo, this is a dead-end view as far as Seeing the Ineffable. This view can only be reflective of the reach of the implicit range of seeing only objects and things.
The reality of Reality being Consciousness first and phenomena second, can be recognized only through Awareness Itself. Only Awareness has the capacity to See the unlimited as everywhere/nowhere as a starting point/endpoint (or endless point). The ‘unlimited’ is prior to all things and contemporaneously, the progenitor of life itself.
Awareness being aware of Awareness is Seeing from Everywhere. This view is tantamount to ‘no view’ while Seeing it all. Investing in limited views and sticking with limited objects like ‘me’, disallows the ‘Wholeness’ that is clearly not two. The ‘me’ indulges in separation and owning a view, when there is no ‘me’ and there is no owning anything in Reality. Wholeness Is everything with no separation from anything.
Seeing from Everywhere is the true starting point of changelessness and causeless Wholeness. This is where everything is happening and nothing ever happened. We have never gone anywhere as Wholeness.
Seeing from Everywhere as the character in this movie, is Seeing the movie but Being the Being ceaselessly. The part must be played without limitation of true identity. Then the movie is acted upon through the Seeing of the unseen.
“The light of pure Knowing, which shines in all that is known, doesn’t share the changing qualities of the known but is, at the same time, its reality, just as the screen doesn’t share the qualities of the image, but is its substance.” -Rupert Spira
It Is the undefinable Awareness that Knows and Sees everything as It Is everything everywhere. There is no separation no matter how much is pretended or believed otherwise. Everything everywhere always occurs in the Everything of Being-ness.
Love the Love, Daddy’O
AN IDEA CANNOT WAKE UP
Ideas are objects or thoughts at their core. They have no intrinsic life force. Ideas are essentially ‘dead’ in that any sparkle in them is from the Reality carrying the thought/idea. The thought/idea can never be brought to life like Pinnochio. Fairy tales are enchanting but clearly lack any substance.
If identity is an idea, then identity takes on the characteristics of all ideas, temporary, dead on arrival, and only a subset of reality. The point being is that there can never be any real life or aliveness to an idea/thought due to its cardboard-like nature.
Identity housed in a cardboard-like structure needs constant attention lest the identity collapses. This may sound exaggerated but clocking what our real moment-to-moment experience is, reveals a ‘me’ that has characteristics of a celestial black hole, gobbling up matter/energy, to support a specious idea that is evidence-free, as far as having its own existence. This is why ‘silence’ causes angst among some people because silence does not provide the infrastructure necessary to support a typical ‘me’.
The ‘me’ is merely a thought/idea that comes after Being but presumes in time to come before ’Timelessness’. A point of order, Timelessness Is, while ‘time’ arises from Eternity. The ‘me’ has never existed despite identity and belief conspiring a fictional character. The story of Pinnochio tells of his nose growing, adding to his lore. Moreover, Pinnochio was never a real boy because there never was a Pinnochio. The ’story’ of ‘me’ is only a ‘story’ and NOT a reality. Conversely, ‘Reality’ has no story and cannot be defined.
The ‘me’ however, is taking up a position and demands to be relieved of its self-uncertainty and instability. The sustenance ‘me’ needs is overwhelming and often expansive, pushing away from others (separation). The ideas of ‘me’ as the doer, thinker, and owner give rise to the activity of ‘claiming’ even self-less ideas selfishly. Ergo, spirituality is claimed and derided by a fraud to be used fraudulently, while ‘feeling’ good about ‘me’.
An idea cannot wake up as it is a thought/object with no capacity to go beyond its inherent limitation. The ‘seeker’ shows up as a variant thought/object and ‘claims’ it can find ‘Awareness’ for the object. Objects, to include ’seekers’, cannot find ‘Awareness’, as the mere ‘looking’ for it misses the ‘looking’ that is it.
Thoughts/objects have densities that are not pliable but essentially ‘fixed’, creating a low ceiling on seeing/understanding more subtle realities. Leaving the imaginary ‘view’ of ‘me’ requires giving up the dense identity tied to the ‘me’.
What Is Present Is always Present, subtly in the backdrop every single Moment, despite the distractions of mind looking for other objects. The formless silence is always holding space unconditionally.
The Awareness is in the context not the content. The context is subtler and fully accepting of everything, even to include the noise of ‘me’.
“Thinking imagines that our essential nature of pure Awareness shares the limits and the destiny of the body. With this belief, a limited, temporary self comes into apparent existence, on whose behalf most thoughts, feelings, activities and relationships are undertaken.” -Rupert Spira
Being ‘awake’ is Being first and last in ‘no’ identity, as identity is a claiming of artificial limitation. We Are Everything first with temporary phenomena being an expression of Everything, and still in Everything. ’Not two’ (Advaita) is everything Is Everything. Causeless-ness, Formless-ness, Fullness Is Us before ideas and seeming limitations.
Love the Love, Daddy’O
THERE IS NOTHING MISSING, EVER
When we find something missing, is that a clue that ‘that’ missing-ness is noting a discrepancy in how we are structuring our world view? If ‘nothing is ever missing’ perhaps it is an actual marker for Being-ness. Given the above, then ‘that’ missing-ness maybe a pointer to ‘See’ more of what is already Present and perhaps not fully accepted.
Fullness Is. There is a clear completeness to Being Full. Contentment abides and struggle significantly diminishes due to the understanding of acceptance. Pushing is contraindicated as an option, as ‘that’ is also an indicator of ‘trying’/‘not trying’. Being Is. Effortless-ness is the acceptance and letting go of ‘shoulds’ and incompleteness.
A reason for experiencing and promoting Silence, is that the overplay of the mind and ‘m’ and ‘y’ being attached to thoughts. The mind stuff creates a density that impairs vision. The stimuli is overstimulating and the ground we really are, cannot find our feet. This common disconnect cannot be resolved without an understanding of where we really stand. Silence and emptiness Is the ground where we can permanently plant our feet. It Is our true nature to Be in Silence.
To feel that something is missing, is to often miss the most permanent part of Ourselves in that moment. Believing in the content is believing in the temporal. There is no believing in Being-ness as it is not a concept nor does it accept pledges of fealty. Fidelity is a concept that assumes degrees of separateness relative to standing in the changing ground of content.
The view we take does not have to wholly arise from content. Context or backdrop to phenomena arising/falling, is a stable view from a stable place of ‘no place’. ’No place’ due to no phenomena. The sky does not fall. Objects like meteorites can fall from the sky, metaphorically speaking.
The stableness of the eternal timeless Now, when Seen from a contextual-ness that has no dog in the fight, is the ground of the merging of subject/object into the Fullness, as the true view. Then, even the content is not separate from the context. Content is sourced from context. Ergo, no difference. The starting point and the endpoint are the same in Fullness.
Phenomena is unstable to the degree it is impermanent. Phenomena is to be Seen from the ground of Being. Without the stability of the ground, phenomena generates instability in life. Silence is generally empty of stimuli. The ‘tornado of me’ or the contraction called ‘me’, is by its nature, staying alive as an illusion with enormous continuous effort. Shifting to Silence and shifting to context, allows a view to observe rather than indulge in phenomena, undercutting the illusion of ‘me’.
“See thoughts and feelings like a train that enters a station and then leaves; be like the station, not like a passenger.” -Rupert Spira
What is revealed is the innate satisfaction of Presence Itself. There is realization that there is no place to go and nothing to get, at least as far as phenomena is concerned. That is enough to sustain the shift.
Phenomena is looked at as a utility not an urgency. There is no more urgency and no more pushing. “What Is” shows up in the substrate of grounded-ness of Being. Then, it is only this. There is ’nothing’ missing.
Love the Love, Daddy’O
What does this mean, ‘holding space’?
‘Who’ is holding ‘what’? ‘Who’ is the real character in the real movie playing in the theatre of Fullness. It Is the Fullness itself that stitches the formless and the form together first, and then with the drama and it’s picadillos, coming in second, appropriately. That ‘First-ness’ is holding everything and the space, all the time, with the ‘phenomenological’ subsequent, assuming it is in ‘time’.
However, when the drama of the movie is playing, the character
(being played by the Ineffable) has certain dharmas to pursue in order to lend ‘righteousness’ in the action (karma) of life. It is in this milieu, that the more local ‘holding of space’ is more practical, situational and relevant to the Truth being told in the story we are currently participating in.
Dharma, essentially ‘right conduct’, is a preferred course of action as ‘it’ is in alignment with the ‘Love’ that Is the universe. A-dharma, a going against right conduct, ditches harmony for dis-harmony. This is a ’seeming’ choice that is necessary for the drama to be more compelling and interesting versus an absolute straight shot to Dharma with no alternative variables. To have no variables is acceding to the ’Stepford wife’ model of ‘no personal choice’ at any level. That model also precludes any learning or struggle. And at that point, why bother with any story?
The ‘dis-harmony’ is wrought through the mis-identification of who is playing the character? It is an internal fight between the imaginary actor and the Ineffable, who does not fight or even push at any time. The ‘pushy’ character is ergo falsely incarnated and ‘that’ pretense is then used to further the drama.
The ‘proper’ reference back to the Ineffable, that is truly playing the character, would be the dharmic ‘holding of space’. The character that has little or no reference to the Ineffable, is pursuing an a-dharmic relationship that clearly benefits self-interest. Consequently, there would be a range of dharmic/a-dharmic actions vis-a-vis ‘holding space’ or any other cathecting of energy.
So when we ‘hold space’ as the character, it is a secondary response in contrast to the primary integrative global glue that is elemental.
“Just as a character in a movie is only real from the point of view of that character, so a separate self is only real from its own imaginary point of view.” -Rupert Spira
‘Holding space’ is commonly used to signify a more loving and integrative positioning. In capturing a stable and an improved response, than has currently and/or previously been established, we re-establish the seemingly lost connection to ‘harmony’, with our ‘Openness’ versus our ‘contractive selfishness’.
The movement towards more harmonic balance is a movement of less doing and more accepting. It is the ‘doing’ that is the culprit as identity mis-establishes a ‘doer’. Thereby, the movement is a movement away from concepts and fictitious-ness of a seeming ‘doer’.
The travel away from the ‘doer’, is travel away from the ‘what’. The ‘what’ is the temporary phenomenological-ness of the arising/falling of ‘things’. Letting go of the ‘what’, is embracing the formless-ness of the substrate that is no-thing.
In replacing the ‘what’ or ‘things’, is a letting go of ‘things’ that capture our attention and misdirect our efforts. What is left after easing out of thing-ness is no-thing-ness, the essential substrate of our existence.
‘Holding space’, ideally, is holding nothing so everything can come in. What responds is openness and a distinct loss of density or contraction. Freedom, unbounded freedom, is unchained from things. Spaciousness and contemporaneously, infinite possibility is ingratiated into previously polarized conditions. That liberation is palpably felt.
The above discussion is a direct-ness and a pointing to freedom.
Self-imprisonment, as a viable option, can be facilitated by ‘holding space’, a-dharmically.
The ‘space’ that is held, is held more tightly, binding and suppressing the imagined holder. Contrarily, in the above, there really is no ‘holder’ as ‘it’ is all spaciousness.
Freedom to bind one-self is part of the freedom we are given. How free is that? When we ‘hold space’ for the ‘contracted me’, we contract and bind further. In actuality, holding space in this context is holding contraction. Holding contraction is losing space and freedom. The ‘my way or the highway’ contraction is often a birth to death ritualistic plight. Holding space for hate for self and/or others is an aiding and abetting of the act of imprisonment for self and others. ‘Misery loves company’ syndrome then abides.
We can ‘hold space’ for anything or anyone. Do we realize when we ‘hold space’ for disharmony as a result of conditioning, we are ’stuck’ in a rut? Where are we holding and why? Is our ‘holding’ necessary or
malevolent? Holding the space with Love as Love Is Love. The ‘Isness’ of Love is complete as it is aliveness abiding timelessly.
Be ‘that’ as Love Is always holding Us freely.
Love the Love, Daddy’O
Awareness is before, or prior to, any ‘thing’ or object.
Looking for objects by an ‘object’ called the ‘mind’, can only result in the mind having limited ability to search only for objects. It, mind, is within its capacity and lane, to do this type of search.Therein lies its limitation. Objects can find only objects. Objects are locked in their capacity as ‘object’, to only be able to find other objects. Mind is an object.
These are clear limitations for the mind. It is not a stretch to find other objects, like thoughts, sensations, or perceptions, to be divined by the mind. This apparent finding, the low ceiling of the mind, is not arguable when met with more demanding examples like Awareness. Awareness is a problem for the mind given its non-thing status.
Paradoxes, often represent two different suppositions in one word, for example, the “Tao”. Paradoxical words hit the limits of clear understanding by the limitation of concepts defining non-concepts. The definitions are always interpretive and murky due to these understandings not being simple objects like a cup of coffee or a donut. Awareness is also a paradox.
However, there is a problem. There is a common belief and practice that walks past this obvious limitation of ‘objectification’. This false belief inappropriately expands the limited range of objects to define ‘non-objects’. This is an obvious breach of capacity/ability.
It is often assumed that the above, searching and pursuing of objects chasing objects, can be applied to non-objects. Non-objects are non-things that have no limitation. Non-things are not objects. Non-things cannot be found by other objects like a ‘mind’.
The unchallenged practices of minds looking for objects is so conditioned as correct, it becomes an automatic assumption that inappropriately broadens the scope of competence to searching for non-things. When there is no discrimination as to the status of object or non-object, the results beckon failure, consistently, especially in regards to non-things/non-objects. Non-objects can NEVER be found by objects. There is no capacity for an object to transcend its built-in limitation as a ‘thing’ or a noun, to include the mind, which is a bundle of thoughts.
What to do? Nothing! Nothing can be ‘done’. It is not a ‘doing’. And there is no ’doer’ to do it. In other words, the mind cannot ‘do’ the task of finding ‘Awareness’. “Awareness’ is clearly a ‘non-thing’ and not an object. Awareness is a verb-ing happening as Knowing. A ‘doer’ is a noun (object) that is an abstract creation i.e. an illusion.
The tools needed to get the job done are only contained in Awareness. Awareness is not a thing. Only Awareness has awareness of Awareness. Finding Awareness with Awareness is the right tool. Except there really is no finding. ‘It’ can just be overlooked by the mind. Awareness is so Present It is eternally there. Awareness can find objects but objects cannot find Awareness.
‘What is looking’ is what we are looking for. There is no noun or object or thing in the verb of ‘looking’. Awareness Is. The aliveness of Awareness never stops else the verb becomes a noun. Additionally, language starts to get in the way as language is a thing/object.
What Is Present is never found, as it was never lost. Additionally Awareness never started or stopped. Awareness is indigenous to timelessness.
The domain of the mind is thinking in the linear substrate of finite time. The mind is a collective of thoughts. The quantity and ferocity of thought and the ceiling of thinking, obscures the obviousness of Awareness. Ergo, divestment of excessive reliance on thinking, facilitates openings for the field of Awareness to be Seen.
The false ‘me’ is an overt contraction. It chews up resources like a black hole (excessive gravitational pull). The buttressing of the false me uses repetitive thinking to support its cause.
Additionally, Awareness has the depth of continual existence versus episodic experience. There is an absolute permanence to Awareness, whereas contrarily, even profound experiences are fleeting. However, Awareness can be experienced, with the understanding that ‘that experience’ has no lasting permanence. Awareness is the definition of permanence.
The dependence on thought alone, coupled with a conditioned identity with thought, creates imaginary self, and attachment to body-mind, separating us from Us. This results in a denial of Consciousness /Awareness as our first source. Conversely, the noun called ‘matter’ which actually arrives subsequently, is the fraud that we buy every day to build an imaginary world.
Objects are not the starting point nor the endpoint
“I, Awareness, can never be seen or known as an object, and yet all thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions shine with My light alone.” -Rupert Spira