User blogs

There are two ways to create experience, from the ground up or from the top down. Actually, all experience is created from the ground up, but one can try to create it from the top down as well, in which case one is still creating it from the ground up, although they are then unaware of the earlier levels of creation.

Creating experience from the ground up involves creating experience beginning with emotion, and then moving into thought and then physical experience. Creating experience from the top down involves creating experience by trying to manipulate and arrange physical reality to create a certain emotional reaction.

Creating experience from the ground up involves purposefully and intentionally creating emotion, and then letting that flow into thought and physical experience. Creating experience from the top down involves  purposefully and intentionally trying to arrange physical reality in order to create an emotional reaction.

Creating experience from the ground up is in accord with the way experience is actually created, which is from the emotional, to the mental, and then to the physical. Creating experience from the top down is therefore the opposite of the way experience is actually created.

When we create experience from the top down we are using already created physical experience, which must have some emotional experience as its basis, to try and evoke a particular emotional experience. When we create experience from the top down we are using already existent physical objects and trying to arrange them in a way that will evoke a wanted emotional experience.

When we create experience from the bottom up, we choose the emotion we create and let that emotion act as the foundation from which physical reality extends and upon which physical experience is built. 

People consider modern art to be actual art, even though it is mostly just the juxtaposition of already existent objects intended to make some sort of statement, because they consider creating experience from the top down to be the way experience is actually created. Therefore, modern art, i.e., the juxtaposition of already existent objects, seems to be an equally valid form of artistic creation because it is created in the same way that most people are trying to create what they experience emotionally, which is by trying to arrange already existent physical objects.

When one does not know how, or has forgotten how, to create wanted emotional experience from the bottom up, in the way it is actually created, one is then left to try and create wanted emotional experience from the top down, in a way that it only seems to be created. Likewise, when someone wants to create art but lacks whatever it is that allows one to create art from the bottom up, they must resort to the only thing left, which is to try and create art through the arrangement of already existent objects.

The physical always follows the emotional, and the emotional is always being created de novo, out of the formlessness of pure Beingness, as Beingness flows in relation to Itself, and as we, as Beingness, apprehend from our perspective how we are flowing in relation to Beingness.

One is free to create actual art de novo, from the bottom up, or one is free to create the appearance of art, by juxtaposing already existent objects. Likewise, one is free to create emotion as it is actually created, which is according to how one is choosing to flow in relation to Beingness, or one is free to try and create emotion in a way that it only appears to be created, which is through the arrangement of physical reality.

When one tries to create emotion through the arrangement of physical reality, it may seem or appear that it is the particular arrangement of physical reality that is responsible for the emotion one is feeling, that is responsible for creating that emotion, but this appearance is only an illusion. It is always the flow of Beingness relative to Itself that creates emotion. All the particular arrangement of physical reality does is cause Beingness to choose reflexively how it will flow in relation to Itself, and thereby reflexively create what it apprehends as a particular emotional experience. But it is still the flow of Beingness relative to Itself that creates emotional experience.

Thus, there may seem to be two ways to create experience, from the bottom up or the top down, but there is really only one way that experience is actually created, and that is from the bottom up. Likewise, there may seem to be two ways to create art, from the bottom up or by juxtaposing already existent objects, but there is really only one way that art is actually created, and that is from the bottom up.

I believe that humanity has, to some extent, embraced the faux art that is much of modern art because it parallels the false and illusory way we ourselves try and create what we experience as emotional reality, which is through the juxtaposition of objects and arrangement of physical reality with the intention of causing a reflexive reaction that produces a particular emotional reaction.

We all want to create a wanted emotional reality, a wanted emotional experience. Likewise, all artists want to create art.

We have lost sight of how emotional reality is actually created, and so we create it in the only way we now know how, which is by trying to arrange physical reality in a way that will cause us to reflexively choose to flow in relation to Beingness in a way that produces a wanted emotional experience. This is clearly going about creating wanted emotional experience the long and hard way.

The way that emotional reality is actually created is according to how we are flowing in relation to Beingness, and how we are flowing in relation to Beingness is something that we choose, either consciously or unconsciously, either deliberately or reflexively.

The easy and direct way to create wanted emotional experience is by simply choosing to flow in alignment with Beingness. Either way, what you apprehend as emotional experience is the result of how you are choosing to flow in relation to Beingness, its just that that choice can be made consciously and deliberately, or unconsciously and reflexively.

When the choice is made consciously and deliberately, one has true control over what one creates as emotional experience, and one then truly creates. When the choice is made unconsciously and reflexively, one does not actually control what one creates as emotional experience, since one is constrained in their creation by the way in which physical reality can be arranged, and so one is then not truly creating.

When the way to create emotional experience directly has become lost and forgotten, one is then left to try and create wanted emotion in the only way that then seems available, which is as a reaction to physical experience.  When the way to create art directly is not possible, one is then left to create art by arranging already existent objects.

These parallels between the two ways in which emotional experience can be created and the two ways in which art can be created are not coincidence, but are a product of the outer always reflecting the inner, a product of the fact that regardless of what seems to be, experience always flows from and is created from the bottom up and not the top down.

Thus, the inner situation, which is the two ways in which Beingness or Consciousness is able to create emotional experience, which is directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or reflexively, is reflected in the outer situation involving the two ways in which Beingness or Consciousness, in human form, creates what are referred to as works of art, which is by creating something out of nothing, from the bottom up, or by creating something by just rearranging already existent somethings, and so creating from the top down.

Modern art is, as a whole, reflective of the way in which most of humanity creates emotional experience, which is as a reaction to the way in which physical reality is arranged. Modern art is creation through the juxtaposition of already existent objects and most of humanity creates emotional experience by trying to arrange physical reality in a particular way.

All art is a creation, and all creation is art, the question is, what is the nature of the creation and so what is the nature of the art? Has it been created de novo, from the bottom up, or has it been created from the top down, through the arrangement of already existent objects. Likewise, we create everything we experience as emotional reality, the question is, are we creating what we apprehend as emotional realty from the bottom up, by consciously choosing our involvement in the relation that creates what we apprehend as emotional experience,  or are we creating what we apprehend as emotional reality from the top down, by unconsciously choosing our involvement in the relation that creates what we apprehend as emotional experience as a reaction to some arrangement of physical reality.

Both ways of creating art and both ways of creating emotional experience each result in something being created, but in each case, one way of creation involves freedom and the other way involves limitation. When we create art or emotional experience de novo, from the bottom up, we are free to create whatever we want, but when new create art or emotional experience from the top down, we are restricted in what we can create by the objects that are available, and the ways in which they can be arranged.

Thus, modern art as a whole is itself an expression, in that it expresses both the way in which humanity is, by and large, trying to create emotional experience, which is from the top down, as well as the limitations that are unavoidably inherent in this method of emotional experiential creation.

And people are therefore able to relate to modern art because it is reflective of or related to the way in which they are themselves going about trying to create their emotional reality, which is from the top down, as a reaction to some arrangement of physical reality, even if it is not reflective of the way in which emotional reality is actually created, which is always from the bottom up, as the result of the way the Individual is choosing to flow, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or reflexively, in relation to their more fundamental Individuality.

There is the reality of experience and there is the Reality of the Beingness that, through relation to Itself, creates what it then apprehends as experience. The Beingness is what actually Exists; the experience is what only seems to exist. The Beingness is the Creator; the experience is the creation. The Beingness is the actual Reality; experience is the virtual reality.

Our situation is such that we are Creators that have become lost within our creation, lost to ourselves, oblivious of our True Nature, as we have taken our creation for being what actually exists, and in so doing have relegated What We Actually Are to a secondary status, making What We Actually Are appear to be something that is not as real as our creation. In this we are like painters that have become so mesmerized by our creation that the painting seems to have become more real than the painter.

What We Actually Are literally creates what we, as Individuals apprehend as reality. And so, if What We Actually Are takes what we have created as reality for being what actually exists, then that becomes our reality, that becomes and is the reality we are creating and apprehending, not because that is the actual situation, not because what we have created as experiential reality is what actually exists, but because that is the reality we are choosing to create. 

And in assigning to our creation the status of what actually exists, that which does actually Exist must take on a different role, must appear as something other than what actually exists, since that role has already been given to an imposter. So it is that What We Actually Are, in this drama we have created where our creation has been assigned the role of what actually exists, takes on a lesser or secondary role, appearing not as what actually exists, not as the creator, but instead appears as the creation, as something that is created by that to which we have mistakenly assigned the role of creator, created by that to which we have mistakenly assigned the role of what actually exists.

It is as if we are directing a play where there are two characters, let us say an inventor and their creation. And we go in as the director and for whatever reason we decide to assign to what is actually the creation the role of inventor, leaving then what is actually the inventor to play the only other role available, which is that of the creation. This is precisely what we have done to Consciousness, to What We Actually Are, to the Beingness that actually Exists that creates experiential reality, as we have mistakenly assigned to physical experiential reality, to our own creation, the role of what actually exists, leaving Consciousness then to play the only other role that is available, which is the role of the creation, the role of that which does not actually exist.

And so it is that we have become lost to ourselves, lost to our true identity, lost in the virtual experiential reality that we ourselves, as What Does Actually Exist,  are creating, as we assign to physical experiential reality the role of Reality, leaving then that which is actually Reality, i.e., Consciousness, to play the role of reality. Physical experiential reality does not appear as what actually exists because it is what actually exists; rather physical reality appears as Reality, as what actually exists, only because that is the role that we ourselves, as Reality, as That Which Does Actually Exist, as the actual Creators of reality, have assigned to it. We are in charge, we are the Creators of reality, and reality will therefore take on whatever role we assign to it. But in this drama of Creator and creation there can be only one Creator, and once that role has been assigned that leaves the other actor in this drama to play the only other role available.

So it is that our True Nature as Consciousness, as Beingness, remains hidden from us while still in plain sight of us, appearing as something that is being created by the actor to whom we have mistakenly assigned the role of creator, i.e., appearing as the creation of physical experiential reality. Consciousness appears to us as it does, i.e., as the creation of physical reality, as something less real than physical reality, not because it actually is created by physical experiential reality, not because it is actually less real than physical reality, but only because that is the role we have inadvertently relegated it to, having given away the leading role, as the actual Directors of the drama we call experiential reality, to the wrong actor.

And once we have assigned to that which only seems to exist the role of what actually exists, and so simultaneously assign What Actually Exists to the role of what only seems to exist, then everything gets turned upside down and inside out, so much so that we lose sight of the fact that we ourselves are the Creator and Director of the drama, because in assigning What Actually Exists to the role of what only seems to exist, in assigning What Actually Exists to the role of creation, we are ourselves, as What Actually Exists, taking on the role of what only seems to exists, taking on the role of that which is created.

And although we are the actual Creator of experiential reality, in taking on the role of creation, we forget and lose sight of how it is that we are creating experiential reality. It then seems to us that experiential reality is something that happens to us rather than something that we ourselves are creating.

But no matter how it may seem, we are always the Creator of what we apprehend as experiential reality, because everything that we experience as reality, emotional, mental and physical, requires our involvement, as What Actually Exists, in some relation with some other aspect of What Actually Exists in order to create what we, as What Actually Exists, apprehend as a particular experiential reality. But we are the Creator of what we experience as reality not just because what we apprehend as reality requires our involvement in a relation in order to create what we apprehend as reality; rather, we are truly the Creator of what we experience as reality because we and we alone, as What Actually Exists, determine whether what we create and apprehend as experiential reality in any moment has the quality of wantedness or unwantedness according to how we are, in any moment, in any now, choosing to be in relation to the rest of What Actually Exists.   

It does not matter what we think is happening, it does not matter how we think reality is or is not created or how it is or is not arranged, it does not matter how confused or deluded we are regarding our nature, because no matter what we think is happening, we are, as What Actually Exists, always creating the wantedness and unwantedness of what we apprehend as experiential reality according to how we are, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or reflexively, choosing to be in relation to the rest of What Actually Exists.

The vast majority of Conscious Individuality, the vast majority of What Actually Exists, is not confused with regard to the actual relation between Itself as Creator and experiential reality as creation, and so simply chooses consciously and deliberately to be in relation to Itself, in relation to What Actually Exists, in a way that creates for Itself the apprehension of wanted rather than unwanted experiential realities. On the other hand, the vast majority of Conscious Individualities that refer to themselves as human beings, or appear to themselves as human beings, are confused with regard to the actual relation between themselves as Creators and experiential reality as their creation, and so choose unconsciously and reflexively their involvement in the relation with the rest of What Actually Exists that determines the wanted or unwanted quality of what they, through those relations, create and apprehend as wanted or unwanted experiential realities of the emotional, mental, and physical varieties.

There are only two ways for an Individual to be in relation to the rest of What Actually Exists: allowing or resistant. Relations of allowing create experiential wantedness and relations of resistance create experiential unwantedness. It is in our Nature as What Actually Exists to want to create experiential wantedness rather than experiential unwantedness, and so it is in our Nature to choose to be in a relation of allowing rather than a relation of resistance with respect to the rest of What Actually Exists. And yet, once we lose sight of our Nature, by mistakenly assigning to physical reality the role of Reality, by mistakenly assigning to physical reality the role of What Actually Exists, we get turned around and inside out and start trying to create experiential wantedness by involving ourselves in relations of resistance, thinking that the way to get what we want is by pushing against and getting rid of what we do not want, when all that involving ourselves in this sort of relation actually does is create more of what we do not want.  

It does not matter that we have lost sight of what we actually are, as we still act according to what we are, according to what is our True Nature as the Creator of reality, by always trying to create a more wanted experiential reality. Everything we do, everything we want, we do and want because we think that in the doing or the having of it that we will feel better, that we will create for ourselves a more wanted emotional experience. This is the prime directive of all That Actually Exists by virtue of its very Existence. It is not possible to Exist without being in relation to what else Exists, and in that unavoidable relation what Exists must create an experience that is either wanted or unwanted, an experience born of a relation of either allowing or resistance. There is no third choice.

And as What Actually Exists must in each moment create either a wanted or unwanted emotional experience by virtue of its unavoidable involvement in a relation of either allowing or resistance with what is ultimately Itself, What Actually Exists quite naturally chooses to create that which is wanted rather than that which is unwanted, naturally chooses to create that which is attractive rather than that which is repulsive, as it is attracted to creating the wanted and repelled by creating the unwanted.

And we, as human Individuals, are What Actually Exists simply doing the same thing, i.e., acting according to our Nature by always trying to create a more wanted emotional experience. Its just that we are doing it blindfolded, so to speak, turned upside down and inside out as we are by our confusion regarding the nature of reality and the relation between Reality and reality, so that we often inadvertently create what we do not want rather than what we want, because from this state of confusion it seems to us that the way to get to what we want is through some sort of resistance, i.e., through our involvement in some relation of resistance.

And so someone does something we do not like and we get angry at them and think that they are the one causing our anger, causing us to experience unwanted emotion, and so we tell them to behave differently, and try to get them to behave differently, and if they do we feel a little better and if they don't we get more angry, making it seem as if their behavior is the cause of our emotional state when in actuality our emotional state is always something that is being created according to how we ourselves are choosing to be involved in the fundamental and unavoidable relation with What Actually Exists that creates emotional and really all experiential wantedness and unwantedness. It's just that when they behave as we would like them to behave we reflexively and unconsciously involve ourself in the relation of allowing that creates a more wanted emotion, and when they behave as we would not like them to behave we reflexively and unconsciously involve ourself in the relation of resistance that creates an unwanted emotion.

And the same is true of all external circumstance. When we look at what we like we reflexively and unconsciously enter into a relation of allowing and so feel good, and when we look at what we do not like we reflexively and unconsciously enter into a relation of resistance and so feel bad. It seems to us that what is making us feel good or bad, experience positive or negative emotion, wanted or unwanted emotion, is the external circumstance, but what is actually always creating our emotional experience is the allowing or resistant mode of being we are choosing, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or reflexively, in each moment as we are in each moment involved in the fundamental and unavoidable relation with the rest of Beingness that creates emotional experience.

However, from our perspective of confusion regarding the relation between what is creator and what is creation, it seems to us that external circumstances are what create our emotional reality, and so we spend our lives trying to arrange physical reality this way and that so that when we look at it we will reflexively enter into a relation of allowing and so feel good as a result. But this is really going about trying to created wanted emotional experience the hard way, and in a way that is quite often counterproductive, as it often produces unwanted rather than wanted emotional experience. Much easier it is to simply choose to be in a mode of allowing  rather than resistance regardless of external circumstance and create directly a wanted emotional experience, thereby cutting out the unnecessary and often uncontrollable middle man of external circumstance. 

The relation of What Actually Exists to Itself that creates wanted emotional experience is the precursor and necessary foundation for the relations of What Actually Exists to Itself that create wanted thought, and the relations of What Actually Exists to Itself that create wanted thought provide the foundation for the relations of What Actually Exists to Itself that create wanted physical experience. Likewise, the relation of What Actually Exists to Itself that creates unwanted emotional experience is the precursor and necessary foundation for the relations of What Actually Exists to Itself that create unwanted thought, and the relations of What Actually Exists to Itself that create unwanted thought provide the foundation for the relations of What Actually Exists to Itself that create unwanted physical experience.

Physical experience does not produce emotional experience. As with so many things, we have it completely backwards, owing to our placing the creation in the role of creator and vice versa. Emotional experience is the precursor to mental and physical experience, not the other way around. Therefore, learning to create experience by paying attention to how you feel, and choosing your involvement in the fundamental relation accordingly, not only has the advantage of making it more likely that you will create wanted rather than unwanted emotional experience, but also increases the likelihood of your creating wanted rather than unwanted mental and physical experiences as well, owing to the progressive way in which experiential reality is created.

All experiential reality is a virtual reality. What actually Exists is a river of Consciousness, and we are drops in that River, and we choose in each moment whether to flow with or against that River. And based upon how we choose to flow we become involved in relations with that River and create the swirls in that River that we apprehend as wanted or unwanted experiences. The River is the Reality, we are the Reality, experiential reality is our creation.

When we do not understand our role as the creator of what we experience, we become the slaves of our own creations, the slaves of experience, erroneously thinking that we must have this or that thing, be in this or that circumstance, before we can be happy, before we can allow ourselves to feel wanted emotion. The truth is we can feel wanted emotion whenever we want, but to do so it is necessary to uncouple what one is presently creating as emotional reality from what one has previously created as physical reality. Physical reality is the finished experiential product, emotional reality is its precursor. You cannot create something different from what you have created previously if you are stuck using what you created previously as the basis for what you are now trying to create, i.e., when you construct the precursor reality of emotional experience on the basis of the wantedness or unwantedness of some previously created physical reality, which is what we do when we create our emotional reality as an unconscious and reflexive reaction to what we have already created as physical reality.

Physical reality is like a painting, and we are always painting a new picture. Whether or not you are going to like what you paint depends entirely upon how good or bad you feel while you are painting it, because how good or bad you feel indicates the nature of your involvement in the fundamental relation that determines experiential wantedness and unwantedness. If you feel bad while you are painting then you will not like the finished product, and if you feel good while you paint then you will like the finished product. The key is to not get too hung up on any one painting, good or bad, liked or unliked, but to enjoy the process of experiential creation, since it, like What We Actually Are, never ends. 

There is not God and the world,

there is only God.

There is not Nothing and something,

there is only Nothing.

That there is God and the world,

Nothing and something,

is an illusion.

The illusion that there is

both God and the world,

both Nothing and something,

is like the illusion that arises

where there is only a mirror

but there appears to be

both a mirror and a reflection,

and so the appearance of two

where there is only one.

The world of somethings

is a reflection that arises

within the mirror that is God,

within the mirror that is Nothing,

within the mirror that is Consciousness.

The world of somethings exists

like a reflection exists,

but the world of somethings,

like a reflection,

is not what is actually there

where it only ever

appears to be.

What exists is created,

whereas what is actually there

is not created

but simply Is.

What is actually there

where the world of somethings

appears to be

is the formless Isness

we call our Consciousness.

And it is within that Nothingness,

within that formless Isness,

that the world of somethings

arises and exists.

And it is by that Nothingness,

by that formless Isness,

that the world of somethings

is known as reality.

And so there is always the appearance

of two things;

the reflection and the mirror,

the world and God,

something and Nothing,

reality and Consciousness,

when all there actually Is

is the one thing

that is not a thing,

because the other thing

that is a thing;

the world, the somethings, the reality,

is not actually an Isness,

but is only a reflection,

and so is only an appearance,

and so is only an existence,

that arises within the Isness,

that arises within the Nothing,

that we call Consciousness.

The appearance of what exists

is not itself an illusion.

It is only the appearance of what exists

as what is actually there

where it only appears to be

that is the illusion.

And so it is only the appearance

of what exists

as what is

that is the illusion.

Caught up in this illusion,

convinced of the ultimate reality

of reality,

the Isness of which the world

is actually composed

becomes hidden

behind what only exists

masquerading as what is.

And this illusion,

whereby what only exists

appears as what is,

imparts upon reality,

imparts upon what only exists,

a false status of equivalence

between created reality

and uncreated Isness.

And it is this false equivalence

between existence and Isness

that allows the uncreated Isness

to mistake itself

for what only exists,

and so mistake itself

for its own creation.

And once the Isness knows itself

as what only exists,

then the Isness,

when it is noticed,

must seem to Itself

to be other than itself.

The word God

is just what we call our Self

when that Self becomes

somewhat aware of the Isness,

and so becomes

somewhat aware of Itself,

while still unable

to recognize Itself.

And so arises

the idea of a God

that is other than our self

and other than the world.

And so arises

the idea of a God

that is separate from our self

and separate from the world.

And when God and the world

seem to be two different things,

we approach the world

differently than we approach God,

not knowing that to approach the world

is to actually approach God

cloaked in a veil of form,

covered in what is only an appearance.

Divinity does not just lie within,

but lies equally without,

it just has to be found within

before it can be found without.

Once divinity has been found within,

where as the formless Isness

it wears no mask,

it can then be found without

as the formless Isness

that lies behind every mask,

behind every appearance

behind every reflection

that we call the world,

that we call something,

that we call reality.

Christmas is not ultimately a celebration

of the physical birth

of a certain person.

That is just the appearance and excuse

that Consciousness uses to throw a party

to celebrate the Awakening of Itself

to the Christ-Consciousness,

to the unity and oneness of Itself,

that lies hidden and obscured

behind all appearances.

And this celebration

is an invitation to all

to become more aware of the Oneness

that lies somewhat hidden

behind the appearance

of me and the others,

and of us and them,

and which lies completely obscured

behind the appearance

of me versus the others,

and of us versus them.

Peace on Earth,

good will toward men.

Not just an empty slogan,

but what naturally arises

within any Consciousness

that sees past the appearance

of "I am this" and "you are that,"

and into the underlying Isness,

and so into the underlying Oneness,

and so into the singular "I am"

that lies beyond

the appearance of two things

where there is only ever actually

one Nothing.

There exists something

because there is

absolutely nothing.

And there is absolutely nothing

because the absence of nothing

cannot be.

If you eliminate everything

then you are left

with nothing.

And if you then eliminate nothing

you are still left

with nothing.

And because the absence of nothing

cannot be

nothing is not absent

but is present.

And this Presence,

which is Nothing,

is that which creates

something.

Nothing creates something

by forming a relation

with the only thing there is,

which is Nothing.

And the something

which is created by Nothing

is known by that Nothing

as reality. 

Reality is just an appearance

a boundary that arises,

a shadow that forms,

a reflection that appears,

where Nothing meets Itself

as it moves and flows

in relation to Itself.

And the Nothing

which knows as reality

the something

that Nothing has created

is what we call Consciousness.

And so it is that the Nothing,

the formless Presence,

that we call Consciousness

creates the something

that we call reality,

and not the other way around.

But when Nothing

mistakes itself

for something,

Nothing becomes obscured

by the something

it then knows

as itself.

And so when Consciousness

mistakes itself

for reality,

Consciousness becomes obscured

by whatever reality

it then knows

as itself.

And so Nothing,

the formless I am,

seems to become

I am this or I am that,

and so is known by Itself

as something.

And that something that Nothing

knows as itself

it refers to as "me."

And that "me"

is what we

refer to as ego.

And so Nothing

becomes entangled in the somethings

it is Itself creating

and which it alone knows

as something.

You may mistake yourself

for your reflection,

but because the reflection

is not actually you

it does not know.

And Nothing may mistake itself

for something,

but because something

is not actually Nothing

it cannot know.

Only Nothing can know,

because only Nothing actually is.

Everything else, all somethings,

are created by Nothing

and so only exist,

and so only appear

as what actually is.

And so even when you know

yourself to be something

and thereby obscure the Nothing

you actually are,

that Nothing is still there

hiding behind the something

you now appear to be,

because if it wasn't

then you wouldn't

Of course God

is omnipresent and omniscient.

Is not clay omnipresent

in a piece of pottery?

And because Consciousness is the clay

from which the Universe is moulded,

that which is everywhere present

is also all-knowing.

The omnipresence and omniscience

of what we call God,

of what we call Consciousness,

is nothing special,

for it is simply a function

of the nature of the Universe

which includes the nature of That

of which the universe is composed.

It is only because we see the Universe

as being composed

of something other than God,

of something other than Consciousness

that it seems so special

that the Universe is pervaded

by That out of which it has been constructed

and so by That of which it is actually composed.

That the universe contains

something other than God,

something other than Consciousness,

is an illusion.

That which the universe contains

that is other than God,

that is other than Consciousness,

is an illusion.

The illusion is not separate from God,

not separate from Consciousness,

for the illusion has God-Consciousness

as its source.

But the illusion,

although not separate from God,

although not separate from Consciousness,

is still not That.

As a shadow

cannot be separated from the light

that is its source,

so it is that experiential form,

emotional, mental, and physical,

cannot be separated from the Consciousness

that is its source.

But a shadow,

while inseparable from the light

that is its source,

is still not that.

And experiential form,

while inseparable from the Consciousness

that is its source,

is still not That.

Both shadows and form are appearances,

and appearances are something other

than what is actually there

where the appearance

appears to be.

A shadow is an appearance

that is superimposed upon

what only seems to be

what is actually there.

A shadow is an appearance

superimposed upon an appearance,

because a shadow is an experiential form

superimposed upon experiential form.

Experiential form is an appearance

superimposed upon That

which cannot appear

as an experience,

as a form,

because it is formless.

Experiential form is an appearance

superimposed upon

the formless Consciousness

that is actually there

where all experiential forms

only appear to be.

That Consciousness

could contain within Itself

something other than Itself

seems absurd and impossible.

But what Consciousness

contains within Itself

that is not Itself

is not something

that is actually there

but is something that only appears

to be actually there,

as a shadow only appears

to be a something

that is actually there.

And so there is nothing within God

that Is,

that is not God.

And there is nothing within Consciousness

that Is,

that is not Consciousness.

That which only appears to be,

that which only appears as what is,

is that within God

that is not God,

is that within Consciousness

that is not Consciousness.

And so of course God pervades the Universe

because what appears as the Universe

of experiential forms

are just very colorful shadows

superimposed upon

the formless Consciousness

that is actually there

where those experiential forms

only appear to be.

God pervades

what seems to be there,

what appears to be there,

because God is

What Is Actually There.

Consciousness pervades

what seems to be there,

what appears to be there,

because Consciousness is

What Is Actually There.

That there is something actually there

other than God,

other than Consciousness,

is an illusion made possible

by the shadows of experiential form

that come into existence

within What Is Actually There,

where What Is Actually There meets Itself

in agreed upon opposition to Itself,

as a line arises and so exists

where a hand has agreed to have

the tips of two fingers meet.

When this illusion

is not known to be an illusion,

when what appears to be there

is not known to be 

only an appearance,

then the reality of experiential form

obscures the greater Reality,

obscures the underlying Actuality,

that is its source,

and so hides in plain sight

the greater Reality and Actuality

from Itself,

as a reflection not known as reflection,

not known as only appearance,

hides in plain sight

the mirror within which it arises.

Obscured from Itself

the greater Realty

is left only with form

to think of and know

as itself.

And so the cosmic Self

becomes hidden from Itself

behind what are only shadows,

behind what is only

a mask of experiential form.

It only surprises Consciousness 

to realize Itself as being everywhere

when Consciousness first steps out

from the shadows of experiential form,

which it wore as a mask

that kept hidden from Itself

its own ubiquitous Presence.

If you think that what is actually there

is really a rock

composed of matter and energy,

if you think that what is actually there

is only the appearance,

and the names we give to that appearance,

which names are themselves only an appearance,

shadows superimposed upon a shadow,

then it seems either unbelievable or surprising

that what is actually there,

where the rock appears to be,

is pervaded by Consciousness.

But if you can understand

that what is actually there

where the rock appears to be

is Consciousness

moving in relation to Itself,

flowing in relation to Itself,

and in that movement and flow

taking on a transient Form

that appears to us,

with our particular sensors,

as the even more transient form

that is the experience we call rock,

then the idea

that what is actually there,

where the rock appears to be,

is pervaded by Consciousness

becomes as obvious as the idea

that a pot made from clay

is pervaded by clay.

And once this idea becomes obvious

which idea is itself only a form,

only an appearance,

then the direct realization

of What Is Actually There

beyond all appearances

is not far behind.

Because once the illusion

is known as illusion,

once the appearance

is known as appearance,

instead of as

what is actually there,

then its power to obscure

What Is Actually There

simply vanishes,

as the power of a reflection

to obscure a mirror

simply vanishes

the moment the reflection

is no longer being taken,

and so is no longer mistaken,

for what is actually there

where it only ever

appeared to be.

And so the power of maya

by which the Formless

appears as the Universe of form

does not lie in the illusion,

does not lie in the appearance,

but lies only within the Beingness

only within the Consciousness,

that sees the appearance

as what is actually there,

and so turns

what is only an appearance

into an illusion

and so turns the appearance,

and so turns the experience,

into something

that appears to have the power

to hide Beingness from Itself.

And so any power an appearance has

to become an illusion

that hides Beingness from Itself

comes only from Beingness

that continues to entangle Itself

in the appearance,

that continues to mistake itself

for the appearance.

And so Beingness

that has disentagled Itself

from all appearances

does not give to appearances

the power they need

to become the illusion

that hides Beingness from Itself.

The power to obscure

does not ultimately lie in the veil

but ultimately lies only in That

which causes the veil to arise.

The power to obscure

does not lie in the creation,

only in the Creator.

And what is obscured

is never the creation,

but only the Creator.

But the only Creator

that is ever obscured

is only that Creator

which is mistaking itself

for what are only

its own creations,

for what are only

appearances and shadows

that arise within Itself,

that are created within Itself,

that come into existence within Itself,

as it flows in relation to Itself.

Do not abdicate your throne,

the throne of the Actual,

to what is only an appearance,

because to do so is to live in service

to the appearance,

to the imposter we call ego,

to which you have unknowingly

given your crown.

The changing

is just the Unchanging

flowing through Itself.

The changing

is just the Unchanging

moving in relation to Itself.

The changing

is just the appearance

of the Unchanging

as it flows through Itself.

The changing

is just the appearance

of the Unchanging

as it moves in relation to Itself.

The Universe

is just the Unchanging

flowing through an opening

that has arisen within Itself.

And within the Universe,

within the Unchanging

that appears as the changing,

other openings arise

through which the Unchanging flows.

Openings within openings,

flows within flows.

What we call Stars

are themselves openings

through which

the Unchanging flows.

And everything we call life

is itself an opening

through which

the Unchanging flows.

This is why Tolle says

you do not have a life

but that you are Life.

Because what you are

is not the form that arises,

not the pattern of flow,

not that which changes,

as these are only appearances

that arise on the surface

of That which flows,

of That which is Life.

And what you are

is That which flows,

That which is Life,

That which is Unchanging,

flowing through an opening

that has arisen within Itself.

And so the unchanging Beingness

that flows forth as the Universe

and then flows forth

as the light of the Stars

is not separable from

nor other than

the unchanging Beingness

that flows through the body

and so animates the body

thereby giving it

what we call life.

And that unchanging Beingness

which flows forth as the Universe

and as the light of the Stars

and which animates the body,

is not separable from

nor other than

the Formlessness by which

the Universe, the Stars, and the body,

are all known as form.

And so what it is

that is actually there

most directly

where you are

is not separable from

nor other than

what it is

that is actually there

most directly

where everything else is.

Because what is actually there

most directly where you are

and what is actually there

most directly where everything else is

are not the forms

that appear to be

what is actually there,

but is the formless Consciousness

by which all those forms are known

and within which all those forms appear.

And so the difference between

what is there

where you are

and what is there

where everything else is

is only an appearance,

only a reflection

that arises on the surface

of the unchanging,

singular,

and formless Beingness

that is actually there

where all form,

including your idea of yourself,

only appears to be.

The Changeless appearing

as that which changes.

The Formless appearing

as form.

The One appearing

as the many.

Lost in the appearance,

identified with the appearance,

the underlying Actuality vanishes

while always still there

as That which is aware

of all appearances,

leaving only the appearances

to be known as real,

and leaving what is actually there

completely unaware

completely unconscious

of Itself

and so completely unknown

to Itself.

In this way the Changeless,

while flowing through the opening

that is the human Form,

becomes lost

in a matrix of form.

And so humanity seems trapped

within that matrix,

within the matrix of form.

But beyond that matrix

is not some hidden hellscape,

but is the paradise lost

of our own formless Being.

It is the matrix of form

in which we are lost,

in which we have trapped ourselves,

that is the hellscape,

the arena of suffering,

we wish to escape.

But escape does not come

through our reactive efforts

to eliminate this form

or acquire that form.

Such efforts only cause

the underlying Actuality

to remain hidden,

thereby causing

the matrix of form

to continue to appear

as either the ultimate reality

or as the only reality.

And so escape does not come

through any conflict

with what is,

regardless of its appearance,

because conflict with what is

is actually,

beyond the matrix of form,

beyond the level of appearance,

the conflict with our hidden Self

that produces both the illusion

and the suffering

we are trying to escape.

Escape comes

once one realizes

there is actually no spoon,

but only the appearance of a spoon,

thereby allowing the Formlessness

which underlies all appearances,

and by which all appearances are known,

to reappear,

as a pool of water,

hidden in plain sight by a reflection

that appears on its surface,

reappears,

once that reflection

is no longer mistaken

for what is actually there.

Escape comes

once we see past the appearance,

once we see past the illusion,

that made poking ourselves in the eye

with a pointed stick

seem like a good idea.

Escape comes

once we cease to be in conflict

with what is,

regardless of its appearance.

Escape comes

once we cease to be in conflict

with what is ultimately,

beyond the matrix of form,

beyond the level of appearance,

our Self.

To be born human

is to take the blue pill

of form-identification

that causes one's true Self

to become hidden

behind the matrix of form.

But to be born human

is also to be offered

the red pill of Awakening.

But the choice

between red pill and blue pill,

between Awakening and remaining asleep

within the matrix of form,

is not made just once

but is being made continuously

in each moment,

Now,

according to our non-reaction or reaction

to the forms that are arising

within our Consciousness

Now.

And so the Unchanging,

as it flows forth into the Universe

through the human Form,

offers Itself the choice

in each moment,

Now,

to either Awaken

or remain asleep

to its true and essential nature.

Understanding that,

the only question

that remains truly important

is not which pill

I chose to take

in some past moment,

which past moment

is only an appearance

within the matrix of form,

nor which pill

I will choose to take

in some future moment,

which future moment

is also only an appearance

within the matrix of form.

The only question

that remains truly important

is which pill

am I choosing to take

Now,

in this moment,

because this moment

is the only moment

there ever actually is,

and so is the only moment

that lies forever beyond

and forever untouched by

the web of appearances

All experience is a story,

something said about

What Is Actually There

as viewed from

a particular perspective.

But the story is never

and can never be

What Is Actually There.

And so all stories,

no matter how accurate,

are a sort of fiction

because no story

can truly capture

What Is Actually There.

The moment one speaks about

What Is Actually There

one has told a story

that must deviate in some respect

from What Is Actually There.

For What Is Actually There

is not a story,

for What Is Actually There

is not an experience,

is not a form.

What Is Actually There

is formless.

This too is a story

that is accurate

and yet is a fiction

because it still is not

What Is Actually There.

Religion tells a story

about What Is Actually There.

Science tells a different story

about What Is Actually There.

LaoTzu also told a story

about What Is Actually There.

Lao Tzu knew

that he was only telling a story

about What Is Actually There.

Religion and science,

on the other hand,

each believe they have captured

in their stories

What Is Actually There.

Because Lao Tzu knew

that he was only telling a story

What Is Actually There

was not obscured

and so he was able to describe it,

to tell a story about it,

with great and timeless accuracy.

On the other hand,

because religion and science

each believe they have captured

What Is Actually There

in their stories about

What Is Actually There,

What Is Actually There

is hidden from them,

and so their stories about

What Is Actually There

become increasingly inaccurate

with the passage of time.

How can one tell a story

with any accuracy

regarding That which one cannot see,

and which one can only obscure further

when speaking about it

while not recognizing the difference

between That which the story is about,

between That which any story about it

can only ever point toward,

and the story itself?

The more the descriptions,

the more the stories

are mistaken for

What Is Actually There,

the more What Is Actually There

becomes obscured.

And the more obscured

What Is Actually There becomes,

the more the stories deviate

from the truth

of What Is Actually There.

And so religion now tells the story

of a vengeful and jealous god,

of an egoic god,

that is completely separate from its creation,

completely separate from the universe

and the beings that dwell within.

While science now tells the story

of a godless and lifeless universe

composed of energy and matter

that gives rise by pure chance

to the phenomena

of life and consciousness.

Increasing belief

in the story told by science

has lessened the belief

in the story told by religion.

The ironic thing is,

with respect to What Is Actually There,

the story told by religion,

as inaccurate as it is,

is somewhat more accurate

than the story told by science.

Because the story told by religion

about What Is Actually There

at least contains a character

that represents an intelligence,

a consciousness,

that underlies what we perceive and conceive

as the universe,

and so contains a character,

however distorted,

that has as its basis

What Is Actually There.

Whereas the story told by science

about What Is Actually There

eliminates that character

from its story altogether,

and in so doing

removes from its story

any mention

of What Is Actually There.

Science is very accurate in its story

about what lies at the surface

of  What Is Actually There.

But in mistaking what lies at the surface

of  What Is Actually There

for What Is Actually There,

science has mistaken

what is only a reflection

that lies upon the surface

of What Is Actually There

for What Is Actually There,

and in so doing

has completely obscured

what it thinks,

what it believes,

it is describing.

Science believes it is describing

What Is Actually There.

But what science is actually doing

with its present story

about the nature of reality

only obscures more effectively,

more completely,

more thoroughly,

What Is Actually There

underlying the surface reflection,

underlying the story,

that is experiential reality.

And so in telling its current story

about What Is Actually There,

science is not revealing to humanity

What Is Actually There,

but is obscuring from humanity

What Is Actually There,

and so is hiding from humanity

both the true nature of humanity

and the true nature of the universe.

For What Is Actually There

underlying the surface reflections,

underlying the shadows,

underlying the stories,

that we call experience,

that we call reality,

is what we truly Are

and what the universe truly Is,

which is not a story

but is the formless Consciousness,

the infinite Intelligence,

by which all stories are told

and by which all stories are known.

And What Is Actually There

can Itself be Known,

but it cannot be Known

as a story,

as a form,

as an experience.

What Is Actually There

can only be Known

as it Is,

once it is no longer obscuring Itself,

once it is no longer hiding Itself,

behind some form,

behind some story,

behind some experience,

that it once mistook for Itself,

that it once mistook for

What Is Actually There.

And once you Know

What Is Actually There,

once you Know

That by which all the stories are told,

and That by which all the stories are known,

then you Know

what you actually Are

and what the universe actually Is.

And once you Know That,

then the fairy tales one has been told

by both religion and science,

the mutually exclusive horror stories

of a lunatic god

and a meaningless universe,

become transformed into and retold as

a story more wondrous and wonderful

than any Storyteller,

while their true Self remains hidden,

could ever imagine.

What we experience as reality

is a perfect expression

of the relation of Beingness to Itself

that creates

what we experience as reality.

To be in conflict

with that expression

places what you actually are,

which is Beingness.

in conflict with Beingness,

in conflict with your Self.

To be in acceptance

of that expression

places what you actually are,

which is Beingness.

in alignment with Beingness,

in alignment with your Self.

The perfect expression

of the relation of Beingness to Itself

can appear as that which is wanted

or as that which is unwanted.

The perfection of the expression

does not lie

in the appearance of the expression

as wanted or unwanted.

The perfection of the expression

lies instead

in the way in which the expression,

appearing as wanted or unwanted,

perfectly reflects

and so perfectly expresses

the relation of Beingness to Itself

that creates the expression

Beingness is experiencing

as a reality.

And so the unwanted experience,

the unwanted reality,

is just as perfect

as the wanted experience,

just as perfect

as the wanted reality.

But we do not see it that way

when we do not see the Beingness

that is creating the expression,

that is creating the experience,

that is creating the reality.

Blind to Beingness

we see only the expression,

only the experience,

only the reality,

of wantedness or unwantedness.

Blind to Beingness

the wanted appears as perfect

and the unwanted appears as imperfect.

Blind to Beingness

and seeing the wanted as perfect

we cling to that perfect expression

hoping to make ourselves

more perfect.

Blind to Beingness

and seeing the unwanted as imperfect

we push away that perfect expression

hoping to rid ourselves

of the apparent imperfection

so that we can become

more perfect.

Blind to Beingness

we do not see the perfection

that we already and always Are.

Blind to Beingness

we see ourselves

as what is only an expression

an experience,

a reality,

a form,

that is actually being created  by

the formless Beingness,

and actually being apprehended by

the formless Beingness,

that we actually Are.

Clinging to the seemingly perfect

so that we can become more perfect

and pushing away the seemingly imperfect

so that we can become more perfect

are both actions that arise

from the same delusion,

which same delusion

is the identification of formless Beingness

with form.

And as both actions arise

from that same delusion

both actions must perpetuate

the singular delusion

from which they both arise.

For as long as Beingness

flows Itself into action

it knots into place

the underlying flow of Itself

that is the basis

of that action.

And so as long as Beingness

flows Itself into action

based on a delusion,

the flow of Itself

that is creating the delusion

must itself continue.

This is how Beingness,

once it identifies with form,

becomes bound by that delusion,

bound by the actions that seem so necessary,

bound by the actions it feels obliged to take,

once it knows itself as form

and so knows itself as that

which can be made more or less,

and so knows itself as that

which can be enhanced or diminished.

Seeming to be enhanced

by the apparent perfection

of that which is wanted,

and seeming to be diminished

by the apparent imperfection

of that which is unwanted,

form-identified Beingness

moves in attachment 

toward the wanted

and moves in aversion

toward the unwanted.

And in both of these Movements,

attachment and aversion,

form-identified Beingness

unknowingly and unconsciously

flows Itself

into a relation of conflict

with Itself. 

This is why

form-identified Beingness

creates suffering for Itself

when it tries to create

or modify reality,

when it tries to express Itself

while blind to Itself,

through the reactive and unconscious Movements

of attachment and aversion.

Because what we experience as reality

is a perfect expression

of the relation of Beingness to Itself

that creates

what we experience as reality.

And suffering

is the perfect expression of Beingness

that is in a relation of conflict

with Itself.

Suffering is the Beingness

that you actually Are

perfectly expressing Itself

as it flows Itself

into a relation of conflict

with Itself.

To change the expression

one must change the relation,

and to change the relation

one need only cease to react

with attachment and aversion

to whatever expressions

of wantedness and unwantedness

happen to be arising Now,

in this moment,

which is the only moment

there ever is.

For ceasing to react

with attachment and aversion

to the expressions that arise,

to the forms that arise,

within one's Beingness

within one's Awareness,

within one's Consciousness,

is not no action

is not no Movement,

but is actually the opposite Movement

of the Self-oppositional Movement

that simultaneously

blinds Beingness to Itself

while binding Beingness

to the delusion

that what it is

is what is actually

only an expression

that is being expressed and known

by Beingness Itself.

That is how Beingness unties Itself

from the knot of form-identification

by which it has bound Itself.

Not by tying more knots,

not through further reactive Movements,

but through the opposite Movement

which has already arisen

and in which Beingness is already engaged

the moment Beingness ceases to react

to the expressions of this moment,

to the experiences of this moment,

to the reality of this moment,

by instead accepting whatever forms

that are arising within Itself

in this moment

as the perfect expression

of Itself,

as the perfect expression

of what Is,

regardless of their appearance

as wanted or unwanted.

That is the Unconditioned

being unconditional.

That is the Unconditioned

being Itself.

That is the Unconditioned

moving out of ignorance

and into awareness

of Itself.

When the awareness of an illusion

that is not known as an illusion

fills the space of Awareness

there is no room left

for the awareness of Awareness.

This is how Awareness

becomes hidden from Itself.

Not because Awareness isn't there,

but only because Awareness mistakes

what only seems to be there

for what is actually there.

A reflection that rests on a pool of water

does not hide the water

unless that reflection is mistaken

for what is actually there

where the reflection

only appears to be

and the water

actually is.

And forms that arise within Awareness

do not hide Awareness from Itself

unless Awareness mistakes those forms

for what is actually there

where they only appear to be,

and in so doing

also mistakes those forms

for itself.

That forms exist is not an illusion.

That what exists is what is actually there

where there is only Is-ness,

where there is only formless Beingness,

is the illusion.

Reflections and shadows

are not illusions,

and do not by themselves

obscure what is actually there.

Reflections and shadows

only become illusions

and obscure what is actually there

when the Awareness that is aware of them

mistakes them for what is actually there

where they only appear to be.

And in the same way

form only becomes an illusion

and obscures What Is Actually There

when the Awareness that is aware of form

when the Awareness that is the Is-ness

that is actually there

mistakes form for what is actually there

where form only appears to be.

The world is an illusion.

The world is not an illusion.

Both statements are true.

Both statements are false.

Because the truth or falseness

of either statement

does not lie in what is known

as the world of form,

does not lie in what only exists,

but lies instead

in whether the Is-ness

that is aware of form

that is aware of what exists,

knows those forms

as what is actually there

where they only appear to be,

or knows those forms

as only seeming to be

what is actually there

where they appear to be.

The world of form can appear

as either a rope

or as a snake,

as something neutral and harmless

with no life of its own,

as it actually exists,

or as something pleasing or dangerous

with a life of its own,

as it appears to exist

when form is mistaken

for what is actually there

by the Awareness,

by the Is-ness,

by the Life,

that is actually there

where form only appears to be.

And so whether forms obscure

the underlying Is-ness from Itself

or reveal the underlying Is-ness to Itself,

as a reflection can hide or reveal

the underlying mirror within which it exists,

has nothing to do with

the existence of form,

but has only to do with

how that existence,

how those forms,

are being known by

and so appear to

the underlying Is-ness,

the underlying Awareness,

that is aware of them,

as either what is actually there,

or as what only appears to be

what is actually there.

When an illusion

is not known to be an illusion

then the illusion remains an illusion

and so continues to hide

what is actually there

where it only appears to be.

But when an illusion

is known to be an illusion

it is then no longer an illusion

and so no longer hides

what is actually there

where it only appears to be.

And so when form is no longer known

as what is actually there

where it only appears to be,

form no longer fills

the space of Awareness

leaving room then

for the awareness of Awareness,

leaving room

for the Is-ness to know Itself

as the Formlessness that is actually there

where the forms it once thought of as itself

still exist and so still appear,

although those forms no longer appear

as what is actually there

since they are now known,

when seen in the context

of the awareness of Awareness,

when seen in the context

of the awareness of formless Beingness,

to have only the appearance,

and not the actuality,

of being.

There is no material world,

other than as an idea,

as a form,

that exists only within the mind.

The world is not composed

of molecules

and atoms

and quantum stuff,

nor is it composed of energy.

These are all just words,

forms,

post-it notes,

that we affix

to what we perceive

and to what we conceive

as the world.

And having labeled

our perceptions

and conceptions

of the world

with these forms,

we then fall under the delusion

that we know

what is actually there

where the world appears to be.

However, what is actually there

where the world appears to be

is not a form,

but is a Formlessness

in motion

relative to Itself.

Formlessness in motion

relative to Itself

becomes Form

and yet what Form is composed of

remains the Formless,

as water remains water

no matter how much it flows and swirls

in motion

relative to itself.

And Form in relation to Form

begets form,

begets experience

begets what appears

as the world of form,

as a line arises

where two fingers meet.

And we give names

to those experiences,

to those objects,

to those forms,

and then we think we know

what is actually there

where the world of form

appears to be,

when all we have actually done

is obscure what is actually there,

as a reflection obscures a mirror

when the reflection is mistaken

for what is actually there

where it appears to be.

Because underlying the world of form,

underlying the experiential objects,

and the names, labels, and post-it notes,

that we have added and affixed

to those experiential forms

are Forms

that are composed of the Formless.

The Formless is itself

just a word,

just a form,

just a post-it note,

used to point toward That

which is beyond form

and so beyond naming.

Call what is actually there

where form appears to be

whatever you want.

It is not that.

That is why there is no material world,

other than as an idea,

an experience,

a form,

that arises within the Formlessness

by which all form is known

and by which all form is created.

The material world

is just a story,

a certain arrangement of forms,

that people tell each other

to try and explain

the world of form.

Greek mythology

was also a story,

a certain arrangement of forms,

that people told each other

to try and explain

the world of form.

And with regard

to what is actually there

where form appears to be,

both stories

are equally fictitious.

This too is just a story,

just a particular arrangement of forms.

But this story is not being told

to explain the world of form.

This story is being told

to point beyond form

toward the Formlessness

that is actually there

where form only appears to be.

The story of the material world

is composed of forms

and points back toward form

as being

what is actually there,

as being

of primary importance.

This story of the world

as composed of the Formless

is also composed of forms,

but it points toward something

other than form

as being

what is actually there,

as being

of primary importance.

And what this story points toward

as being what is actually there,

as being of primary importance,

is not separable from,

nor other than

the formless Consciousness

by which this story,

this set of forms,

is being known.

Consciousness cannot know Itself as form

because it is formless,

because it is a Formlessness,

but Consciousness can know Itself directly

as the Formlessness

by which all forms are known

and within which all forms

come into existence.

Lesser forms require Consciousness

in order to exist

but Consciousness does not require any form

in order to Be.

Consciousness Is,

forms exist.

Consciousness is the Isness,

the formless Beingness,

that through relation to Itself

brings form into existence

within Itself,

and then knows as experience

those forms

that it has created

and so which have arisen

within Itself.

And then somewhere along the way

in all this becoming of Form

and creation and knowing of form

the Creator mistakes itself

for its creation,

the Knower mistakes itself

for what it knows,

as the Formless mistakes itself

for form.

And in this misidentification

the Formless becomes obscured,

hidden from Itself,

so that all it then knows

is form,

like a mirror

hidden from itself

by a reflection that has arisen

within itself.

This is why the stories

the Formless tells Itself

to explain the world to Itself,

while deluded with regard to Itself,

and so while hidden from Itself,

point only toward form

and make no mention

of the Formlessness,

of the formless Consciousness,

in the theoretical absence of which

no form has ever been known.

How can a story

include a Character

of which the Author themself

remains oblivious?

The material world

is just another story,

just another fiction,

we tell ourselves

and each other,

that must have form

as the lead character

so long as the actual leading Character

remains hidden

behind a curtain of form

which that leading Character

is Themself creating

and then knowing

as their self.

And so we are not really

living in a material world,

other than in our own minds,

because what the world

is actually composed of

beneath the surface appearance,

beneath the reflection,

that is the world of form,

is the formless Consciousness

upon which that reflection rests

and by which that reflection is known

as the material world.

End of story.