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.