MasterPok's blog

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."