Category Archives: CONSCIOUSNESS


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’.


We are ‘this’ that is happening. There are no stops for a person or any other thing in the ‘what’s happening’. It Is just what’s happening and ‘that’ never stops happening.

Adding a ‘me’ or a ‘you’ is ok for the ‘play of the play’ to occur. But that addition of a seeming self, is the pretense of the play. Reality is not suppressed, diminished, or dismissed in the evolution of the play. The play plays on with Reality being Reality despite the temporary characters.

The point being , we Are ‘this’ that is happening. The idea of an idea having more content as a separate being, is believing in a false reality of the play. ‘That’ is not the point of the play, i.e. belief. Ideas are worked out in the play by the characters. The characters do not ever enter into a true reality. The play is not real other than it is a real play.

There is no real point of the play other than pointing to the eternal reality of Reality Being an expression of Reality. The play is a clear pretense of Reality. The play is clearly temporary and ultimately unreal. The only ‘real’ Is Reality which Is expressing ‘nothingness’ in a seeming ‘everything’ to include a passing play.

The content is the idea of an ‘other’. Both content and/or an idea of an individual, are illusions. These are constructs used as vehicles to express the aliveness of an interminable Self with no ‘other’. This masquerade is for a pretense of hiding ultimate identity only for the period of the masquerade. The characters are all unreal, purposely. When the masquerade ends, Reality remains untouched by the ‘seeming’ reality.

To stop and believe and overinvest in an unreality is clearly pointless due to it never being meant to be real. The masks we wear are for the masquerade and not for becoming anything. Overacting in the play or masquerade is not ‘becoming’ to the Reality we have always been.

To lose our Reality in the play is to corrupt the play in an untasteful way. ‘That’ would be overacting and unprofessional. It would undermine the fantasy making it too serious and distasteful. Integrity is keeping ‘It’ real, never losing Self. Being Self Is effortless. Effort is the over-acting. It is taking control as the character away from the direct connection to the ineffable director. Taking control is not only unprofessional but also taking the character too seriously.

Who Are We? The body is not ‘You’. ‘You’ is before, during, and after the body. Vehicles change daily in dreams. The waking state belief in the body as self, is equally erroneous. The body is just the body. False identity with the body essentially asks the ‘eternal Us’ to believe in mortality. Mortallity is part of the play. The character must die. And really the character never really was except when we ‘believe’ in the play.

We Are the Vastness where ‘what is happening’, is happening ‘in’. All the ‘happening’ is happening in the ‘Unseen’ formlessness. Before body, before thought, before mind we are Existence Itself with no start/finish. What Is happening Is a constant surrender into Itself -the ineffable being Being.

The unreal ‘me’ cannot surrender anything as ‘it’ is unreal (manufactured). Awareness Itself awakens to Itself from It’s seeming conditional self as Self. Ultimately there is no personal in the impersonal. Self can never not be Self.

What Is happening is an unconditional flow of existence -unabated by time or place. Letting go of any stopping anywhere allows the Openness to shine It’s light of true Knowing Now. Feel the Vastness just happening timelessly. ‘That’ Is ‘You’.


Clinging to content is a problem with identity. Clinging is the effort of neediness for something that is only imagined to be needed by imagined self. When talking about a specious identity, we are talking about believing that a concept is whom we essentially are. When putting it this way, the ‘me’ may even resist the idea of being a mere idea. But ‘that’ is the reality of the box we put ourselves in.

The ‘idea’ of being an idea does not sound so good to the mind that can never really be fully satisfied with even a plethora of ideas. Ideas can easily be translated to some type of content that we ‘hold on to’ in order to ‘have’ an identity. Ideas and content are essentially synonymous for this discussion. The mind wants to be the big idea with an abundance of content. Ego loves grandiosity.

Typical identity is typically not with the formless. The ‘idea of self’ even has ideas of the godhead being a mere idea, yet an idea full of a lot of content. Hanging on to this false self and false belief as a personal identity, precludes the reality of ‘Being’ the impersonal Oneness. Trading down for a personal and separate ‘idea’ of Oneness, is an identity lost to vapid ideas. The suffocating ‘idea’ of self finds it’s ideas in it’s truncated world view, thus seemingly limiting the unlimited. ‘Having’ a view, also contributes to supporting the overblown distinction of self, i.e. identity as an utterly false and separate idea of self as ‘self’ knowing this and that.

There is a lot of having and clinging and holding of this stuff called content. The effort of ‘having, clinging, and holding’ is an unnecessary struggle to ‘Be’. These are unnecessary attachments, as We Are already all ‘That’. Ultimately, even content and ideas, are part of the Oneness. Yet content and ideas are not to be pursued as they are temporary phenomena in a phenomenal world. Being is always effortlessly Being, even before the appearance/disappearance of any content or ideas. Only ‘Nothingness’ can be had, held, and clung to, due to zero content (or ideas) present in ‘Nothingness’.

These words point to an unbounded spaciousness, our true identity. ‘Here’ there is only what is happening with no ‘other’. ‘Here’ there is an implicit comfort in being comfortable with no thing/idea. Familiarizing Ourselves with this formlessness is accepting our true identity as before, during, and after any transitory form. There is no clinging to any ‘thing’ Here. Being Here is Being and accessing the formless Self that is everyone and everything while Being nothing. What Is happening is only ‘The Happening’.

Ceasing to cling to the idea and form of the ‘me, ‘ is identity shifting out of form to formlessness. There are no restrictions in this spaceless space. Here, Love is unrestricted and unconditional, filling Itself with Itself. Knowing ‘this’ from Here, Is the Knowing. This Is contentment, actualized formlessly, as Love loving Love. Hold nothing. This Is what Is happening always.

Be comfortable with ‘That’. Contentment abides Here.


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.