What is obvious is not normally called out due to its ‘obviousness’. The strength of ‘obviousness’ is that it does not need to be called out. To call it out, is to make a point about what we take for granted. What we take for granted is so apparent it normally needs no calling out. ‘It’ offers a consistency of performance, that its failure to be, would ‘un-ground’ us.
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.
As a default and response for ‘obviousness’ to never leaving the scene, we look to the unstable phenomena that comes and goes, for assurance, stability and reliability, to keep us sated and situated in our world.
Going with the instability of phenomena, we wonder why we can’t seem to settle down without having the jitters. When we accomplish some substantive goal, soon afterwards, we lose that satisfaction and then pine for another accomplishment, ultimately never being satisfied or fully sated (contentment), after any goal that we feel will give us what we want.
‘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?
But 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?
Ergo, the view of seeing and glorifying the obvious (phenomena) versus being the ‘obviousness’ may need to be adjusted. If stability and contentment are the ultimate barometers of standing steadily in a seemingly changing world, then perhaps we were (or are) standing on shifting ground.
‘Obviousness’ is not an interest. ‘It’ is so obvious why would we have any interest in it?
That’s the point. ‘Obviousness’ is so there that it cannot be an object of interest. ‘It’ Is Us. Us as just ‘there-ness’ without any phenomenal dynamic. If we had an interest in ‘obviousness’ as we do in phenomena, we would fan separation.
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’.
So, 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.