Category Archives: CONSCIOUSNESS


What Is ‘here’ is not a ‘what’. ‘It’ just Is. The ‘here’ that is here cannot leave, ever. It is the ‘here’ or backdrop to all appearances.

The mind and it’s chatter, is a ‘what’. The mind (or thinking) is an object pretending to be the subject. This pretense is problematic. The tool has become the master craftsman. This is the problem of making the mind the subject rather than the object. Or in other words, reversing the background for the foreground.

‘Here’ Is primary. ‘Here’ is essentially the stable foreground not the seeming background. ‘Here’ (thereby) does not move. Appearances like thought and thinking, come and go, while ‘here’ remains unmoving. The seniority lies with ‘here’. Objects like sensations, thoughts, and/or feelings are secondary and not primary.

‘Nothing’ can be added to make ‘Us’ better. This statement tells us who we ‘are’ i.e. the unchanging. In most cases, we essentially want to improve the instability of ‘instability’. And the nature of instability is instability. Nothingness has by it’s permanent nature -stability. Being ‘here’ Is fullness. There is no getting ‘here’. ‘It’ Is always ‘here’.

What Is stable is the true foreground of Being Being ‘here’ and timelessly Now. There is nothing to improve ‘here’. The foreground of ‘here’ cannot be changed.

Moreover, the appearance of a foreground/background is just another appearance. Ultimately, there Is only ‘here’. ‘Here’ Is prima facie with no division into foreground nor background.

The density of creating anything to include a ‘self’ is a density of unstable ‘things’. The freedom of ‘here’, has by it’s nature, perennial freedom, before any birth or death of a ‘thing’.

‘Here’ never moves. There is no ‘what’ in ‘here’. It Is just ‘here’. Engaging a ‘someone’ is engaging a thing that can gain/lose consciousness. ‘Here’ Is conscious Awareness.

Whom We Are is ‘here’ formlessly being everything.


If there is nothing ‘to do’ then what does the unnecessary activity of ‘doing’ do? Emptiness stops the slide ‘to controlling’ what ‘cannot be controlled’. The ‘doing’ creates a ‘doer’. Contrary to Emptiness, the ‘doer’ separates into an ‘idea’ of self doing. This ‘idea’ is reinforced through a constant repetition as the ‘me’. Now the ‘me’ is in seeming control and won’t let go of a created ‘me’.

What gets occluded in the process is the Emptiness. What gets amped up is an illusory ‘me’. Getting back to the forever of Emptiness cannot be an effort. It is a non-doing. Emptiness does not need to be resuscitated. It always Is.

Being aware of Awareness is Being the Emptiness effortlessly. ‘This’ can never leave as ‘It’ Is not an appearance. The subtleness of Emptiness is an extreme non-doing. ‘It’ is the easiest non-thing to occlude precisely because It is a non-thing.

However, the seeming occlusion cannot touch the inviolability of what has no beginning nor end. We can test this out using the presence of awareness. Awareness is subtly present. What would happen if we ‘try’ to push away Awareness? Can it be done? Can our ‘doing’ do it away? Of course not. Our Awareness tells us that immediately. The above process is an affirmation of Awareness.

The ‘doing’ of a ‘doer mind’ cannot touch or impact the Awareness/Emptiness. What comes and goes is only a fleeting sensation. The seeming overlay of the mind is clearly not the unmoving Reality underpinning the changing change. All change relies on the stability of groundless ground.

There is only one decision to make. That being the change or being the unchangeable. Locking down on what invariably changes has inherent instability despite its seeming importance. Even the inherent instability is still dependent on the groundless ground for its sustenance. Furthermore, the seeming ‘importance’ of the temporary, is undermined by its own nature of temporariness.

Being the unchangeable is accessing what is already present. Any ‘doing’ would be an immediate undermining of Beingness. The ‘space’ does not need objects/things. However, objects and things require space ‘to Be’.

Identifying with an object-based self is Self-defeating. Putting object before Self is discounting and/or eliminating the space that gives objects their appearance. Reality or effortless Being, Is Present before and after any birth or death of objects to include our bodies. We Are what animates our bodies.

There is no separate ‘me’. ‘This’ is only Emptiness. An appearance of ‘me’ can be seen as a vehicle that comes and goes but has no permanence nor identity with whom I Am. Whom I Am Is the Emptiness unoccluded by any thing.

The constant releasing of the temporary, keeps the spaceless space uncluttered and unbounded. This Is the freedom to Be. This Is unconditioned Love/Happiness. Be ‘That’ effortlessly. Spaceless Space Is us.


‘It’ Is so subtle. The subtlety is an empty spaceless knowing prior to all the thickness of thoughts, ideas, projections, past events, and sensations. The definition of ‘It’ is not any definition. It Is the losing of definition that defines ‘It’.

Definitions would limit the unlimited. Being a ‘thing’ would make ‘It’ a creation. Creations are temporary appearances in time. Time is a construct indigenous to dreaming the dream and/or acting in the movie. Time only exists in the dream/movie.

The timelessness and pricelessness of Love and Happiness knows that there is no one ‘to be’ except the One that has no other. This Is implicit. This ‘knowing’ is found in the unfettered Silence. Having a ‘someone’ is having some ‘thing’. There is no ‘having’ by any ‘thing’ to include a ‘someone’. It Is just ‘This’. To create an ‘other’ is to see from an endpoint; and not from the location-less ‘source’. All appearances to include an ‘other’ have a short shelf life. An ‘other’ and it’s view are time-based illusions in an illusory construct.

Silence tells Us everything by saying nothing. The Nothingness points Us to Us without adding anything. Finding ‘nothing’ finds the subtlety of everything Being Present but with no physical presence that needs to be invested in. The physical appearance is acknowledged as a temporariness of abiding structures where unfettered Beingness confidently plays (leela). Even the seeming physical appearances are emptiness in disguise. Ultimately emptiness Is just emptiness despite appearances.

Appearances Are just ‘This’. Ego wants things on its own terms. When the illusion is operational as ego, it is a layering of thickness of illusion. It does not count more if there is more illusion. All illusion must be seen as disposable. That is, not to be consumed. Believing it, holding it, and living from it, begets more illusion. There is no appearance to ‘This’. Illusion doesn’t have to disappear because it never really ‘was’.

Thinking we are the thickness of self is believing in appearances. Again, there is no appearance to ‘This’. It Is Present without fanfare. There is no reaching for It. Reaching is pushing for something that has always been Here. To ‘do’ Being is to make an effort. Making an effort is leaving our natural Beingness. Adding to Nothingness is a movement away from our true nature.

There is an ‘Isness’ about ‘It’. ‘This’ Is ‘It’. ‘It’ Is deeply Present in Everything as ‘It’ ‘Is’ Everything. And there Is only ‘This’.


Why would there be? The movie ‘we’ are in has its own conclusion. All the characters in the movie give spice to ‘it’ while only being a movie. The movie is an imitation of Life. It is not Life Itself solely as the movie. Life is not quantifiable as a simple contracted movie.

The movie is not nor can be the vastness of Self. The frames are too small. The movie is a mere illustration and a guide to Seeing the Being from the loss of all limitations.

The limitations of the movie are there to be transcended. They are NOT there to be a restrictive cap. Bowing to limitations results in a dumbing down to an identity that is faux and incomplete. The identity in the movie is best played by ‘no’ identity, whereupon the lifting of this veil, a natural arising of unlimited Self effortlessly occurs playing the character.

This is the point of being in the movie. The movie is not meant to aggrandize the character. Transcending the movie is the point. The character does not even have to ‘win’ to be effective. If every character in the movie was to ‘win’, what kind of pathos would the movie have?

In Life, as in the movie, there are always winners and losers. It is how ‘You’ win and how ‘You’ lose that matters most. The nature of the movie is always temporary. There is a very clear start and very clear finish. What is not so clear is that ‘it’ is a temporary movie. To take the movie ‘too seriously’, is to get lost in something that is not Reality. The character often becomes convinced that he/she ‘is’ the character. This position is at the expense of the movie and the real actor.

The characters are not real, ever. Whether there is a movie or not, the ‘Absolute You’ always remains as the ‘Absolute You’. Our so-called life called this movie is not what Life Is about. Life Is living through the character and not from the character. The character must be played from ‘nothingness’ as only ‘nothingness’ can be empty enough to allow a full-throated character to appear (unmolested).

Suffering a character is a false identity even in a movie. The view of a character is not the only view of the movie nor the non-view of Nothingness. ‘Having’ a view by the character is useful in order to play the character as scripted. To ‘Be’ is beyond the character played. The actor’s true identity is the ultimate director/producer. Ergo, there is Nothing to Become. The actor is already done. The character is already scripted.

No interference from the character is expected when the acting job is not in play. For the character to object to the director even in the movie, is a breach of propriety for the character. To complain about the movie to the director flies in the face of the agreement to be in the movie by the actor playing the character. The actor can never forget that she is not the character in the movie.

The character has no say-so about the movie. The character is fictional from start to finish. Who is the me that wants things different in Life? It has to be the fictional character. Who is watching the movie? Who is watching the movie Is Us.

There is nothing to become as ‘It’ Is already HERE. ‘What Is’ is what knows my experience in the movie, before and after the movie. Letting go of the character and the movie and the experience Is pure Beingness Being. Emptiness Is full of Being the everything of nothing. Holding on to any character, good or bad, is not the point. There is no holding any ‘thing’.

This Is the freedom to Be that is before things, ideas, and roles we play. Openness is the receiving of all ‘that’ and the letting go of all ‘that’ constantly. Be the ‘receiving letting go’. That Is the role of the best actor. Being free in every Moment Is Becoming.


There is no ‘path’ because it Is all Now. The answers are always Here Now. There is nowhere to go ‘to’ as there is no ‘to’ to go to. When everything is Everything are there any real differences? The ‘two’ that appears is only the ‘One’ hiding in plain sight. Temporary seemingly separate appearances are only reflections of the ‘One’.

There is no action needed in just Being. If Beingness has no ‘doer’ who is doing the doing? The illusion of ‘us’ being the ‘doer’ doing is a seeming stopping of Being. Being cannot be stopped but the illusions will still give consideration to all that.

As far as actions are concerned, what ‘reality’ is operating? Is our reality illusory? Actions taken in an illlusory reality have an unstable outcome relative to specious desires for happiness. The illusory future goal of happiness/contentment is never really fully met. Here the goal posts are moved time and again as the lack of sufficiency is soon heralded upon the completion of a goal. Again and again. The future has no future.

The above scenario is based on actions for the future self, not Presence. There Is no waiting in Presence. The ‘immediacy’ of Presence never changes. To ‘wait’ is to leave the naturalness of Presence. Presence cannot be stopped except seemingly so. The illusion of future commands a ‘doing’. The ‘Now’ says otherwise.

The urgency of the future creates a rushing energy that further separates ‘Us’ due to the space being collapsed and seemingly truncated. The ‘rushing’ appears to fracture and collapse the openness and freedom of spaceless space. Living in the illusion of a future has a direct cost to Presence.

Experiencing is complete without any ‘experiencer’. The flow of experiencing never stops, period. The movement of Beingness never stops to ponder an experience. Experiences are clearly for the separate self alone.

‘Looking’ for a change is a direct resistance to ‘What Is’. By ‘looking’, we essentially say ‘no’ to reality, losing the yes-ness of acceptance.

Spirituality is an illusion. The attempt to change what Is to what isn’t, isn’t acceptance. Resistance to ‘This’ does not feel right because trading ‘up’ when there is no ‘up’ or ‘down’, references empty ideas and positions versus an unboxed Reality. To ‘have’ spirituality is a stopping of Life Itself to have and hold a box full of spirituality.

Nisargadatta -“Happiness is where ‘I’ isn’t.”

Happiness, true happiness that does not waver, is a universal connection for all beings. We Are the happiness we were looking for. This Is ‘It’. Letting happiness have us without reservations is an effortless letting go of every thing.

Nothing is needed Now to ‘Be’ ‘That’. Losing the ‘trying’ of a seeming spirituality is seeing the Seeing.


There is noone Here to say anything about anything. The character expresses from the character being played. What is said by the character is said often only from a truncated view of self. The view from the character is not meant to be comprehensive and global. There is a distinct limitation to any character. It is a built-in ceiling that is meant to indicate the need to transcend the ‘idea’ of self.

The ceiling of self is an artifical ceiling that only limits the character and does not limit the Self, which is before any temporary manifestation. The essential point is to not so much to improve the character but rather to transcend the character.

There is no ‘I’ to wake up. Awakeness has never been asleep. There is only one ‘I’ and it doesn’t belong to the idea of a character. The ‘I’ of a character is separate view with a belief system that attempts to steal Consciousness from Consciousness.

The ‘character’ is oppositional when the character’s view is saying ‘no’ to ‘What Is’. Saying ‘no’ to anything is saying no to ‘Everything’. ‘Everything’ Is everything. And ‘that’ Is Nothingness Being all ‘that’.

To suggest that the character is separate and beyond the ‘allness’ of Beingness, is a functionally untenable and unstable gambit. The character, with this untenable belief, then would choose suffering and a very limited view, especially when over-identifying with ‘this’ self. Supporting the character’s belief as separate, is essentially supporting a failed system.

The character, with the above handicap, cannot be free enough to say ‘yes’ to the everything of Everything. The falseness of this character, overplaying it’s role, can only field for itself because of the direct opposition it has to securing what it seemingly needs to be content and ‘happy’. What ‘it’ needs to be satisfied is always at the expense of ‘others’. ‘Dealing’ with ‘others’ is not unity consciousness. The consequence of ideas of separation, have a resounding ‘no’ echoing in this kind of truncated existence.

No experience in a seeming future can end our suffering Now. A flawed character cannot reach into an illusion of future to remedy what is happening Now. Only ‘before’ the overplaying of the character can any remedy have viability.

Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that timeless Consciousness is separate from the character. The binding of the character by time e.g. future, is also an illusion. Observing the character is not in time. Consciousness/Awareness Is not in time.

There is nowhere to go to. Ultimately there is nothing Here to go to. When You Are Everything where can You go?

Saying ‘yes’ constantly, is playing the character brilliantly. ‘What’ is playing the character Is playing (leela). ‘What’ is playing the character cannot say ‘no’. There is only ‘yes’. When there is only ‘yes’, is it really a ‘yes’?!

Beingness is just Beingness. Yes.


There is no future for anything. Looking past the ‘now’ is artificially leaving the presence of our Being for a concept. When everything is only happening in ‘this’ moment, ideas of ‘future’ cannot have an existential basis independent of ‘Us’.

A ‘future’ is a borrowing from what ‘is’ happening ‘now’ to a ‘seeming’ future that is ‘not’ happening now. The ‘now’ never changes, as permanence is It’s nature. We cannot have a ‘real’ experiencing in the ‘idea’ of a future.

Even suffering still requires presence to ‘know’ the experiencing of suffering. Experiencing Is presence (in the ‘now’).

No experience desired in the future can end our suffering ‘now’. Any borrowing for the future can only have an impact ‘now’. What is always real and present Is the ‘now’.

What is ‘before’ suffering is the ‘now’. The ‘now’ never changes. It Is always ‘before’. Before what? Definitely before any ideas of the future. In other words, ideas of the future have to start their seeming existence in the ‘now’ as does every other ‘thing’.

The ‘now’ Is. It is not in time. The ‘now’ does not stop or go. We cannot move the ‘now’ from It’s ‘now-ness’ to an imagined past or future. Suffering must appear ‘now’. Suffering is an ‘appearance’ in the ‘now’. An ‘appearance’ can seemingly be ‘after’ the ‘now’, as appearances come and go, but the platform of ‘now’ remains as ‘now’ timelessly.

To end suffering, is to see suffering’s built-in temporariness relative to the permanence of ‘now’. Since our true identity albeit, existence, does not come and go, suffering’s temporariness is a direct pointing to whom we really ‘Are’ -permanence.

This would not be a cognitive exercise rather an experiential ‘knowing’ of pure existence -no additives needed. Anything added, to especially include suffering, is ‘seen’ clearly as a temporary appearance.

Experiencing does not stop for even a pleasant experience. Experiencing is always experiencing (now). An experience of suffering is in time and in ideas of self. Any stop for anything would be an attempt to stop ‘experiencing’. Experiencing cannot be stopped except seemingly so. And of course that stop is illusory.

There is no stop or suffering that can penetrate ‘experiencing’ and/or the ‘now’. Identity with experience and/or identity with ideas of past/future are ‘stops’ that seemingly stop ‘experiencing’ and the integrity of the ‘now’.

The concept of ‘identity’ is not needed in the ‘now’ of ‘experiencing’. Nothing needs to be added to ‘nothingness’ to include a conceptual identity. It just ‘Is’. In other words ‘I Am’. ‘I Am’ is before any identity. Experiencing Is ‘now’ experiencing ‘now’.

There Is no separation ‘Here’. ‘I Am’ Consciousness ‘here’ and ‘now’ effortlessly experiencing experiencing. The future Is ‘now’ masquerading ideas of ‘time’ and even ideas of ‘suffering’. Freedom is seeing the ‘Seeing’ of pure experiencing of every thing everywhere.


‘This’ happening is not happening to me or for me. It Is just happening.

What is just happening does not require/expect a presence of ‘someone’ for It to happen. To suggest that a ‘me’ is needed, is to lose sight of Oneness and pretend that some ‘other’ must magically be present for anything to occur.

If absolutely noone is present can anything happen? If someone is ‘seemingly’ present, can things happen? Is the answer to both questions ‘yes’? It matters not in both cases because what is ‘real’ does not react to the ‘unreal’.

If the presence of a ‘seeming self’, that has no separate reality, is really not ‘Here’ separately, is that not the same thing as noone present? Discounting the illusory pleas that ‘separate self’ has about reality, we truly end up with only one ultimate Oneness.

The ‘rub’ is the intractable preferences. What would ‘what is happening’ do if it ran into ‘no preferences’? ‘Having’ preferences results in a cause and effect for the ‘me’ that ‘has’ preferences. ‘No preferences’ accepts the ‘what is happening’ to express itself in whatever way ‘It’ expresses itself. ‘No preference’ is abiding in the Causelessness (without a ‘me’ to seemingly react to ‘the happening’).

It is the ‘me’ that is seemingly ‘doing’ the holding and attracting. What does spaceless space attract in terms of form? Nothingness attracts Nothingness. What are the preferences for Nothingness? There are no preferences for the ‘real’. When everything is the ‘real’ what Is ‘unreal’ (or preferred)? Amen to ‘that’.

Having ‘no preferences’ Is emptiness Being formless. The appearance of change is inherently unstable. The ‘process’ of change has a permanence in this incarnation. The permanence of change is it’s instability in form (the ‘me’). What ‘should be’ is not ‘What Is’. What is temporary and unstable is form. Emptiness/formlessness is always stable and permanent and ‘what Is’ without preference. The ‘me’ is a preference.

Going a little further, what is ‘real’ i.e. permanent, is formlessness. The seemingly ‘unreal’, is ultimately ‘real’ because what is ‘form’ is truly formlessness playing with ‘form’. This is the ‘leela’. Formlessness Being (playing) form.

No preferences is an allowing/accepting of ‘What Is’. Holding space is not holding any ‘thing’. Having ‘no preferences’ is truly beyond the ‘me’.

Intractable preferences are the ‘me’ doubling down on the ‘me’. The ‘me’ cannot help being the ‘me’. The ‘me’ does not want Nothingness. The ‘me’ is preference personified. Losing all preferences loses the ‘me’. What has no preferences Is the Oneness. And the Oneness does nothing to lose all preferences. Oneness just Is Oneness effortlessly.

Be that effortlessness holding nothing but Being everything. ‘This’ Is always happening. There Is no other or preference Here.


Where to look? There is no ‘where’. It Is just ‘Looking’. If the center is everywhere, is there anywhere else? Asking a ‘where’ question when everything is everything everywhere, makes the question moot. Expecting an answer would then create an ‘illusion of place’ based on misinformation and assumption.

There is no ‘where’ Here. The only ‘where’ is everywhere. Going to a limited ‘where-ness’ is a deliberate imposition of limitation on unlimited-ness. The ‘where’ is a limited concept that presupposes limitation. Can a ‘concept’ give you fulfillment? Can a mango be tasted conceptually?

The ‘Center’ is not separate from Self. When we ‘think’ of a center, we often look at the center as the ‘center versus everything else’. The center, by traditional definition, is defined in a ‘this’ versus ‘that’ arrangement. This ‘thinking’ directly reflects the separation we feel as a person separate from other persons. The unity in the diversity is then adversely occluded and supported by this distorted ‘go to’ thinking. The ‘unity’ in the diversity is permanent while the diversity is impermanent.

When we make a temporal and structural diversity a permanent structure, we give undeserved equal status to impermanence, when it is clearly temporary phenomena. The ‘where’ can ultimately only stand as ‘everywhere’ given it too is clearly temporary phenomena.

The Center Is everywhere. When everything Is everything what is anything? Everything is perceived by something in something. And ‘that’ something is not a ‘thing’. Nothingness is unmixed with fleeting content. ‘This’ Is Being the ‘Center’ of everything while Being nothing.

Nothingness Is Looking without stopping for a ‘where’ or any other concept or experience. Reducing Self to a ‘static experience’ is a subtraction from the forever moving ‘experiencing’. Becoming a ‘static experience’ and/or seeking an ‘experience’ is a dead end. There are no stops in Beingness. Beingness Is stillness moving.

The Center is everywhere and nowhere being non-phenomenal. Seeing the Seeing Is knowingly Being Aware. Looking without attachment to things or locations is freedom. We are attached only to Love Being nothing but Love everywhere at all times and places. Attachment to Nothingness is the Center.


What is it that identifies us as an ‘us’? Is the conceptual ‘us’ enough to live by and clearly define ourselves for almost a century? Or is there a subtler and deeper reality present that is not defined by the limitation of time and constructs? What is fully present that ‘cannot’ be defined?

Concepts are by their nature artificial constraints on reality. Talking about a mango does nothing to experience its subtle attributes. Staying in concepts has a distinct utility but does nothing to really contribute to experiencing the flavor. Experiencing sensory tastes captures so much more information than a concept can ever hope to attain. The so called ‘information’ that is left out is monumental.

So the idea of a conceptual self, captures only a fraction of what is really happening in a living being, yes? Furthermore, what is scooped up conceptually is an inadequate definition of ‘Self’. As an example, when we read an obit in the newspaper, do we really ‘get’ the individual? Would ‘it’ be the same as meeting the individual?

The answer is obviously ‘no’, not even close. The amount of information that is omitted is the ‘essential’ individual which one cannot put into concepts. The qualities of connection to other beings may be listed but their real dynamics cannot be uttered without sounding superficial and incomplete.

Furthermore, ‘experiencing’ in presence, is markedly different than rerunning an ‘experience’. The ‘aliveness’ of the Moment is far more compelling than playing back the tape. It is a ‘you had to be there’ kinda moment.

The fullness of Now can only be belittled if defined soley by a concept. What is it that is really Present? If concepts can’t get ‘there’ what can? What can is ‘What Is’. ‘What Is’ cannot be conceptual. Making ‘It’ conceptual only undefines ‘It’. Definitions cannot touch the ‘What Is’.

The conceptual self is a failed attempt to try to lock down something that is truly undefinable, especially when using inapprpriate tools that have a low ceiling of divination. Looking for a lost sock with radar will not find the sock. Good luck on finding Self with years of searching through books of concepts. Experience may be found in literature but experiencing is quite a different matter.

What does ‘experiencing’ have over an ‘experience’? When ‘experiencing’ stops it is an ‘experience’. But does ‘experiencing’ really ever stop? We cannot even answer ‘this’ question without being the ‘experiencing’.

‘Experiencing’ never really stops except ‘seemingly so’. ‘Seemingly so’ is an illusion. What is experiencing the illusion? Experiencing the illusion is not the illusion. Experiencing is Fullness Itself. An ‘experiencer’ and/or an ‘experience’ is not the experiencing.

When we seemingly leave ‘experiencing’ we seemingly stop ‘experiencing’. Stopping the ‘experiencing’ is stopping for the illusion of concepts. Choosing concepts is choosing to leave the Fullness of ‘experiencing’ and then using belief and conditioning to seemingly be more comfortable in this faux existence where ‘aliveness’ is artificially quashed and seemingly recalled.

An artifical existence based on ‘lessness’ is achieved, again seemingly. We can live our entire life in constructs and not really know Ourselves fully. ‘The Knowing’ is dumbed down to the un-alive ‘known’. This status then confirms to us that ‘something’ is missing, but what?

Experiencing Is Life living Itself effortlessly. A stop for a character and a story is an unnecessary accouterment deemed ‘necessary’ by a limited idea of whom we think we are. Limitations to the unlimited by the limited, are unnecessary. When we limit ourselves to a mere concept, we limit Our Self to a ‘lessness’ unnecessarily.

‘See’ from ‘experiencing’ and ‘not’ from an inert ‘experience’. There is no stopping ‘experiencing’. ‘Stopping’ is a pushing away from Self experiencing Self to a self (stop). This illusion is not supported by Our ultimate reality as Reality. Thoughts borrow a ‘seeming reality’ from Reality to appear as ideas of reality. Our Reality is not a ‘thing’ and is subtler than any ‘thing’ or thought.

Experience is a thought/thing. Experiencing is before, during, and after the seeming life of concepts/ thoughts/things. Be the continual experiencing experiencing Self as there Is no ‘other’. ‘What Is’ just Is ‘What Is’.