Who is the one having the ‘having’? If there is someone ‘having’ anything, who might that be? In order to ‘have’ some ‘thing’, then a ‘haver’ must show up. Who is this ‘haver’?  

Is the ‘haver’ an experience or maybe a grouping of ideas that is interpreted as ‘someone’? And when we ‘create’ this ‘someone’, how can we sustain this identity through time?  The ‘haver’ cannot really sustain itself, can it? It is just an imaginary perception that was given an imaginary life.

This life that was created is superficial, in that there is really nothing to support its sustenance. This is demonstrated through struggling and effort-based existence that shows no signs of getting out of its not so quiet desperation.

Looking forward or looking back on this artificial life does nothing to change the limited circumstances of this desperation and artificialness. And god forbid if we looked at this poorly constructed structure from the Now. The Now would certainly reveal the precarious and iffy nature of this grouping of a flimsy conceptual framework.

The Now would certainly reveal the specious mechanics of construction that depend deeply on constructs that are historical/futuristic. Only in the reimagining dependence on the ‘dead’ timezones of past and future, can we birth this lifelessness. The Now will not allow this turbidity and belief to exist. Only in the Now can true ‘aliveness’ abound freely and effortlessly.

The falseness of the ‘haver’ is seen through in the Now. OK. But where do ‘We’ abide? Do ‘We’ live in ‘this’ moment or some other less viable structure?

The Now never stops being the Now. It can never not Be the Now. However, dreaming the illusion of past/future and believing it, seemingly trumps the Now.

What ‘was’ or ‘what will be’, has nothing to do with ‘What Is’. Existing beyond our conditional story is true existentialism in action in the Moment called Now.  

There is no ‘haver’. Having a ‘haver’ is having a limitation. We handicap ourselves with the straight jacket of having a ‘haver’.

Things do not stick in the ‘Openness’. Things are appearances and appearances are always destined to come and go. The ‘Openness’ holds nothing and that is why It Is the ‘Openness’. There is nothing there but the aliveness of ‘Knowing’. Openness is having ‘not having’. ‘Not having’ is freedom, unconditional love, spaciousness, silence, stillness -all things not sticky or binding. In other words, formlessness.

Formlessness or Openness is purity. Purity is clean of the stickiness of ‘having’ as there is no-one there to have. Having a ‘haver’ would mean having a form. That clearly would obviate Oneness from being Oneness.

The forms that are seen, are present in the Oneness as a permutation of Oneness. There is no ‘having’ Here. The coloring of Oneness into forms is simply the appearance of Oneness in forms. Staying with the Oneness is staying with the stability of forever. Staying with forms is separation from Oneness.

We Are Consciousness, with the form of the body appearing in Us, Consciousness. There is no ‘other’ than ‘this’ Oneness. Oneness Is having this ‘not having’, as it is the play of Nothingness.

Being nothing Is everything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s