User blogs

What profit it a man

if he gains the world

and loses his soul?

What profit it a man

if he gains the Treasure

as it appears in some form

and in so doing

loses sight of the actual Treasure

that is his own formless Nature?

We seek the Treasure

in this or that form,

and because we occasionally find it

we think that in form

is where it must always lie.

The Treasure is there

where there is both success and failure.

But we only allow ourselves to find the Treasure

when the form of the moment

takes the shape that we call success,

when the form of the moment

takes the shape that we call wanted.

For when the form of the moment

takes the shape that we call unwanted

then we deny ourselves access

to the Treasure that is always there,

where there is both success and failure,

where there is both wanted and unwanted.

But we promise to once again

give ourselves access to the Treasure,

but only once we have arranged

the form of the moment

into that which is wanted,

into that which we define as success.

And so we strive and strive

to arrange the moment

into a form that is wanted,

into whatever form we define as success,

so that we can have access

so that we can grant ourselves access,

to the Treasure that is always there

to the Treasure that is our birthright

to the Treasure that is our essential Nature.

And so we become our own slaves

driven on by the carrot

that is the promise to ourselves

that we will be given access to the Treasure

when the wanted is attained,

and driven on by the whip

that is the promise to ourselves

that we will be denied access to the Treasure

when the unwanted is obtained instead.

And both the carrot and the whip

are held by the master

that we call ego,

by the slave-driver

that is our form-identity.

For no one but ourself

can deny us access to the Treasure

that is our True Nature.

But the ego can only wield this power

as long as we believe

that form is what we are.

For once it is realized that the ego,

that some form,

is not what we are

then we have found the Treasure

within our Self,

then we have found the Treasure

that is our true formless Self,

unobscured by the wanted forms

that it only appeared to be.

And then it can be realized

that the Treasure that was found

that the Treasure we gave ourselves access to

in all the wanted forms,

in the pile of money,

in the promotion,

in falling in love,

in a baby's eyes,

in the sunset,

in the sunrise,

was all the same Treasure

appearing in different forms.

And then it can also be realized

that the Treasure that was hidden

that the Treasure we denied ourselves access to

in all the unwanted forms,

in the lack of money,

in the demotion,

in the loss of love,

we always really had access to

because it was always still there,

we just could not see it

because we were too busy

following the orders of the ego

trying to get rid of the unwanted,

trying to make room for the wanted,

and in so doing placing ourselves

in opposition to our Self.

For why does the Treasure

only seem to appear

when the wanted arises

and seem to disappear

when the unwanted arises

if the Treasure is always there

underlying both these forms?

Because when the wanted arises

we do not resist it,

and so we do not enter into

the relation of Self-opposition

that hides the Treasure from us,

that hides our formless Self from us.

And because when the unwanted arises

we do resist it,

and so we do enter into

the relation of Self-opposition

that hides the Treasure from us,

that hides our formless Self from us.

It is that simple.

In each moment we are involved in either

a relation of Self-allowing or Self-opposition,

and so in alignment with the Now,

or in conflict with the Now.

If you are not in one

then you are in the other,

and if you are in one

then you cannot be in the other.

But as long as we think that we are some form,

then even while involved in the relation of Self-allowing

that reveals the Treasure to us,

we still do not recognize what has actually been revealed,

because as long as we think that we are some form,

then the Treasure still appears as whatever wanted form

we are unconsciously and reflexively allowing,

and not as the Formlessness by which all form is known.

And from this position of form-identification

the Treasure is easily lost, easily hidden,

because as soon as some unwantedness arises,

which it always does,

then the unconscious and reflexive Self-allowing

that causes the Treasure to appear as some form

is replaced by the unconscious and reflexive Self-resistance

that obscures the Treasure

and leaves only suffering in its wake.

The ironic thing is,

by trying to make the unwanted go away,

we only create more of it,

and in the process only obscure more deeply

the Treasure we then seek

the Treasure we then have lost,

even though it is always here

right here where we are

as the Consciousness that seeks

the formless and endless Treasure

that is Itself.

There is no world,

there is no mind,

there is no me.

There is no this or that,

there is only what Is.

The world is this or that,

the mind is this or that,

me is this or that.

What Is is the Mirror

in which this and that arise.

And how do this and that arise

in the Mirror of what Is?

When the Mirror of what Is

bends upon Itself

a reflection arises in the Mirror

that is either this or that.

That reflection is never what Is,

is never the formless Mirror Itself,

but it does reflect, in its form,

the way in which the Mirror

is being in relation to Itself

in order to create the reflection,

in order to create the this or that,

that arises within Itself,

and which reflection, once created,

the Mirror then knows

as reality.

Reality seems to be what is there

where it appears to be,

but what is actually there

where reality appears to be

is the Mirror of what Is

that is both creating and apprehending

the reflection that arises within Itself,

owing to the way It is being,

in that moment,

in relation to Itself.

What Is Actually There

where a rock appears to be

is not hard.

What Is Actually There

where a rock appears to be

is neither hard nor soft,

but is empty,

devoid of form.

It is only when the formless Mirror

that Is where we are,

that Is what we are,

comes in relation to that same formless Mirror

that Is actually there

where the rock appears to be,

that a reflection arises within the Mirror,

that a form arises within the Mirror,

that a reality arises within the Mirror,

that we call hard.

The relation creates the reality,

and the particular relation

creates the particular reality.

One relation of the Mirror to Itself

creates this reality,

whereas the opposite relation of the Mirror to Itself

creates that reality.

The reality is not there

in the absence of the relation

of Isness to Itself

that creates it.

Nor is the reality what is actually there

even in the presence of the relation

of Isness to Itself

that creates it.

For what is actually there

is the Mirror of Isness

that is both creating and apprehending

as reality,

the reflection that has arisen within Itself

owing to its being

in relation to Itself.

That is why I say

there is no world,

there is no mind,

there is no me,

because these things, these forms,

that make up what we call the world,

that make up what we call the mind,

that make up what we call me,

that make up what we call reality,

are not what is actually there

where they appear to be,

nor are they actually there

as they appear to be.

These things, these forms,

of which the world, the mind, and the me are composed,

are thought to be there

as we apprehend them to be there

whether or not we are,

in this moment,

aware of them as being there.

This is an illusion

made possible by the mind,

because it is an illusion

that rests upon what is only a thought,

and so rests upon what is itself

only a reflection.

These things, these forms,

of which the world, the mind, and the me are composed,

only appear to be

where they appear to be,

and as they appear to be,

as long as we, as the Mirror,

are aware of them being

where and as they appear to be,

as long as we, as the Mirror,

are involved in the relation with our Self

that brings into existence within our Self

the particular reflection,

the particular form,

that we, as the Mirror,

apprehend as that particular reality.

In the absence of a mirror

there can be no reflection

and in the absence of Awareness

there can be no reality.

Why then do these things, these forms,

the this' and that’s that make up reality,

seem to be what is actually there,

where they appear to be,

if they are truly not

What Is Actually There

where they appear to be?

Because the Mirror has lost sight of Itself,

lost sight of What Is Actually There,

and so now what are only the reflections

that arise within Itself,

that arise within What Is Actually There

appear to be

what is actually there.

And how has the Mirror

lost sight of Itself,

and so lost sight of

What Is Actually There?

Because the formless Mirror

at some point, and for some reason,

instead of letting the thought "I am"

continue to flow forth from the realization

of its own formless Being,

instead chose to think

"I am this," or "I am that,"

and so made the mistake

of linking Itself to form,

and so made the mistake

of identifying itself with form,

with something that arises within Itself,

yet which is not actually Itself. 

And as long as the Mirror

knows itself as some form,

as some reflection,

as some reality,

that has arisen within Itself,

and so also mistakenly knows that reflection

to be what is actually there

where it only appears to be,

then What Is Actually There,

which is the Mirror Itself,

must remain hidden

while still in plain sight,

as a mirror becomes hidden

while still in plain sight

as long as the reflection that arises within it

is mistaken for what is actually there.

"I am" is a thought, and so is a form,

that points one toward the Formless,

and so points one toward their true Self,

because it is a thought that arises

from the direct realization of one's Self

as formless Beingness.

"I am this," or "I am that"

are also thoughts,

but they are thoughts

that point one toward form

and so point one away from their true Self,

because these are thought that arise

from the experience of one's self

as form. 

The relation of the Mirror to Itself

that is the direct realization of its formless Being,

that allows the Mirror to know Itself as it Is,

as the formless Isness,

while still in relation to Itself,

and so while still creating form within Itself,

while still creating the reflection "I am,"

is the opposite of the relation of the Mirror to Itself

that creates the reflections "I am this," or "I am that,"

which cause the Mirror to know itself as it is not,

as other than the formless Isness.

And because these relations are opposite,

they are also mutually exclusive,

meaning that while the Mirror is involved in one relation,

and thereby creating one reflection,

It cannot be involved in the other relation,

and so cannot create the other reflection.

This is why a long as we, as the Mirror,

know ourself as this or that,

know ourself as some form,

what we truly Are remains hidden

while still in plain sight

as the Formlessness

within which all form arises,

which is also the Formlessness

by which all form is apprehended.

Because knowing ourself as this or that,

knowing ourself as some form,

requires our involvement

in the particular relation with our Self

that creates that particular form,

that particular thought,

that particular reality,

within our Self.

And as long as we are involved

in that particular relation with our Self

creating that particular form,

that particular thought,

that particular reality,

and so knowing ourself in that particular way,

as this or that form,

it is simply not possible

for us to become involved

in the opposite relation with our Self

necessary to create the opposite form,

the opposite thought,

that points beyond reality,

necessary to create the "I am"

that would point us back toward our Self,

and simultaneously reveal to us

both our formless Nature

and the illusory nature of our form-identity. 

Consciousness is non-dual

but the reality Consciousness creates

through relation to Itself

is nothing but duality,

nothing but this or that form.

Know yourself as form,

as this or that,

and you cannot know yourself

as the Consciousness that you are.

For Consciousness to know Itself as Consciousness

still requires Consciousness to be in relation to Itself.

but Consciousness cannot be in the relation with Itself

in which it knows Itself as Consciousness 

while continuing to be involved

in the opposite and so mutually exclusive relation

in which it knows Itself as some form,

in which it knows "I am this" or I an that."

Because while involved in the relation

in which Consciousness knows Itself as some form,

in which Consciousness knows "I am this," or I am that,"

formless Consciousness must remain hidden from Itself,

while nonetheless always there in plain sight,

as the Formlessness which must be there

for there to be the apprehension of any this or that,

for there to be the apprehension of any form.

This is why so many seek

but so few find,

because the very action of seeking

while still identified with form

and so while still involved in the relation

that creates the form-identity,

that creates the idea "I am this," or I am that,"

must keep hidden the Formlessness

that is ultimately

what is being sought.

The difficulty is in realizing this conundrum

while still identified with form

and so while reality still appears

to be what is actually there

where it appears to be,

and so still seems to be

all there is,

and so still seems to be

of absolute importance.

You may not, in this moment

be able to disidentify with form,

and so you may not, in this moment,

be able to extract yourself from the relation

that keeps What You Actually Are

hidden from You.

But you can, in this moment

realize the relative nature of form,

realize form to be but a reflection,

realize reality to be but a reflection,

and in that way prepare

for the realization that will inevitably follow,

for the Mirror cannot remain long hidden

once the reflection begins to be recognized

for what it is,

and so therefore also begins to be recognized,

for what it is not.

For what a reflection is not,

and what it can never be,

is what is actually there

where it appears to be.

There is no world,

there is no mind,

there is no me.

There is no this or that,

there is only what Is.

Everything else is just a reflection.

Everything else is just reality.

And all reality,

emotional, mental, and physical,

only seems

so absolutely important

as long as What Is Absolutely Important

remains unavoidably hidden

by one's involvement in the relation

that creates the reflection,

that creates the form,

that creates the idea,

that creates the reality,

that reality,

that the world,

that the mind,

that the me,

are what is actually there

where they appear to be,

where there is only ever actually

the Mirror of Isness

the Mirror of Consciousness

in which all the reflections,

all the forms,

arise and exist,

and by which all the reflections,

all the forms,

are known as reality.

Reality is real

but the real

is not the Actual.

The Actual

is what is there

where the real

only appears to be.

A reflection is real

but still is not

what is actually there

where it appears to be.

And so it is

with all of reality

with all that we call real.

Caught up in the forms

that we call reality

we lose sight of the Actuality,

and so lose sight

of what is actually there

where the reflection we call reality

only appears to be.

And in losing sight

of what is actually there

where the reflection we call reality

only appears to be

we lose sight of ourselves.

And in losing sight of ourselves

we see only the forms,

see only the realities,

which then leads us

to the mistaken conclusion

that we too are a form,

that we too are a reality.

And so we become lost in a reflection

that only arises

within our now hidden Self.

And so we think that we are real.

But we are far more than real,

for we are the Actual

within which the real arises

like a reflection

on the surface of a pond.

So what is this Actuality

within which reality arises

like a reflection

on the surface of a pond?

It is not other than the Formlessness

which apprehends as reality

the forms that arise within Itself,

and which forms it mistakes for Itself

when it has lost sight

of it formless Self,

when it has lost sight

of its formless Being.

But that which is lost

can be found,

and that which is hidden

can  be revealed

once it is understood that

the forms that compose reality

are less fundamental

than the formless Actuality

upon which reality rests

and by which reality is apprehended

and known as real.

Know yourself as a reality,

know yourself as some form,

and you lose sight

of the formless Actuality

that you always are

always have been

and always will be.

For when you think that

what is only a reflection

is what is actually there

then the mirror

within which the reflection arises

becomes hidden

while still in plain sight.

But know yourself as the Actuality

and you do not lose sight of reality,

as a reflection does not disappear

once one recognizes

the presence

of the mirror

within which it arises.

Know yourself as the Actuality

and you only lose sight

of the related illusions

that reality is what you are,

and that reality is what is actually there

where it appears to be.

Because once you know yourself

as the formless Actuality

and not as some reality

you then know your Self

to be what is actually there

wherever the reflection

that we call reality

only appears to be.

Reality is real

but the real

is not the Actual.

The Actual is what you are.

The real is only

what you appear to be.

The real is only a reflection

that arises within the Actual

causing the Actual to appear

as if it were only real.

This is the essence of maya,

the essence of the illusion

by which Beingness,

by which the Actual,

hides Itself from Itself

while remaining always

in plain sight of Itself,

obscured only by that which

the Actual Itself

apprehends as real,

but obscured only

when the Actual mistakes

what it apprehends as real

for itself.

Reality is a thin veneer

that lies over and obscures

what is actually there

where reality appears to be.

How thin is the veneer of reality?

As thin as a reflection on a pool of water.

But that reflection can only hide

what lies below

as long as you think

it is what you are.

For when you think

it is what you are

you remain focused upon it

and what is actually there

remains hidden

while still in plain sight.

What is actually there

where reality appears to be?

What is it that remains hidden

while still in plain sight?

Nothing that seems important

as long as the forms

that you apprehend as and call reality

seem to be

of primary importance.

And that is how it remains hidden

while still in plain sight.

Because as long as you identify with the forms

that you apprehend as and call reality,

as long as you think those forms

are what you are,

those forms, those realities,

which are only reflections,

only a thin veneer,

seem more real

than the underlying Actuality

upon which they rest,

seem more real

than the underlying Actuality

by which they are apprehended and known

as reality. 

So what is actually there

where reality appears to be?

What is it that remains hidden

while still in plain sight?

It cannot truly be said,

because what is actually there

where the forms

that you apprehend as and call reality

appear to be

is not Itself a form

and so is not itself a reality.

And yet it Is,

else no form, no reality,

could ever exist,

or be known to exist.

And so what is actually there

where reality appears to be

can only be pointed toward

by saying that it is That by which

the forms that you call reality

are apprehended and known as reality.

And it can truly be said

that That which is not itself a form, not itself a reality,

and yet is That by which all forms are known as reality,

is what you truly are

and is also what you can know yourself to be

once you recognize reality

to be but a reflection,

to be but a thin veneer,

and so turn your attention

away from the reflection

toward what lies below,

toward what was always there

but was hidden

while still in plain sight

while your attention remained focused

upon the forms, upon the reality

that you only thought you were,

upon the forms, upon the reality

that you only seemed to be.

What we experience as reality,

emotional, mental, and physical,

is nothing more than the forms that arise

like a sort of boundary or etching

as That which is actually there,

as That which is beyond reality,

as That which is beyond words,

as That which is beyond conception,

flows in relation to Itself

and so becomes defined in relation to Itself,

and then apprehends as reality

the forms, the etchings, the boundaries,

that have arisen within Itself

as a result of its flow,

as a result of its movement,

as a result of its being,

in relation to Itself. 

And so it is not that reality

is not real,

because it is.

It is only that reality

is not really

what we are.

Put another way,

it is not the realness of reality

that is in question,

it is only the realness of reality

as what we are

that we need to question.

Of all the thoughts that we can think, perhaps the one that most thoroughly hides from us our nature is the thought that something should not be. And why do we have the thought that something should not be? Only because the mind holds what is only an idea of what it thinks should be.

But beyond both "should be" and "should not be" lies what is. And it is only there that one may find their true self.  "Should not be" places one in conflict with what is. And in that conflict with what is, one loses sight of their true nature, which is itself what is.

When we think that something should not be, we reject what is, and in rejecting what is we reject ourselves, because we are what is.

Thinking that something should not be is different from thinking  that one does not like something. One may or may not like asparagus. The mistake is in thinking that that which you do not like should not be, and that only what you like should be. We think that getting to what we like must somehow involve the elimination of what we do not like.

But both what we like and do not like, what we want and do not want, are both what is.

We have the ability to imagine what we would like to happen, and then act to try and make it happen. But what we would like to happen may not be what actually happens, may not turn out to be what is.

When what we want to happen corresponds to what is, then we are happy, because then the idea that what is should not be does not arise, and so we are not in conflict with what is. But when what we want to happen does not happen, when the should be does not correspond to what is, then the idea arises that what is should not be, and we are then in conflict with what is, in conflict with the Now, in conflict with ourselves, and we suffer.

Should be is only a picture we draw on a paper, an image that arises in the mind. For some reason we think that what is should correspond to this image, to what is only an idea, and when it does not the idea should not be arises, and there is then self-conflict, or conflict with the present moment, with the now.

Most people spend their lives trying to make what is correspond to the idea that has arisen in their mind of what should be, because when there is correspondence between the should be and the what is, conflict with one's self does not arise and so suffering does not arise, and instead the opposite of suffering arises.

But the illusion here is that the good feeling or happiness that comes from this lack of self conflict is coming from the particular situation or arrangement of forms that just happens to, in this moment, correspond to our idea of what should be.  And so we seek those forms or situations that correspond to what we think should be because we think that is where happiness is found, and we think we need to get rid of those forms or situations that do not correspond to what we think should be, because it seems that until they are gone, until they cease to be, there is no room for the what should be that we mistakenly think we need to be happy.

The actual source of happiness is the absence of conflict with one's self, and that can be had regardless of whether what is is or is not, in this moment, what is or is not wanted. It is only when one applies the idea "should not be" to that which is not wanted  that the self-conflict that creates suffering arises.

But because we do not recognize what is happening, because we are not conscious of what we are doing, it seems that the suffering we then feel has as its source the form we do not want, making that form seem even more unwanted and even more something then that should not be, when the actual source of that suffering is only our manufactured conflict with the what is that is masquerading as the unwanted form.

We have the habit of applying the label or thought "should not be" to whatever form arises in our awareness that is not wanted. But we are not aware we are doing this; it is automatic, unconscious.  And because we are not aware we equate what is not wanted to what should not be.

But we do not have to apply the label "should not be" to that which is not wanted. And when you don't label the unwanted as something that should not be, it may remain unwanted, but it will not then become the seeming source of your suffering, because you will then not be using it as an ingredient in the creation of the self-conflict that is actually the source of all suffering.

Freedom is finding happiness in what is, regardless of its appearance as wanted or unwanted.  Bondage is being able to find happiness, to not be in self-conflict, only when what is happens to correspond to the idea of what should be that has arisen in one's mind.

You cannot know your true self while in conflict with your self. You can only be in conflict with that which seems to be not self or other. Therefore, while manufacturing self-conflict by labeling what is what should not be, the true self remains hidden and appears as something other than self.

This is not to say that the ideas should be and should not be should not themselves be. They are also what is when they arise.

If you find yourself in conflict with this moment because you are thinking that something should not be, then you may begin to think that the idea "should not be" should itself not be, but there it is. To think that the ideas "should be" or "should not be" should themselves not be is to simply continue the unconscious process at a more subtle level.

This is why the solution always lies in simply being aware of what is, which means without labeling what is, in whatever form it appears, as either what should be or should not be.

Which means that if you do find yourself labeling what is as what should be or should not be, then the way out is not to continue the process by labeling those thoughts as themselves what should not be, but to instead see them as what is, in that moment, which is, after all, what they are.

The suffering, when it arises, is what is. The negative emotion, when it arises, is what is. The unwanted form, when it arises, is what is. "What is" is the shovel that allows one to dig one's self out of the hole of self-conflict rather than just dig the hole deeper using the shovel of what should and should not be.

That which sees cannot itself be seen.

That which hears cannot itself be heard.

That which feels cannot itself be felt.

That which knows cannot itself be known.

That which comprehends cannot itself  be comprehended.

What is seen and heard and felt and known are all forms.

That which sees and hears and feels and knows is formless.

And so in a world of sight and sound and feeling and knowing

That which apprehends it all has been completely forgotten,

or if it is remembered, has been cast aside

as unimportant, or as less important

than what is seen and heard and felt and known.

And so science holds that it is form

that gives rise to the formlessness

by which all form is apprehended. 

Science holds that when physical form

reaches a certain level of complexity

that formless Consciousness

poofs into being.

Science has no proof of this,

it is only an idea, a belief,

mistaken for fact.

Science has never even considered

the opposite possibility.

What is the opposite possibility?

That it is when formless Consciousness

reaches a certain level of complexity

that physical forms poof into existence.

How does that which is formless become complex?

By flowing in relation to itself,

over and over and over again.

When the formless first flows in relation to itself

the first forms that poof into existence

are what we refer to as emotions.

And so arises one level of complexity,

one level of reality,

composed of formless Being

flowing in relation to itself,

and then apprehending as experiential reality,

as emotional reality,

the forms that arise within itself

as it flows in relation to itself.

And then, while already flowing in relation to itself,

while already creating and apprehending emotional reality,

the formless flows in relation to itself again.

And when the formless again flows in relation to itself,

while already flowing in relation to itself,

the next forms that poof into existence

are what we refer to as thoughts.

And so arises a second level of complexity,

a second level of reality,

composed of the same formless Being

flowing in relation to itself,

and then apprehending as experiential reality,

as mental reality,

the additional forms that arise within itself

as it flows yet again in relation to itself.

And when the formless flows yet again in relation to itself,

while already flowing in relation to itself,

as it already flows in relation to itself,

the next forms that poof into existence

are what we refer to as physical objects.

And so arises a third level of complexity,

a third level of reality,

composed of the same formless Being

flowing in relation to itself,

and then apprehending as experiential reality,

as physical reality,

the further forms that arise within itself

as it flows once again in relation to itself.

Which seems more likely,

that form already is

and then somehow combines with itself

to somehow create that which apprehends form,

or that the formless already is

and then flows in relation to itself

thereby creating the forms

it then apprehends as reality?

Prior to the advent of quantum physics

it certainly seemed that form

had an objective existence

independent of the formlessness

by which it was apprehended.

But with the advent of quantum physics

it has become apparent

that how form appears,

that the form that is created,

has no existence

apart from the formlessness

by which it is apprehended.

Be in relation to what is there in one way

and this form appears.

Be in relation to what is there in the opposite way

and the opposite form appears.

This is called wave-particle duality.

And while being in relation

to what is there

in one way

so that this form appears,

it is not possible to be in relation

to what is there

in the opposite way,

and so not possible

to make the opposite form appear.

This is called uncertainty.

Wave-particle duality and uncertainty.

The two pillars upon which all quantum theory rests,

and which two pillars refute the notion

that form has an objective existence,

or any existence,

apart from the formlessness

by which it is apprehended.

It is as if we had a machine made of wood

that we somehow thought produced trees.

And then someone came along

and took the machine apart

to the point where the parts of the machine

were found to have no existence

outside the context of the trees

they were thought to produce. 

How can a machine produce

that which its parts

cannot themselves exist without?

How can form produce

that which it

cannot exist without? 

Prior to quantum physics

there was the assumption

that in the absence of

an apprehending Consciousness

form still was.

And so it was possible to believe

that form could be

prior to Consciousness

and so could produce Consciousness.

However, quantum physics has shown

that in the absence of

an apprehending Consciousness

there is no form,

but only the potential

for form to arise.

This makes problematic the assumption

that in the absence

of an apprehending Consciousness

form still is,

making it no longer tenable to believe

that form can be

prior to Consciousness,

making absurd the notion

that form somehow produces

the formlessness,

the Consciousness,

by which it is apprehended,

and apart from which

it cannot be demonstrated

or said to even exist.

Name or think of one form

of which you are not conscious,

of which you are not aware.

It cannot be done.

Thus the dependence of form

upon the formless,

upon Consciousness,

revealed by quantum physics,

is really quite obvious.

And yet, because we live in a world

that places form first

dominated by a science

that places form first,

the findings of quantum physics

that reveal form to be

that which is created,

and so reveal form to be secondary,

are simply ignored,

because those findings conflict

with the preconceived notion,

with the belief,

that form is primary

and Consciousness secondary.

Such is the nature of beliefs,

such is the nature of thoughts,

such is the nature of forms,

that because they are created

by the involvement in a relation

of the formlessness which apprehends them,

that while held to,

while being created by the formless,

and so apprehended by the formless,

they make impossible the creation and apprehension

by that same formlessness

of any opposite beliefs, thoughts, or forms.

This is also uncertainty,

only now operating at the level of thought creation,

where mental form is created,

rather than at the level of physical creation,

where physical form is created.

In the same way that a scientist's creation and observation of a particles' position

makes impossible their simultaneous creation and observation of its momentum,

a scientist's creation and apprehension of the idea of form as primary

and Consciousness as secondary

makes impossible their being able

to simultaneously create and apprehend

the opposite idea,

wherein Consciousness is seen as primary

and form is seen as secondary.

And so scientists have not really ignored

the findings of quantum physics

with regard to the relation

between form and formlessness

for the past one hundred years,

because one can only ignore

that which it is possible to apprehend.

Rather, scientists are blind

to the findings of quantum physics

with regard to the relation

between form and formlessness

because those findings

cannot even be comprehended

by any scientist, or any person,

that continues to maintain their belief

in the primacy of form.

Because to maintain that belief

requires one's continued involvement

in a relation

that makes impossible one's involvement

in the opposite relation

necessary to create

the opposite idea,

the opposite form,

wherein form would be seen as secondary,

or as that which is created,

rather than as that which creates.

Why do we apprehend emotional, mental and physical reality?

Science tells us that it is because

the form we call brain

became complex enough

to create Consciousness.

And yet science also tells us

that if we dig deep enough into form

there really is no form,

only the potential for form to arise

when observed by the formless.

And so why do we really apprehend emotional, mental and physical reality?

Because we are the uncreated formlessness

that is flowing in relation to itself

creating all these forms within our Self,

and then apprehending as reality

that which has arisen within our Self,

becoming more complex,

more entwined within our Self,

and yet remaining unchanged

in our essential nature

My philosophy is simple. That of which the universe is actually composed is not other than that which is aware of the universe. 

The universe seems to be composed of space and objects, whereas that which is aware of the universe is not an object, but is more like the empty space in which objects reside.

Objects have form, space is formless, or at least appears formless. (Space actually has a subtle cellular form that science has yet to recognize, but which subtle cellular form Buckminster Fuller recognized as the cubic closepacking arrangement of spheres. )

On the other hand, that which is aware of the universe, and that of which the universe of forms is actually composed, is itself completely formless, completely devoid of form, although it gives rise to all forms.

The human condition is that, although we are the formlessness of which the universe of forms is actually composed, and so are also the formless awareness that is aware of the universe of forms, we think and so believe that what we are is a form, that what we are has form.

That is, we harbor within ourselves, within our awareness, within our formlessness, a form, an object, a thought, an idea, that tells us that what we are is a form.

It is not that we are a form, it is only that we think that we are a form. And all a thought is is itself a form. That is, a thought itself is nothing but a form. And so we have a form of which we are aware telling us that what we are is some other form of which we are aware, when all the while what we actually are is the formless awareness that is aware of those forms and gives rise to those forms.

Now all these forms are ultimately composed of what we are, composed of formlessness, composed of formless awareness, but that does not mean that what we are as that formless awareness is itself a form. Forms are created, we are not created, formless awareness is not created. Formless awareness is just what is.

Our identification of ourselves as forms would be as if water thought that it was just a whirlpool, just the pattern of flow, and not that which is flowing. This is a subtle but vital distinction, and is the difference between knowing what you are and being deluded with regard to what you are. 

In our misidentification with form it is not just that we do not know what we are, it is that we do know what we are, only what we know ourselves to be is not what we actually are, and is the opposite of what we actually are. If we had no knowledge of our nature this would be innocence. But what we have is ignorance, false knowledge, knowledge of ourselves as we are not, knowledge of ourselves as the opposite of what we are, knowledge of ourselves as form when what we are is formless. Thus we are not innocent with regard to our nature, we are ignorant and deluded with regard to our nature.

Were we only innocent it would be quite simple for us to realize our true nature. But because we harbor false knowledge of our nature, acquiring true knowledge is quite difficult, since we cannot acquire that true knowledge until we release our grip upon the false knowledge, and therein lies the difficulty.

The false knowledge we harbor regarding our nature, our idea of ourselves as forms, is mutually exclusive of the true knowledge of our nature as formlessness. That is, we cannot be simultaneously aware of ourselves as both form and formlessness. As long as we cling to the idea, to the form, that tells us that what we are is a form, we cannot become aware of our true nature as formless awareness.

To let go of the idea of ourself as a form while still believing ourself to be a form seems like an act of self-annihilation, and so we do not and will not do it. And so we spend our lives clinging to what is only an illusion, clinging to what is only an idea, clinging to what is only a form that arises within the formless awareness that we truly are, and which idea while clung to hides from us our nature as that formless awareness.

How can one stop knowing themselves as a form while still believing that what they are is a form? It cannot be done. It is like asking someone to let go of a rope to which they cling when it seems to them that if they let go they will plummet into a chasm of non-being. It is in our nature to be, since we are what is, and so it is not in our nature to act in a way that seems to us will lead to our not being. 

In this way our very nature, our true nature as formless Beingness, functions to perpetuate the illusion of our false nature once that false nature has been accepted as real.

We need make no effort to continue to be, nor to continue to be what we truly are, for what we truly are is what is. Effort is only needed to continue to cling to and sustain what we mistakenly think we are, and it is that effort to cling to and sustain our mistaken idea of ourselves, our idea of ourselves as form, that is the source of all suffering.  For it is this effort that places us in conflict with our nature, and it is conflict with our nature, with our self, that is the essence of suffering.

Effort = E-fort = the protection and fortification of what we consider to be our existence. The fortification and protection of our existence, or what we think is our existence, which is really only an idea or form that we have mistaken for ourselves.

Effortless being, that is what we truly are. Beings engaged in a constant effort to fortify and maintain a false identity is what we are doing. When Beingness recognizes its essential Beingness, it stops doing, and yet still acts. But when Beingness does not recognize its essential Beingness, continuous doing seems necessary to maintain the form identity, to maintain the false identity.

This continuous doing, or the seeming need for continuous doing, is what keeps the mind churning, is what keeps the mind producing an endless stream of thoughts, an endless stream of forms that seem more real and more important than the formless awareness that apprehends those thoughts.

Effort is needed to know yourself as you are not. No effort is needed to know yourself as you are.

One cannot, through some effort, cease effort, for that is itself an effort and so sustains the illusion of form-identity.

The rope of form-identity to which we cling is not saving us from annihilation, rather it is keeping us from realizing that our annihilation is not even possible.

We create the form to which we then cling, thinking that our continued being depends on our continued clinging. But how can our being depend upon something that we ourselves create, something that in the absence of our being, in the absence of our awareness, cannot even be known?

Take away awareness and there is no form, but take away form and awareness remains. 

We look into the Universe

and see that it consists

of both objects

and the space out of which

those objects arise.

But when we look at ourselves

we see only an object,

only a form.

And yet even our bodies

consist mostly of space,

just like the Universe

out of which we grow

like fruit on a tree.

We just don't see it,

so we pretend

that it's not there.

So we look at the Universe

and we see form and formlessness

but when we look at ourselves

we see only form

and not the Formlessness.

This is our first mistake,

if one wants to call it that,

and really our only mistake,

because all other mistakes

are just the continuation

of this one mistake.

And what is this one mistake,

that is not really a mistake,

but just a necessary part of the game

of cosmic hide and seek

that we came to play?

It is the twin ideas

that what we are

is only a form,

and that what we are not

is the Formlessness

in which all forms arise.

If someone said the Universe

consisted of only the objects

and not the space

that is also clearly there,

we would then say

they were either crazy or blind.

But when we know ourselves

as only an object,

as only a form,

and not at all as the Formlessness

that is also clearly here

where we are,

we call this normal,

we call this seeing things

as they are.

What is this Formlessness,

in which all forms arise?

What is it within yourself

that is formless?

I will give you a hint.

It is not your mind,

nor is it space,

for mind and space,

as formless as they may seem,

are themselves subtle forms,

from which the less subtle forms

of thought and matter arise.

For if neither mind nor space had some form,

if neither mind nor space had some structure,

no matter how subtle,

then the forms we call thought and matter

could themselves have no structure,

and so would themselves have no form.

So what is it within yourself

that is truly formless?

I will give you another hint.

It is That by which you know

both the subtle forms

of mind and space,

and the less subtle forms

of thought and matter

that arise within mind and space.

It has always been there,

you just do not recognize it

as either a valid part

of what you are,

or as the essential part

of what you are.

Which is more real,

form or Formlessness?

Which is more enduring,

the objects that arise in space

or the space in which

those objects arise?

The forms seem more real

than the Formlessness

when form is all

you know yourself to be.

But once you recognize

the part of yourself

that has been hiding from you,

and yet was always there

in plain sight,

then what once seemed most real

becomes the shadow

and what seemed to be the shadow

becomes what is most Real.

And then the game

becomes much more fun

becomes much more enjoyable

becomes much more filled with joy

and so less filled with the suffering

that seems to make this life

a burden, a task, a chore,

rather than the game

that it really always has been.

When you do not recognize

your True Nature,

you cannot recognize the Universe

as your Self,

and so then the Universe,

which is really your closest friend,

appears as your opponent.

And then what is really only a game

being played between friends,

being played with your Self,

appears as a battle

between sworn enemies.

And so we find ourselves

in almost perpetual conflict

with this or that form,

with this or that situation,

with this or that person,

with this or that nation,

because we do not see those forms

as our Self,

because we cannot see the Formlessness

within our own selves.

Blind to the Formlessness

of which all forms are composed

we are blind to That

which connects all forms,

and so blind to That

which makes all forms One.

Love thy neighbor as thy self

was not a command,

nor even a suggestion,

but simply a statement

regarding how one will feel

about the Universe of things,

about the Universe of forms,

once it is realized

that the Kingdom of Heaven

is truly within us

as the Emptiness,

the Formlessness,

the Fullness of Life,

that is already here,

has always been here,

and will always be here

Now,

in this Moment

as our true and essential Nature.

There is a subtle difference

between knowing yourself as form

and Knowing yourself as That

of which form is composed.

That of which form is composed

is Emptiness, Beingness, Formlessness,

whereas form itself

is just a pattern of flow

that arises

where Emptiness, Beingness, Formlessness

flows in relation to Itself.

Because form is composed

of That which is formless

it is easy for the Formless

to mistake Itself for form,

easy for That which flows

to mistake itself

for what is only a pattern

of its Own flow.

It is as if water

flows in the pattern

we call a whirlpool

and then thinks of itself

as only the form,

as only the pattern of flow,

and not as that which flows,

and in so doing

becomes blind

to its true nature.

When you are at home

you may be a father or a mother,

and when you go to work

you may be a boss or an employee.

But these are just forms,

whirlpools that arise,

where what you actually Are

flows in relation to Itself.

What you actually Are

is That which knows itself

as father or mother,

as boss or employee.

What you actually Are

is That which knows itself

as whatever form

you think of yourself as being.

What you actually Are

is That which knows itself

as whatever form

you think of as your being.

For That which knows itself

as these various forms,

which change according to circumstances,

does not Itself change

just because it flows

into this or that form,

as water does not change

just because it flows

in this or that pattern.

Find within yourself

That which does not change

as circumstances change,

That which does not come and go

as forms come and go,

and you will have found

your True Nature.

You are not

a pattern of flow

that comes and goes.

You are That which flows,

That which, in flowing

creates the patterns,

creates the forms,

that come and go.

And That which flows

is not other

than That which knows.

The modern day mythology

that is the philosophy of materialism

holds that Life arises

within an otherwise lifeless universe.

In our modern world

this mythology

is as pervasive

as the air we breath.

And although it is just a mythology,

just a set of experiences,

arranged in a particular way

to form what is only an idea

of the nature of reality

and how the universe is,

it has been mistaken for fact

and so has been mistaken

for how the universe actually is.

This is called mistaking the map

for the terrain.

And so we see Life

only where we see the ability

to organically reproduce.

And we see Consciousness

only where we see organic reproduction

produce humanity.

And so Life,

seen through the mythological lens

we call materialism,

becomes a by-product,

an accident,

something that only arises

through the chance interaction

of otherwise lifeless matter.

And so it is that Consciousness

seen through that same lens,

also becomes a by-product,

an accident,

something that only arises

through the chance interaction

of otherwise lifeless matter

that by chance happens to be

involved in the process we call life.

If materialism were actually true

how pointless our lives would be

and suicide would be

the only reasonable action

one could ever take.

If what we are is only an illusion,

then all that we actually live for,

love and joy and happiness,

must itself be only an illusion,

a shadow that appears on a wall

purely by chance.

And if that is true

then nothing is gained by living

and so nothing is lost by dying.

Why suffer day in and day out

for moments of fleeting happiness?

For the sake of the children?

But they too,

according to materialism,

don't actually exist either

any more than we do.

One shadow living and suffering,

and finding occasional happiness,

by keeping another shadow going,

who then lives and suffers,

and finds some happiness,

by giving birth to another shadow,

who then lives and suffers,

and finds some happiness….

And on and on it goes,

without any end,

and without any real point.

A completely pointless journey,

because according to materialism

there is really no one on the journey,

just a shadow

we call our Consciousness,

just an accident

we refer to as I.

But life is not pointless

because what we call our Consciousness

is not a shadow,

and what we refer to as I

is not an accident.

What we are is Life,

what we are is Consciousness,

but what we are

does not arise

at the very peak

of what materialism tells us

is a randomly evolving universe.

What we are is the Consciousness

that is Itself evolving

into the ever expanding Tree of Life,

which when viewed looking outward

from where we humans grow,

appears as the material universe,

and when viewed looking inward

from that same position,

appears as the mental universe.

But both appearances are deceiving,

the material and the mental,

because all that is really there  

is the Consciousness that creates both,

and apprehends both,

as it Flows in relation to Itself,

and so Grows into Itself.

As there is nothing in the apple

that is not first in the tree

from which it grows,

there is nothing in us

that is not first in the Universe

out of which we grow.

Life seems to arise

from within the Universe

because the Universe

is already Alive.

And Consciousness seems to arise

from within the Universe

because the Universe

is already Conscious.

Why would you believe otherwise?

Why would you conceive as yourself

as having attributes

that are separate and apart

from the Universe

out of which you grow,

like a fruit on a tree?

Because you were weaned on a mythology

that was created through the dissection

of the indivisible Universe,

the indivisible Life that you Are,

into seemingly separate parts.

When you dissect an organism

the Life that was there

animating the organism

seems to vanish,

and when you dissect the Universe

the Life that is there

animating the cosmic organism

we call the Universe

also seems to vanish.

But that Life is still there,

you just don't recognize it

because you have been told

it is something else,

something accidental,

something less real

than the objects It perceives.

I could say again what It is,

but I won't

because It is not that,

not a word,

not a form,

not a thought,

not an object.

But I will point toward It

by saying that

in the absence of It

no word,

no form,

no thought,

no object,

is ever known.

Realize what you are

and you will see your Self

in everything

and so everywhere,

or keep listening

to the siren song of materialism,

and continue to see yourself

in nothing

and so nowhere.

When the map one is using

accurately reflects the terrain,

then even while mistaking

one for the other,

one may still arrive

where one intended to go

when the journey began.

But when the map one is using

bears little relation to the terrain,

then in mistaking one for the other

losing one's way

becomes inevitable.

The map of materialism,

which humanity continues to use

in this journey that we are on,

bears very little relation

to the indivisible Universe,

to the intrinsically Alive Universe,

to the intrinsically Conscious Universe,

it pretends to describe.

Is it any wonder then

why the particular fruit of the Universe

that we call humanity

seems to have lost its way?