There is no future for anything. Looking past the ‘now’ is artificially leaving the presence of our Being for a concept. When everything is only happening in ‘this’ moment, ideas of ‘future’ cannot have an existential basis independent of ‘Us’.

A ‘future’ is a borrowing from what ‘is’ happening ‘now’ to a ‘seeming’ future that is ‘not’ happening now. The ‘now’ never changes, as permanence is It’s nature. We cannot have a ‘real’ experiencing in the ‘idea’ of a future.

Even suffering still requires presence to ‘know’ the experiencing of suffering. Experiencing Is presence (in the ‘now’).

No experience desired in the future can end our suffering ‘now’. Any borrowing for the future can only have an impact ‘now’. What is always real and present Is the ‘now’.

What is ‘before’ suffering is the ‘now’. The ‘now’ never changes. It Is always ‘before’. Before what? Definitely before any ideas of the future. In other words, ideas of the future have to start their seeming existence in the ‘now’ as does every other ‘thing’.

The ‘now’ Is. It is not in time. The ‘now’ does not stop or go. We cannot move the ‘now’ from It’s ‘now-ness’ to an imagined past or future. Suffering must appear ‘now’. Suffering is an ‘appearance’ in the ‘now’. An ‘appearance’ can seemingly be ‘after’ the ‘now’, as appearances come and go, but the platform of ‘now’ remains as ‘now’ timelessly.

To end suffering, is to see suffering’s built-in temporariness relative to the permanence of ‘now’. Since our true identity albeit, existence, does not come and go, suffering’s temporariness is a direct pointing to whom we really ‘Are’ -permanence.

This would not be a cognitive exercise rather an experiential ‘knowing’ of pure existence -no additives needed. Anything added, to especially include suffering, is ‘seen’ clearly as a temporary appearance.

Experiencing does not stop for even a pleasant experience. Experiencing is always experiencing (now). An experience of suffering is in time and in ideas of self. Any stop for anything would be an attempt to stop ‘experiencing’. Experiencing cannot be stopped except seemingly so. And of course that stop is illusory.

There is no stop or suffering that can penetrate ‘experiencing’ and/or the ‘now’. Identity with experience and/or identity with ideas of past/future are ‘stops’ that seemingly stop ‘experiencing’ and the integrity of the ‘now’.

The concept of ‘identity’ is not needed in the ‘now’ of ‘experiencing’. Nothing needs to be added to ‘nothingness’ to include a conceptual identity. It just ‘Is’. In other words ‘I Am’. ‘I Am’ is before any identity. Experiencing Is ‘now’ experiencing ‘now’.

There Is no separation ‘Here’. ‘I Am’ Consciousness ‘here’ and ‘now’ effortlessly experiencing experiencing. The future Is ‘now’ masquerading ideas of ‘time’ and even ideas of ‘suffering’. Freedom is seeing the ‘Seeing’ of pure experiencing of every thing everywhere.

‘This’ happening is not happening to me or for me. It Is just happening.

What is just happening does not require/expect a presence of ‘someone’ for It to happen. To suggest that a ‘me’ is needed, is to lose sight of Oneness and pretend that some ‘other’ must magically be present for anything to occur.

If absolutely noone is present can anything happen? If someone is ‘seemingly’ present, can things happen? Is the answer to both questions ‘yes’? It matters not in both cases because what is ‘real’ does not react to the ‘unreal’.

If the presence of a ‘seeming self’, that has no separate reality, is really not ‘Here’ separately, is that not the same thing as noone present? Discounting the illusory pleas that ‘separate self’ has about reality, we truly end up with only one ultimate Oneness.

The ‘rub’ is the intractable preferences. What would ‘what is happening’ do if it ran into ‘no preferences’? ‘Having’ preferences results in a cause and effect for the ‘me’ that ‘has’ preferences. ‘No preferences’ accepts the ‘what is happening’ to express itself in whatever way ‘It’ expresses itself. ‘No preference’ is abiding in the Causelessness (without a ‘me’ to seemingly react to ‘the happening’).

It is the ‘me’ that is seemingly ‘doing’ the holding and attracting. What does spaceless space attract in terms of form? Nothingness attracts Nothingness. What are the preferences for Nothingness? There are no preferences for the ‘real’. When everything is the ‘real’ what Is ‘unreal’ (or preferred)? Amen to ‘that’.

Having ‘no preferences’ Is emptiness Being formless. The appearance of change is inherently unstable. The ‘process’ of change has a permanence in this incarnation. The permanence of change is it’s instability in form (the ‘me’). What ‘should be’ is not ‘What Is’. What is temporary and unstable is form. Emptiness/formlessness is always stable and permanent and ‘what Is’ without preference. The ‘me’ is a preference.

Going a little further, what is ‘real’ i.e. permanent, is formlessness. The seemingly ‘unreal’, is ultimately ‘real’ because what is ‘form’ is truly formlessness playing with ‘form’. This is the ‘leela’. Formlessness Being (playing) form.

No preferences is an allowing/accepting of ‘What Is’. Holding space is not holding any ‘thing’. Having ‘no preferences’ is truly beyond the ‘me’.

Intractable preferences are the ‘me’ doubling down on the ‘me’. The ‘me’ cannot help being the ‘me’. The ‘me’ does not want Nothingness. The ‘me’ is preference personified. Losing all preferences loses the ‘me’. What has no preferences Is the Oneness. And the Oneness does nothing to lose all preferences. Oneness just Is Oneness effortlessly.

Be that effortlessness holding nothing but Being everything. ‘This’ Is always happening. There Is no other or preference Here.

Where to look? There is no ‘where’. It Is just ‘Looking’. If the center is everywhere, is there anywhere else? Asking a ‘where’ question when everything is everything everywhere, makes the question moot. Expecting an answer would then create an ‘illusion of place’ based on misinformation and assumption.

There is no ‘where’ Here. The only ‘where’ is everywhere. Going to a limited ‘where-ness’ is a deliberate imposition of limitation on unlimited-ness. The ‘where’ is a limited concept that presupposes limitation. Can a ‘concept’ give you fulfillment? Can a mango be tasted conceptually?

The ‘Center’ is not separate from Self. When we ‘think’ of a center, we often look at the center as the ‘center versus everything else’. The center, by traditional definition, is defined in a ‘this’ versus ‘that’ arrangement. This ‘thinking’ directly reflects the separation we feel as a person separate from other persons. The unity in the diversity is then adversely occluded and supported by this distorted ‘go to’ thinking. The ‘unity’ in the diversity is permanent while the diversity is impermanent.

When we make a temporal and structural diversity a permanent structure, we give undeserved equal status to impermanence, when it is clearly temporary phenomena. The ‘where’ can ultimately only stand as ‘everywhere’ given it too is clearly temporary phenomena.

The Center Is everywhere. When everything Is everything what is anything? Everything is perceived by something in something. And ‘that’ something is not a ‘thing’. Nothingness is unmixed with fleeting content. ‘This’ Is Being the ‘Center’ of everything while Being nothing.

Nothingness Is Looking without stopping for a ‘where’ or any other concept or experience. Reducing Self to a ‘static experience’ is a subtraction from the forever moving ‘experiencing’. Becoming a ‘static experience’ and/or seeking an ‘experience’ is a dead end. There are no stops in Beingness. Beingness Is stillness moving.

The Center is everywhere and nowhere being non-phenomenal. Seeing the Seeing Is knowingly Being Aware. Looking without attachment to things or locations is freedom. We are attached only to Love Being nothing but Love everywhere at all times and places. Attachment to Nothingness is the Center.

What is it that identifies us as an ‘us’? Is the conceptual ‘us’ enough to live by and clearly define ourselves for almost a century? Or is there a subtler and deeper reality present that is not defined by the limitation of time and constructs? What is fully present that ‘cannot’ be defined?

Concepts are by their nature artificial constraints on reality. Talking about a mango does nothing to experience its subtle attributes. Staying in concepts has a distinct utility but does nothing to really contribute to experiencing the flavor. Experiencing sensory tastes captures so much more information than a concept can ever hope to attain. The so called ‘information’ that is left out is monumental.

So the idea of a conceptual self, captures only a fraction of what is really happening in a living being, yes? Furthermore, what is scooped up conceptually is an inadequate definition of ‘Self’. As an example, when we read an obit in the newspaper, do we really ‘get’ the individual? Would ‘it’ be the same as meeting the individual?

The answer is obviously ‘no’, not even close. The amount of information that is omitted is the ‘essential’ individual which one cannot put into concepts. The qualities of connection to other beings may be listed but their real dynamics cannot be uttered without sounding superficial and incomplete.

Furthermore, ‘experiencing’ in presence, is markedly different than rerunning an ‘experience’. The ‘aliveness’ of the Moment is far more compelling than playing back the tape. It is a ‘you had to be there’ kinda moment.

The fullness of Now can only be belittled if defined soley by a concept. What is it that is really Present? If concepts can’t get ‘there’ what can? What can is ‘What Is’. ‘What Is’ cannot be conceptual. Making ‘It’ conceptual only undefines ‘It’. Definitions cannot touch the ‘What Is’.

The conceptual self is a failed attempt to try to lock down something that is truly undefinable, especially when using inapprpriate tools that have a low ceiling of divination. Looking for a lost sock with radar will not find the sock. Good luck on finding Self with years of searching through books of concepts. Experience may be found in literature but experiencing is quite a different matter.

What does ‘experiencing’ have over an ‘experience’? When ‘experiencing’ stops it is an ‘experience’. But does ‘experiencing’ really ever stop? We cannot even answer ‘this’ question without being the ‘experiencing’.

‘Experiencing’ never really stops except ‘seemingly so’. ‘Seemingly so’ is an illusion. What is experiencing the illusion? Experiencing the illusion is not the illusion. Experiencing is Fullness Itself. An ‘experiencer’ and/or an ‘experience’ is not the experiencing.

When we seemingly leave ‘experiencing’ we seemingly stop ‘experiencing’. Stopping the ‘experiencing’ is stopping for the illusion of concepts. Choosing concepts is choosing to leave the Fullness of ‘experiencing’ and then using belief and conditioning to seemingly be more comfortable in this faux existence where ‘aliveness’ is artificially quashed and seemingly recalled.

An artifical existence based on ‘lessness’ is achieved, again seemingly. We can live our entire life in constructs and not really know Ourselves fully. ‘The Knowing’ is dumbed down to the un-alive ‘known’. This status then confirms to us that ‘something’ is missing, but what?

Experiencing Is Life living Itself effortlessly. A stop for a character and a story is an unnecessary accouterment deemed ‘necessary’ by a limited idea of whom we think we are. Limitations to the unlimited by the limited, are unnecessary. When we limit ourselves to a mere concept, we limit Our Self to a ‘lessness’ unnecessarily.

‘See’ from ‘experiencing’ and ‘not’ from an inert ‘experience’. There is no stopping ‘experiencing’. ‘Stopping’ is a pushing away from Self experiencing Self to a self (stop). This illusion is not supported by Our ultimate reality as Reality. Thoughts borrow a ‘seeming reality’ from Reality to appear as ideas of reality. Our Reality is not a ‘thing’ and is subtler than any ‘thing’ or thought.

Experience is a thought/thing. Experiencing is before, during, and after the seeming life of concepts/ thoughts/things. Be the continual experiencing experiencing Self as there Is no ‘other’. ‘What Is’ just Is ‘What Is’.

We are ‘this’ that is happening. There are no stops for a person or any other thing in the ‘what’s happening’. It Is just what’s happening and ‘that’ never stops happening.

Adding a ‘me’ or a ‘you’ is ok for the ‘play of the play’ to occur. But that addition of a seeming self, is the pretense of the play. Reality is not suppressed, diminished, or dismissed in the evolution of the play. The play plays on with Reality being Reality despite the temporary characters.

The point being , we Are ‘this’ that is happening. The idea of an idea having more content as a separate being, is believing in a false reality of the play. ‘That’ is not the point of the play, i.e. belief. Ideas are worked out in the play by the characters. The characters do not ever enter into a true reality. The play is not real other than it is a real play.

There is no real point of the play other than pointing to the eternal reality of Reality Being an expression of Reality. The play is a clear pretense of Reality. The play is clearly temporary and ultimately unreal. The only ‘real’ Is Reality which Is expressing ‘nothingness’ in a seeming ‘everything’ to include a passing play.

The content is the idea of an ‘other’. Both content and/or an idea of an individual, are illusions. These are constructs used as vehicles to express the aliveness of an interminable Self with no ‘other’. This masquerade is for a pretense of hiding ultimate identity only for the period of the masquerade. The characters are all unreal, purposely. When the masquerade ends, Reality remains untouched by the ‘seeming’ reality.

To stop and believe and overinvest in an unreality is clearly pointless due to it never being meant to be real. The masks we wear are for the masquerade and not for becoming anything. Overacting in the play or masquerade is not ‘becoming’ to the Reality we have always been.

To lose our Reality in the play is to corrupt the play in an untasteful way. ‘That’ would be overacting and unprofessional. It would undermine the fantasy making it too serious and distasteful. Integrity is keeping ‘It’ real, never losing Self. Being Self Is effortless. Effort is the over-acting. It is taking control as the character away from the direct connection to the ineffable director. Taking control is not only unprofessional but also taking the character too seriously.

Who Are We? The body is not ‘You’. ‘You’ is before, during, and after the body. Vehicles change daily in dreams. The waking state belief in the body as self, is equally erroneous. The body is just the body. False identity with the body essentially asks the ‘eternal Us’ to believe in mortality. Mortallity is part of the play. The character must die. And really the character never really was except when we ‘believe’ in the play.

We Are the Vastness where ‘what is happening’, is happening ‘in’. All the ‘happening’ is happening in the ‘Unseen’ formlessness. Before body, before thought, before mind we are Existence Itself with no start/finish. What Is happening Is a constant surrender into Itself -the ineffable being Being.

The unreal ‘me’ cannot surrender anything as ‘it’ is unreal (manufactured). Awareness Itself awakens to Itself from It’s seeming conditional self as Self. Ultimately there is no personal in the impersonal. Self can never not be Self.

What Is happening is an unconditional flow of existence -unabated by time or place. Letting go of any stopping anywhere allows the Openness to shine It’s light of true Knowing Now. Feel the Vastness just happening timelessly. ‘That’ Is ‘You’.

Clinging to content is a problem with identity. Clinging is the effort of neediness for something that is only imagined to be needed by imagined self. When talking about a specious identity, we are talking about believing that a concept is whom we essentially are. When putting it this way, the ‘me’ may even resist the idea of being a mere idea. But ‘that’ is the reality of the box we put ourselves in.

The ‘idea’ of being an idea does not sound so good to the mind that can never really be fully satisfied with even a plethora of ideas. Ideas can easily be translated to some type of content that we ‘hold on to’ in order to ‘have’ an identity. Ideas and content are essentially synonymous for this discussion. The mind wants to be the big idea with an abundance of content. Ego loves grandiosity.

Typical identity is typically not with the formless. The ‘idea of self’ even has ideas of the godhead being a mere idea, yet an idea full of a lot of content. Hanging on to this false self and false belief as a personal identity, precludes the reality of ‘Being’ the impersonal Oneness. Trading down for a personal and separate ‘idea’ of Oneness, is an identity lost to vapid ideas. The suffocating ‘idea’ of self finds it’s ideas in it’s truncated world view, thus seemingly limiting the unlimited. ‘Having’ a view, also contributes to supporting the overblown distinction of self, i.e. identity as an utterly false and separate idea of self as ‘self’ knowing this and that.

There is a lot of having and clinging and holding of this stuff called content. The effort of ‘having, clinging, and holding’ is an unnecessary struggle to ‘Be’. These are unnecessary attachments, as We Are already all ‘That’. Ultimately, even content and ideas, are part of the Oneness. Yet content and ideas are not to be pursued as they are temporary phenomena in a phenomenal world. Being is always effortlessly Being, even before the appearance/disappearance of any content or ideas. Only ‘Nothingness’ can be had, held, and clung to, due to zero content (or ideas) present in ‘Nothingness’.

These words point to an unbounded spaciousness, our true identity. ‘Here’ there is only what is happening with no ‘other’. ‘Here’ there is an implicit comfort in being comfortable with no thing/idea. Familiarizing Ourselves with this formlessness is accepting our true identity as before, during, and after any transitory form. There is no clinging to any ‘thing’ Here. Being Here is Being and accessing the formless Self that is everyone and everything while Being nothing. What Is happening is only ‘The Happening’.

Ceasing to cling to the idea and form of the ‘me, ‘ is identity shifting out of form to formlessness. There are no restrictions in this spaceless space. Here, Love is unrestricted and unconditional, filling Itself with Itself. Knowing ‘this’ from Here, Is the Knowing. This Is contentment, actualized formlessly, as Love loving Love. Hold nothing. This Is what Is happening always.

Be comfortable with ‘That’. Contentment abides Here.

Any position, conceptually, is a ‘binding’, conceptually. ‘Having’ a position is having a concept. ‘Having’ a concept is having content. ‘Having’ content requires a ‘haver’ to manage and sort the content. Who is ‘doing’ all the ‘having’? Who is doing all this heavy lifting?

Having ‘having’ is a leaving of unboundedness in exchange for a bondage to ideas. ‘Having’ is a restriction, a contraction of Beingness into a spurious identity as an object. This object, though, is apparently the king of all objects because it has a cause to control other objects. The control is needed to assert the false reality of being an object but an object that can and does control other objects.

Control, the false idea of control, gives objects seeming life despite the ongoing evidence of the massive failure to control almost nothing. The assertion here is also dependent on other beings asserting the same thing and participating in this false activity with an equally false yield e.g. more objects and more control. Is anyone telling anyone else that this object-bound activity is a dead end?

The idea of a ‘haver’ having anything is a false choice. There is no ‘haver’ and there is no choosing anything. That is of course unless we throw in ‘believing’ which kicks the door wide open to more nonsensical outcomes. The process and yield of these outcomes is not vetted for reality testing. Broad assumptions and beliefs consume self and spurn the reality of just Being.

Complicated arguments to justify locked down positions abound like teeming trout in a stream. The lack of elegance and simplicity of ‘having’ a position, directly points to the binding and blinding over-conceptualization and worship of content over consciousness.

The starting point of nothingness is easily disregarded as nothing. There are no objects here to get and control. Why would anybody who is somebody start here?! Having a ‘position’ is being somebody. Or said another way. You are a nobody when you don’t locked down a position. And if you are a ‘nobody’ then you certainly cannot have ‘any’ control.

Another separation outcome comes alive when content and control are summarily dismissed. Letting go of the holding and controlling is going against societal conditioning. A separation from society would result in a sanction by society if we do not go along with the masquerade. However, believing the masquerade, is separation from Nothingness (Self).

No position is the position. Can this be a working definition of Spaciousness? We can actually conceptualize ‘no position’. But can we ‘Be’ this ‘no position’? Being ‘It’ is before conceptualization not ‘after’ conceptualization. The manufactured self will easily conceptualize. But the manufactured self cannot ‘Be’ all ‘That’. The manufactured self ‘doing’ anything is a pretense.

‘No position’ Is Beingness Being with no need to entertain anything more. Starting with nothing there Is everything with no need to manufacture a ‘self’ at any time. Seeing everything as ‘Oneness’ Is ‘Oneness’ unbranded from name and form. Love has no position. Love Your Love.

To be ‘that’ ineffable Oneness is to not be anything. To be something is to over-identify with fleeting appearances that have more charm than substance. ‘The substance’ is Nothingness with no position to hold and no sustenance to seemingly get.

To ‘get’ anything is to miss the ineffable. Being the ineffable is the only getting that can be got. And ‘that’ is without effort or doing. Being is just Being straight up. Anything that can be added is temporary and comes with an end date. The fullness of Emptiness is the permanent nature of Being.

The character has nothing to include ‘no humility’. For the character to have true humility is to give the character the false pretense of being something. At the same time, the character may have characteristics that may include humility. Would that be a conflict?

For the character to truly have humility there would then be no real character to aggrandize anything nor to do anything. Playing a character is NOT being a character. Being a character, without seeing the role being played, is a forgetting of true identity. Always remembering who ‘You’ Are, is humility playing the character. Humility knows the Knowing is real and permanent while the character is openly fleeting, changing, and unreal. The character is the ‘unreal’ and cannot sustain anything to especially include it’s false self.

The humility to Be divine is to ‘only Be’ with no stops for any ‘thing’. Nothing can be loaded onto the divine as It already Is everything in form and formlessness. To suggest that we need anything else is to clearly abide in the speciousness of form and it’s lack of substance of Being.

Even waiting to get something else like an epiphany, is trading down from substance. There is no ‘next’ or ‘after this’. These are not humble requests. The arrogance of ‘next’ is clearly a manipulation to get that something that would seemingly make things more complete. Waiting or pushing are activities that take Us out of the Now. Where is the humility in all that? Furthermore, timelessness has no time for that. ‘It’ Is complete Now.

‘Making things more complete’ is abiding and getting lost in the illusion of imperfection. Imperfection is perfection playing imperfection. Imperfection is intended to be seen as the play. Accepting imperfection is accepting the perfection behind it.

Take ‘uncertainty’. Is ‘uncertainty’ ‘certain’? How certain is uncertainty? Pretty certain. There is a clear stability Here. Is there a location for this stability? If there was a location there would not be a stability. Nothingness Is the location-less perfection behind everything allowing everything. That is the certainty.

Humility means that there is no other i.e. position, view, time, place, character. Humility means there is the certainty of Nothingness always Here and Now. Humbly See Nothingness from Here. This Is Divine.

We are playing in our own movie. The movie is a real movie but is only as real as the dream we often have when sleeping. Drinking in divine nectar in a staged movie will not get us to the ineffable. The nectar is never really in the created production. Yet, our particular movie is being produced by the ultimate producer. This producer aka Pure Awareness or unfiltered Being, Is before the movie. Getting into a particular scene in the movie is not the goal of the movie. Casting is a done deal i.e. fate. Everyone stars in their own scene in their own movie.  Good acting is playing our part flawlessly as the character while always maintaining our true identity.

To get rewarded in the movie is not how good actors get paid. Imagine if Meryl Streep would be given the option to keep all the riches she had in The Devil Wears Prada. It would be unheard of and meaningless. To suggest to ourselves that we need to score as much stuff as possible during our temporary existence as an actor in our own movie, is to be deluded by the movie. 

Payment can occur during the movie and/or after the movie. Spiritually, payment is getting through the movie unblemished at any time while getting enriched by the acceptance of every particular moment in the film. This is saying ‘yes’ to everything. What the movie ideally does is make us a better actor after each and every scene. Our skill set becomes more natural and we increasingly become more adept at greater challenges. The rewards are non-monetary. 

Our true identity is ideally never lost even in the most tumultuous scenes. Our true identity is not in the movie. We never get lost in this unreality. Moreover, the script is already divined. The movie is in time and the ending is already decided.

There is some room in the movie for a little seeming free will of the character but the script scripts the movie. The character is only a character in a movie.The character does not have an independent existence no matter how liked or disliked. The character is not Us. We are not form.    

There is a hard reality to the movie. And if it is a good movie, we are moved. Good movies, good lives are worth watching. What makes the actor good is the same thing that makes the movie believable. We identify with the characters because they represent us in a similar situation. How actors convince us of the fictional reality is through a complete immersion in the character. After the scene, after the movie they return to their true lives living their personal movie. They do not carry the hard realities of the movie into their personal lives. To do so would challenge their mental health. Our true identity remains unaffected. Good actors walk away as if the movie never happened. 

Standing as Beingness, knowing our true root, we live as Life living Itself. There is no form to laud or reward. There is no character to become anything. Being intoxicated in the bliss is only as bliss and that is always in Being. Sips or glimpses from the Beingness, is only Beingness being. The characters are only in the so-called movie. There are no real characters or movies in Beingness. The characters never become real. The movie can and does seemingly obfuscate true reality but only to the character.

When we are smitten by the profundity of Awareness Being, we access ‘that’ according to our ability to intake the nakedness of Nothingness. More emptiness and less loading up of characters, gives greater access to emptiness. A reaction of more contraction in dense roles, imprisons and limits our access to moments of just Being. 

Typically, the character is being overplayed by the mind. Mind says it is the only thing that needs to be satisfied. And yet, it is never about the mind. The limits of mind are often confronted by a simple “I don’t know”, because mind looks for objects exclusively. Any attached interpretation given by the mind is tantamount to leaving Self. The interpretation is strictly for the mind. ’Not knowing’ and staying in ‘not knowing’ leaves the territory of the mind and can create a beginning for spaciousness to flow.

Fully accepting this moment without interpretation and/or ad lib scripting, is Presence being present to its own Presence. Presence is always empty of content. The baggage of content cannot be carried on the lightness of this implicitness. 

The ‘me’ is the actor feeling that something is missing. Nothingness is Formlessness and Formlessness Is Us. Awareness is identified only with Itself. Even the forgetting is Awareness seemingly forgetting. There is nothing missing as there is no other. The character is not real.

 We cannot fix the movie while believing we are a character in the movie. Timelessness is formless. There is no time, there is no character and there is no movie. ‘That’ movie is ultimately only Formlessness playing form. And perfection is forever formless even when creating a seeming time, a seeming space, and flawed characters. Seemingly, the movie keeps playing and the characters keep acting, all in the stability of Self. 

Watch the movie and play the character from Formlessness. Drink the nectar of Formless Being by being everything and nothing always Now.  This is our true identity i.e. Formlessness.