If it is ‘important’, how is that serving us?

As a result of labeling certain things as ‘important’, do we then ‘see’ that we are the party that is adding an intervention (that is not really necessary) to neutrality? This adding of another idea, that had nothing more to do with the initial result, is more unnecessary complication. Subsequently the ‘results’ and the responsibility for the ‘results’, gets a bit murky, especially when we tend to lose our responsibility for them. The overuse of ‘importance’ can create a veiled disregard for personal responsibility.

Not seeing, that we are the creators of our outcomes, is to misread the clear reality of our results. We can argue this all day long. We can try to avoid a confrontation with the responsibility that is implicit in transacting our seemingly ‘important’ energy-directed outcomes. Do we see that ‘we’ are the ones that made this happen? There is no ‘other’ to really blame when outcomes are less than desired.

‘We’ are the ones that change ‘neutral’ to another energy form. ‘We’ are in charge. Who is it that turns everything that was absolutely ‘neutral’ into another form of energy? Our likes and dislikes are often the outcomes of making/transforming ‘neutral’ to ‘ours’. We are the ones that ‘give meaning’ to life. If life needed meaning would ‘It’ stop being so alive?!

When we label something ‘important’, do we not change neutral into another form of energy? Adding ‘importance’ is clearly a major consideration in determining ranking, which in effect is a clear changing of neutrality. The ‘change’ in neutrality becomes ‘our’ change. ‘Our’ change becomes us. This is now ‘our’ unambiguous projection. Ramifications follow this designated lead made even more ‘important’ through giving ‘importance’.

We may complain about ‘our’ life, but who is the one that is making some things more important than others? And what is all ‘that’ based upon?

‘Importance’, in most cases, is a ‘go to’ that we constantly overuse to justify preferences. When we routinely give a significance to ‘importance’, we often spike the energy field unnecessarily. The ‘overuse’ of ‘importance’ tends to hide our overreaction to routine situations. Do we even see that having a solitary ‘reaction’ is often unnecessary? Adding ‘importance’ seals the deal to an often already specious reaction. And then, do we even see that the ‘importance’ added is most often arbitrary let alone unnecessary?

We are not ‘in’ the universe. We are the universe. What does this mean? Acceptance is another choice we often do not make, i.e. acceptance of changes versus changing change. We most often go for ‘change’. ‘Change’ because it is seemingly more important and seemingly do-able than acceptance. And here, again, ‘importance’ shows up trumping everything in sight. Can we start to see the ‘importance factor’ as maybe being a little too important? We Are the universe. Acceptance is existential purity.

As far as Being is concerned, there is nothing to be done, there is nothing to understand, and there is no absolute need for ‘thinking’ and/or reacting to appearances appearing/disappearing. Presence is forever Being Presence. There Is nothing but ‘this’. It’s importance Is It’s ‘un-importance’. This Is the neutrality. When ‘everything’ Is ‘everything’ what is important?

What Is serving ‘Us’ Is ‘Us’. This Is the greatest service.