User blogs

Do not look to form for certainty.

Do not look to the Formless for definition.

The Formless can give you certainty.

Form can give you definition.

Do not look for in one

What can only be given

By the other.

The certainty that the Formless gives

Is its own Presence.

The definition that form gives

is its very existence.

The definition that form gives

Is knowledge.

The certainty that the Formless gives

Is Knowledge.

So it is that

The Formless cannot be defined,

Cannot be known,

As an object,

As a form,

But can be Known,

Directly,

As That which Is

In the absence of form,

And as That which still Is

In the presence of form.

The Knowledge that the Formless gives

Is the Consciousness of Itself.

Formlessness apprehending Formlessness.

The knowledge that form gives

Is the Consciousness of an object,

The Consciousness of a form.

Formlessness apprehending form.

Thus, both Knowledge and knowledge

Are apprehended by the same Formlessness.

It may seem that the Formless

That knows itself as an object,

As a form,

Is different or other than

The Formless that Knows Itself

As It Is,

As the Formless.

And so we venerate the Latter,

While denigrating the Former.

Seeing one as higher

And the other as lower.

But this is an illusion,

As the Formless Is One.

Non-dual.

Neither higher nor lower.

Only when viewed through the lens of duality,

The lens of form,

Does the Formless appear to Itself

As something other than One.

When viewed through the lens of form,

The duality inherent in form

Becomes superimposed upon That

Which Is forever Non-dual,

Eternally One.

A river may diverge for a short span

Before it meets up with itself again,

With one branch flowing smoothly

While the other may contain much turbulence.

If only the branches are seen,

There seem to be two different rivers.

But from a broader perspective

There is seen to be only one river

With two ways of flowing.

Those who Know

Only venerate,

Because they see only the One.

Those who only know

Both venerate and denigrate

Because they see the one and the other.

Those who Know

Are not better than

Or other than

Those who only know.

Those who only know

Just know something

That those who Know

Do not.

Those who only know

Are filled with the forms that arise

Where the Flow of the River Is turbulent.

Those who Know

Are filled with the Formlessness That Is

Where the Flow of the River

Is smooth or turbulent.

Sometimes I Know,

While at other times

I only know.

When I Know

I Know that whether I Know or only know

Does not really matter.

For when I Know,

I Know that when I only know

That I am not something other than

What I Am

When I Know.

But when I only know

That Knowledge is obscured,

And it then seems

That when I only know,

That I am something less

Than what I was

When I Knew

What I no longer Know.

And so when I only know

I try to add to myself,

To find myself,

And in so doing

Just create more turbulence.

And when the Flow becomes rough enough

I wake up again

And Know.

Such a game.

Such a ride.

We can easily say yes to the wanted, but tend to say no to the unwanted. Yet the unwanted is just as much our creation as is the wanted. To reflexively allow the wanted while reflexively resisting and rejecting the unwanted is the reactive and unconscious state in which most humans spend their lives.

In this state there is only the illusion of freedom, as we are really then the slave of external circumstances; feeling good when the wanted arises and we reflexively allow it and feeling bad when the unwanted arises and we reflexively resist it. This leads to chasing after the wanted so that we can, in reflexively allowing it, feel good, while fearing the unwanted, since in our reflexive resistance to it, we will feel bad.

In all of this we do not realize that the good and bad feelings, the wanted and unwanted emotions, do not inhere in the external circumstances that seem to produce them, but instead are produced by the internal relation of Self-allowing or Self-resistance in which What We Actually Are becomes involved with Itself as we reflexively allow or say yes to the wanted and reflexively resist or say no to the unwanted.   

How can we know there is this internal relation occurring when we do not know What We Actually Are? We cannot and so we do not. This is why the emotions, good and bad, wanted and unwanted, seem to come from or inhere in the external circumstances with which they are associated.

Some external unwantedness arises and we reflexively say no to it, internally push against it, internally resist it, and this creates an internal relation within our own Being that produces an unwanted emotion, which is just a created form that arises within, and so is apprehended by, our Being. Or some external wantedness arises and we reflexively say yes to it, internally allow it, internally do not resist it, and this creates an internal relation within our own Being that produces a wanted emotion, which is also just a created form that arises within, and so is apprehended by, our Being.

But when we are blind to What We Actually Are, when What We Actually Are has been obscured, as is the case when there is only the awareness of the form-identity, when there is only identification with form, then there can also be no awareness of this internal relation of Self-allowing or Self-resistance, Self-alignment or Self-opposition, that is actually producing the emotional form, and so the created emotion, the created form, whether wanted or unwanted, good or bad, must then seem to inhere in or emanate from the external circumstance that we are either reflexively allowing or resisting. 

And so something arises that we do not want, some circumstance, perhaps one's partner or spouse is doing something that is unwanted, and so we reflexively resist that external unwantedness and so become unknowingly involved in an internal relation of Self-opposition, which then creates an unwanted emotion that we then associate with the unwanted circumstance or behavior we say, "you have made me mad " or "you have made me feel bad," not knowing that it is only our own unconscious and conditioned reaction to the circumstance or behavior, which creates an internal relation within our own Being, that is actually producing the emotional unwantedness, the emotional form, that truly seems from the unconscious or conditioned perspective to be caused by the circumstance or person.

And the same is true of emotional wantedness. That is, something arises that we want, some circumstance, perhaps one's partner or spouse is doing something that is wanted, and so we reflexively allow that external wantedness and so become unknowingly involved in an internal relation of Self-alignment, which then creates a wanted emotion that we then associate with the wanted circumstance or behavior we say, "you have made me happy" or "you have made me feel good," again not knowing that it is only our own unconscious and conditioned reaction to the circumstance or behavior, which creates an internal relation within our own Being, that is actually producing the emotional wantedness, the emotional form, that again truly seems from the unconscious or conditioned perspective to be caused by the circumstance or person.

Conversely, when one becomes aware of themselves as the Creator of form, then it becomes possible to understand how the different relations of the Creator to Itself create what the Creator apprehends as different forms, and especially as the different emotional forms, in which case it then becomes possible to see beyond the illusion that makes the characteristics of emotional wantedness or unwantedness seem to inhere in the form one is either allowing or resisting, respectively, which in turn helps to lessen one's attachment and aversion to form, i.e., one's desire of and fear of form, either seeking form as the source of good or running from form as the source of bad.

We are the Creators of form.  We are not created by form, nor are we form. We are the Formlessness in which form arises and by which form is apprehended. And what causes form to arise so that we can apprehend it? Always some relation of Formlessness to Itself. And there are really only two fundamental relations of Formlessness to Itself: Self-alignment or Self-opposition. With Self-alignment comes Self-knowledge, knowledge of one's true Nature, as well as the absence of suffering, whereas with Self-opposition comes Self-ignorance, the obscuring of one's true Nature, as well as the presence of suffering.

So it is that, as Eckhart Tolle often states in one way or another, the opening or doorway to What We Actually Are lies in becoming friendly with the present moment, with the Now, and so lies in ceasing to oppose what is, whatever form it takes.

This is becasue the conscious decision to cease to oppose what is, to cease to oppose whatever forms are arising in this moment, in this Now, within your Awareness, is simultaneously a conscious decision to internally align your Being with What Is, to internally align your Being with Itself. 

There are only these two relations, Self-alignment and Self-opposition, and if you are not actively involving your Being in one, then you are actively involving your Being in the other, because What Is, What You Are, by virtue of the fact that It Is and so cannot help but Be, must Be in some relation to Itself: either Flowing in alignment with Itself or Flowing in opposition to Itself, and so must in each moment, in what is always the Now, be creating either Self-knowledge and the absence of suffering or Self-ignorance and the presence of suffering, respectively.

Suffering is the diminishment of the Flow of What We Are to What We Are that comes with the internal relation of Self-opposition, whereas the absence of suffering, or the Fullness of Life, is the full or undiminished Flow of What We Are to What We Are that comes with the internal relation of Self-allowing.

Saying that What Is must be involved in either a relation of Self-alignment or Self-opposition is not saying that What Is is dual, or not One. What Is is singular, or non-dual. It is the relations of the non-dual What Is to Itself that create the forms that are themselves always dual, always this or that, wave or particle, good or bad, wanted or unwanted, yin or yang, which created forms then create the appearance of duality, or the appearance that reality is ultimately dual. But beyond that apparent duality lies the one Being, the one Consciousness that is, through relation to its non-dual Self, creating and apprehending the duality of form.

It seems that Consciousness has no choice but to be involved in some relation with Itself, but that it is able to choose which relation with Itself in which it is involved; aligned or opposed. However, it may be that it only seems like there is a choice from the perspective of unconsciousness, whereas from the perspective of enlightenment there is perhaps really no choice at all.

Would you like a nice massage or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick? There is certainly the appearance of a choice but only a madman would choose the latter over the former. Would you like the Fullness of Life or suffering. Here too there also appears to be a choice, but only Consciousness that seems to have lost sight of Itself seems to choose the latter over the former.

Consciousness seems never to be intentionally creating suffering, but only does so when unconscious. It always seems to be the intention of Consciousness to feel better, to create wantedness for Itself. It's just that once Consciousness loses sight of Itself the mistaken idea arises that the way to get to what it wants, whatever that might be, is through some sort of opposition to what is, which opposition to what is then perpetuates the Self-ignorance that makes opposition to what is seem like a good idea, i.e., like a way to get to the good, or even back to God, back to Itself. 

And so Consciousness is always really making the same choice, to move toward a greater wantedness, toward the ultimate good, which is, whether It knows it or not, always Itself. The difference then is not in the choice that is being made, for that is always the same; rather, the difference lies only in the two different contexts in which that singular choice is being made, i.e., the context of Self-knowledge or the context of Self-ignorance.

That singular choice, made or exercised from within the context of Self-knowledge, produces that which is not-suffering. That same choice, made or exercised from within the context of Self-ignorance, produces suffering. The difference then lies neither in That which is making the choice, nor in the choice that is being made, for both are singular in Nature. Consciousness that is in a state of Self-knowledge is not separable from or other than Consciousness that is in a state of Self-ignorance, which is why both, as it were, always make the same choice. The difference then can only lie in the apparent difference in the nature of the forms that are produced and apprehended by singular Consciousness operating within these two different contexts, within what appear to be these two different states of its own singular Being.

The forms are different, some are wanted and some are unwanted. some are this, some are that, but they are not Real, they are only real, they are not What Is, they are only what exists, only what comes out of or out from the Is-ness. However, what gives rise to or creates the different forms, the different experiential realities, the always dual forms, is not Itself ever actually different, is neither wanted nor unwanted, but is rather the singular inseparable non-dual formless Is-ness that can never Itself be a form, and so can never Itself actually be spoken, can never itself actually be a concept, can never itself actually be a word, but can only be pointed toward using the forms that both arise within and are apprehended by It.

I am through living as a slave to external circumstances.  Feeling good when good things happen, feeling bad when bad things happen. I do not control when good things happen, nor do I control when bad things happen.  Things just happen. 

I may create the illusion that I control when things happen, as I am able to pick up an object and move it from here to there, but even this is only an illusion.  For when things happen, good or bad, the cooperation of the entire universe is needed, since everything is connected, and surely even I, with my enormous ego, cannot be so deluded as to think that I control the entire universe.

And so if I do not really control when things happen, then what is the point of being happy when good things happen, as if my team has won, and being unhappy when bad things happen, as if my team has lost? Things just happen. What-Is is as it is.

There is no team me and team them, no me versus the universe, or me versus them, or me versus whoever, to win or lose. There is only Team Universe, Team Being, and everything and everyone is on that team, whether it seems so or not, whether they seem to be with me or against me in a given moment, helping me to score, helping me to get what I want, or preventing me from scoring, preventing me from getting what I want.

Both wanted and unwanted are going to happen. That is just the way it is. That is just what is. But suffering does not have to happen.

Suffering only happens when I see the universe as a contest of me versus it, where, according to the rules of that game, that contest, I must then oppose whatever happens that is unwanted, in order to make room for the wanted, and cling to whatever happens that is wanted, in order to not make room for the unwanted.

For in opposing whatever happens that is unwanted, and clinging to whatever happens that is wanted, I am in a state of almost perpetual reaction to and opposition to What Is, which state of opposition to What Is, by its nature, is a state of suffering. 

In opposing What Is I pinch myself off from the flow of what I truly Am. It is not coincidence that the words suffering and suffocation are similar. Suffocation occurs when the flow of air is cut off or decreased significantly to the organism. Suffering occurs when the flow of Being is decreased to the Being.

But how can the flow of Being be decreased to the Being? How is the flow of water decreased when the source of that flow remains full? Through some sort of resistance to the flow that is coming from the source.

Only Being can resist the flow of Being. And Being that resists the flow of Being, and thereby decreases the flow of Being to Itself, suffers, as the flow of Is-ness, the flow of Beingness to Itself, to its Being, is reduced.

Consider a river, and from that river flow outward many tributaries, many smaller rivers. The flow of those smaller rivers is dependent on the flow of the larger river, for the flow of those smaller rivers is but an extension of the flow of the larger river.

Now consider that one of the smaller rivers, for some reason, is able to turn its flow back upon its source, so that its direction of flow is now in opposition to the direction of flow coming from its own source.  In opposing the flow of its own source, in resisting the flow coming from its own source, the smaller river, without meaning to, reduces its own flow.  In a smaller river we would see this self-induced reduction of flow as the smaller river beginning to dry up.  

As Consciousness, we feel such a self-induced reduction of Flow as suffering, as the feeling of being more or less cut off from our true or larger Self.

Our own Flow of Consciousness, directed in opposition to what is also our own Flow of Consciousness, thereby providing resistance to that Flow of Consciousness, thereby reducing that Flow of Consciousness, which reduction in Flow of Consciousness is apprehended by the Consciousness that is reducing its own Flow as suffering, or the self-induced suffocation of its own Being.

Amazing. Why would I ever undertake such folly?

Because I think I am me, a me, a form, and so in conflict and competition with other forms for the acquisition of still other forms to add to and protect the me, the form, I think I am.

Knowing myself as the River the idea to oppose myself does not arise.

Knowing myself as me, as a form, I feel obligated to oppose what is, when what is appears as something unwanted.. Knowing myself as me, I do not realize that opposing what is actually places me in opposition to what I actually Am. Knowing myself as me, I do not realize that I am creating the deep suffering, the suffocation of Being, that accompanies the unwantedness that I feel obligated to oppose. Knowing myself as me, and so not realizing that I am creating the suffering I feel,  that suffering then seems to come from and be a part of the unwantedness I am opposing, causing me to then redouble my efforts at opposing what is, thereby increasing my suffering and the seeming need to oppose what is in order to reduce the suffering that I am myself, through my opposition to what is, unknowingly creating.

This is the insanity that is, for the ego, for the form-identity, for me, normal behavior. In its own way it is a beautiful thing when observed from a position of detachment, beyond the ego. But while cloaked in the ego, where the process remains hidden, there seems to be only the suffering and the continued obligation to oppose what is.

Thus, it is not circumstances that create the deep unwantedness of suffering; rather, it is opposition and attachment to circumstances that actually creates suffering.  And what creates opposition and attachment to circumstances is the identification of Consciousness with form, or more specifically, with the collection of thought-forms collectively referred to as the ego.

Ultimately then, what creates suffering is the misidentification of Consciousness with something that It has created within Itself, which misidentification sets into motion a self-perpetuating chain of conditioning that seems to obligate me to oppose what is, and which opposition to what is then perpetuates the delusion of form-identity that creates that apparent obligation, by hiding from me my true nature as formless Consciousness as long as I, cloaked in the ego, continue to flow my Being in unknowing and inadvertent opposition to what is ultimately Itself. 

It is a very sticky wicket indeed.

However, all that is required is the sight adjustment of ceasing to oppose what is, and a kink arises in the chain of conditioning that provides an opening for Consciousness to reveal Itself to Itself, not as a concept, not as a form, but directly as That within which all form arises and by which all form is apprehended. 

Know your self not

As just one of the many drops,

That rests on the leaves

After a rain.

Know your self instead

as the one Light

That shines through all the drops.

When you know your self as just a drop,

And the Light shines through,

Then you think, "the light is mine!"

But when you know your self as the Light,

And the Light shines through

Then you know, "I am the Light."

When you think, "the light is mine,"

It seems that the Light is something

That the drop possesses.

And so then,

What is not really what you are,

Seems to possess,

What you really are.

So it is that,

The form you think you are,

Seems to possess,

The Consciousness you really are.

The drop-self,

Because it is not really what you are,

Always feels that something is missing,

Always senses that it is incomplete,

But never looks for what is missing,

In what it already seems to possess.

For how can Consciousness

Be what is missing,

When it is already possessed

By the drop-self?

And so it is

That what we truly are

Becomes hidden,

And so seems to be missing,

While remaining always

In plain sight. 

And so it is

That what we truly are

Is not actually missing,

But has just been misidentified,

And so appears

As something other

Than what we are.

It is as if we are children

And our mother stands right before us,

But we mistake her for someone else,

And so we run around crying,

"Where is my mother?"

But we do not cry

"Where is my mother?"

For it is not our mother

That is missing.

Rather, it is our true Self

That seems to have gone missing.

And so we cry,

Who am I?

What am I?

Where am I?

And the answer is always the same,

Once we are able to hear it.

I am right here

Where I have always been.

I never went anywhere,

I just got mistaken for something else,

for something other than I,

Once it seemed that I was possessed by an i

that I was not.

So know your self not

As just one of the many drops,

That rests on the leaves

After a rain.

Know your Self instead

As the one Light,

The Light of Consciousness,

That shines through all the drops,

And there will then be

No mistake in Identity,

Since the Light cannot seem to possess

That which It already knows

to Be Itself.

The world is not composed of Consciousness.

The world is Consciousness.

Consciousness just appears as the world.

It is as if a River flows, and in some areas the River flows faster or slower than in other adjacent areas, and so a Swirl arises within the river.

The perception of the world is not even the perception of such a Swirl of Consciousness, for such Swirls are of the same nature as the River of Consciousness in which they arise, whereas what is perceived as the world is not of the same nature as the River of Consciousness within which what is perceived arises and by which what is perceived is apprehended.

But how can this be? How can something arise within the River that is other than the River?

Something can arise within the River that is other than the River, but nothing can arise within the River that exists apart from the River.

Shadows cannot arise within complete darkness. Perception cannot arise in the absence of Consciousness.

Shadows are different in nature than the light that is required for them to arise and what is perceived is different in nature than the Consciousness that is required for it to arise.

Is a tree Real?

If by the word tree one means just the form that is perceived, then that is not Real.

But if by the word tree one refers to the Swirl of Consciousness that underlies the perceived form, then that is Real.

But trees come and go, so how can they be Real?

Because That of which they are composed is Real, and so does not come and go, but always Is.

That there is a form to be perceived requires the Is-ness of Swirls.

That which perceives form is the Is-ness of the River.

The Is-ness of the River and the Is-ness of the Swirls are identical.

And all that has been or will be said about perception applies to the more subtle form that is conception, and to the even more subtle form that is emotion.

The River never sees a Swirl as other than Itself.

Swirls, on the other hand, can see themselves as the River, or they can see themselves as other than the River.

When a Swirl sees Itself as the River, this is called enlightenment.

When a Swirl sees Itself as other than the River, this is called delusion.

A Swirl can see Itself as other than the River when it mistakes Itself for a perceived, conceived, or felt form.

When a Swirl mistakes itself for what is only form, then the River becomes obscured and so seems to vanish, and so the Swirl seems to vanish as well, leaving only the appearance of form.

This trick is called maya.

Maya is the illusion of Consciousness appearing as the world of form.

For the trick to work a Swirl must volunteer to identify with form, otherwise the trick does not work.

But the River of Consciousness does not actually go anywhere or actually go away once the spell of maya has been cast, once the illusion has been established.

If It did there could be no apprehended form, perceived, conceived, or felt.

For a Swirl may identify with form, may know Itself as form, but a Swirl can only know these things, apprehend these things, these forms of various degrees of grossness and subtlety, because it is actually and always not other than the River of Consciousness, by which all form is apprehended and within which all forms arise and exist.

Untangling Consciousness from the forms it has identified itself with is somewhat like untangling a very fine thread from a more coarse thread.

Observation is more important than action.

Action without observation only creates more knots.

Just observe the relations between Consciousness and form, and the knots will loosen and untangle themselves.

How can one tell whether they are, in a given moment, in this Now, untangling the knots of form-identification or creating more knots of form-identification?

According to whether one's degree of suffering is, in a given moment, in this Now, decreasing or increasing.

Where there is no form-identity there is no suffering. Where there is only form-identity there is only suffering.

Suffering here does not refer to organic or bodily pain, but refers to something more subtle and hard to define.

Suffering is subtle and hard to define because it is something that seems to be happening to that which is Formless.

But how can anything happen to That which is Formless?

It actually cannot, but can only seem to.

Suffering is a sort of suffocation of Is-ness.

Suffocation occurs when the flow of air to the organism becomes restricted or impeded.

Suffering occurs when the flow of Consciousness to a Swirl of Consciousness becomes restricted or impeded.

And how does the flow of Consciousness to a Swirl of Consciousness become restricted or impeded?

When the Swirl won't let that Flow in because the Swirl no longer recognizes the River of Consciousness as Itself.

Because in not recognizing that underlying the appearance of any form is That which is ultimately Itself, the Swirl opposes many of those forms, and so opposes what exists.

And because what exists has as its basis what Is, in opposing what exists the Swirl opposes what Is, and so flows in opposition to Itself.

When form-identification ceases, all the reasons that it seems necessary to oppose other forms wither away, since all those reasons are themselves illusions that grow out of the illusory soil that is form-identification.

But form-identification cannot cease while in opposition to what Is.

And while in opposition to what Is, only form appears as that with which one can identify.

Cease to oppose what exists, even while still identified with form, and you cease to oppose what Is, and a tear appears in the fabric of maya that lets in the Light of Consciousness.

Then you can identify with That instead, after which the whole illusion begins to unravel.

And then the real fun begins. 

The Divine is just as present in this moment as It is going to be present in the next moment.

So why run from one moment to the next, looking to find It there, when It is already here in full measure?

Especially since looking for It in the next moment hides It in this moment.

Such a game of hide and seek.

Here we are, in this moment, where the Divine is everywhere, both within us and all around us, but we can't see It, because we are looking for it in the next moment, and so its Presence in this moment is obscured.

And then the next moment becomes this moment, but we still can't find It because we are still looking for It in the new next moment.

But if the Divine is here in this moment, then why is it not also in the next moment? Why can It only be found in this moment, and not the next?

Because this moment is Alive, whereas the next moment is only a shadow of Life.

If you want to find someone, do you find them where they are or where only their refection lies?

The Divine is Life and that Life Is Now.

The next moment is only a form that arises in this moment, in the Now. 

The next moment exists, the Divine Is.

The Divine is not found in that which only exists.

The Divine is only found in That which Is, because the Divine Is That which Is.

This moment Is, the Now Is.

The next moment is not.

The next moment is only an idea, a thought, a form, a concept.

The next moment is not what Is.

Looking for the Divine in the next moment is like looking for someone in what is only their shadow or reflection.

There is some relation between the person for whom you are looking and their shadow or reflection, but they are not the same.

Likewise, there is some relation between the Divine and the next moment, but they are not the same.

When you are in the next moment, looking for the Divine, looking for some sort of fulfillment, you are really still in this moment, in the Now, but having shrouded yourself in the form that is the next moment, the Divinity that Is Now is obscured, and so fulfillment eludes you. 

True fulfillment comes with finding the Divine, and Knowing yourself as That.

The illusion of fulfillment comes with acquiring some form, and adding that form to one's form-identity.

True fulfillment does not end.

The illusion of fulfillment ends almost as soon as it has begun.

When one drinks of the Real their thirst is quenched. 

When one drinks what is only a shadow of the Real, their thirst is unending.

It feels good to be thirsty, when one knows where the eternal Fountain lies. 

It does not feel good to be thirsty, when all one sees around them is a desert.

The next moment is a desert.

This moment, the Now, is where the eternal Fountain lies.

Drink from it but once and you will Know true Satisfaction and true Fulfillment.

But even having once found the Fountain and  having drank from it, you may on occasion find yourself wandering in the desert of the next moment, thirsty and in search of the Fountain that was right there, only a moment ago, but which has now vanished.

Just remember, if you can’t find It, it's not because It's not there; rather, it's only because you are looking for It in the wrong place, in the next moment, where It must remain hidden.

To locate the hidden Fountain just return to this moment, to the Now, and it will reappear, as if out of thin air.

And you will once again drink your fill.

And after drinking your fill, and having your thirst quenched, a thought will come along, like a butterfly in a field, and you may chase after it, and while chasing after it you may again wander into the desert of the next moment, and you will again become thirsty and you will turn to drink from the Fountain and it will once again seem to have disappeared.

Where has it gone?

Nowhere.

It remains where it always Is, in this moment, in the Now.

It is not the Fountain that has moved, it is you that has moved.

It is not the Fountain that has gone somewhere, it is you that has gone somewhere.

And where have you gone?

Into next moment.

The Fountain never moves, never goes anywhere.

It just Is, and It is always Now.

You don't really go anywhere either, since you also just Are, and are always Now.

You just think you do. You just think yourself into someplace that seems to be other than Now. 

So it is not a matter of actually returning to the Now from someplace that is actually other than Now.

It is just a matter of realizing that there is only Now, which can become disguised and so hidden when dressed in the apparent reality of the next moment.

Such a game Consciousness plays with Itself.

Peek-a-boo on a cosmic scale.

Never really any danger, never really anything wrong.

Nothing can actually disturb you.

Only you can disturb yourself.

And how do you disturb yourself?

By opposing what Is.

Experiences arise within your Awareness

Like reflections that appear on a calm pool of water.

Let them be and the water remains calm.

Try to push them away or cling to them

and the water becomes disturbed.

Your Consciousness is the water of Is-ness within which the reflections of experience arise.

When you do not swat at or cling to the reflections you create one type of experience.

When you swat at or cling to the reflections you create the opposite type of experience.

Thus the experiences that arise are not unrelated to your attitude of allowing or opposition toward the experiences that have already arisen.

When your attitude toward the experiences that have already arisen and which are arising is one of allowing, the water remains calm and the reflections that arise tend to have the quality of wantedness.

When your attitude toward the experiences that have already arisen and which are arising is one of opposition, the water becomes disturbed and the reflections that arise tend to have the quality of unwantedness.

When one becomes involved in a relation of opposition to what Is, through opposition to the reflections that arise on the surface of What Is, thereby disturbing the surface of what Is and imparting upon the reflections that rest there the quality of unwantedness, it then seems that the unwantedness that one then feels has as its source the reflection that one is opposing.

This is an illusion.

The unwantedness that one feels while involved in a relation of opposition to what Is, through opposition to the reflections that arise on the surface of what Is, has as its only source one's opposition to what Is. 

The difficulty lies in the fact that, while opposing what Is and disturbing the waters, what Is becomes hidden or obscured, leaving one aware of only the reflection that one is either pushing against or clinging to as well as the feeling of unwantedness created by one's involvement in the relation of opposition to the now hidden what Is, thereby creating the appearance that the feeling of unwantedness is being caused by the reflection that one is either pushing against or clinging to, making it then seem even more necessary and imperative to push against or cling to more fervently the reflection, thereby increasing one's relation of opposition to the now hidden what Is, thereby increasing the feeling of unwantedness that appears to be caused by the reflection,  making it then seem even more necessary and imperative to push against or cling to more fervently the reflection, and on and on it goes.

What Is cannot reappear as what Is until one ceases to oppose It.

What Is is always there, it just cannot be Known as That until one ceases to oppose it.

And because what Is is identical to what you Are, you cannot Know what you Are until you cease to oppose what is ultimately Yourself.

Why does opposing what Is cause it to become hidden from one who opposes It?

Because the relation of opposition to what Is requires that one's attention lie not in the direction of what Is, but that it rather lie in the direction  of what-is-not, which is to say, upon the reflection one is either pushing against or clinging to.  

That is all.

When one is looking south, what lies to the north becomes hidden.

What lies to the north does not cease to exist when one looks south, nor does what Is cease to be what Is when one looks toward what-is-not.

It is easy to turn back and look north from a position of looking south, so that what lies north can again easily be known.

It is not easy to turn back and look upon what Is from a position  of looking as what-is-not, so that what Is cannot again easily be known.

Why is it easy to look north again having once looked south, but not easy to look again at what Is after having looked in opposition at what-is-not?

Imagine that if when one looked south all knowledge that there was such a thing as north vanished.

That is why.

When one looks south one still knows that there is also a north, and so one knows there is another direction to turn toward.

However, when one looks in opposition at what-is-not one forgets or no longer knows that there is also what Is, and so there then seems to be no other direction to turn.

Why when one looks south does one still know that there is a north, but when one looks in opposition at what-is-not one no longer knows that there is also what Is?

Imagine that if when one looked south and seeing what was there that one thought that they were already looking north.

That is why.

When one's attention is on what-is-not through opposition to what Is, what-is-not appears to be what is, and so the Real what Is must appear as something else, and so appears as what is not.

That is how what Is vanishes while still in plain sight.

That is why our Consciousness, which is always there, and without which there could be no apprehension of any experience, no apprehension of any reflection, seems to be something less than the reflections that arise within it, and so seems to be something not worthy of our attention.

Almost all attempts to free one's self from the cage of what-is-not only serve to involve one in some other more subtle form of self-opposition, and so only create a more subtle cage, that one may at times mistake for freedom, owing to its greater subtlety.

This is because action taken from within the unwantedness of the cage of what-is-not usually involves trying to get to what is wanted, or what is thought to be wanted, by either trying to get rid of the unwanted or by clinging to the wanted, both of which actions continue to involve one in the relation of Self-opposition or opposition to what Is that simultaneously continues to make what-is-not seem to be what is while continuing to hide what Is from view.

This is why perhaps the most direct and sure path to Realization, i.e., to realizing one's true Nature as that which is pointed toward by the word Consciousness, is just ceasing to oppose what is, or what seems to be what is, which is to say, ceasing to oppose the reflections that seem to be what is.

As Eckhart Tolle says, become friendly with the present moment, however it appears.

Because even from within the illusion and delusion, if one ceases to oppose what only seems to be what is, then one is nonetheless, in that moment, ceasing to oppose what actually is what Is, thereby interrupting, for at least that moment, the self-perpetuating cycle of reflexive and conditioned opposition to what Is that keeps the nature of what Is as what Is hidden from us and so keeps our nature as That hidden as well. 

Breaking that cycle of conditioned opposition to what Is allows what Is to reappear as what Is, (which reappearance Tolle refers to as allowing Space or Spaciousness to arise around the experience) and also allows the reflections to appear as only reflections, thereby making it easier to identify with the now apparent Is-ness of one's Consciousness rather than with the now apparent reflections that are now seen to only arise within that Consciousness.

Consciousness-without-an-object Is.

Consciousness-without-an-object is all there actually Is.

Everything else only exists.

Everything else only arises out of the Is-ness that is Consciousness-without-an-object.

Consciousness-without-an-object has no attributes or characteristics.

Attributes and characteristics arise where Consciousness-without-an-object flows in relation to Itself.

Where Consciousness-without-an-object flows in relation to Itself, form comes into existence.

Form exists, Consciousness-without-an-object Is.

Form is nothing more than a boundary that arises or comes into existence within the Is-ness of Consciousness-without-an-object where Consciousness-without-an-object comes to be in relation to Itself, analogous to the line that arises where the tips of two fingers meet.

Consciousness-without-an-object is That which apprehends the form that arises within Itself as it flows in relation to Itself.

All experience, be it of the emotional, mental, or physical variety, is the apprehension by Consciousness-without-an-object of the form that Its relation to Itself has caused to arise and so exist within Itself.

That which apprehends form as experiential reality is therefore identical to That which, through relation to Itself, creates the form that is being experienced as reality.

That which apprehends form as experiential reality is identical to That which is creating the form that It is experiencing as reality.

Underlying the appearance of all form, underlying every experiential reality, lies the Is-ness of Consciousness-without-an-object.

Surrounding all that appears as form, surrounding every experiential reality, is the enveloping Presence of Consciousness-without-an-object.

Presence and Is-ness are identical to Consciousness-without-an-object.

Because Consciousness-without-an-object is all that Is, all relations are relations of Consciousness-without-an-object to Itself.

The particular form that arises out of the Is-ness that is Consciousness-without-an-object, where Consciousness-without-an-object flows in relation to Itself, depends upon the particular way in which Consciousness-without-an-object is flowing, or being, in relation to Itself.

It is the particular way in which Consciousness-without-an-object is flowing, or being, in relation to Itself that determines the nature of the form that is created within, and so arises within, and so exists within, the Is-ness that is Consciousness-without-an-object.

Therefore, the attributes and characteristics of a particular experience do not inhere in the uncreated Is-ness of Consciousness-without-an-object.

Nor however do the attributes and characteristics of a particular experience inhere directly in the created form.

So, if the attributes and characteristics of a particular experience inhere neither in Consciousness-without-an-object nor in the particular form Consciousness-without-an-object creates within Itself, then from whence do the attributes and characteristics of a particular experience derive?

The attributes and characteristics of a particular experience derive from the combination of the nature of the particular form that Consciousness-without-an-object has, through relation to Itself, created within Itself, and the perspective within that relation from which Consciousness-without-an-object is apprehending that particular form as a particular experience.

All there actually Is is Consciousness-without-an-object.

Nothing that Is is actually hard or soft.

Nothing that Is is actually wave or particle.

Nothing that Is is actually anything other than Is.

Consciousness-without-an-object Is on both sides of any form that arises within Itself as it flows in relation to Itself.

However, the apprehension of form as experience or experiential reality by Consciousness-without-an-object requires that Consciousness-without-an-object adopt a perspective upon the form that has been created within Itself.

It is that perspective upon the created form, combined with the particular nature of the created form, which particular nature derives from the particular relation of Consciousness-without-an-object to Itself that creates it, that grants to or superimposes upon the form what seems to be its attributes or characteristics.

For example, a created form, apprehended by Consciousness-without-an-object from one perspective within the overall relation to Itself that creates that particular form, appears as the experience of a wave reality.

That same created form, apprehended by Consciousness-without-an-object from the opposite perspective within the overall relation to Itself that creates that particular form, appears as the experience of a particle reality.

Where then is the reality of the apprehended form, the reality of the apprehended experience?

It lies both in the relation that creates the form, as well as in the perspective within that relation from which the created form is apprehended by Consciousness-without-an-object as an experiential reality.

Where the reality of the apprehended experience therefore does not lie is in the created form itself, nor does the reality of the apprehended experience lie in That which apprehends the form as a particular experiential reality.

Put another way, the reality of the apprehended experience lies neither in what is created nor in That which creates, but rather derives from and inheres in the simultaneous relations of Creator to Itself that creates the particular form and of Creator to particular form that causes that particular form to be apprehended by its Creator as an experiential reality with particular characteristics and attributes.

It is all a magic show, and we are both the magician and the audience.

We are That which creates the illusion and we are That which can either be taken in by the illusion or see through and beyond the illusion.

The magician creates the illusion for the delight of the audience, but does not themself become caught up in the illusion.

However, we are like a magician that has become caught up in the illusion of our own magic act, having lost sight of how the trick is being done and so also losing sight of how object reality or experiential reality is being made to appear as what is actually there.

The trick, the illusion, is the superimposing of characteristics and attributes upon that which actually has none, i.e., upon form, thereby causing form apprehended as experience to appear to be independently existent, which is to say, to appear to arise out of and exist within nothing, i.e., a non-is-ness, thereby obscuring and hiding from Itself the Nothing, i.e., the formless Is-ness, that is actually there.

It is quite a trick.

Consciousness-without-an-object is God.

What you actually are is Consciousness-without-an-object.

What everything actually Is is Consciousness-without-an-object.

You  are not the forms of experience that you have used to create your form or object identity.

You are That which apprehends the forms that make up your object-identity.

You are That which creates the forms that make up your object-identity.

You are not on one side of the relation that creates those forms, for Consciousness-without-an-object lies on both sides of any relation that creates form.

You, as Consciousness-without-an-object, are just apprehending the forms, which have arisen within your Self as a result of your flowing in relation to your Self, from a particular perspective within that relation.

And so for every form you apprehend as having a particular attribute or character, that same form apprehended from the opposite perspective in that same relation appears to have the opposite attribute or character.

Thus, the reality of the attribute or character of what is experienced as reality lies not in What Is Actually There where the reality appears to be, for that is always and everywhere the same; rather the reality of the attribute or character of what is experienced as reality lies in both the created form as well as in the perspective from which that created form is being apprehended by What Is Actually There, which is always Consciousness-without-an-object.

It is possible to Know yourself as That which lies on both sides of the relation while still having a perspective within the relation that allows What Is Actually There to apprehend the created form that has arisen within Itself as a particular experience with a particular character. 

But if while apprehending that particular experience one takes the character of what has been apprehended for something that is intrinsic to and inheres in the form itself, or in what is actually there, and so takes the form for what is actually there, then the Knowledge of That which lies on both sides of the relation vanishes, or is obscured, and along with it Knowledge of one's own true Nature is obscured.

And then all that seems to remain is form, all that seems to remain is the experiential reality, all that seems to remain is the form that has now become an object.

And so then the question "what am I?" can only be answered using what is then available, which is only some form, some experiential reality, some object.

And so the form identity begins. And so delusion begins.

And delusion is maintained because we work so hard to maintain the form-identity, because we think its maintenance is necessary for our own survival, since we think that is what we are.

But when one Knows That which lies on both sides of the relation then the question "what am I?" has a different answer, which is "I am That which Is," or simply "I am."

Imagine that you had no ability to perceive visually what is actually there in the world around you. But then you find that you can make an etching of what is actually there, after which you can then visually apprehend the etching and so in this way form an image as well as an idea of what is actually there.

And the fact is, we have no ability to perceive visually What Is Actually There in the world around us. Nor do we have the ability to form an idea that is What Is Actually There in the world around us. All that we perceive visually, as well as all that we conceive mentally, are etchings that we create as What We Actually Are here forms some relation with What Is Actually There.

And the reason that we do not have the ability to perceive or conceive What Is Actually There is that perception and conception deal only in forms, only in etchings that have been created through some relation of what is actually there to itself, whereas what is actually there is completely different in nature than the created etchings.

For this reason perception and conception do not and cannot present us with an accurate image or idea of What Is Actually There, because if it is an image or an idea then it is an etching, and if it is an etching then it is, by its very nature, not What Is Actually There. 

That having been said, the world as described by science both in terms of perception and conception, i.e., the world-view that science presents to humanity, is a world-view that is ultimately nothing more than an etching of What Is Actually There. And although the etching that science presents to humanity bears some slight relation to What Is Actually There, as an etching bears some slight relation to what it was that was etched, because the world-view that science presents to humanity is an etching of what is actually there and not What Is Actually There, the world-view that science presents to humanity can never be What Is Actually There.

Because the world-view that science presents to humanity is ultimately no more than an etching of what is actually there, the most science can do is explore and map the surface of Reality, the surface of What Is Actually There, and having done so present us with a perceptual and conceptual view of the world that it calls reality, which reality science and most of humanity take and so mistake for Reality, i.e., for What Is Actually There.

Thus, anything that science defines and presents to us is an etching of Reality, an etching of What Is Actually There. Even at the level of quantum physics, where Reality is being etched and presented to us as a probable reality through the abstract mathematical equations and concepts that take the form of the wavefunction, what is being presented is at that level is still but an etching of What Is Actually There and so by itself says nothing about the nature of What Is Actually There, in the same way an etching of a temple carving reveals only the surface features of the stone that is there, while saying nothing about the nature of the stone itself.

The fact is, no matter how deeply science probes, What Is Actually There will elude its grasp, because What Is Actually There can never be contained in what must always be what is only an etching of What Is Actually There.

At one time science presented us with the etching of atoms and told us that that was what was actually there. And then What Is Actually There where the atom appeared to be was broken apart and etchings were again made of those smaller components and we were then told that subatomic particles were what was actually there.

However, the etchings referred to as subatomic particles were different than the other etchings that science had previously produced. That is, when science made an etching of what is referred to as an atom or of anything larger than an atom, an etching that was consistent in appearance was always produced. On the other hand, when science made an etching of what is referred to as a subatomic particle, or of anything smaller that, what was produced at different times was an etching that was not consistent in appearance. And not only were the produced etchings not consistent in appearance, even more strangely the produced etchings had opposite appearances, such that sometimes the etching that had been created appeared as a particle and at other times, through other relations, the etching that had been created appeared as a wave.

For a time this threw the professional etchers of Reality, i.e., scientists, into a bit of an uproar. Up until then it had been assumed that the etchings that science produced were what was actually there. However, if the etchings were what was actually there, then how could what was actually there appear in the form of etchings that were completely opposite in nature, i.e., as wave or particle? Further, if the etchings were what was actually there, then why did making one etching of what was there, revealing one characteristic, make it impossible to simultaneously make an etching that would reveal the opposite characteristic, introducing into the creation of any etching of Reality at these very small levels what is referred to as uncertainty?

In some physicists clarity arose as a result of the strange appearance and behavior of the etchings that were being made at these very small level, as they realized that what they had been calling reality, what they had been observing, what they had created as an etching, was not what was actually there. In that moment, i.e., in the early days of quantum physics, there was the opportunity for science as a whole to realize that what they were observing at any level was only an etching, only a surface feature of Reality, and not What Is Actually There. However, that moment passed as scientists discovered and developed abstract probability equations to describe the behavior of the strange etchings that were being created through relation to Reality at the quantum level. 

And because the probability equations, i.e., the new and improved etchings, accurately described and predicted to some degree what could be created as an etching through relation to Reality at the quantum level, science reentered the delusion that what it was describing in the form of these new and improved etchings was what was actually there, even though science no longer knew what to make of what was actually there, since the new etchings took the form not of definite things or events, but of only probable things and events, of things and events that might or might not be.

And so now, instead of telling us that what is there is some sort of defined and particulate physical reality, science now tells us that what is actually there is some sort of probability wave. However, the wavefunction, which expresses reality in terms of probabilities, is ultimately no more than just a more elaborate, abstract, and so more subtle etching made through relation to What Is Actually There, and so cannot itself be or represent What Is Actually There.

Quantum physics is like the rare Individual that is slowly waking up to the realization that what they experience as reality is not what is actually there where that reality appears to be, and because of this quantum physics in a moment of such realization presents humanity with an opening and opportunity to realize What Is Actually There. However, the rest of science is like the majority of humanity that remains lost in the delusion that the created etchings, the experiences, the observations, the measurements, are what is actually there, thereby presenting humanity with no opportunity to realize What Is Actually There.

But as previously stated, the moment seems to have passed and quantum physics, like the rest of science, seems caught up in the delusion that the probabilistic etchings they have created are in some way actually representative of what is actually there, and so the opportunity for at least this branch of science to realize What Is Actually There seems to have passed, at least for the moment. But there will be other moments, and the next moment will come, as it came for me, when it is finally realized that the only way to consistently, logically, and reasonably account for the seemingly bizarre etchings that quantum physics keeps producing is by understanding how it is that the Consciousness that apprehends the created etchings actually creates those etchings, because the only way to understand how it is that the Consciousness that apprehends the created etchings actually creates those etchings is by understanding that it is Consciousness that is What Is Actually There, and not any etching, not anything that has form, not anything that has been created.

When I read recently about how much the founders of quantum physics, such as Bohr and Heisenberg, as well as many others, clearly understood about the implications of their discoveries, in that they understood that what they had discovered meant that what science analyzed could never be what was actually and directly there, I was struck by the fact that since that time, in the past hundred or so years since the advent of quantum physics, that this realization seems to have been lost, such that not only has there been no progress in that direction, or very little, but to the contrary there has actually been a regression back to the delusion that what science describes as reality, as its created etchings, is what is actually there.

Science, in its present mode of thinking, which mode is one that by its nature is completely devoted and committed to upholding some sort of form as the primary reality, is anathema to spirituality. Nonetheless, for me the key that unlocked the door to understanding the nature of Reality, i.e., the nature of What Is Actually There, including then the realization of my own True Nature, lay in both science and spirituality. However, the realization of my own True Nature did not lay in what science told me about the nature of reality; rather it lay in what science allowed me to discover for myself regarding the nature of reality and Reality, by coming to understand the discoveries of quantum physics outside the narrow confines of what science, according to its current dogma, claims is and is not real.

For me, spirituality alone was not enough, even having come to know at a conceptual level that the world was composed of what we refer to as awareness or Consciousness, because the world was still around me and presented itself to me as it did, which was also the way science presented it to me, albeit devoid of the viewpoint or opinion of science regarding what that presentation meant.

Understanding the bizarre nature of quantum physics was relatively easy, since it was clear that science itself had and continues to have no reasonable or logical or consistent explanation for what it has etched at the level of quantum reality. And so in approaching the basis of quantum phenomena, there were fewer obstacles to overcome, since it clearly remained an open question.

And from the perspective of someone who, unlike the vast majority of scientists, already took Consciousness as primary and apprehended reality as secondary, in that context the phenomena that lie at the heart of quantum physics were relatively easy to understand, and are also quite logical and reasonable. On the other hand, from the perspective of someone who assumes that Consciousness is secondary, these phenomena have no reasonable or consistent explanation whatsoever, which is why science as a whole remains clueless as to their basis, while for Consciousness in the form of a Podiatrist living in Milwaukee that knows the world to be actually composed of Consciousness, the phenomena were a relatively simple puzzle to solve, a clever riddle.

As soon as Nothing looks at Nothing, (which is all that is ever actually happening, because Nothing is all there actually is,) it creates something, i.e., an emotion, a concept, a physical experience, and then, in the case of human Consciousness, Nothing thinks that the created something is what's actually there, when what's really actually there is the Nothing that is both creating and apprehending the something. Science has discovered that to observe is to create the observation, at least it has been forced to accept this fact at the quantum level, although the same is true of all perception and conception, but it has yet to understand the full implications of this discovery, as it's collective head is so deeply buried up its collective ass, still believing that physical reality is primary and that Consciousness, or that which apprehends all experiential reality, whatever name you want to use to point toward it, is secondary and somehow a product of the machinations of a reality that no one has ever encountered outside the context of a Consciousness that apprehends it as such, i.e., as a reality.

Science cannot solve the riddle it has itself uncovered in the form of quantum physics because by its very nature at the present time it has to look at the riddle in the wrong way. And that is the secret to solving most riddles; just looking at them in the proper context. Science, no matter how  much it tries, is conditioned by the idea that what it etches as reality is what is actually there, even when that etching appears as an abstract mathematical statement referred to as a probability wave.

The key to solving the riddle that is what quantum physics actually says about the nature of reality and Reality is understanding that nothing that we experience, nothing that we create as an etching of reality, no matter how abstract, complex, or subtle, can be what is actually there, because the nature of What Is Actually There and the nature of the etchings are completely different.

And if the etchings are not What Is Actually There then what does that leave us with as a candidate for What Is Actually There? Take away experience, take away the etchings, and what is left? The formless Consciousness that is aware of or apprehends all experience.

Quantum physics made it clear to me that whatever was created as an etching required a relation occurring between What Is Actually There in order to create that etching. Approach What Is Actually There from this perspective and you create this etching; approach it from the opposite perspective and you create an etching that is the opposite of the one created from the opposite perspective. This is the essential understanding; the rest are just details that follow naturally and unavoidably from this central understanding regarding how it is that Consciousness, through relation to Itself, creates what it apprehends as experiential reality, i.e., as the etchings that we, in our delusion, mistake for What Is Actually There.

Science is a tool, but like the tool that is the mind, of which science is an outward or external manifestation or extension, it has run amok and taken over our lives, our Awareness, our Consciousness. Or more accurately, we have infused science with the energy of our Being and in so doing have given it permission to take over and rule our Consciousness, to dictate to us what is and is not real, what is and is not our nature.

Science is considered the opposite of religion, because it supposedly deals only in logic and reason, and what can be proved, whereas religion has no problem making claims that cannot be in any way verified. And yet, the central illogic of science, and what is really the central dogma of science, is the idea that if a thing actually exists then it should be able to be scientifically proven to exist, and therefore if a thing cannot be proven to exist then it cannot be considered by science to actually exist. However, this unspoken yet pervasive claim that science continuously makes and holds up whenever it seeks to disprove the claims of spirituality itself has no basis whatsoever, but rather is a statement that science has metaphorically pulled out of its own ass, and is, when considered outside its context as unquestioned dogma, is itself clearly a statement that like all dogma, is completely self-serving, and by any measure of logic or reason is by its nature a statement that is, like the statements of religious dogma, completely unverifiable.

And yet science has used this bit of dogma to build an entire industry around trying to explain and uphold the idea that physical reality somehow creates the Consciousness by which it is apprehended. Because Consciousness, or more accurately, that which is being pointed toward by the word-concept Consciousness, can never be proven to exist in the way science proves things to exist, which is by converting them to an etching of some sort, a form, an object, according to the central and unspoken dogma of science, physical reality, which can be proven to exist, except at the quantum level where it seems to dissolve into probability, must be more real than the Consciousness that apprehends it, because no one can prove the existence of Consciousness, i.e., it can't be made into a form, an etching.

The absurdity of the dogma of science regarding the relation of what can and cannot be considered to actually exist to the verifiability or provability of a thing lies in the fact that the dogma itself cannot be proven, and so by its own expression should be considered by science to be unreal, which it actually is, and yet it is nonetheless held up as some sort of proof that physical reality is more fundamental or real than Consciousness. But it is the function of dogma to serve as a sort of conceptual gatekeeper that, once you buy into it, once you drink the cool-aid, so to speak, that you then become sort of obligated to believe any other ideas that stem from or are related to that dogma, because if you question the idea that has the dogma as its basis then you question the dogma, but you can't question the dogma because if you do the whole thing falls apart, and so the dogma becomes an unquestioned and unverifiable idea masquerading as an absolute truth.

It was in fact when I encountered this particular dogma of science while still an undergraduate studying the natural and physical sciences that it first occurred to me that science might itself be, with respect to some topics, quite as full of shit as religion can, on occasion, but not always, be. The very idea that science held as an unquestioned and therefore dogmatic fact the clearly and inherently improvable and therefore non-factual notion that if a thing actually exists then it should be able to be scientifically proven to exist, and therefore that if a thing could not be proven to exist then it could be considered to not actually exist, led me to have an open mind regarding certain things which it was clear that science at present had no clue regarding, such as the ultimate nature of Consciousness, as well as the relation of Consciousness to the rest of reality.

At the time I first because aware of this flaw in science, or aware of this quite unscientific dogmatic assumption, this corruption of dogma, that lie very near the heart of science, (although not at its heart, for at the heart of science is the pureness of logic and reason unsullied by dogma,) I knew nothing of spirituality, I knew only of religion, which I had learned from my catholic upbringing. This is not to say that there is not great and abundant spirituality in catholicism, it is simply buried very deep, as occurs in all religions over time as the central teaching, which almost always tries to point the Individual toward their True Nature, becomes lost in the dogma and concepts that come to surround that central teaching over time, and serve more to support the religion as a power structure or institution that to elucidate or illuminate the central teaching from which it first sprang.

But when science told me that Consciousness was a product of brain function and made all these claims about what Consciousness was and was not in the absence of any actual evidence or proof to back those claims up, other than its own unproven and unprovable dogma, I chose at that point not to drink the cool-aid, choosing instead to leave the question of Consciousness wide open for the time being. And so, unlike most scientists, I kept an open mind regarding the relation between physical reality and Consciousness, and did not buy into the unproven and dogmatic notion that physical reality in some way produces the Consciousness that apprehends physical reality.  

For me, deciding which was most likely primary, Consciousness or physical reality, or any experiential reality, came down to the logical understanding that since the only way we could even know or be aware of any experiential reality was through our Consciousness of it, that it was far more likely that that Consciousness was primary and that experiential reality was secondary, since it was possible to conceive of Consciousness in the absence of experience, but not possible to conceive of experience in the absence of Consciousness.

However, still being a scientist at heart, which I admit I still am, minus the unprovable and illogical dogma, and having postulated that Consciousness is primary and experiential reality secondary, I then set about trying to understand how it is that Consciousness gave rise to physical reality, how form could arise from the Formless, how something could come from Nothing. As part of my undergraduate liberal arts education, for which I shall be forever grateful, I learned about wave-part duality and quantum uncertainty, after which I had the sense that there was now enough information that if one approached all of this with an open mind, free of any assumptions other than the opening postulate that Consciousness is primary and experiential reality secondary, that it should be possible to understand how the Former creates the latter, if one could solve the riddle posed by quantum physics regarding what it had to say about the nature of reality.

And so after nearly thirty years I came to understand how Consciousness creates experiential reality, and so came to understand and know at a conceptual level with complete certainty that it must be Consciousness that is What Is Actually There where any experiential reality appears to be. Armed with this understanding I began to deprogram myself as much as possible from my cultural and scientific conditioning. I would wake up in the morning and my first thought would be something along the lines of; "the world is not composed of physical reality, it is composed of Consciousness; it only appears to be composed of physical reality, but what actually lies beneath the surface of that appearance is the Consciousness that apprehends physical reality." This idea became my mantra, so to speak.

As a scientist, or as someone who still thought of myself as a scientist in the truest sense,  as an adherent of logic and reason,  I needed or wanted some sort of proof before I would fully allow myself to believe that What Is Actually There was the primary Reality, since my cultural conditioning had been the complete opposite. And the proof I came up with to satisfy this desire was a model of reality and Reality that was so simple, so reasonable, so internally consistent, that everywhere I turned I was able to understand something else about the nature of reality that had heretofore remained a mystery. And when that model allowed me to understand with complete and utter clarity the nature of quantum reality, allowed me to understand something that minds far far greater than mine have remained baffled by for nearly the past one hundred years, that is when I think my mind essentially said "fuck it," and finally gave up completely on the idea of trying to convince me that my early programming regarding the nature of reality and the relation between physical reality and Consciousness, i.e., that physical reality was primary and Consciousness secondary, had been correct, and so no longer offered any resistance whatsoever to the idea that the world was ultimately composed of Consciousness.

However, there was still something missing, and that is where spirituality had to arise to bridge the mentally uncrossable chasm between the conceptual understanding of the world as composed of Consciousness, and therefore myself as being actually composed of Consciousness, and the direct realization of myself as that Consciousness, as That of which the world, and the universe, is actually and ultimately composed.

It was spirituality that pointed out to me that owing to the Nature of Consciousness as formless, and so being beyond even conception, that if there was to be true knowledge, true understanding of That of which the world was composed, of That of which I was composed, that the concepts regarding What Is Actually There had to be released, or not be clung to as actually being What Is Actually There, but at the very most had to be considered as signposts pointing toward What Is Actually There. That is, spirituality made it clear that if one is to truly know What Is Actually There, if one is to know one's own True Nature as That, then one must move beyond concepts and into the Formlessness Itself, devoid of concepts.

To know What Is Actually There as That, not as a concept but as the direct realization of It, as the direct realization of one's own Nature, one simply has to become aware or conscious of Consciousness or Awareness or whatever you want to call it in the absence of any conceptualization of it, which means in the absence of thinking, in the absence of the seemingly endless and ceaseless functioning of the mind. One simply becomes aware of Awareness, or conscious of Consciousness, not as a concept, but as That apprehending presence that always exists directly where one is, and in the absence of which nothing whatsoever, either real or illusion, could ever be known.

To know at the conceptual level what is actually there one must first see the etchings for what they are, which is just etchings and not What Is Actually There, no matter how abstract or subtle. For as long as one takes the etchings for What Is Actually There, whether it be the abstract etchings of quantum physics, or a very useful model of reality and Reality, What Is Actually There remains obscured, even though it is with us at all times as our own Awareness, our own formless and timeless Consciousness.

When Consciousness flows in relation to itself, or encounters itself, an etching is always created. The etching has form. But if the etching, the form, is taken by the apprehending Consciousness for what is actually there then the form becomes an object, as the form then literally objects to or blocks the Consciousness that apprehends it as such, i.e., as what is actually there, from realizing or apprehending that it Itself, i.e., Consciousness, is What Is Actually There. 

This is why the human condition is one in which there always seems to be something missing, because there is something missing, and what is missing is our awareness or consciousness of our true Self, our True Nature. What almost every human considers to be their nature is ultimately nothing more than a collection of concepts referred to collectively as the ego. Because we have taken what we experience as reality for what is actually there, our formless Consciousness has identified Itself with form, with the experiences it creates, and in so doing hides Itself from Itself, from its own Awareness, behind the veil of form, thereby making it impossible to instead identify Itself with the Formless. This is maya, the veil of illusion.

Even Consciousness cannot simultaneously know Itself as both form and Formless, for all knowledge, even the knowledge that is the direct realization of one's nature as That which is indicated or pointed toward by the word Consciousness, requires the involvement of that Consciousness in a relation with Itself in order to create that knowledge, and as quantum physics has taught us, involvement of the Individual Consciousness in one relation that creates any knowledge makes it impossible for that same Individual point of Consciousness to be simultaneously involved in the relation required to create the opposite knowledge. And the relation in which that which is indicated or pointed toward by the word Consciousness must be involved with Itself in order to create its form-identity is the opposite of the relation in which it must be involved with Itself in order to create its Formless-identity, its awareness of Itself as Awareness, its consciousness of Itself as Consciousness, its awareness of Itself not as an object, not as form, but as that timeless and formless Beingness out of which all form arises and by which all form is apprehended.

What is actually there is the ocean of Consciousness, and not the wave-form of experience, emotional, mental, or physical, that arises on the surface when the Ocean probes into Itself, or flows in relation to Itself. The wave-form of experience is only a surface phenomenon, and can never tell us or be What Is Actually There below the surface.

Nor does the word Consciousness, nor Awareness, nor Formlessness, nor any other word or phrase tell you What Is Actually There, as these too, as words, as concepts, as mental forms, are themselves only etchings of what is there, and as such can at most be signposts that point one in the direction of What Is Actually There.

To know What Is Actually There you first have to stop thinking that the forms, the objects, the etchings are what is actually there. Because as long as you think that the etchings are what is actually there, you cannot know That which apprehends the etchings as What Is Actually There, cannot know that what you call the Awareness, the Consciousness, that Exists directly where you are to also be that which Exist directly everywhere else as well.

What Is Actually There is beyond words, but it is not beyond knowing, not as an object, not as a form, not as an experience, but as That by which experience is known, as That by which anything is known. Consciousness can be conscious of Itself, but it cannot be conscious of itself as an object, as form, because What Is Actually There is not an object and does not have form.

When Consciousness is conscious of Itself as form, as an object, this is called delusion, and this delusion is the human condition. The illusion of knowing Itself as form is the veil of maya that Consciousness seems to unavoidably cast over Itself as it projects Itself into the dimension of physical experience, into the level of Self-relation where physical experience is created. This delusion is like a cloak or set of clothing we have no choice but to don as we emerge, as Consciousness being human, into this particular level or dimension of Reality.

However, it is not physical experience that is the great obstacle to realization and the lessening or cessation of delusion; rather it is mental experience and the thoughts we harbor and cling to regarding the nature of reality and our own nature as forms, as objects, as ego's, that keeps us immersed in what appears to be a world of form and objects devoid of the real Life that underlies and is the source and basis of all form, all objects.

The present delusion of science regarding the nature of reality and its dogmatic obsession with form is the internal delusion of humanity externalized, or more accurately, the internal delusion of humanity that results from our seemingly compulsive and complete identification with form has become externalized as the delusion of science and its complete identification with form. And as humanity has increased its knowledge of the surface features of Reality, increased its knowledge of form, thinking that all that is needed is a more detailed etching to discover directly What Is Actually There, the actual result has been that Reality Itself, i.e., What Is Actually There, has only become more and more obscured, buried deeper and deeper under mountains and mountains of concepts that can never in all of eternity be the Formlessness that is What Is Actually There where experiential reality seems to be.

I am not trying to tell you what is, for there are no words that can do that, since What Is is different in nature than words. However, I am using words as signposts to point you in the direction of What Is, which is also not different from what you are, not different from or other than your own True Nature, and that task words certainly have the ability to do, if only you let them, if only you do not consider the word to be or even represent What Is, but instead see it only as a pointer, a signpost, pointing toward That which is by its Nature is beyond all words because it is beyond all form. For this reason it has become my habit to differentiate between words that point toward That which is beyond form, and so beyond conception, and those that do not, by capitalizing those words that are being used as signposts to point toward what is by its Nature beyond form and so beyond words.

There is no concept here to be grasped. If you try to grasp It, try to grasp That which the capitilized words are pointing toward, It will be obscured. If you try to grasp It, you are treating the words as the actuality and not as the signposts they are. 

If you are heading toward Chicago and come across a sign that points toward Chicago and somehow come to think that the sign is Chicago, then you stop where you are, thinking you have arrived at your destination, and so you never actually get to Chicago, even though in your delusion you think that you are already there.

We think we know what we are, but because what we think we know what we are is not what we truly Are, we think that there is something missing from what we are, and so we go off in search of it, looking to find it in form, in objects, in concepts, but these always come up short leaving us looking for more of the same. And in all of this looking for what seems to missing we never look in the one place it can only ever be found, which is directly where you are in this moment, as the formless Awareness or Consciousness that is apprehending in this moment all that you call reality, be it emotional, mental or physical. 

If you get bogged down in the concept, bogged down in the words used to point toward What You Are, then you think you have already arrived at knowledge of What You Are, when all you have done is set up camp at a signpost, thinking you have already arrived at the knowledge you sought. I know this from personal experience, having spent the last thirty or so years knowing to one degree or another at the conceptual level that the world was composed of Consciousness, while failing to understand until recently the difference between the concept, no matter how subtle or abstract, and the direct Reality that is actually there that the word Consciousness is pointing toward. And it was not until I ceased to identify with form, ceased to think of myself as having any Real form, that it even became possible for me to instead identify with the Formless, not the Formless as a concept, but directly as the Formlessness by which all form is known.

It is not the ego that had this realization, not the conceptual illusion of myself that had this realization; rather, it was the Awareness that had until that moment mistakenly thought of itself or known itself as the ego that had this realization. What you think you are does not and will not realize That which is your True Nature. What you think you are is by its nature a thought, a concept and so has form, and so can never be That Which You Actually And Always Are And Always Have Been And Always Will Be, which is the field of formless Awareness or Consciousness that both creates and apprehends, through its relations to Itself, the ever changing forms that arise out of It.

Really, it is not difficult. Consider a river. In physical terms what is actually there, the river or the swirls that arise and come and go where the river flows in relation to itself? Try to grab onto a swirl and there is nothing there but water. The swirl is ephemeral, a form that arises in the field that is the river.

Now consider our own situation as humans. What Is Actually There, the Consciousness that is always there or the experiential forms that come and go within that field of Consciousness? 

This is why it is essential to understand the illusion of the swirls of form relative to the Reality of the River of Consciousness, because as long as the swirls are mistaken for what is actually there, the River will identify with the swirls, with the forms, because in that condition there is nothing else for the River to identify with, because in that condition, i.e., where the forms are taken for what is actually there, the River of Consciousness, as What Is Actually There, no longer presents Itself as one of the options for creating an identity, having obscured Itself, its very Presence as that which apprehends form, behind the veil of maya, which is nothing more than the veil of form mistakenly apprehended as what is actually there.

What We Actually Are is that which both creates and apprehends reality, and so reality is whatever the hell we say or believe it is, at least at the mental-conceptual level. So if we conceive and so believe that form is real, then form becomes our reality, and Formlessness then must appear as unreal, and so as something that is not a candidate for creating an identity, as it then appears as something that does not even actually exist. And so it is that Consciousness becomes hidden in plain sight of Itself by nothing more than a mistaken idea that by its nature tends to perpetuate itself, until for whatever reason the mind stops working long enough that the illusion of form-identification in that moment cannot be maintained, as the illusion of form-identification requires concepts, requires form, and as the illusion ceases to be created the veil of maya is lifted, and in that moment, and only in that moment, before the mind starts working again and generating the concepts that again obscure Awareness from Itself, there is the opportunity to become aware of Awareness, conscious of Consciousness, and in that moment know one's Self to be That directly, absent any concept.

And once that is done you just keep doing it over and over and over again: misidentifying with form, finding an opening to become aware of Awareness and knowing one's Self as that, misidentifying with form, finding an opening to become aware of Awareness and knowing one's Self as that: misidentifying with form, finding an opening to become aware of Awareness and knowing one's Self as that, misidentifying with form, finding an opening to become aware of Awareness and knowing one's Self as that and on and on it goes. And as this goes on the moments one spends in illusion grow shorter, as it were, and the moments one spends in Knowing grow longer, as it were. (As it were because for What We Actually Are no time passes, since It is always and only Now.)

There is the mistaken notion that once Awareness is aware of Itself as That, i.e., as Awareness, that the ego just goes away and one is forever free of it, but this is very very rare, e.g., the Buddha, Jesus, and Eckhart Tolle are three examples. For most people it is a matter of slowly diminishing the influence of the ego, the form-identity, by just paying less attention to it, by becoming aware of its illusory nature, and thereby spending more time in awareness of Awareness, so that like a structure that is not kept up, the ego just slowly fades away.

For the ego is not autonomous; rather it is a conceptual structure that can only function through the force of the attention of Awareness to it, like a paddlewheel placed in a river, turned and energized by the flow of the river through it.  It's just that when there is nothing but form-identity virtually all of the attention of our Awareness goes to the ego, and so it is then very forceful in calling more attention to itself and presenting itself as One's identity. But as attention is diverted from the ego toward Awareness or Consciousness Itself, toward identification with the Formless, suddenly the paddlewheel of the ego does not turn with the same force, and so it is not as effective at performing its self-perpetuating function of drawing attention to Itself, making it progressively easier to identify with what Eckhart Tolle refers to most often using the signposts or pointers Spaciousness, or the Now, which is also what he points toward using the phrase "the field of Awareness or Consciousness in which form arises."

We are like painters, and what we are painting is what we experience, and we can draw our paint from either the palette of allowing or resistance, and so paint experiential wantedness or unwantedness.

In each moment we are free to choose from either palette, but we can limit that freedom by choosing which palette to draw from based not upon what we want to paint in this moment, but rather based upon what we have painted in a previous moment, so that our choice now becomes coupled to and so constrained by a previous choice. Or we can become overly concerned with what will be the appearance of the finished product, and so not pay attention to which palette we are drawing our paint from.

You can know which palette you are drawing your paint from in each moment by paying attention to how you feel, because emotional experience, in its wantedness or unwantedness, is the first experience we create with the paint we have drawn from the palette of either allowing or resistance, respectively.

We are engines of experiential creation, and our very Existence, which is itself unavoidable, makes unavoidable our creation and apprehension of some experience. And although we have no choice but to create some experience, we get to choose the most important aspect or quality of what we create as experience, which is its quality of wantedness or unwantedness.

And we choose that quality of wantedness or unwantedness by choosing what I refer to as our in the moment mode of being. Our in the moment mode of being refers to the way in which we are choosing, in any given moment or now, to be in relation to what I refer to as our more fundamental Individuality.

Our more fundamental Individuality is the Individuality that is projecting Itself from a less iterated level of Existential self-relation and experiential creation into this more iterated level of Existential self-relation and experiential creation as our Individuality.

Thus, as the word itself indicates, our Individuality is really an Indivisible Duality composed of two inseparable Individuals. We are as much our more fundamental Individuality as we are the avatar Individuality that is being projected by our more fundamental Individuality as our Individuality. And yet our perspective is that of the avatar Individuality, because we are the Individuality that is creating and apprehending experience from this more iterated level of Existential self-relation by becoming involved in relations with other Individualities at this more iterated level of Existential self-relation.

However, as we become involved in relations with other Individualities at this more iterated level of Existential self-relation and so create what we apprehend as physical experience, our involvement in those relations unavoidably places us, as the avatar Individuality, in relation to our more fundamental Individuality, and it is that unavoidable relation that is the source of all experiential wantedness and unwantedness.

The relation that is unavoidably created between the avatar Individuality and the more fundamental Individuality as we, from the perspective of the avatar Individuality, choose to become involved in any relation with any other Individuality, is a relation of flow, and it is that relation of flow occurring between the avatar Individuality and the more fundamental Individuality that is what we, from our perspective as the avatar Individuality, apprehend as the quality of wantedness or unwantedness associated with any experience we create.

The relation of flow that is unavoidably created between the avatar Individuality and the more fundamental Individuality as we, from the perspective of the avatar Individuality, choose to become involved in any relation with any other Individuality, is a relation of either aligned or oppositional flow. That is, as we project ourselves into relations with other Individualities as we create what we apprehend as experience from the level of the avatar Individuality, the more fundamental Individuality is also projecting Itself into relations with other Individualities to create what it apprehends as experience from the level of the more fundamental Individuality. And the way in which we are projecting ourselves as Individuals into the relations that create experience from this level of Reality or Existential self-relation can be either like or unlike the way in which the more fundamental Individuality is projecting itself into the relations that create experience from its level of Reality or of Existential self-relation.

And if the way we are projecting our Individuality into the relations that create what we apprehend as experience is like the way the more fundamental Individuality is projecting itself into he relations that create what it apprehends as experience, then there is an alignment between the direction of flow of the avatar Individuality and the direction of flow of the more fundamental Individuality, which alignment of flow we, from the perspective of the avatar Individuality, apprehend most directly and immediately as a wanted emotional experience, as the experience of wanted e-motion, as the experience of aligned and so attractive Existential motion.

Conversely, if the way we are projecting our Individuality into the relations that create what we apprehend as experience is unlike the way the more fundamental Individuality is projecting itself into he relations that create what it apprehends as experience, then there is opposition between the direction of flow of the avatar Individuality and the direction of flow of the more fundamental Individuality, which opposition of flow we, from the perspective of the avatar Individuality, apprehend most directly and immediately as an unwanted emotional experience, as the experience of unwanted e-motion, as the experience of oppositional and so repulsive Existential motion.

Emotion is thus the product of relative Existential motion, the product of the motion or flow of Existence or Consciousness relative to Itself, and more specifically is the product of the flow of the avatar Individuality relative to the flow of the more fundamental Individuality, as that relation of aligned or oppositional flow is apprehended from the perspective of the avatar Individuality.

The avatar Individuality is like a drop in a River that is the more fundamental Individuality. But unlike a drop in an actual river, the Drop that is the avatar Individuality has the innate ability to choose its own direction of flow, regardless of the direction in which the River that is its more fundamental Individuality is choosing to flow.

The Drop that is the avatar Individuality not only has the innate ability to choose its own direction of flow, but has the obligation to do so, in each moment, in each now. And the choice that the Avatar Individuality makes in each moment regarding its direction of flow creates in each moment a relation of either aligned or oppositional flow between the avatar Individuality and the more fundamental Individuality, creating in each moment what the avatar Individuality apprehends as either a wanted or unwanted emotional experience.

However, the relation of flow between the avatar Individuality and the more fundamental Individuality as aligned or oppositional does not just determine the wanted or unwanted quality of emotional experience; rather, it also determines the wanted or unwanted quality of what the avatar Individuality creates and apprehends as mental and physical experience as well, since every relation in which the avatar Individuality becomes involved that creates every sort of experience at every level places the avatar Individuality in a relation of aligned or oppositional flow relative to the flow of its more fundamental Individuality, thereby imparting upon every experience an Individual creates and apprehends a degree of wantedness or unwantedness.

And so we are like painters, and what we are painting is what we experience, and we can draw our paint from either the palette of allowing or resistance, from the palette of aligned or oppositional flow, and so paint experiential wantedness or unwantedness.  And you can know which palette you are drawing your experiential paint from in each moment by paying attention to the emotional experience you are, in that moment, creating and apprehending.

If you are happy while you paint, i.e., experiencing emotional wantedness, then the mental and physical experiences that you paint while you are happy, while you are in a relation of aligned flow with your more fundamental Individuality, will themselves have the quality of wantedness. But if you are unhappy while you paint, i.e., experiencing emotional unwantedness, then the mental and physical experiences that you paint while you are unhappy, while you are in a relation of oppositional flow with your more fundamental Individuality, will themselves have the quality of unwantedness.

In each moment we are involved in different levels of relations that create and so paint our emotional, mental, and physical experiences, but in each moment we can only be in either a relation of aligned or oppositional flow relative to the flow of our more fundamental Individuality, and so we can in each moment only create either experiential wantedness or unwantedness, since involvement in the fundamental and unavoidable relations of aligned and oppositional flow are, for a single avatar Individuality in a single moment, mutually exclusive of each other. 

An avatar Individual's choosing to be in one relation in one moment makes it impossible for that same avatar Individuality to choose to be in the opposite and so mutually exclusive relation in that same moment. Therefore, while choosing to be involved in the relation that creates emotional wantedness, it is not possible for the same avatar Individuality to be involved in the relation necessary to create emotional unwantedness, nor is it possible for that same avatar Individuality in that same moment to be involved in the relation that creates either mental or physical unwantedness. Likewise, while choosing to be involved in the relation that creates emotional unwantedness, it is not possible for the same avatar Individuality to be involved in the relation necessary to create emotional wantedness, nor is it possible for that same avatar Individuality in that same moment to be involved in the relation that creates either mental or physical wantedness.

For this reason we do not need to micromanage our physical experiential creations in order to create experiential wantedness at the mental and physical level; rather, we only need pay attention to the palette we are drawing from as we create what we apprehend as emotional experience, and adjust our choice of palette accordingly, i.e., according to the wantedness or unwantedness of what we are, in this moment, in this now, creating and apprehending as emotional experience.

And if in a given moment we paint something that we do not like there is nothing other than our own Individuality that can stop us from making a different choice in the next moment and painting something that we like instead.

And the way our own Individuality can prevent us from making a different choice in this moment than we made in a previous moment is by basing our choice in this moment upon an experience that was created as the product of a choice we made in a previous moment, by making our choice in this moment as a reaction to and so reflection of a previous moments choice.

There is nothing that actually constrains or dictates what we choose as our mode of being moment to moment, as we are free to choose a mode of being in one moment that is the  complete opposite of the mode of being we chose in the previous moment. But we ourselves can constrain that choice by linking our choice regarding our in the moment mode of being to a choice made in a previous moment, which we do when we try to create a wanted experience by trying to modify an already created experience, as this links the choice we are making now to a choice made previously.

If we would remain free to choose our mode of being without any self-imposed constraint it is necessary to let already created experience be, to not choose our mode of being according to how we want to try and modify a painting that has already dried. The canvas upon which we paint experience in each moment is as pristine or cluttered as we choose. What we have created before has relevance to what we are creating now only to the extent that we ourselves choose to make it relevant, and to the extent that we choose to make it relevant it constrains what we are able to create now, as choosing to make it relevant links what we are choosing as our mode of being now to what we chose as our mode of being then, as we created the experience that came before.

When we try to create emotional wantedness by modifying external reality, by trying to arrange external reality in a particular way, we are not choosing our mode of being according to how we want to feel, not choosing our mode of being according to the emotional experience we want to create; rather we are choosing our mode of being according to how we want to try and modify external reality. And even though in our attempts to modify external reality we are always trying to create emotional wantedness, the mode of being we choose in order to try and modify external reality is often not the mode of being that creates emotional wantedness, but is quite often the mode of being that creates emotional unwantedness.

However, swimming upstream will never get you to where you want to be. Everything that you want lies downstream. Everything that you want can only be created by projecting yourself in alignment with the flow of your more fundamental Individuality because the alignment of that flow is the source and basis of all experiential wantedness.

There is only what we are and what we create as experience. Experience is a virtual reality. If you would understand why you feel as you do and why you experience what you experience as mental and physical reality, then it is necessary to understand what is happening beneath the surface of the virtual reality we call experiential reality, because it is what is happening there that creates what we apprehend as experiential reality.

What we are are avatar Individualities that are being projected into this level of Existential self-relation and experiential creation by a more fundamental Individuality. And what we create as experience is, in its wantedness or unwantedness, completely a function of the fundamental and unavoidable relation of aligned or oppositional flow occurring between those two Individualities, as the more fundamental Individuality chooses to project or flow Itself into this level of Reality as an avatar Individuality, and then as we choose, as that avatar Individuality, how we project or flow ourselves within this level of Reality.

The direction of flow of the more fundamental Individuality is constant, as it is always choosing to be in a mode of allowing and therefore always creating for itself a wanted experience. Our direction of flow is not constant, as we sometimes choose to be in a mode of allowing, in which case we flow in alignment with our more fundamental Individuality, thereby creating wanted experiences, while at other times we choose to be in a mode of resistance, in which case we flow in opposition to our more fundamental Individuality, thereby creating unwanted experiences.

Our very Existence, which is itself unavoidable, makes unavoidable our creation and apprehension of either a wanted or unwanted emotional experience in each moment. There is no third choice. Put another way, we have no choice but to choose to create, in each moment, in each now, either a wanted or an unwanted emotional experience. But we do get to choose which we will create, and which palette we choose to draw from, i.e., aligned or opposed, allowing or resistant, wanted or unwanted, sets the tone for what we create as mental and physical experience in that same moment as well.

Therefore, if we would create more of what we want and less of what we do not want, it would be to our advantage to pay less attention to our previous experiential creations and the palette we chose to paint them, and pay more attention instead to the palette from which we are drawing in this moment as what we paint what we create as experience now.

But it is not the wantedness or unwantedness of what we are thinking, nor the wantedness or unwantedness of what we experience as physical reality that lets us know with certainty from which palette we are drawing in this moment, in this now. Rather, it is the wantedness or unwantedness of what we feel, the wantedness or unwantedness of what we are creating and apprehending as emotional experience, that is the most direct and immediate indicator of whether we are, in this moment, choosing to flow in alignment with or opposition to our more fundamental Individuality, and so whether we are, in this moment, choosing to draw from the palette of allowing or resistance, alignment or opposition, as we create what we experience as reality.

Experientially there is nothing more important than how we feel, because how we feel indicates our in the moment involvement in the relation that determines whether what we create as any type of experience in that moment will have the quality of wantedness or unwantedness. However, when we choose to let what we have already created as experience determine how we feel, as we do when we react to already created experience, then we are still choosing how we feel, still choosing the emotion we create, but we are not doing do freely in that moment; rather we are then choosing in a way that is being dictated by a choice made either freely or not in a previous moment.

We all have free will, we all have the innate ability to choose without restriction our in the moment mode of being, our in the moment relation of flow to our more fundamental Individuality. But sometimes, in exercising that freedom, in exercising that ability, we inadvertently and unknowingly limit and constrain ourselves, so that it then seems that we have no choice but to feel a certain way depending upon the circumstances. We think that if something unwanted happens then we have no choice but to feel bad. Likewise, we think that if something wanted happens that we have no choice but to feel good.

And so it is that we spend our lives trying to arrange external circumstances in a way that will allow us to reflexively create emotional wantedness rather than emotional unwantedness. And this is certainly one way to go about trying to create wanted emotional experience, but it is not freedom, and it is not in accord with our nature as Beings that possess free will. It is bondage, but it is bondage to nothing other than our own experiential creations. It is making already created experience the determiner of what will be created as emotional experience now, rather than just deciding directly what one would like to create as emotional experience in this moment and then being able to become involved in the relation that makes that creation possible.  

We are always free, because there is nothing outside ourselves that can constrain what we are choosing as our mode of being in any moment, in any now. And as it is we, as Individuals, that inadvertently cage ourselves, by choosing our mode of being as a reflexive reaction to already created experience, it is only we, as Individuals, that can release ourselves from the cage we have constructed, by instead choosing our mode of being with the conscious intent to create a wanted emotional experience, regardless of either external or internal circumstances.

Of course this is easier said than done, else we would all be doing it. The difficulty is not in making the choice, the difficulty is in recognizing that such a choice even exists. And the reason it is difficult to recognize that such a choice exists is because we do not realize the extent to which we are responsible for creating what we apprehend as experiential reality.

Everything that we experience as reality requires our involvement in a relation in order to create what we apprehend as experience. What we experience as reality, emotional, mental and physical, simply does not exist in the absence of our involvement in the relation that creates it.  Experiential reality is a virtual reality, and it is a virtual reality created and apprehended by what does actually Exist, and what actually Exists is Consciousness.  The Reality of Consciousness flows in relation to Itself and creates what it then apprehends as experiential reality. Consciousness is the River, and it is also the Drops, experiential realities of every variety are just the swirls that come into relative existence where that River and those Drops flow in relation to each other.

We are the Creator that has mistaken itself for its own creation, the Painter that has become lost in their own painting, and in so doing we have also lost sight of how it is that we create the creation, and in losing sight of how we create the creation we have also lost sight of the fact that it is we and we alone, as Individuals, that get to choose whether what we create as experience has the quality of wantedness or unwantedness.