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 ARE IN SOMETHING

IMG_1095.jpegThoughts by themselves are not independent. They are dependent on something, as they are ‘things’. 

Where they appear is in the phenomenal mind. And where they stay and hang out, is in the personal created self. This ‘self’ is artificial as well, in that it too has dependence on something to exist.

This ‘self’ is propped up by iteration, perseveration, and belief. The critical element that attaches thought to this ‘self’ is ‘my’ and/or ‘mine’. Without these seemingly magic words of ‘my’ and ‘mine’, thoughts would be allowed to naturally flounder and dismiss themselves due to disinterest.

The problem of losing the ‘my’ which attaches thoughts to ‘us’, cannot be a thought-based solution. More thoughts actually deepen the conditioning/investment of thoughts in a continuous creating/recreating of false self or in other words, a  false ‘me’.

IMG_1107Having 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 get rid of the ‘me’ because it is all within the ‘me’. Just by using another thought, to not use ‘my’ and ‘mine’, does not solve the problem of having thoughts attach themselves to the illusory self, which is apparently doing all the presumed problem-solving.

Do we see the futility of false self trying to get out of false self (or ‘me’)? 

The issue that needs to be underscored is that thought-based missions are futile when relying on thoughts alone and an artificial self. These ‘things’ have limitations that preclude going past them-selves (things) when relying solely on them-selves (things).

The neocortex is a thought-based relatively recent biological improvement in personal management. However, it too has the same limitations as artificial self  i.e. dependence on the thing called thoughts. As far as going past thoughts into pure existence (which precedes all thoughts), the neocortex fails, despite its development, because it has the same limitations of topping out at the level of thought.

What ‘sees the thought’ is what is prior to the thought. What sees the thought cannot be thought about because it is not a thing that can be seen or cognized like a thing.

Only the perceiving sees the perceived. What is perceived (things) cannot be perceiving.

IMG_1115This 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 ‘Stillness’ is the Everything where thoughts and everything else arise from.  

The afflictions that thoughts may cause us, can also be reduced significantly when we see that thoughts are contained in this ‘Everything’. The Everything/Nothingness is the container of all things phenomenal and non-phenomenal.

Thoughts, whether they are presumably ours or someone else’s, are occurring in some kind of space. Because thoughts are the presumed staple of how we can operate in this world, we focus soley on them and our presumed needs (more thoughts). This attachment to thoughts is a slavery to thinking. Thinking that we need 70,000 thoughts per day is clearly dysfunctional. We are stuck in thinking.

When we have these daily rounds of 70,000 thoughts, do we ever look at the the backdrop of where these thoughts arise? They arise from Everything/Nothingness. If the mind misses the backdrop because of addictive and titillating thoughts in the foreground, the access to qualities of Peace and contentment will be obscured, as they reside in the permanence of Being. 

Our innate awareness that perceives perceiving and perception, is the ‘Us’ that sees everything and Everything, which includes the essential metaphorical container where thoughts are contained.

Thoughts are the everything in Everything. See the Everything first leaves thoughts like passing clouds. See the thoughts first then Everything is overlooked like yesterday’s garbage.

The position of Everything and everything is important because what appears predominant is what is seen as foreground first versus background. The greater view is Everything. Everything-ness should be in the foreground in order to See ‘everything’ clearly.

Thoughts, no matter how virile and troublesome, are still passing but not staying. They repeat themselves when the emphasis is not on the Everything where thoughts come from. Shifting to Everything relieves the stress of thoughts owning Us. Shifting to Seeing Everything first (foreground) does not give space to the perseveration of creating a delusional created self with endless supporting thoughts.

IMG_1092The 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.

Lastly, sticky thoughts that have a habit of gluing themselves to us, but can be distanced and minimized with the spaciousness of Everything. Know that thoughts are arising in Everything and that seeming space has no boundaries, edges or limits. See the significance of this boundlessness as vastness that dwarfs any ‘thing’, especially thought, in it. Staying with the vastness of this space (Everything) by experiencing the vastness first, reduces the significance of problematic and dominating thoughts, to puniness.

The background of groundless Being is everpresent and available at all times. Therefore there is never any real reason to leave this spaciousness for transitory thoughts and over-thinking.

IMG_1119Love Loves Everything.                                                        Daddy’O

 

 

  

A VIEW SERVES A PERSON

‘No view’ serves no one. ’No view’ is free of perspective except that it is all perspectives. All perspectives serve everyone while serving no one.

IMG_1084.jpegIn ‘no view’ there are no preferences. If there were a preference a view would be served. 

IMG_1040IMG_1042Is 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’. 

IMG_1075.jpegSince 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’?

IMG_1049.jpegIn 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’.

IMG_1053.jpegSo 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.

IMG_1057.jpegHowever, 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.

The chain-of-custody of having a ‘view’ starts with the illusion of a person and the supplemental illusion of this ‘person’ having the territory of viewpoint. The ‘chain-of-custody’ designation is merely illustrating the jailing of this created personal illusion to greater lengths of incarceration by engaging in having anything, to include a viewpoint.

IMG_1055.jpegTo 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.

Losing the ‘view’, then becomes an issue due to all the bad investments that were made and heralded. Everything from the ‘person’ to the ‘view’ onward is pure illusion. This illusion can go nowhere since it is not even real. But the chain we put on it is attached to the ‘person’. The illusory person cannot get out of the illusory person. But seeing the illusion, sees that nothing is really lost, to include the idea of a ‘person’ with a view.

IMG_1079.jpeg’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.

There is no ‘person’ and there is no ‘view’. Draw no lines nor make any stops in spaciousness. Spaciousness carved up into ‘this’ and ‘that’ creates false views and illusions that only appear real. Realness is nothing but spaciousness; and that allows for everything to appear in nothingness and disappear in nothingness.

IMG_1081.jpeg‘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.

IMG_1029.jpegLove Is loving all views while Being no view. Daddy’O

  

OBVIOUSNESS IS NOT AN INTEREST 

GP2C3158.jpegWhat 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.

The problem with ‘obviousness’ is that most often it is glossed over as nothing important. Since ‘it’ is always there, there is no concern for ‘its’ presence. Since there is no concern for ’its’ presence, we move on to stuff that doesn’t have the eternal sense of presence e.g. phenomena.

GP2C3180.jpegAs 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.

GP2C3176Going 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.

‘Obviousness’ is hiding in plain sight. ‘It’ never leaves, contrary to the temporary phenomenal cart that holds all of our apples presumably for safe keeping. 

The phenomenal is least able to provide stability and we still invest for stability, in the phenomenal. Is there something that is just not right about this picture?

GP2C3174But everyone is doing it, so it must be right. Wrong.  The evidence is there, abounding in the instability of ’change’ versus the ‘changelessness’ of ‘obviousness’.

‘Obviousness’ just Is. It Is our base for activity in that it does not change. ‘It’ Is where change can change and change can be unstable. Without the stability of ‘obviousness’ would change look anything like change when there was no stable platform for change?

GP2C3178Ergo, 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.

‘Obviousness’ is not an interest. ‘It’ is so obvious why would we have any interest in it?

GP2C3175.jpegThat’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. 

There is no need to have an ‘interest’ when you are ’that’. Interest becomes irrelevant. When we are not ‘that’ then interest becomes relevant. Belief we are not ‘that’ fans interest to be ‘that’.

GP2C3167So, if we want to be ‘that’ ‘obviousness’ that is seemingly overlooked, we push away from ‘obviousness’ when we desire to be that ‘obviousness’.

Adding any ‘interest’ to ‘obviousness’ only diminishes (seemingly) ‘obviousness’.

‘Obviousness’ is free from any characteristics that bind or separate “What Is”. ‘Obviousness’ Is “What Is”. ‘Obviousness’ is Presence. Presence is unassuming. It just Is. 

The view of ‘no view’, is ‘Obviousness’. ’No view’ can be seen as background while ‘view’ can be seen as foreground. When most of our awareness is caught up in the foreground, the background (obviousness) is glossed over. The stability of sourcing awareness from the background of everything is ‘obviousness’ in plain sight. 

The obscuration of ‘obviousness’ by the foreground is ultimately shifted to the backdrop as the predominant field of vision. Everything is seen but without the inappropriate investment in just phenomena to include the needy ‘me’.

The ‘obviousness’ is always here now. It does not shout and scream for attention as its fullness completes ‘it’ timelessly. There is no point in having an interest in it, as that means something else wants it. When we are ‘it’ what is there to want. It Is Obvious.

GP2C3169.jpegLove Loves Effortlessly, Daddy’O      

 

GIFTING LOVE

GP2C3134.jpegLove 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. 

At the phenomenal and temporal level, Love Is still present but not as discernible, as Its native subtlety does not parade and compete with ‘stuff’. As in the description of Awareness, there is absolutely no pushing, in Love. Love Is without a landing as there is no need for a landing. There is nothing to push against or for. Love Is Everything. And it belongs to no one while being everyone without any need to land or establish Itself in some finite structure.

GP2C3151Similarly, ’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.

GP2C3146.jpegGifting of trinkets or things is essentially a cover for expressing pure Love.

GP2C3153For 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. 

Loving is a verb with no need to establish Itself in a noun. But one may argue and say that, “I love some one or some thing?” Even the appearance of a ‘thing’ ultimately is not even a noun. A permutation of Being aka ‘thing’, is really only Being Being. No noun is ever really found. Love stops Being Love when we parry to a ‘thing’. Love is much free-er when It is not manipulated. Love Is always Loving Love.

GP2C3152.jpegParrying 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. 

‘Gifting’ when initiated with pure Love, puts appropriate perspective on the formlessness of Love versus the form of a gift. The gift is an excuse to Love more freely and openly just like Love Itself -free, formless, open and unprotected.

GP2C3144.jpegThe 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.

GP2C3137.jpeg‘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.

GP2C3138.jpegIt Is all Love Loving Love, Daddy’O     

   

“In every moment, there is a choice to make the presumed mandatory and conditioned stops at an illusionary character or to let go of any serious attachment to the pretender and fall, with no preferences, into the Formless-ness of spaciousness/emptiness.”

‘I AM’ IS NOT A PERSON

The ‘person’ comes after the ‘I Am’. What comes ‘after’ cannot then come ‘first’. What comes ‘after’ is the personal, the vehicle, the story, the character. What comes before has no story, no thing-ness, no definition -just formlessness, aka the ‘impersonal’.  However, the ‘impersonal’ is intimate. ‘It’ Is the groundless ground of Being.GP2C3117

The ‘person’ appears to come between Being and objects. The ‘person’ is then reinforced by the ‘stopping’ at the person, giving it acknowledgement and obeisance, when all that, is contra-indicated to letting everything drop into Being-ness. Giving constant acknowledgement to the ‘person’ is the ‘stopping’ of naturally dropping into Being.

In every moment, there is a choice to make the presumed mandatory and conditioned stops at an illusionary character or to let go of any serious attachment to the pretender and fall, with no preferences, into the Formless-ness of spaciousness/emptiness.

The divine play directs us to play the role but not too seriously, just convincingly. When the character has a preference, preference stays only with the character. To hold onto the preference as the character is to cut off direct knowledge from the Ineffable director.

The attachment to preference establishes an opaqueness to Seeing clearly. The ‘line’ is drawn and the ‘I Am’ becomes ‘this’ and ‘that’.

‘I Am’ has no limitations except the ones seemingly created. ‘This’ and ‘that’ are illusions in the “What Is” that make the Subject  the object.

GP2C3115.jpegThe 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’.

The ‘I Am’ has no preferences nor needs any ‘thing’. It Is the Priorness of every ‘thing’ to include the seemingly manufactured ‘this’ and ‘that’.  

To forgo the illusion is to see the ‘person’ as not any place to stop. And to stop is to not ‘Be’ as Being has no stops, i.e. preferences. Being is everything being everything ad infinitum.

GP2C3116.jpegWhen 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 ‘person’ does not exist except in the sense of being an object. This ‘object’ is an illusion. To invest in the ‘object’ is to divest from the Subject. However, the Subject is everything to include illusions and objects when seen without preferences or any lines drawn. This view is ‘no view’ as it is too broad to be conceptualized.

GP2C3118The 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.

Falling with no preferences is a letting go of belief and sustenance in the character and accepting the everything of Everything which is Nothing-ness. That much space gets no ‘person’ yet all persons. The ‘Oneness’ is only One. Can there be any more?

Falling into what does not change is falling into unconditional Love, Happiness, and eternal Peace. This is the Source of the longing.

Love Everything for Everything Is Love, Daddy’OGP2C3119.jpeg

THE STARTING POINT IS THE ENDPOINT

So, is there anywhere to really go, if where we start from, is where we end up?GP2C3112

Going somewhere else, takes us away from the starting point, which at the same time, is the endpoint. Where would we go except somewhere where there isn’t a starting point or end point?

GP2C3101.jpegIs 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.

Waking up from a dream to see the dream, is going back to the starting/endpoint of pure existence, to see the illusion. The story in the dream is usually given up immediately upon waking. Is the story/narrative about the ‘person’ seen as readily?

IMG_0904.jpegThe ‘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?

Why is the story/narrative in waking, more compelling than the dream in sleeping?

Can we wake up from the idea of a ‘person’ as essentially no more or less compelling than the dreamt character in sleeping state? And why do we take ourselves so much more seriously as a ‘person’ that has no real continuity?

IMG_0830.jpegWhen 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.

The ‘person’ in the waking dream is in time. The difference is that time is then being used to create the ‘person’ and the constant chatter around the ‘person’ to seemingly give it life. When in fact, it is only the identification, affirmation and perseveration of constant attention, that seemingly gives life to the addiction called the ‘person’.

IMG_0844.jpegWe 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.

Time in the waking state overstates itself by believing what happened (past), happened to a ‘person’ after it happened. The problem here is that the ‘person’ was manufactured after the event took place. How could what had happened without a ‘person’ now happened to a ‘person’? Time is misused to insert an illusory person in front of the event, after the event.

IMG_0792.jpegPerpetuating 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).

GP2C3094.jpegContinuity 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.

The starting point is formlessness, the middle point is formlessness and the endpoint is formlessness. Ultimately there is no starting or endpoint. Vehicles masquerading as ‘persons’ still have continuity, as their formlessness is never lost. Continuity cannot be lost as it is essentially Formlessness. Continuity tells us It Is Formlessness.

GP2C3103.jpegWe 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’.

There is no need for a perfunctory ‘person’ in time, as the cost of manufacturing is prohibitive to clouding the ‘Knowing’ which Is always Present. And so, there is no where to go, there’s nothing to do, and there is no-one to be.

IMG_0834.jpegTake no steps and We Are here Now, Fully.

Love Loves eternally, Daddy’O

THE ‘PERSON’ IS A STOP

IMG_0894There 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’.

Why stop to be a ‘person’ when a ‘person’ is only a fictitious creation that is stuck on the ‘known’?

The ‘known’ is only known when the ‘Knowing’ is Present. Otherwise the ‘known’ could not be known. ‘Knowing’ is absolutely essential to See any thing (like the known).

IMG_1017.jpegWhen 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.

The background is the Nothing that has the Everything. Focusing on the foreground to the virtual exclusion of the background, is a focus on a whole lot of stuff. This stuff is impermanent and constantly in flux.

IMG_0896.jpegInstability 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.

A ‘person’ is a noun, an unnecessary noun or ’stop’. These nouns we identify with are important only because we identify with them, wrongly. The identification is an unnecessary step in that it is a step away from the permanence of “What Is”.

IMG_0897Verification 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’. 

Creating a ‘person’ requires a constant disruption to the ‘flow’. The start/stop is not an ideal situation for ‘flow-ing’. If movement is ‘flow’, contrarily stopping is ‘person’. Ergo, ‘person’ is antithetical to being ‘flow’. Being a ‘person’ is constantly being in the foreground while the background is rarely viewed and/or acknowledged.

IMG_0992.jpeg‘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.  It is meant to be temporary.

IMG_0967.jpegSeeing 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’. 

IMG_1003.jpegSpaciousness, 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 never stops and is always the essential fullness of Love as there is no ‘person’ to receive this Love.

Surrender the ‘person’ is surrendering the ‘stops’ and the foreground of change and instability.

The absence of the ‘person’ allows Self to be seen clearly. There are no ‘stops’ in Self. Although verb-ing or Being, there is no movement in Self. The aliveness is the verb that doesn’t change.

IMG_0994.jpegfullsizeoutput_610b.jpegThe ‘Knowing’ Sees the experience but is not touched by the experienced. Even in the foreground where ’stops’ abound, the ‘Knowing’ is knowing the known.

Know the ‘Knowing’, Know the background, Know the Love, and Know the Flow that needs no ‘person’. ’See’ from the ‘Knowing’.

Know from the ‘Knowing’ that you Are Love with no need for any noun. This is Love with no stops or conditions.

Daddy’OIMG_0500

 

IMG_0708.jpegEMPTINESS FILLS EVERYTHING
IMG_0720 2.jpegEmptiness fills everything- yes? Could it be another way? What is emptiness?
When we are empty, what does that mean experientially?

What do we experience when emptiness is found to be present? Is ‘It’ the some-thing-ness that is nothing but still has substance and a ‘knowing’- is that it?

IMG_0726.jpegCan 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.

IMG_0703.jpegIf 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.

IMG_0701.jpegTo 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.

Going back to ‘Emptiness’, we find there are no lines drawn in this tabula rasa. Even one line drawn creates a polarity of ‘this’ and ‘that’. Emptiness does not tolerate even one line being drawn, as that would divide the un-dividable. Dividing ‘Emptiness’ would distort It’s Truth -i.e. emptiness. Timelessness and the purity of nothing is in the nature of ‘Emptiness’.

IMG_0694.jpegThe 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’.

‘Emptiness’ fills everything as ‘It’ Is the source of everything. If everything is the dreamt, the ‘Emptiness’ Is the Dreaming of the dreamt. The ‘Dreaming’ has nothing but gives everything to the dreamt.

IMG_0718.jpegTo 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’.
The ‘dreamt’ is filled with everything and ‘that’ is essentially nothing.

IMG_0710.jpegErgo, 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.

Loving Love, Daddy’O 
 IMG_0708

THE TRAP OF ‘GETTING IT’

IMG_0653When the ‘me’ collapses, it most often, easily reassembles itself, given our tenaciousness of  identification and comfort with the false self.  The response is robotic  but not necessarily necessary. Essentially the familiarity of going back, is like home, despite the obvious discomforts and suffering.  

IMG_0667.jpegThe key part in the reassembly, is the re-identification with the illusory self.  The illusion will certainly persist given the amount of attention we continue to give it. Without the supply of oxygen (thoughts and beliefs) to fuel the illusion,  the illusion cannot carry on. With our continued support, the illusory self continues to breathe its falsity.

Pulling the plug on the illusory self, is essentially seeing how we directly aid and abet it’s continued existence. Seeing it, is seeing we are not it. Also, seeing that the process of support we give is always NOT in the Moment of Now.  Past and future never really exist except in the false creation of what’s not happening, the ideal conditions for illusions. 

And false self is always after the Priorness. False self is embedded in the concept of time while the Priorness abides in timelessness. It is time, particularly past and future, that allows the seeming falseness to prevail as the doer, thinker, feeler, or haver. These nouns representing activity, come after the activity (not before). Time is used to create some ‘thing’ and put it before that ‘thing’ (and the activity) that actually happened. 

IMG_0674.jpegThis ‘thinking’ and ‘believing’ in the fiction we create, seemingly displaces the Presence of Priorness to be prior.

An additional point to observe is the proviso of “what can be perceived cannot be perceiving”.  This pointer discriminates immediately, any false pretenders. All ‘things’ are perceived. A ‘no thing’ cannot be perceived.

IMG_0649.jpegBut 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’  and its all-ness to include the attempt to reassemble, is to abide in the big picture i.e. the backdrop to everything.

IMG_0673.jpegIf 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.

The dimensionless fullness of “What Is”, is the true starting point relative to the false starting point of  a manufactured self, we formerly imagined it to be.

IMG_0680.jpegThere is no ‘person’ to get anything, to include experience or  understanding. But, the ‘person’ persists in its me-ness.  Having a profound experience where unified consciousness is clearly seen as  everything, can easily go back to ‘having’ versus ‘being’ this so-called experience, thus enabling  the illusory ‘person’ to come back again.

Reassembly starts immediately after  the concept lands in the person ‘having’ the experience. When the ‘person’ has the experience, that means the ‘person’ has recreated its own illusory self. There is no one to have anything to include an experience. That is the reassembly! That only occurs when the ‘person’ pops back in.                              

IMG_0668.jpeg“Isness” does not require an illusory person to do It’s business. 

There is never a ‘someone’ to ever ‘become’ because there is no future needed except when falsely identifying with a ‘someone’. There is no person to ever get it as there is no ‘person’.

IMG_0661.jpegBut what we will do, is say to ourselves “That I need to get it”. ’That’, is the continued creation of false self, period.

The false self can never, ever get it. It is an illusion. And it is a ploy to go into the future to get something that is Present in this Moment. Let the wild goose chase begin.

What Is Present does not need anything that is not really Present to look for something that Is always Present. ‘Getting it’ is superfluous when We Are It Now.

Instead of looking for the Priorness that is always prior to everything, in the future, ‘See’ that the Priorness Is Us, Now. Looking in the future to get the ‘getting’ that we Are with the fraudulent lens of an illusory self, is doubling down on failure to realize an ever-present Self.

There is no one to get anything later as everything is Here Now. The ‘trap’ is always set the same way. See the way the trap works and what will then be Seen, is the Seeing that is no one and Nothing.

IMG_0682.jpeg‘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.

Be the Love that Loves Love, Daddy’OIMG_0647