MasterPok's blog

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Perhaps the only thought that has the ability to free us rather than just bind us more subtly is the idea that whatever form appears is just what is. Calling something what is is still a label, still a form, but it is not a label that places us in conflict with our self, and in the absence of that conflict awareness emerges, or merges with what was always itself, but was mistakenly seen as other while it was obscured by the label "should not be."

That which sees cannot itself be seen.

That which hears cannot itself be heard.

That which feels cannot itself be felt.

That which knows cannot itself be known.

That which comprehends cannot itself  be comprehended.

 

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

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

 

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

That which apprehends it all has been completely forgotten,

or if it is remembered, has been cast aside

as unimportant, or as less important

than what is seen and heard and felt and known.

 

And so science holds that it is form

that gives rise to the formlessness

by which all form is apprehended. 

 

Science holds that when physical form

reaches a certain level of complexity

that formless Consciousness

poofs into being.

 

Science has no proof of this,

it is only an idea, a belief,

mistaken for fact.

 

Science has never even considered

the opposite possibility.

 

What is the opposite possibility?

 

That it is when formless Consciousness

reaches a certain level of complexity

that physical forms poof into existence.

 

How does that which is formless become complex?

 

By flowing in relation to itself,

over and over and over again.

 

When the formless first flows in relation to itself

the first forms that poof into existence

are what we refer to as emotions.

 

And so arises one level of complexity,

one level of reality,

composed of formless Being

flowing in relation to itself,

and then apprehending as experiential reality,

as emotional reality,

the forms that arise within itself

as it flows in relation to itself.

 

And then, while already flowing in relation to itself,

while already creating and apprehending emotional reality,

the formless flows in relation to itself again.

 

And when the formless again flows in relation to itself,

while already flowing in relation to itself,

the next forms that poof into existence

are what we refer to as thoughts.

 

And so arises a second level of complexity,

a second level of reality,

composed of the same formless Being

flowing in relation to itself,

and then apprehending as experiential reality,

as mental reality,

the additional forms that arise within itself

as it flows yet again in relation to itself.

 

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

while already flowing in relation to itself,

as it already flows in relation to itself,

the next forms that poof into existence

are what we refer to as physical objects.

 

And so arises a third level of complexity,

a third level of reality,

composed of the same formless Being

flowing in relation to itself,

and then apprehending as experiential reality,

as physical reality,

the further forms that arise within itself

as it flows once again in relation to itself.

 

Which seems more likely,

that form already is

and then somehow combines with itself

to somehow create that which apprehends form,

or that the formless already is

and then flows in relation to itself

thereby creating the forms

it then apprehends as reality?

 

Prior to the advent of quantum physics

it certainly seemed that form

had an objective existence

independent of the formlessness

by which it was apprehended.

 

But with the advent of quantum physics

it has become apparent

that how form appears,

that the form that is created,

has no existence

apart from the formlessness

by which it is apprehended.

 

Be in relation to what is there in one way

and this form appears.

Be in relation to what is there in the opposite way

and the opposite form appears.

 

This is called wave-particle duality.

 

And while being in relation

to what is there

in one way

so that this form appears,

it is not possible to be in relation

to what is there

in the opposite way,

and so not possible

to make the opposite form appear.

 

This is called uncertainty.

 

Wave-particle duality and uncertainty.

The two pillars upon which all quantum theory rests,

and which two pillars refute the notion

that form has an objective existence,

or any existence,

apart from the formlessness

by which it is apprehended.

 

It is as if we had a machine made of wood

that we somehow thought produced trees.

And then someone came along

and took the machine apart

to the point where the parts of the machine

were found to have no existence

outside the context of the trees

they were thought to produce. 

 

How can a machine produce

that which its parts

cannot themselves exist without?

 

How can form produce

that which it

cannot exist without? 

 

Prior to quantum physics

there was the assumption

that in the absence of

an apprehending Consciousness

form still was.

 

And so it was possible to believe

that form could be

prior to Consciousness

and so could produce Consciousness.

 

However, quantum physics has shown

that in the absence of

an apprehending Consciousness

there is no form,

but only the potential

for form to arise.

 

This makes problematic the assumption

that in the absence

of an apprehending Consciousness

form still is,

making it no longer tenable to believe

that form can be

prior to Consciousness,

making absurd the notion

that form somehow produces

the formlessness,

the Consciousness,

by which it is apprehended,

and apart from which

it cannot be demonstrated

or said to even exist.

 

Name or think of one form

of which you are not conscious,

of which you are not aware.

 

It cannot be done.

 

Thus the dependence of form

upon the formless,

upon Consciousness,

revealed by quantum physics,

is really quite obvious.

 

And yet, because we live in a world

that places form first

dominated by a science

that places form first,

the findings of quantum physics

that reveal form to be

that which is created,

and so reveal form to be secondary,

are simply ignored,

because those findings conflict

with the preconceived notion,

with the belief,

that form is primary

and Consciousness secondary.

 

Such is the nature of beliefs,

such is the nature of thoughts,

such is the nature of forms,

that because they are created

by the involvement in a relation

of the formlessness which apprehends them,

that while held to,

while being created by the formless,

and so apprehended by the formless,

they make impossible the creation and apprehension

by that same formlessness

of any opposite beliefs, thoughts, or forms.

 

This is also uncertainty,

only now operating at the level of thought creation,

where mental form is created,

rather than at the level of physical creation,

where physical form is created.

 

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

makes impossible their simultaneous creation and observation of its momentum,

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

and Consciousness as secondary

makes impossible their being able

to simultaneously create and apprehend

the opposite idea,

wherein Consciousness is seen as primary

and form is seen as secondary.

 

And so scientists have not really ignored

the findings of quantum physics

with regard to the relation

between form and formlessness

for the past one hundred years,

because one can only ignore

that which it is possible to apprehend.

 

Rather, scientists are blind

to the findings of quantum physics

with regard to the relation

between form and formlessness

because those findings

cannot even be comprehended

by any scientist, or any person,

that continues to maintain their belief

in the primacy of form.

 

Because to maintain that belief

requires one's continued involvement

in a relation

that makes impossible one's involvement

in the opposite relation

necessary to create

the opposite idea,

the opposite form,

wherein form would be seen as secondary,

or as that which is created,

rather than as that which creates.

 

Why do we apprehend emotional, mental and physical reality?

Science tells us that it is because

the form we call brain

became complex enough

to create Consciousness.

 

And yet science also tells us

that if we dig deep enough into form

there really is no form,

only the potential for form to arise

when observed by the formless.

 

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

Because we are the uncreated formlessness

that is flowing in relation to itself

creating all these forms within our Self,

and then apprehending as reality

that which has arisen within our Self,

becoming more complex,

more entwined within our Self,

and yet remaining unchanged

in our essential nature

as formless uncreated Being.