What this blog is about

The Corpus Callosum

The Corpus Callosum

This blog is about the intelligent heart*.  Which means it is also about the loving brain. The left brain/right brain discussion in modern discourse has become a false dichotomy — at last. This is an “Ascensioneering” site. It is about unity, and it starts with recognizing a coming love affair between our two brain hemispheres, and between our once-divided heart and mind. Ascensioneering means the engineering of Ascension, the dogma-less pathing of infinite human growth.

Experiential trumps theoretical here. 

The corpus callosum is the physical anatomical join of our two brain hemispheres, a neuronal rich bridge we have deemed a wall, and which now in the next minute or the next year comes down as fast and as miraculously as collapsed the one in Berlin on November 9th, 1989.

It is about the return of the Goddess in our lives. It is about the most important topics on earth.

*Coincidentally the title of a biography of D.H. Lawrence

-Bill Sterling / bill@sterlings.us

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Finding the Supreme Chapter 4

Following is an experience:
Something nice has been happening for the last several days.  Some Gurus have described as “The Witness”,  a non-involved consciousness that is close to you and always available and merely observes but also gives off a beautiful harmonious feeling.. Well, the Witness has started Moving In, meaning overlapping with my normal everyday waking consciousness.  Lots of benefits occur in addition to just a nice feeling.

I had a classic day from hell yesterday with everybody needing me at once all day long, my 16 year old son,  and people where I do volunteer work, it was truly a massive challenge and I don’t multi-task well. All day long I was on the phone fixing things, figuring things out, for my boy. He had forgotten an assignment, his track spikes, and felt he couldn’t go to a meet, but wanted his spikes and his tablet brought to school an hour away from me, to work on the assignment.  There were emails from coaches, and text messages, text messages, and text messages.  Usually very early  in such a dramatic 3D squeeze  I would break and start to yell at people. Wince.

It didn’t happen.  But I was not trying to keep calm. Clear light was dawning in the actual midst of the true frenzy all by itself, and I began to notice that the Witness was “moving in” to “me” and suddenly I was also non-involved in all the dramas. Imagine a Venn diagram with one circle Bill’s old cranky consciousness, and the other circle pure Witness without judgment, with no ax to grind, and just attention.  The overlap started and expanded to maybe a quarter of my normal consciousness and even that much was enough to transform everything, mood, decision making, everything of 3D.  I became non-involved in my own brain.  Just there, noticing, watching the Bill Brain  sorting everything out and text in the car, and just do everything that had to be done, — and not get angry.

I think actually many folks have this experience, it is just that this one was extremely vivid and also continuous, in fact it is here today, about 4 days into it.  The Witness coming to me instead of my going to the Witness is new and quite a revelation.

It feels like a return to normality and sanity.

At about 5 days, the Witness left.  I am left too, left with a beautiful memory of how life can be.  The situation right now is that I can bring in the Witness by request, but it has not actively sought me out since.  During the experience, when I woke up in the morning, it was there.  When I was eating, it was there.  I didn’t have to look.  The Witness graciously and sweetly, stayed available, being.”


False Self Systems

Who we experience as us has always been mysterious.  The closer we have looked at how we know we exist, the more confusing it has become.  It has so stumped most of humanity that several geniuses figured it out precisely backwards.  Writing back in an even denser age than ours, the philosopher Renee Descartes concluded, “I think, therefore I am.”  Writing in a later and softer age, the Indian sage Krishnamurti made what I think is a more helpful observation, “Thinking is an addiction.”

Indeed Hindu cosmology has for me always offered a more sensible order, first comes Being, then thinking and all the phenomenal rest.

Finding The Witness makes this a clear and immutable finding. The Witness doesn’t think. It just is.

At possibly the opposite end of the spectrum of who we think we are can be had some often terrifying experiences labeled as schizophrenic. Really helpful work was done by R.D. Laing in this area, intersecting identity and illness. In The Divided Self,  1967?, Laing posited a useful description of identity confusion he called “False Self Systems”.  Many of us choose to appear to be one sort of person in one environment, and to be a different personality in a different environment. It can be found easier to be chameleons than to be authentic.

Experienced to extremes, one has no idea who he is.  Laing said we can create false selves, often for protection, among which we can become simply lost. Laing asserted everybody seeks “ontological security”, not only knowledge and experience of who we are, but certainty that we exist at all.

If we go with Descartes, and put our trust in thinking, we can quite easily wind up in a serious debate with ourselves that implicates our actual identity. Anything can be thought. Opposites can be simultaneously thought, even believed, and we can think ourselves nearly out of existence. It has been asserted that the ability to simultaneously hold contradictory thoughts is a mark of high intelligence.

In college I was convinced, and supremely agitated to think, that if god is infinite he must by definition will the happening of all possible things, including his own non-being. This was for an already nervous undergraduate, really scary.  I didn’t come to this from the “God is dead” league current at the time.  The conclusion actually seemed to me built into the structure of thought and logic. He had to. And if God didn’t exist, neither did I.  The whole thing collapsed, and me too.

Furthermore, I went to college believing that I would meet wise men who knew what life really is and could explain it.  By reading in an untrained way I had become confused.  I knew that my first university philosophy class would seat my intellectual chaos into divine right order.

But early in freshman year, I learned with growing intellectual and spiritual horror, that nobody there knew anything important.  They were just as adrift as I was, emotionally and spiritually.  One brilliant philosophy professor encouraged me that perhaps he knew.  He used the phrase in one seminar like,

“… at three o’clock in the morning when you know that you are the center of the universe …”

I thought yes, yes, yes!, am I really, tell us all about it, tell us what that means.  Then I found that he was ridiculing us and himself for having such a bizarre delusion.  The best I got was from people who knew they didn’t know, but I already knew that about both of us by that time.  University for me was two million minutes of wasted time and lonely philosophical melancholy.

The Witness evaporates all this nonsense in one event. The first time it shows up for lunch, the whole table is first cleared of everything.  Then Absolute Being is served.  And we never try to think reality into existence, or out of existence, again.

The panoply of I Am

The structure of everything might be something like this:

me, ego,
I, Higher Self,
Witness behind the Witness,
Brahma, classic, big league, omnipotent God.

Nice to diagram, but I am not sure the structure and names matter much.


There is no question when the Witness comes around about if I am, or who I am.   Laing’s “Ontological Security”  doesn’t get on the menu.  We learn the Witness is not somebody else.  At first it may feel so, as if you are being watched, but quite soon it is realized we are watching us, then I am watching me, then I am watching me watching me, and then there is just watching.

How do I find the Witness?

Witnessing can start very early in meditation. Then it can suddenly overlap into activity.  It often dawns in meditators first in their activity during simple repetitive actions where the mind is not engaged, for example sanding a board and being hit over the head by my own being,  was an early experience of mine.  It gets trickier when you’re doing something where the mind is engaged, that is, it is essentially in the way, because as stated the Witness is a thinkless reality.  Later we may find that this experience of witnessing can coexist with quite furious cognition, driving, talking on the phone.  But the witness survives it all. Keeps a calm inner “I Am” base note in the midst of outer cacophonous activity.

The Witness behind the Witness

The best descriptions I know for the experience of witnessing are on Mooji.org.  In one discourse Mooji surprises us by talking about he Witness behind the Witness.

Finding and being found by the witness is to be inhabited by and an exemplar of what Maharishi called “self-referral consciousness”, which is sufficient in itself, eternally uncontingent,  it is to experience complete ontological confidence.  The certainty in personal self existence is total.  The wan undergraduate thinking that he may have to not exist should have started meditating much earlier than he did.  But nobody on the faculty of the great university he attended even knew of it to suggest it.

Once we experience ourselves as uncontingent, we are free.  Alan Watts, one of the West’s early exponents of meditation put it this way,

“To understand the whole process of oneself requires constant alertness, awareness, in the action of relationship. There must be a constant watching of every incident, without choice, without condemnation or acceptance, with a certain sense of dispassion, so that the truth of every incident is revealed.”

Self-referral consciousness, being everything, it needs nothing.

How can the individual partake of such an abstract, universal, elusive thing?

Once when I came out of an especially quiet meditation I found myself staring at my left hand.  My hand appeared to me as a landscape of clear being. It glowed with a marvelous happiness and ecstatic beauty.  It seemed an extension of the meditation, an answering of all questions although I had not asked any.


Soon for an unknown reason I had formed a circle of thumb and forefinger on one hand and superimposed it over the other.


The result seemed especially profound to me.  It was just dazzling in ways I couldn’t follow.  I was mesmerized and kept the positions for quite a while.  Eventually it wore off, but it has remained unforgettable.

In context of some current notions I think I know what it was teaching.

This will get very abstract.  It is abstract, but at least it is always ready to hand.

Hands and fingers are of course covered with skin.  The skin on my hands had become identified with or representative of what one contacts in meditation, pure unbounded absolute undifferentiated being.  Please don’t leave yet.

I first looked at the open left hand.  It felt like a landscape of being, as if it were infinite.  That was fine, I was used to that.  Next the touching fingers of the other hand were put over this skin which represented infinity.  The fingers seemed to isolate a section of hand.  But the fingers were also skin.  While the experience was a totally harmonious and uncontroversial matter, some of me was aware that infinity had somehow just bounded infinity.  But how could it do that?  This question was at least presented.  In my state at the time, the answer was “of course” and everything was completely OK;  it was just something at the time to notice, but it is worth emphasizing it was all so beautiful and seemed so significant that it was clear as glass that something important was occurring, something worth getting was being said.  It was like Maxwell’s silver foam rubber hammer.

Now I see it as a primer on boundaries.  Chapter 2 of Finding the Supreme in this blog is a long discussion of the technical irony inherent in limits and boundaries.  I realize now that the experience of staring at my hands fits right in.

I was observing that all of my skin was the same.  I was also observing that part of my skin was marking out or highlighting another part of my skin. But how can something demarcate itself? In the ontological terms of deep meditation, being was marking off or identifying an area of being as separately knowable as a part of its otherwise undifferentiated landscape of self.  Of pure skin self in this tutorial case.  An unbounded reality of skinness had acquired a perceptually (only perceptually) area of itself as partial.  Remember, the hand  ‘felt’ infinite.  So the fingers of skin acquired the same definition because skin was presenting itself as infinite.  Here was the infinite marking out the infinite.

For this discussion and the analogy to be built, we have to imagine that skin is skin, that is, it all looks the same, is the same, is completely homogeneous, there are no different areas in skin, no different colors, no attributes at all except skin.  For now, there aren’t fingers and hands.  And that was the way it all appeared to me in that event.

The encircled area on my left hand gained a description of itself as different from the rest of the hand, although it absolutely was not different. Let’s say it just somehow became experienceable as bounded by another area of undifferentiated skin itself not identified as thumb and index finger but just as the same substance which it was somehow redefining.

Nothing had actually changed. Skin self had decided to enwrap skin self. But the perception changed.

The simple perception I had while still drenched in the immense conceptual latitude of deep meditation was casually, “Oh. That’s the infinite encircled by some same infinite and telling me whats bounded is separated from the rest.  No problem.  Something pure can somehow do that.”

That was very interesting and at the time not paradoxical.   I can now comment to myself on this unbounded bounded area on my left hand as shall we say unique. If I moved my thumb and fingers a smallest amount, they showed a different part but could not be a boundary of it.

The original entity so defined could get a name. It could be ‘Area Of Skin 1’.  When the fingers moved the next area enclosed could be called ‘Area Of Skin 2’.  Each would be so many inches across, and so many square inches in size and so on. And the definitions of the two described areas would be different. But each would still be ‘Hand’. More important, each would still be more fundamentally ‘Skin’.  And another area of identical skin had called it out as differently defined.

And if skin were all there was then skin had moved within its undifferentiated actuality to identify areas of itself as unique which were really not.  This is what was important and is what was showing itself to me in the simple positions of two hands.

And because I was lucky enough to be there observing, I saw something change which did not change. It was a changeless alteration of identifications which were true perceptions but not real changes to the correct definitions of the underling substance(s) of the single thing involved in appearing as two things.

Skin had moved to create seeming difference of skin.

As seer I could enjoy both. Skin was still radiating beauty of its genuine nature and at the same time its newly defined areas of called out uniqueness were most beautiful. The new skin identities were absolutely interesting not least because the hand landscape and the fingers marking out seeming but not actual boundaries were both glowing. Newness worth knowing about had appeared within sameness.

Boundaries came into existence which were not capable of bounding anything because they were composed of the exactly same thing they appeared to bound. It was ‘absolutely’ fascinating.

Now we go off the cliff.

What am I?  I am consciousness.  Whatever consciousness is, it is a pure undifferentiated field of whatever it is, that’s pretty uncontroversial.  So how do I show up as conscious within consciousness?  As a separate identity within total sameness which has no separations?

I’m a wrinkle in infinity.  I’m an area of area.  I’m a pucker of something within the something, an emergent definition with no differences from the rest.

What does finding the witness in this way, or in any way, have to do with finding the Supreme value of life, the personality of god?

Somehow there are relationships between myself, the Witness, and god which are something like this:


There is a relationship of infinity between me and the witness, and a relationship of love between me and god.  And there is a relationshiop of unity between god and the witness. These relationships produce an overall relationship of identity among the three areas of universal Self.

I know this is a lot of abstraction to handle, but in the experiences of meeting the Witness and meeting god ‘face to face’ as the Buddhists say, there is no abstraction.  Moreover, there are qualities of appreciation in each beingness of god, Witness, and me.  The Witness is impersonal, while there are simultaneously personal and impersonal aspects in god.  And I seem somewhere in the middle.  I seem to share in the universal absolute of god and the witnessing aspect in my self, while also perceiving and inheriting the personality venue of god.  It seems to be the blessing of humanness to have this extrordinary awareness all at once.

So when you find the Witness, you can navigate to god, and when god finds you, it opens the path to the Witness, and when I find me, I am known as a united identity with both.

Mooji quotes an unnamed saint, who put it all much better, and simpler, which is always better …

“When you seek for god, you find yourself, and when you seek yourself, you find god.”

And the Witness sees it all happening, and sees that it is good.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Finding the Supreme Chapter 3

Chapter 3

Take a Sip

We have been saying that magic happens when you begin to love yourself.

We could say it is the ultimate magic because loving yourself gives the Supreme your permission to approach you. As explained previously for pretty clear reasons, he does not do so until you say so.

This is entirely the reverse of legacy religious teachings. Teachings that we need to beg god to come to us. To minimize and abase our self. To do good works. To put god first, everyone else next, and me last. And some saints and sinners report that these old ways work. They never worked for me, and I have been seeking since I was 15. I do not know anyone else for whom these methods have produced the intensely desired result.

We are talking about a spontaneous experience of the mind-blowing love and partnership of and with god, not an intellectual conclusion or an orientation towards a heaven of hope. We are talking about something real, now, terrific, and, as said earlier, casual. It is being found by the ultimate best friend.

I don’t mean to tell you what it is like. Your experience may be different. But I would bet a lot it will be whatever is your heart’s desire; it will be what you have always longed for. I think it will no doubt be the peak experience of your life. It may be what you have given up ever finding – being infinitely loved.

A Process

Let’s look at how we learned to love in the beginning.

I suggest that after we have been taught to deny ourselves, we are then instructed in the importance of loving everybody else.

But if we inquire seriously how we do that, we might someday wonder where the love is that we are supposed to give everyone else. I believe we are told to give “our” love to others. So if it’s our love, it must be inside of us.

So then, when we give it away, doesn’t it happen sort of like this?

Here is a diagram of the normal situation when we love someone.

Normal Love

Notice how the love I give to you skips over me. And the love you give to me skips over you. That is, we don’t let this love we are giving touch us as it directly and purposely flows out of us to another, We don’t let it bless our selves. How can I let it touch me? That is not what it’s for. Once we make the decision to give love to someone, that love is theirs, is it not? And wouldn’t it be stealing?

We love someone else all the time without loving ourselves. In fact this is mostly what we do.

Looking for Love

Let’s take perhaps the best case; we are looking for Love to give it away. Let’s consider parent and child, and if you are not a parent, let’s consider you and the one who knocks your socks off, the one you can’t live without, the one you know is The One.

We want to give our love away. It doesn’t matter why, and there may be a lot of reasons, but we are focusing in this discussion on the giving. One characteristic of love about which we have little doubt when we are truly, madly, deeply in love, is that we have enough to give. Enough to shower on our loved one. Parental love is simply and obviously infinite to the parent. Parents may get tired, irritated, distracted, and we don’t always give love the way we wish to, but do we ever fear that we don’t have enough to give?

Do we even think about it? Do we even in the midst of our intoxication for child, husband, romantic partner, ever ask ourselves if we have enough love to give to them? This is while we are still crazy in love, now, during this glorious feeling that we are so in love, we have so much love for them, that we may fear we are going to explode with love.

Well, don’t we? Don’t we romantically or parentally or in whatever way we love, do we not just overflow with love for them? Does it feel like actually exploding? Do we not sometimes feel we are ‘coming apart’, just losing ourselves in the flow of love pouring out of us that sometimes we pour out too, we may not know who we are, but one thing we know for sure – is we are different when we are loving someone. And we are different in a way we have always wanted to be different.

When we are in the throes of loving, we change identity, and it isn’t scary at all, is it? What if in contrast to losing ourselves in love, one ordinary day when we are not crazy in love with anyone, and maybe we just have a backache or something, we suddenly didn’t know who we were when we were going to the grocery store? We might end up in the emergency room in the most severe panic attack. In the normal course of life, what is more cherished and essential than our identity?

However, when we are in the throes of love, we may not know who we are. But isn’t it a relief? Do we care who we are? If we had to choose then between absorption in our own identity as we usually are, or absorption in our loved one, would there be one second of ponder? It’s inconceivable, isn’t it, that we would say something like: hmmmm, Joe or me? Sally or me? My daughter or me, my son or me? It’s ridiculous isn’t it, it even sounds inhuman to think of thinking so. No. It’s the loved one, that’s it. If not that, we don’t think we’re in love.

We should have established that being in love in the normal way is crazy. Crazy in love.

So we are totally focused on giving the most important thing we can imagine, our love, away as fast and as completely as possible.

  1. Number one, don’t we fear that we will ever run out?

  2. Number two, do we even think about where is the love coming from that we are giving away so beautifully and wonderfully?

  3. No, and No.

Our interest now is in looking at question two, “where is the love” as the once popular song crooned. “Where is the love?” If we do wonder about it for one second, is it not totally obvious to us that it is inside us, it comes from inside us, and that this quite obvious fact is one of the reasons we usually know and don’t ponder that it just makes us feel so incredibly good about giving love away.

We know two things without question.

  1. The source of the love we give to another is inside us.

  2. It is plenty.

There is more than plenty. There are gobs. Gobs and gobs. We never look in the love larder to see if our supply is running out. Out would be rageous. Out would be impossible. Running out of love is one thing that when we are in love, we never fear. On the planet of fear, this is not one of them.

Pretty interesting. On the planet of lack, in the very domain of uncertainty, we do not fear running out of what we are certain is the most important commodity in the world. The abundance of internal, reliable, glorious love is not a subject of normal, rational, worldly, doubt. At least not while we are deeply in love.

A similar interesting and also relatively ignored reality is that the two physical things most needed by us, air and water, are so intimate with us that we don’t realize it. We are surrounded by air, and there is enough. And on this planet, things are arranged so that water FALLS OUT OF THE SKY. It falls out of the sky! Rain and wind being main component of weather, they are the most popular topic.

What would happen if we walked up to a stranger and said, “Looks like it’s going to Love today, doesn’t it.”

An extra thing to do with love

Rain and air are outside of us. But we have agreed now that there is an infinite reservoir of love inside us. Rather adroitly set up, wouldn’t we think? Infinite love inside?

Somehow we have been programmed in life that when you give love to someone it is “theirs”, it actually belongs to them and is fully for them even as it inhabits us. Our love is not allowed to really be love when it is on the way to another. So it’s not really allowed to be itself as it goes to another where it will be allowed to be itself. Love just loves. It loves everything it touches. But not when we have packaged it up to give away.

That is why we don’t ever let our love touch us.

Love is not allowed to love as it transits through our awareness to another. It may never occurs to us to enjoy and benefit from the beauty and solace of this love coursing through our selves. And we certainly don’t easily believe it is for ourselves as well as for somebody else. And as we lovingly give it to someone else we find some way to ignore it within us on its way away.

We might consider the classic state of this in the Mom. Don’t moms, and are they not expected to, deny themselves as they give love to everybody else? Isn’t that how we know a “good mom?” She just gives and gives and never takes anything for herself. Her reward might be to know we think she is good, not allowing herself to think she is good. Would that not detract from her being a good mom? To get distracted by herself makes her less vigilant about our needs? My answer is Yup, that’s what we do and what she buys into.

It’s quite amazing to realize we are convinced love is inside us, and we know it is the most precious thing we can experience in this life. But we don’t experience our own love. The only love we intend to experience is the love we get from somebody else.

Moms and all of us undoubtedly love loving. It feels wonderful to love, to give love, no matter what. But I suggest we do not let the love we love love us.

So we think about our love, but from an inner distance. We don’t dare touch it because maybe we know deeply that you cannot touch love without it transforming you. That it is by nature sticky. That we’ll never get it off us, and we will walk around pasted in our own love and people will say, “That one, they are obsessed with themselves, can’t they love anybody else except themselves?” In fact, don’t we usually think somebody who seems to love themselves a lot is a narcissist, is “full of themselves”? Is something wrong with my being full of me? Am I supposed to be full of not-me? To be so is basically to be schizoid. Even Pink Floyd, “There’s somebody in my head, but it’s not me.” But nevertheless, there is a strong cultural bias against self love. Parenthetically, we should distinguish between narcissistic self love and genuine self love, which is not of ego. Genuine self love allows and includes self knowledge, and when we know who we really are, we know we are not an ego.

Loving someone to get love back from them is what the Course In Miracles calls a “special relationship” The special relationship is in distinct contrast to the only other style of relationship which it calls the “Holy Relationship”. The special relationshiop could also be called the usual relationship, the ordinary relationship, or perhaps even the boring relationship. Boring because don’t we sit and twiddle our thumbs, or more accurately twiddle our hearts, waiting for the payoff of seeing our love hit its target, the loved one as a target, and we are interested in seeing the transformation and gratitude of the loved one for our love. So much gratitude that they can’t help but love us back. And can’t this take a long time? If so, what are we supposed to do in the love domain until we know if they love us back?

It is called ‘unrequited love’, and if you look up requited you find it means “to repay”. So we can see the special relationship is really like a business transaction. It’s a bundle of expectations. We want quality control and a guarantee. If I have squandered all my love on you, I might stop loving you until I see that you are requiting my love, filling up my deficit that I spent on you. Credits and debits. Double entry lovekeeping.

And of course if one of us starts keeping track of the balances in the love account …..

So we have packaged up or put in a pipeline the most indescribably awesome stuff in the universe and made sure we don’t touch it ourselves. To be a good person, I make sure that it doesn’t touch me, in transit to you.

  • Is it because we do think we don’t have enough inside? So we might use it up if we touch it during its holy mission to the ‘outside’, or diminish its effective arrival, which we want to be overwhelming.

  • Do we want it to be overwhelming to the recipient so the object of our love is obligated to do the same, and send us overwhelming love too.

  • Is that is the only way we can have love? If it comes from somebody else?

  • And isn’t it overwhelming love that we do want to experience? Does anybody want just a little bit?

  • Yet we deny ourselves even a little bit of the overwhelming love we are sending to the other?

  • Really, truly, what is up with this? How come I do this?

Rather than spending time in analyzing the why of all this oddness, let me suggest what to do. This love coming out of us is an endless tumbling and alive river of infinite and perfect beauty.

Take a sip.

We better whisper this at first.

Take just a little sip. Nobody will notice. And a little sip won’t take much away from your beloved. See what it’s like. Think of it like quality control if you are using the transaction model of love. You want to make sure this love you are sending is the real thing, and how can you tell if you don’t taste it yourself?

We do this with soup. Why not with love? A teaspoon now and then doesn’t deny our loved ones their lunch, does it?

I can doubly enjoy this love of mine. I can recognize it is infinite, can’t be diminished by me or anyone. I can take a sip of this immense elixir as it goes through me. If it’s “in” me, is it not really mine? If it’s mine, can’t I have some?

And of course I can also enjoy seeing the love being received and accepted, which is the usual case.

I am laughing in rueful recognition as I write this. The normal situation of special relationships rightly seen is completely unexplainable. Let’s review it quickly in summary form as soundbites, and see how we feel about this after we do see it in compressed form.

  1. Love is infinite.

  2. Even a little bit of the infinite is infinite.

  3. I am full of it. 🙂

  4. It is extreme delight to give it away.

  5. It cannot be lessened by anything or anyone.

  6. It is gold plated invincible, perfect, going everywhere it is allowed.

  7. But I am afraid to sample my own.

The point is not to ridicule ourselves, but it seems OK to ridicule the situation. No matter how it became established. Is it not completely hilarious, in a squirmy sort of way?

I’ve already convinced myself my love is inside me because I see it go by on my love train to Sally or Bob.

Love is everything. Even the Beatles said “Love is all there is.” I have love inside of me. Therefore I have everything. But I won’t let me have the everything that I have.

Talk about somebody who deserves love and healing. Somebody in this situation is denying themselves everything in the midst of everything. The love they deserve to heal from this mess better not be contingent, it better not be from outside of them. Instead it better be a guarantee that cannot come and go, because its mission is so important. So what is one to do then, once one knows they own the solution to life? It’s theirs. The love inside us is not really belonging to anyone else, how could it? They have their own infinite supply, and like us, do or don’t know it.

When we take a sip of our own love, it shows us that by definition we are lovable. We are both loveable and love-able. We are able to love and we are ale to be loved because we oh my gosh, loved ourselves a little and there was no reprisal from other belief systems. It proves it because we do it. Wow, if I can love me, anyone can love me. Actually, I was the last hold out. Mom loved me, Dad loved me, but I never did.

The love inside of us is able to liberate us from fear of experiencing itself. But how do we get it started? It’s a catch 22, is it not? If we won’t let ourselves experience the love inside of us that can let us experience the love inside of us, what is it possible to do? How do we get started?

How can we allow our love to allow our love?


why not take a little sip

and see what happens

It’s ok

It gives us a trailer of a complete reorganization of the universe…

Is the following what we can all look forward to?


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Return of the Goddess

In the heading of this blog it is stated that the blog is about among other things “the return of the Goddess”.



I have been waiting for the equinox / eclipse influences to manifest, and I witnessed last night the highest meditation I have. I usually meditate for 20 minutes, but last night’s went on automatic pilot for 2 hours. It was simply magnificent. I was a cathedral for 120 minutes of eternity. The Goddess manifested sitting in front of me far away, as at a church. Remote, ministerial, a faraway priestess. A vision in violet, so beautiful, radiating love and an indescribable vast presence of all is well, perfection, timelessness, you know the feelings.

Then later she moved inside me. It was a remarkable vision, totally spontaneous, I was recipient, no impulse of my will was there. I became a “slide” of me, a flat curved transparent image around my inner cathedral, and especially over my face; my face was the goddess’, my eyes were those of the goddess. But then, the inconceivable. The goddess became another such image, or slide, or transparent sheet precisely like mine, but it was Her identity, and mine was ‘my’ identity.

Then, sliding down from above, imagine two of these identical curved translucent images, hers sliding down over mine like slides in a projector, and when ‘Hers’ was a precise fit, the eyes and faces became precisely congruent, and we were both the Goddess.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pucker Up!

Once when I came out of an especially quiet meditation I found myself staring at my left hand. My hand appeared to me as a landscape of clear being. It glowed with a marvelous happiness and ecstatic beauty. It seemed an extension of the meditation, an answering of all questions although I had not asked any.


Open Hand

Soon for an unknown reason I had formed a circle of thumb and forefinger on my right hand and superimposed it over the left.

The result seemed especially profound to me. It was just dazzling in ways I couldn’t follow. I was mesmerized and kept the positions for quite a while. Eventually it wore off, but it has remained unforgettable.

Hand and fingers

In context of some current notions I think I know what it was teaching.

This will get very abstract. It is abstract, but at least it is always ready to hand.

Hands and fingers are of course covered with skin. The skin on my hands had become identified with or representative of what one contacts in meditation, pure unbounded absolute undifferentiated being. Please don’t leave yet.

I first looked at the open left hand. It felt like a landscape of being, as if it were infinite. That was fine, I was used to that. Next the touching fingers of the other hand were put over this skin which represented infinity. The fingers seemed to isolate a section of hand. But the fingers were also skin. While the experience was a totally harmonious and uncontroversial matter, some of me was aware that infinity had somehow just bounded infinity. But how could it do that? This question was at least presented. In my state at the time, the answer was “of course” and everything was completely OK; it was just something at the time to notice, but it is worth emphasizing it was all so beautiful and seemed so significant that it was clear as glass that something important was occurring, something worth getting was being said. It was like Maxwell’s silver foam rubber hammer.

Now I see it as a primer on boundaries. Chapter 2 of Finding the Supreme in this blog is a long discussion of the technical irony inherent in limits and boundaries. I realize now that the experience of staring at my hands fits right in.

I was observing that all of my skin was the same. I was also observing that part of my skin was marking out or highlighting another part of my skin. But how can something demarcate itself? In the ontological terms of deep meditation, being was marking off or identifying an area of being as separately knowable as a part of its otherwise undifferentiated landscape of self. Of pure skin self in this tutorial case. An unbounded reality of skinness had acquired a perceptually (only perceptually) area of itself as partial. Remember, the hand ‘felt’ infinite. So the fingers of skin acquired the same definition because skin was presenting itself as infinite. Here was the infinite marking out the infinite.

For this discussion and the analogy to be built, we have to imagine that skin is skin, that is, it all looks the same, is the same, is completely homogeneous, there are no different areas in skin, no different colors, no attributes at all except skin. For now, there aren’t fingers and hands. And that was the way it all appeared to me in that event.

The encircled area on my left hand gained a description of itself as different from the rest of the hand, although it absolutely was not different. Let’s say it just somehow became experienceable as bounded by another area of undifferentiated skin itself not identified as thumb and index finger but just as the same substance which it was somehow redefining.

Nothing had actually changed. Skin self had decided to enwrap skin self. But the perception changed.

The simple perception I had while still drenched in the immense conceptual latitude of deep meditation was casually, “Oh. That’s the infinite encircled by some same infinite and telling me whats bounded is separated from the rest. No problem. Something pure can somehow do that.”

That was very interesting and at the time not paradoxical. I can now comment to myself on this unbounded bounded area on my left hand as shall we say unique. If I moved my thumb and fingers a smallest amount, they showed a different part but could not be a boundary of it.

The original entity so defined could get a name. It could be ‘Area Of Skin 1’. When the fingers moved the next area enclosed could be called ‘Area Of Skin 2’. Each would be so many inches across, and so many square inches in size and so on. And the definitions of the two described areas would be different. But each would still be ‘Hand’. More important, each would still be more fundamentally ‘Skin’. And another area of identical skin had called it out as differently defined.

And if skin were all there was then skin had moved within its undifferentiated actuality to identify areas of itself as unique which were really not. This is what was important and is what was showing itself to me in the simple positions of two hands.

And because I was lucky enough to be there observing, I saw something change which did not change. It was a changeless alteration of identifications which were true perceptions but not real changes to the correct definitions of the underling substance(s) of the single thing involved in appearing as two things.

Skin had moved to create seeming difference of skin.

As seer I could enjoy both. Skin was still radiating beauty of its genuine nature and at the same time its newly defined areas of called out uniqueness were most beautiful. The new skin identities were absolutely interesting not least because the hand landscape and the fingers marking out seeming but not actual boundaries were both glowing. Newness worth knowing about had appeared within sameness.

Boundaries came into existence which were not capable of bounding anything because they were composed of the exactly same thing they appeared to bound. It was ‘absolutely’ fascinating.

Now we go off the cliff.

What am I? I am consciousness. Whatever consciousness is, it is a pure undifferentiated field of whatever it is, that’s pretty uncontroversial. So how do I show up as conscious within consciousness? As a separate identity within total sameness which has no separations?

I’m a wrinkle. I’m an area of area. I’m a pucker of something within the something.

Because god says to all of us when he calls us out of his infinite self,

“I want to give you a kiss!

Pucker up!”


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Casualness of God

In an experience I posted here, I mentioned that the dialog there with god was ‘casual’.

The whole experience related was dramatic overall, of course It was an ecstatic vision. And you may want to review it as preliminary to the discussion below or it might not make much sense that the chat I had with god was casual.

This experience is reprinted in Chapter 1 of Finding the Supreme, which is also here on this blog. Because it’s in there, and because it might be surprising to some, I’m feeling motivated to expand on it a little.  Traditional reports of communicating with god have sounded anything but casual.  Pillars of fire and so on.  My experience was so different.  Maybe an explanation will give that write up more context.

Also it might clear up some mysteries in the beginning of Chapter 1 on why it is beneficial in an ultimate way to to find out who we really are.

How come it’s Casual?

It’s casual because he’s us. This is why if you do not love you he seems not to come to you. Because no matter what you say, you do not like him if you do not like you.

When we talk to ourselves inside, how does it go? Do we talk like the Oz Wiz behind the curtain with bursts of fire and noise? I doubt it, is our inner dialog not relatively offhand? It’s certainly impromptu, do we make appointments? Bill, at 3 we are going to have a meeting and get to the bottom of why you screwed up this morning. Doubtful. Maybe for fun, but not a lot. We might yell at ourselves, but impulsively and spontaneously, not deliberately or like someone else. It’s intimate.

So is god.

You come first. You come first for god. Do you see that we have had this exactly backwards for all history? You cannot jump over you to get to god. That would mean jumping over god to get to god and then you ‘both’ would miss a part of him that he absolutely, totally, profoundly adores, as my surprising experience showed. The you part.

He can’t jump over himself. He doesn’t wish to. Why would he wish to?

The full knowing is more than this. The full knowing goes as follows. We are god, though may not yet so know. Being god means that we are all of god. God is everything. If you are everything you cannot be only part of everything. Yes we are part of everything also, but this means we are also everything. Even a little bit of infinity is infinite.

Totality expresses as a hologram and we might say a fractal hologram to describe its nature as sideways and up and down. So if you try to think of you as only part of god, meaning, actually separated, then are we not asking god to not be god? We are asking god to skip over his you, which is all god, to get to all god.
To reverse this entire dilemma and find god as we say, we need to start where we find ourselves. I start as me. You start as you. This is where we are born. Can we see that per the calculus of our actual genuine eternal identity, all we have to do is experience that? Experience who we really are. We will like that. We will love that. It’s quite unimaginable how much we will love that, that’s why we have to experience it and not try to think it out.

Finding the true self and helplessly loving our true self — there isn’t any choice — then allows god to disclose to us the incredible rest. The beginning of the incredible rest is that he is vividly there. He has always been vividly there, and vividly here. We are both vividly there and here. God ‘R Us. The incredible rest is that nobody has ever gone anywhere.

And he takes the initiative! In deep awesome grateful love he reclaims himself. And then it feels sure that the incredible rest goes anywhere, everywhere, and forever. Love had never left love but it returns to love. And it is incredible rest. We at last can rest. We are the rest. We are at rest. There is nothing further to do.

He has done it all.




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Finding the Supreme Chapter 2 — Boundaries

Finding the Supreme

Chapter 2 — Boundaries

Boundaries are technically not there.

We believe boundaries exist between us and God. We view God as infinite and ourselves as in a finite box, and we often think God is everywhere except within the boundaries of our box of self.

God and boundaries

Lets look at boundaries from the point of view of consciousness.

Zeno’s Intuition

Just after 500 BC the Greek Zeno, asked if for an arrow to hit a tree doesn’t it first have to go halfway? And from there does it not have to go halfway to the tree again? Does it not then traverse an infinite regress of partial flights? Does it ever hit the tree? Zeno’s paradox has bedeviled impractical people since then.

Heisenberg’s Certainty

The physicist Werner Heisenberg proved in 1927 it is impossible to know simultaneously both the position and the momentum of a subatomic particle. It’s usually called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, but I beg to differ a little. Because in accordance with the rest of the thought systems in this account of god, it must be so.

Itzhak Bentov in his1977 book Stalking the Wild Pendulum, On the Mechanics of Consciousness extended this finding of Heisenberg’s by imagining a pendulum swinging back and forth. He analyzed what happens to it at the top of its arc, imagining it slowing down and slowing down at the top of its swing until like Zeno’s arrow it is traversing distances as short as those in subatomic space. Bentov shows that at the point where the pendulum reverses its direction we obviously know it’s momentum exactly, it is zero. And then in accordance with Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bentoz asks himself, then what do we know for certain about its position?

And then Bentov takes us off into outer and inner space in the following amazing passage:

“Thus, we have now established that the momentum of the pendulum at that point Is zero, that is, we know its value very precisely: It’s zero.” (Emphasis is Bentov’s.) He continues, “But we have said before that if we know precisely the momentum of a particle, then its position becomes diffuse and completely indefinite. That is, the pendulum can be just about any place, even at the end of the universe. Yes, but it has very little time to get there because this whole event occurs in zero time. So there we go again. The pendulum has to disappear in all directions at infinite velocity. It will have to expand very rapidly into space, like a balloon, and then collapse just as rapidly.”

“Having done this, it comes back, picks up speed, and goes about its usual good-natured business as if nothing had happened. None of us would suspect the leisurely pendulum of doing such a wild thing when no one is looking? But then again, one cannot rely on appearances.” (Page 53, second edition paperback.)

None of us would suspect a lowly arrow not arriving at its target either, and perhaps for a different reason, because its target doesn’t exist; please see below.

Oh, and perhaps it is important for our slightly more intellectual comfort that Bentov says on the same page to introduce his elusive pendulum,

“There is a principle in physics that states that any event that is not prohibited by the laws of physics should happen!” (Exclamation point his.)

For our purposes here we are interested in what Bentov’s ideas say about boundaries. Imagine a boundary exactly at the top of a pendulum’s swing. Just as the pendulum is about to touch this boundary, in quantum space, the boundary is not touched because the pendulum cannot be shown to be there then. The pendulum cannot define a boundary location it is incapable of touching.

Next is another discussion of the insubstantial nature of boundaries in consciousness.

Shimmering Boundaries

If we expand a picture of an innocent looking boundary and examine it deeply and thoughtfully, it can be seen that trying to intuitively touch a boundary is intellectually tricky.

  • Please hold on here, but at the boundary of our expanded boundary in the picture below, is there not a boundary? And at the boundary of that boundary is there conceptually another boundary?
  • The edge phenomena along a conceptual boundary are, well, edgy. Perhaps we cannot be sure about them. It seems that the “extra” boundaries attached to the side of each boundary are seen to possibly be there, but at the same time seen to be inextricably part of the ‘original’ conceptual boundary and not having an independent status. In our thoughts the additional edges may seem to come and go. They may essentially seem to somehow shimmer in and out of validity.
  • Therefore, both sides of a boundary are surrounded by a location of unmanifest space. You could call it unmanifestable space. Unmanifest because it is neither one of the homogeneous locations, either of the boundary or of the not-boundary place where it could be assumed to be. I.E., right next door. For the assumed manifest edge of the boundary, it implodes from each side. It cannot manifest in unmanifestable space, so the entire boundary condition, isn’t. The arrow can’t really enter unmanifestable space because nothing can be there. The pendulum can’t actually touch it because it gets close, it can’t be there. We could say that up against a boundary, as Gertrude Stein said in her famous intuition, “There’s no there there.”
  • This gives the feeling of consciousness shimmering around assumed boundaries. To the unbounded state of consciousness all boundaries appear optional. And shimmering with a glow of, truth to say it, “uncertainty”.

boundaries seen as illusory

The nature of a boundary no matter where found in consciousness seems to shimmer. It’s thereness, it’s assumed reality, comes and goes. And if the edge of the edge comes and goes, the boundary expands and collapses. It fully disappears and fully returns.

You can play tennis on boundaries, basketball, and so on, without giving them a thought.

But when you do give them a thought, you just can’t trust a boundary all the way.

You can trust them only up to a point.


An asymptote is a line that approaches a boundary but never touches it. It smoothly sidles up to a single other line but can’t by its mathematical nature go beyond it, or even touch it. This analysis we can prove, and it depends on our understanding of non-quantum tools of the regular universe we see and manipulate, not proofs of uncertainty in the quantum world.

To show how asymptotes work, we can look at points on a graph. Each point has an “address” based on its location on a grid. The address is two numbers, the first how far over the point is horizontally; the second is how far up it is vertically.

Locations of points are in a format (x,y). X holds the distance on the grid the point is in a horizontal direction. Y holds the distance on the grid the point is in a vertical direction.

This point’s address is (5,9).

XY Address Retake 2
Suppose the marks on horizontal and vertical lines are inches. As stated, the value of X is the number of inches a point is to the ‘right’ or ‘left’ on the horizontal dimension. The value of Y is the number of inches each point on the line is ‘up’ or ‘down’ on the vertical dimension.
Points on the grid can be located by an equation. Here is a graph of a mathematical equation of a line.

Y dimension, up/down

Asymptote Graph

X dimension, left/right

No matter how far the above curve is extended in either direction, it never contacts the boundary lines as you can see so clearly in the picture. This curve would have certainly been a favorite of Mr. Zeno were he around to see it. Here is how it proves itself to us.

Every point on the curve has a mathematically computed location on the horizontal direction, and the same point also has a location on the vertical direction.

The equation ‘tells’ the curve what to do. For every point it provides the X address and the Y address. A little like when a new road goes in and the post office assigns all the addresses on the road at once. In this particular road graphed above the post office decided that each house (point) has an address where whatever the first number is, you divide it into 2 to get the second number. I just picked 2. It could be 3, 5, a thousand, but 2 makes an easy one to show.

The equation for this is XY=2.

It can also be expressed as Y=2/X.

You can pick an arbitrary ‘X’ number – how far to the right you want to have the point. To get the corresponding ‘Y’ number you divide whatever its X is into 2. See the table below to show this for a bunch of points.

So if we pick a point 5 inches out horizontally, then we calculate the vertical point of the point 🙂 by 2/5, which is 2 fifths of an inch. This is because Y = 2/X, per the post office’s required calculation. For this street, this is just the way you do it. And address has to have 2 numbers to find it; where it is horizontally and also where it is vertically. So the point that is is 5 inches out is 2/5 inch up, AKA .4 inches vertically.

The equation, like the post office, has the power to pick out or provide the address of EVERY house on the road, or every point on the line.

Or, you could speficty the same rule this way “Vertical Inches = 2 divided by horizontal inches”. Same same. The post office doesn’t care how you compute it, so long as you follow the same rule, no matter how you say it.

When we know the rule (equation) they use for this neighborhood, all the house owner has to tell us to find him is the rule, and ONE of his numbers, either vertical or horizontal. But we have to have both numbers, so, knowing the rule, we must compute the other number to find him. The rule can work both ways; give me your horizontal, I’ll find your vertical. Or give me your vertical, and I’ll find your horizontal.

It you are going to someone’s point (house) for, to, say, find god there, the owner may say, “In our neighborhood the rule to find us is X times Y=2. My X is 6. Or he can say, “My Y is 3!” You can compute the other. Of course, he could give you both numbers, but if we can find god at his house, we don’t mind doing a little math.

So, never mind, just go with it, the math is done below.

Here is a bunch of points that make a graph like above:

asymptote table no colors
Put these on the graph like this:

go over 1 inch and up 2 inches, put a dot
go over 2 inches and up 1 inch, put a dot
Do the same for the rest:

over 3 and up 2/3
over 10 and up 1/5
over 4 and up ½
over 5 and up 2/5
over 10 and up 1/5
over 1,000 and up 2/1,000ths of an inch

over one million inches and up two millionths of an inch!

Do you see what is happening? As we go ‘over’ more and more, the horizontal gets bigger, and the vertical location of each point is getting smaller. A real huge horizontal measure gives a real small vertical location.

We can pick any horizontal measure and find what the vertical measure must be and put the dot on the graph where the over and up inches intersect. Once we know the basic shape, we can choose some locations outrageously far away (a million inches) to see what the curve does at extremes.

Look at the graph and see how when you go ‘far out’ horizontally you get very close to the horizontal boundary but can you see it can never, ever touch it? The bigger the big the smaller the small. And that’s it, it can’t do anything else. It’s far out alright, and as it goes far out it goes far in.

We are spending a lot of time on this just because it’s so cool. And it shows us something very simple and interesting about the universe. If you already know this kind of thing, you can skip all the math, but you might want to ponder the result with me.

The curve can become very very close to the vertical boundary, and very very close to the horizontal boundary, within quantum distances, and it cannot touch, or it wrecks the very simple math of division. And division hasn’t been wrecked since 3rd grade, has it? You don’t have to be a geek to appreciate all this. It’s just division! It’s quite wonderful, actually, and quite mysterious isn’t it? On this particular matter do the math people and the mystic guys shake hands? I googled ‘math and mystics’ and did not find anyone, but I’ll bet they are out there. If we had one of their X addresses, we could find their Y, so their house, if they published their neighborhood post office rule.

Does the horizontal boundary exist? It can’t be mathematically touched, when it goes into quantum distances and bumps into Heisenberg (actually can’t ‘bump into’ Heisenberg, sorry, because nothing can really bump into anything). Where all bets are off, does it matter if the boundary is there? At least by the method of an asymptote, it can’t be proven that it’s there. In fact, doesn’t the point we are plotting when it gets quantum close go anywhere or everywhere, just like the pendulum. Since we can’t know where the point is, how can we know where the boundary it is approaching is located?

You could assume as we see an address ‘converging’ on a line but never touching, that this line is the ‘boundary’. But isn’t it kind of a leap of faith? Are we not rather jumping ‘over’ the quantum distance between the assumed point location and the assumed boundary location?

We don’t usually take math on faith, but if we can’t show no address ever touches the line we call a boundary, what is our assumption that it doesn’t? Bit of a ‘leap’ is it not? A very, very, very tiny one to be sure, but a leap nevertheless. As close as the curve can get, we still jump off it and catch hold of the ‘boundary’ it seems to be going for. Let’s not think about where Zeno would say we go when we push off.

It’s pretty obvious anyway, is it not? This is hugely simple math, it’s just division, and like my friend said, “It’s so simple, it eludes me.” Where’s the point? Where does it go? What is the point?

What if we go to infinity on the horizontal dimension, how close does the point get to the X boundary? What is 2 divided by the number bigger than any number? It is smaller than any number, is it not? And what could this mean? Does the point vanish? Does the boundary vanish? Do they both vanish?

For the point to ‘touch’ the boundary, one of the addresses would have to become zero, yes? But it never becomes zero. It gets infinitely close, whatever that means. It logically can never touch. Reminds us a little of Zeno’s arrow never hitting?

A Cosmic Needle

Imagine an infinitely sharp needle moving across the surface of a perfectly smooth tile towards a second similar tile adjoining the first. When it reaches the boundary between the two tiles, if the needle is infinitely sharp, at some point it must not be able to rest on both sides of the two tiles at the same time. A blunt needle could touch both at once. A needle infinitely sharp would fall through. Even if the tiles are infinitely smooth, these two infinities collapse together and fall into a place where the boundary between the tiles is nothing. Our needle could never be on the boundary.

If the tiles were infinitely close, whatever that may mean, and the needle infinitely sharp, I’m not sure anyone could say what happens, but it doesn’t sound like contact.

The needle falls through into a nowhere that cannot exist. The boundary between our tiles disappears.

Yet another place where boundaries can seem to exist, but actually cannot.

The Fibonacci Number Sequence

In the year 1202 AD a guy named Leonardo Pisano Bigollo published a book on mathematics containing a brain teaser. (He came to be called “Fibonacci” but I don’t  find anywhere why.)

One of the best Internet sites I find to introduce it is here,


It says,

“…hidden away in a list of brain-teasers , Fibonacci posed the following question:”

“If a pair of rabbits is placed in an enclosed area, how many rabbits will be born there if we assume that every month a pair of rabbits produces another pair, and that rabbits begin to bear young two months after their birth?”

“This apparently innocent little question has as an answer a certain sequence of numbers, known now as the Fibonacci sequence, which has turned out to be one of the most interesting ever written down. It has been rediscovered in an astonishing variety of forms, in branches of mathematics way beyond simple arithmetic. Its method of development has led to far-reaching applications in mathematics and computer science.”

Fibonacci Bunnies

The results of this innocent pastoral – spiritual farming? – musing have moved many from brain teasing to awe.

Once the bunnies are all sorted out ,the way they reproduce gives rise to the following scheme.

The site “Math is Fun” (really?) – http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/fibonacci-sequence.html –shows us how in a fairly short discussion.

The Fibonacci Sequence is the series of numbers:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, …

The next number is found by adding up the two numbers before it.

— The 2 is found by adding the two numbers before it (1+1)
— Similarly, the 3 is found by adding the two numbers before it (1+2),
— And the 5 is (2+3),
— and so on!

Example: the next number in the sequence above is 21+34 = 55
It is that simple!
I can’t imagine why anyone would get the idea to make squares out of these numbers and put them together like this, but someone did:

Math is simple Fib squares and spiral
I am a wee bit troubled by this spiral business. It was hard for me to figure out how they draw the spiral, E.G. what is the rule of it. I finally see it looks like they are connecting two diagonally opposite points of each square with a smooth curve, and I suppose when you keep doing this square after square, you do get this particular spiral, with this exact sort of curving. Why they do the diagonals, who discovered this, and so on, I haven’t researched, but it does seem inescapable. For that matter, who decided how to place the squares? There seems to be a rule for that also. But for that matter, who decided to add up successive pairs of numbers? Well, Fibonacci. But for that matter, who disclosed the whole idea to Fibonacci?

Well, bunnies.

Then someone asked for some reason what happens if you divide
the resulting pairs of numbers down the chain. I.E. going in order left to right, starting at the beginning of the sequence, and divide the second number of the pair by the first. Simple division again. You get this:

Fib Divide B by A Table

We just have to go with this. It came up.

Not too interesting. But wait! What is happening in the rightmost column? Don’t we have something eerily like an asymptotic thing happening? Does this not look like the numbers are ‘converging’ on some value that looks like it may be a ‘boundary’?

Even so, if this isn’t too enthralling, what about this? Somebody found that the Fibonacci sequence does not have to start off in the beginning of the numbers with 2,3. Nope. Look at this one:

Fib Divide B by A Table starting anywhere

You can start with any numbers at all! And the second one doesn’t even have to be greater than the first! Now this is enthralling. The thing calmly resets itself and goes off to the races. And where does it race? Where does the sequence of divisions go?

It seems to go to the same asymptotic ‘boundary’ the other one does.

When writing this, I had to keep getting up and walk around the room. At first laughing, and then wondering, and then gawking. What exactly is going on here? A sequence of numbers, starting with any two in the universe, giving birth to a new number by a simple step, and then one more number computed from the two by another simple step (division), and no matter what starting numbers or how far we go, any set of starting numbers in the universe have their relationship – the divided pairs – go the same way to the same ‘place’. All ‘families’ of numbers seem to converge on the same value. Bunnies, amoebas, fruit flies, any natural pairing generational sequence, does the same thing.

One man’s awe may be another man’s yawn, but for me, this inspires awe.

For my purpose here, what’s significant is the boundary conditions implied by this reality. We’re not going to get into the debate about implicate order, whether this points to a universal intelligence or not, I’d like to examine the boundary implications of this sequence of quantities that is obviously very deeply and very inescapably built in to the very structure of manifestation. Bunnies, for goodness sakes have shown us the way. The darn thing is embedded, excuse the pun, everywhere.

So here we go. When it was noticed that the ratio of dividing two fibonacci sequence numbers in sequence converge onto a standard seeming value, this ratio was called the “Golden Ratio”. The golden ratio is said to be approximately 1.6618034. It looks like if we keep computing it, it will go on forever. Like Pi. So they just truncate it to a few places, even though, I submit, it is not any place at all, and we will come to that.

But now we are finally where I want to go. Somebody decided to graph the convergence of the Fibonacci Sequence Golden Ratio. Here is a picture.


I don’t think I’m pushing the rope to suggest it looks a lot like our asymptote graph. Does the Golden Ratio value loom like a boundary in the same way an an asymptotic equation generates a curve converging towards a limit? The Golden Ratio graph is even simpler than the example for our asymptote. It’s just two numbers which come out of an orderly simple series, divided by each other. And we get this mystery.

Look, another boundless boundary. No matter how far you extend this series, the lines get closer and closer to this ambiguous ‘barrier’, but can’t ever contact it.

I wanted to unbind boundaries, but now that’s done, we need to go back to the Fibonacci spiral for a minute.

Fib spiral introducing natural ones

Fibonacci Spirals in Nature

And suddenly fascination turns to divination. A really very simple step of mathematical playing around turns up a pattern at the very core of the world. It manifests magically a picture of how nature grows. And it’s gorgeous. It’s abstract, concrete, simple, beautiful, and everywhere. You can make your own list; sunflowers, snails, cabbages, and it goes on.

Why? Why is it that adding two numbers and then dividing the resulting two by each other, and repeating this, turns out a picture that is everywhere in creation, no matter what is being created? It’s a godwink, a “folks, heads up, everything’s beautiful, and connected, and abstract isn’t abstract, thought is creative, check it out.” And more.

A picture of the fun at the base of it all can be seen like I did one night.

w sterling
october, 1982

So the moon is out hollering white love into echoes upon
cold fields, and the dew does

Yes the moon is a stick of white margarine
smarting under the intelligence that turns
whirligig handsprings in the morning glory cups and
mushroom caps of tonight’s magic spree

It doesn’t cost anything to be crazy

© William Sterling

Summing Up

Boundaries are trying to tell us they are optional. Look deeply enough at anything and hints arise that they all merge into everything else because they are not really separated by “boundaries”. We don’t have to be quantum physicists to suspect it. But it’s maybe quite comforting that current physics endorses it. As I understand it, today no physicist certainly disputes Heisenberg’s uncertainty certainty. But we do not have to understand quantum physics to appreciate the examples above, which are from the world of ordinary thinking and the world of ordinary world.

But why should we have to look at things suspiciously to see if they are really there? Well, can’t intellectual maturity be defined as learning to look beyond appearances? Can the same be said of spiritual maturity? We are not here to remain spiritual infants. We are here to see. There are mysteries only to make us grow up.

And the time of mysteries is over. Everything we wonder about is hidden in plain sight, and we can see a lot by simply looking as the Yogic prophet Yogi! Berra said. Or not. Nobody’s forcing us to look at anything, and looking below surfaces doesn’t mean the surfaces aren’t marvelous as they are. But humans are beings by definition unsatisfied. We can look at the astonishing human curiosity at play in the mathematicians who looked deeply into number sequences and realize we’ll never stop. Humans will never cease wondering. We’ll never stop inquiring, asking, pondering, what? Pondering, as it is often simply said, “What in the World is going on”?

Musing once on how unrestrainable is human thought, and how large the playground seems to be, but wondering whether big is big enough, I asked God if infinity is enough. He said, immediately as always, as if he is just sitting there waiting for the question, which he is,

“Of course it’s not enough. That’s why there are an infinite number of them.”

Almost Lastly

Well really firstly, where is God, anyway? The saints and sages all insist He is in all locations. Maharishi, once asked where to find God, said,

“The first time you find him, he is where you find him. After that, he is found everywhere”.

In his delightful way of talking, he put the accent on the ‘where’, which maybe makes this abstract matter more concrete, as if he were indicating, god’s really just in where. Where is god? He’s where. Maybe we’re not to worry so much about the ‘every’ part of everywhere, since it raises this troublesome infinity thing. But “where”, we can visualize. Where is really here. He’s here, he’s here, oh, he’s here… Every place the eye falls a where is there.

And, according to Maharishi then, god is there too. Here is where, there is where, every where a where where.


Perhaps the biggest and most obvious matter is that insofar as we perceive a limit, there is much evidence that it is not there. And if God is everywhere, which many people can readily admit, they just can’t admit god is inside them, too, because they believe he’s outside of them, on the other side of a barrier witholding them from union. Not saying how we all got into this bizarre fix, but to follow that trail, you might want to look at religions.

So then, if there are really no barriers, isn’t what we think of as a separation, actually made of the same stuff as everything else? How could it not be? If there are no boundaries to create an actual difference in status, in being, must not everything that exists be made of the same constituent? Isn’t the seeming boundary also composed of god substance, isn’t is perceived to be constructed of God substance, and then the boundary between me and God cannot separate us. Because it is also God.

And then I realize that I am officially surrounded. And I am invaded by the infinite. I can’t get away from god if I wanted to.

Reality rightly understood interpenetrates me with the ultimate, with the Supreme, with the deepest possible eternal regard, constant attention, with eternal love, partnership and delight.

Given this astonishing and simply mind blowing finding, redemption, and prediction, and with those above understandings of boundaries as conceptually elusive, we can go on in the next chapter to the really elusive topic of how to love ourselves enough to allow god to come to us sweetly, easily, and eagerly.


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Finding the Supreme Chapter 1

Chapter 1

There are no steps to is. God is is.

If there is a mystery in our reality, we are it; the mystery is how can perfect love feel separate from perfect love?

Knowing God is a shift of attention, and attention shifts automatically by itself all day long sometimes many times a second. Actually, finding the Supreme is an unstep, for all we need to do is stop withholding our attention from the divine self that every single one of us is.

You know how a baby will close her eyes and pretend that you can’t see each other?


It is exactly like that. 

This discussion unfolds like a hologram, with every part enclosing and being enclosed by the whole. It is like seeds enclosing seeds that all blossom as we look. As we unblind our attention. As we elaborate the awareness of god he merely spirals up and down within us like a fractal and he invites us to browse up and down his fractalness in greater and lesser size of manifestation as we realize there is no non God.

It is hoped the further unwinding of the brilliant open unhidden reality of the divine in the rest of these pages you do experience as summaries of the whole. Stop whenever you feel complete. Whenever you feel you got it. You do got it. You always have and your attention shifts naturally to that it as the summary unwinds and you and the divine witness each other more and more.

A friend used to say, “It was so simple, it eluded me!”

You may note that here god is capital but he is not capitalized. That is by request.

Our single ‘task’ is to let our attention shift by itself to who we really are. Discover who we really are and we find us adorable. One falls in love with the real one of our dreams and also finds this one is always there. It’s like a permanent dance card where every day is the prom.

Then when you have let yourself love yourself enough, God comes to you eagerly. The eagerness and joy with which God comes to you is not often reported. My experience of God’s gratitude happened one day like this:

I was having concerns about my life. I heard, “I will take care of you”, and I saw in inner vision a crescent moon figure, luminous yellow orange with calm and great love projecting to me. I asked ‘Who are you?”, and it said, “Your Divine Self”.

A few days later I was driving to an appointment. I asked my divine self “How can we change the world?”

Divine self said “this has to be passed through to Full God”.

Then there came down through divine self into my chest a huge golden glow that moved into my torso, arms and legs and then up through my head through my crown chakra and straight up as blinding white light, the presence of overwhelming love.

And Full God said, “Let them have this experience”.

It is basically indescribable, but in some attempt to help provide what God asked, here is what it felt like.

God expanded out of me into everything I was seeing — the trees and everything that was between me and the trees, the space formerly perceived as empty, was vibrating with love.

Then God said, “I know everything you’ve been through, I know everything about you, and everything you have been through I have been there with you.”

Then he said “I know every cell in your body”. I was fragmenting with joy.

Then he said “I have been waiting for this more than you have. I have you at last.” I began to feel the overwhelming joy of God to be with me. It was astounding and kept getting bigger, his joy kept increasing, his joy at my knowing Him fully and finally. I was filled with gratitude and amazement indescribable that the source of all love was increasingly fulfilled by loving me, and the awareness of safety and love I felt went completely beyond description. I could not believe it. Wasn’t this backwards? Am I not supposed to be the overjoyed one?  By desperately claiming God, I was making Him happier than I could conceive. Than I still can conceive.

I began thinking of describing this experience to the friend I was going to see as multiple kinds of energy including a physical glowing love. Then God said “There is much more”, and then He said “This is all the God that you can handle right now.” The feeling of regard and protection was beyond belief.  He loved me beyond measure so much that he would protect me from being loved more by Him than He knew I could tolerate. Even though I did not know what that could mean.

This experience was so integrating and safe and pure and calming in the midst of infinity, that I was still driving. I passed a lake, and I was thinking of putting my wrists into the cool water, and trying to feel the consciousness of God in the water, and God said “You need Me right now.” I know he meant I needed this experience of the golden glow of full God, and not any other expressions of God such as trees, lakes or anything else. He said I needed the total ineffability of God filling me right now. God was mother, father, protector, doctor, friend, all beings I can imagine who have regard for me.

God feels like a personality and a universality at the same time. There are personal and impersonal aspects of God simultaneously perceived. The personality of God was ultimately so. Not just an ultimate personality, but ultimately a personality, and there felt like a difference. The personality of God is not an abstraction. It is, if this can be imagined, casual.

The universality of God was impersonal, everywhere present and infinite as perfection.

To restate, because it is so deeply wonderful, God is not a person, but he is a personality. A friend. Who just wants to know us, have us know Him, have us be Him and be together. A parent who has lost us for millions of years and now has us back again as we have now opened to Him, and he is more fulfilled than before.  God is fulfilled when we come back to Him, this feels impossible to relate, but it was clear in the midst of the experience, and I can feel it now as a continuing reality. I know it just is, and I am no longer discovering it.

The feeling was the golden glow of energy and love, and the hugest feeling of “all right” I could possibly fit in to my consciousness. The relief was inexpressible. Finally, I thought, finally, oh my God, finally, after longing so long, after so very, very long, and so very, very much yearning, I am With, I am There, I am Here, I am inhabited and surrounded by Love, and I am He, I know who I am, and we are Him. That is to say, I know that God and I are God.

The knowing was that it has always been like this, it is like this now, and it always will be like this. There is nothing else because there cannot be anything else.

This is enough, this is more than enough, this is right, this is It.  I was crying.

I deserve this, you deserve this, every particle of creation deserves this, and they all have it because they all are it.

We have always had it. The experience of not having it, has been part of having it.  Even the experience of not having God is created within the extreme reality of having God. The actual components of the forgetting of God are disclosed as having always been particles of God.  The forgetting of being God is also made of God.  The boundaries of the experience of not-God-ness are actually made up of God-ness. And the actual experience of not God is made up out of the materials of God. There is absolutely no way out of it. This is a PERCEPTION, not a conception, it is a procession of EVIDENCE.  It is as if the monolith of truth dropped onto a beach and you took somebody to it and showed them and said, SEE, there it is.  This thing exists, touch it, and they do and they have to say yes, whatever this is, it exists.  It’s like that. Period. There can be more discussion but that is pointless, and you won’t discuss its validity once you know it.

It so is.

The question of “‘what came before you, God?” is not even slightly interesting. It doesn’t come up. It’s not even funny, not even laughed out of existence. It just isn’t actually askable.

I said “God don’t leave me”, and He said “Where would I go?” I said, “Then please don’t let me leave you.”  And He didn’t say anything, but He sent the knowledge that this is up to me as it always has been. This is the only part of my experience that did not feel perfect.

On the way home from my appointment:

I think God manifests to each of us in a way consistent with our personal identity. I like to tease, I often tease as a way to show love. So on the way home when I was on the road where God came in that day, he flagged me down and asked for a ride! God was hitchhiking! Oh my how fun. I mean that was the feeling of it, those are the thoughts that came when I thought, “where is God now?” It was an inner visual of this golden glow by the side of the road with a Godly thumb out.

Of course I said climb aboard, but then I had to purposely go “through” Divine Self to really feel God there again like before. When I did feel Him in the same full way, I was looking to see if God went out into the trees like before, but he hadn’t. But when I thought of Him ‘out there’, he suddenly was out there, and I got the clearest feeling that I could and should ‘direct’ God where to go. This is so far out of the paradigm I grew up with that I didn’t know what to think of it. But God was quite happy about it.

One of the mind-blowing things about this experience was feeling god’s gratitude.  I had trouble integrating this with the traditional descriptions of god I grew up with.  As stated above, I thought this gratitude went one way.

I remembered an also puzzling passage in a book about god I had read years before:

“The absolute perfection of the infinite God would cause him to suffer the awful limitations of unqualified finality of perfectness were it not a fact that the Universal Father directly participates in the personality struggle of every imperfect soul in the wide universe who seeks, by divine aid, to ascend to the spiritually perfect worlds on high. This progressive experience of every spirit being and every mortal creature throughout the universe of universes is a part of the Father’s ever-expanding Deity-consciousness of the never-ending divine circle of ceaseless self-realization.”

page 29, The Urantia Book, soft cover edition

This blew my mind too when I read it originally. It didn’t make sense that we did anything for god. After the beautiful experience granted me above, however, two things seem to go together.

  • As a personality, he misses us just like we miss our children if we are not able to intimately know each other. And reunions are pure joy.  This also seems to explain the casual nature of direct conversation with god.  Some may remember the John Denver line “… talk to God and listen to the casual reply …”
  • As an infinite and perfect reality, eternity would be boring for god unless he created us to evolve along with him and experience our experience and especially our experience of not knowing him followed then by the enthralling bliss of our mutual discovery.

I think they went a little overboard with the ‘suffer the awful limitations of unqualified finality…’, etc. part. It is very hard to imagine a suffering infinite god, but what do I know about it theoretically? I ‘know’ only my experience above, which was just of love. And was hugely enough.

Loving Self

All along my journey I thought I knew myself too well to love myself at all. But that was incorrect. I did not know myself too well, I knew a bunch of what R.D. Laing in the 1960’s book The Divided Self called “false self systems” too well. I knew who I showed to others. These are the parts of me that were obvious to me, because they were always suffering and always calling out for help, so they made much noise. The non obvious part of myself was the real self, and it only whispered so at first I never heard.

This somewhat frustrating fact that god starts talking to us in a whisper is explained in A Course in Miracles by the statement, that the holy spirit whispers because there is no conflict in him. In the Course, the holy spirit is explained as “the voice for God”.  Shouting and pillars of fire not necessary.

At first we can’t hear much because there is conflict within our self. As one finds out who one really is, this conflict dies, and then we can hear God quite clearly. Two people in conflict shout at each other and nobody hears. Two people in love merely gaze at each other, and hear everything the other feels.

The advice to “love yourself” is backwards. Try “yourself love” in place of this. Self comes first.  Then the love.  Find the real self. Find it. Then the love of self is just there.

We are impostors

We have been trained from birth to be spies in our own lives. This is why the self we know from childhood is often not liked by us. You know incoherently it’s not real. You know you are not authentic. 

We should give up trying to love ourselves until we uncover who to love. When you uncover the one to love in you, it becomes you, and then it is love at first sight. It’s automatic. It is love at every sight. You can’t wait to wake up in the morning to hang out with yourself.

My experience for the longest time was I woke every morning and said “Oh, God.” Once thing changed I woke up every morning and said “Oh, God!”

When you fell in love in your first romance did you think, well, there they are. I really better fall completely in love with them. It’s going to be hard but I can do it. I want hearts and flowers and romance and songs in the spring and everything. Sigh, I know I can do it, let’s go.

Of course not. You couldn’t help it. They say you get attacked by love, you get shot by an arrow, it’s a shock, it rolls you over.

Or maybe it crept up on you slowly, but it came with the force of lava. One day you realized your heart was in flames.

It’s like that. One day you look in the mirror and there is no mirror, it just disappears and there you really are, the most beautiful human you have ever seen and you see below the skin, below the appearance, it is somehow all rolled into one perception, there you are, and where have you been all my life!? Wrinkles? Acne? The most beautiful things I have ever seen.

It may be a lovely shock. How could someone like me love someone like me? How could I even like somebody like me? That famous bon mot by Groucho Marx that he wouldn’t join a club that would admit him has done quiet damage to many selves. Rueful recognition isn’t healing. As a Transcendental Meditation teacher used to say to us, “We are all doomed to bliss”. Yes, and we are all doomed to true self. If we speed up the (inevitable) doom of the ego, the little self, to real us, then we move up what is masked by the postponement of the inevitable. God.

So, isn’t it therefor a paradox that the self before we know what it is has the power to withhold us from God? God so loves the world that he gives it the power to deny him. He doesn’t want somebody that he forces to love him.

Would you?

Once you fell in love in your first romance, then did you discount everybody else? Did you fall in love with only “him”, or “her”? Of course not, The cliche of love is that the true lover loves everything. Everybody’s beautiful. Everybody’s sweet, you are in love.

One ‘task’. One ‘task’ only. Who am I really? Then all else is done for me. From that point, All That Is takes over and we simply inherit everything there can be. It’s an inheritance; but nobody died. Somebody suddenly lived.

A friend in a meditation group once said to me, “For a long time now I have been experiencing life as a series of hints.” The hints are the true self whispering to the less true self. One thing is to pay attention to the hints. It might seem like paying attention to the hints is doing something, but since we are always paying attention to something anyway casually shifting our attention is really not like doing anything, it’s not doing very much. 

Our attention shifts all the time, it’s part of being human. How about the way billboards catch our attention? Do we do anything to look at it? Does anybody think, “Know what?  On the way to the airport I really want to see the billboards.” Isn’t it more like we realize we are looking at a billboard after our attention shifted to it by itself? Our awareness can be simply that we are aware, and then our attention automatically shifts inside. Once it shifts itself inside, there are the hints. Once it shifts inside as awareness. Once you shift inside, aware that you are awareness watching awaremess go inside of itself.

Again, this is really not about steps that you do, the steps are done for us automatically, once we simply allow a certain style of attention that is already there. The correct or useful style of the attention is built in, and it actually isn’t anything that we go out and get. Really, it’s just something that we sort of trip over. This style of attention could be known simply as noticing. Since we already automatically notice without trying, usually without noticing, it’s not doing, it’s not-doing. All we ‘do’ is let the attention fall on things. Letting is undoing, not doing, allowing is just being. Allowing attention to go where it wants to really go, is one of the correlates of who we actually are. And where it wants to go is within. When the billboards grab our attention, that’s not our desire, it’s the desire of the people who earn their living by making billboards. They study for a career in how to grab us. This god does not do. He does not intend to grab us, he intends to let us find who we actually are, and then, there he is.

It is important to realize that we do not “pay” attention, we invest it.  The idioms in our language are often misleading; attention isn’t a debt.  When we invest our attention in something we make a profound commitment and we use a precious resource to do so.

Louise Hay said that “The only thing over which we have any control is our current thought.”

And the currency of each thought is the currency in which we invest our attention.  The currency of our attention is of immense worth, and if we let our attention shift without watching it, we let it default to advertising, to the billboard makers, to the marketing activities of a world designing itself to hooking our attention by increasingly sophisticated means.

We let it default to noticing only the things in our lives that try most loudly to claim us.  God does not attempt to fight off those claimants on our behalf.  He never says “what about me?”, because for god it is all about us.  Once I was fretting in a discussion with him, and he said, “Whatever you want.”  That shut me right up, which wasn’t his objective, but I wasn’t learning anything by complaining.

Another time I was transported by divine bliss and in raptures of delight and I said, “Oh God, you can have me if you want me!”  And god said, “I can have you if you want me!”  I’m still embarrassed about that one a little, but I also find it to be extremely funny and I believe god did too.  I had the most important thing in the universe precisely backwards.  He had replied with a kind of rueful smile.

So wherever I let my attention  place itself without watching it, meaning be unaware that it is happening, I invest growth in the target of my awareness.  I finance the expansion of what I am seeing.  And if I don’t monitor where my attention goes and let the most vivid things capture it, I am giving away my most valuable asset.  I am essentially inviting its theft.

When we allow our attention on our intention, we have started to allow our journey back to the divine.  Eventually awareness will wander inside us.  And it will eventually, if we continue allowing it, notice the witness of our attention, which is our god self.

I’m trying to convince you that you don’t have to do anything. This is very important. I’m going to put words in your mouth, but I think you will accept them: You don’t have time to do anything more, even to discover the Supreme fact of life. You are just too busy to find you. You can’t do it, or you would’ve already done it. And if you’ve already done it, you would not be reading this book. So, ‘doing’ is out. There is no time for more doing. ‘Doing’, is a way to stay embedded in who you think you really are, which is an inaccurate thought.

Let’s try not-doing. Let’s let. Let’s let attention shift around where it will on its own for a little while and just see what happens. Let’s watch it shift. See what it does. Where does that little doggie of attention go when we are watching? What corners does it sniff in? What’s it snooping on in the yard? Where does it go? Isn’t it always looking for something? What actually is it looking for?

Our attention is our most important thing. Our attention is sacred. We should watch it like we watch a sport. Where is this ball of attention going to go? How? Why? Who kicks it? Who catches it?

Yoda had unhelpful advice when he said “Do not try. Do. That is why you fail” . But of course Yoda wasn’t actually trying to realize god. Maybe he had it already.

And ‘doing’ is perfectly fine on the other side of finding god because you realize then you actually never did anything and can’t yourself, in the self  you know before you find your true self,  really do anything anyway,  but that’s for a later discussion.

A quick note on “why”. Asking this is always a waste of time, it usually causes pain, and I recommend that you forget about asking why. About anything important anyway. Asking why it’s cold in the living room is fine to investigate. Asking why we don’t know who we really are yet, is not fun to ask, it’s dangerous, and ultimately useless. And it isn’t paying attention to whether or not you already know.

It’s basically a guarantee not to find you if you ask all the time why you haven’t found you.


The ego is that little voice that’s always getting our attention and telling us to watch out. Actually this is poor advice because what we should be doing is watching in, watching until the attention wanders IN by itself, and then we watch in, not out. This is the voice that’s easy to identify, because it’s always frightening us and saying and how to be safe by listening to this yammering little scared immature kid that seems to care so much for us.

When the attention wanders In, when the wandering mental puppy happens to look inside, then we know to look, watch him, see what happens. And notice also that the ego isn’t interested in what’s inside you. He won’t go in with you. He can’t.

You can mentally take him, the ego, and perch him on your left or right shoulder. I recommend you be kind to him, because he is obviously easily terrified. Then give him a job. You can say “Eggy, I’d like you to drive. I’m telling you where to go, but you can run the brakes since you’re pretty good at being scared.” You might let the ego make the shopping list. You might assign it to help you do the practical things. Give some assignments, and see how it does. You can then sit back and learn to smell the roses. Without worrying if they need to be clipped, fertilized, mulched, sprayed, photographed, or pruned. Eggy can worry about all that.

If Eggy feels useful, and knows you are not out to kill him off, it may very well settle down and stop pushing God away from you. Scaring the ego, threatening it, being angry at it, cajoling it, don’t work very well and take a long time. While we are here in 3-D, an ego is actually very useful. It gives us time to do the important things like nothing.

Hire yourself a president of your Me corporation. “Wanted: One Ego to run the obvious while I lean back and find out what really matters.” And you stay Chairman of the Board. You set policy. The ego executes, well, pun intended. You’ll need to run out and get a desk to put your feet up on and simply watch what’s going on, like a good business owner does. Successful owners pretty rarely drive the trucks, although maybe they should to see how tough it is. It’s not a great analogy, but let the ego drive the trucks, the job basically stinks, and let us make the big decisions.

Another strategy is to recognize that the ego is God also. (See the chapter on Boundaries.) Let it know that you know that, it will be stunning news to him, and then the ego will know there is no place to go except into service to who you really are. Immediately, everybody’s happy, and you can get on with your spiritual essence.

So getting rid of the ego is easy, because it’s not who truly are. You befriend it, and be kind to it because this serves both of ‘you’. There is no need to worry about the ego. To calm down the ego, treat it with kindness just like how to calm down everything else.

Everyone would like to meet God. Even those people who don’t believe in Him would like to meet him. If they believed it was possible to speak with God they would be the first ones to sneak on the line.” (Paraphrased from his talk “Shaking Hands With God”)

-Maharishi Mahesh Yogi


Growing in identity as God is a seamless continuum of change. In the digital age we tend to think in binary, either I’m God or I’m not. Either I’m in the 3rd dimension or I’m in the 5th dimension.

But really, growth is much more gentle and continuous than this; I experience that I slide up and down. Up in frequency, down in frequency, up a little, down a little, all day long. Change in frequency changes my reality. Change in frequency changes what I see as real. And some of the reality states are more comfortable than others. Each frequency change alters what we perceive as reality. When we are really down, we could think of what Thaddeas Golas said in The Lazy Man’s Guide to Enlightenment,

What am I doing in a place where this is real?”

Once I asked god if infinity was enough. And he said “Of course it’s not enough, that’s why there are an infinite number of them.” So there is plenty of space to move around in; if we change reality when we change our frequency, there is much room for different reality experiences to take birth in.

The truth found inside is the same for each person who finds it. But for each individual the exposure and disclosure of it may be quite a different process. The way out is the way in, but there are lots of different ways in.

Ancient traditions emphasize gaining enlightenment (Ascension) all at once in a burst called Satori. Digitally. ‘Binaryially’. Snap-to-grid. But currently mass ascension is occurring in a continuum of increasing bliss. It is more of an analog situation than a digital, binary one. We are not ever 100% in one ‘level’ of ascension.

Why God is Familiar

At the bottom of the frequency band we are in, we experience the world as physical and we interpret ourselves as physical also. As our frequency increases we start to perceive our expanded Self, AKA Higher Self. Continuing expansion permits us to experience ourselves more as our Soul, and then we may perceive ourselves at an angelic level and ultimately God claims us as his truth and our truth.

It’s a sliding scale. Frequency changes with mood and time of day and energy level; when tired we are usually at a slower frequency. When love predominates as an experience, our frequency is quickened and we can live at more expanded states of beingness. Love is an infinite frequency.

So there are faster frequencies and slower frequencies in the universe. The common tendency is to refer to them as “higher” frequencies and “lower” frequencies. I would rather say “faster” and “slower” because there is the obvious unhelpful assumption that higher is better than lower. There is quite enough judgment of better/worse in the evaluation of consciousness. I suggest more spiritual is not more better, it’s just more faster. Faster feels better. Faster frequency is stronger, more flexible, hardier, more able, more multi-tasking, calmer, more expanded, more loving, inclusive, fun, cooler, and an incredible cosmic relief. It is just really worth it.

Not to slow our frequencies, but did the bible say someone was coming to “Judge the Quick and the Dead” ? I suppose the dead were the slower guys, and the quick are the faster ones? We could be only one of them? Dead or Quick? In keeping with the theme here of a sliding scale of frequencies instead of static categories, perhaps slower is deader and quicker is more alive. This goes with our experience also, we say, “I woke up dead”. I sure woke up extremely slow but not stopped. Or, I’m moving fast today. A good thing. I’m moving fast today, I’m at a high vibration, I’m really alive! Catch me if you can. Catch me if you want to be less dead.

Don’t you think that’s why we call livelier a “quickening”? The dictionary definition of quicken is quite fascinating,

…to revive; restore life to: ‘The spring rains quickened the earth’ “.

They sure do. And since we dipped “down” (quickly) into biblical consciousness, let’s go back ‘up’ and realize that a quickened frequency Raineth Down Grace From The Heavens Upon Us And Lo, We Are Made Pretty Darn Happy.

It’s actually very important to chose terms about frequency carefully since better/worse thinking is always a slower frequency. If you make better/worse thoughts as moral ones rather than efficacious ones about ascension frequencies, you are standing on your bootstraps. What does vocabulary matter? What do word choices matter? Words are sounds and sounds are frequencies. So it’s ‘better’ not to use better. It’s more effective not to interpret higher frequency as morally superior. The whole superior/inferior dialog should be chucked.

For a good treatment of how words we choose affect our thinking, expectations, and the reality we create, you might want to see Hidden Language Codes by R. Neville Johnston.

The quicker we are the more we don’t comprehend judgments about better or worse. The less we understand judgment and the less we enclose judgment. It just falls away. Judging judgment is a waste of time. Just climb the frequencial ladder and much that is not useful is less present in your reality. Its a lot better not to be better, and its a lot faster to be faster.

I like to think quicker/slower over better/worse or higher/lower.

Please notice how we are staying out of blaming religions for inculcating in the vocabularies of the entire human race, and hence deeply embedding in the very consciousness of the entire human race for thousands of years, that more spiritual is higher and higher is hierarchy, and humans higher in hierarchies are better humans and better means superior and it means you are better than others. And if you are not higher, you are clearly lower, and lower is disgusting. Sorry.

Heaven is higher, earthly is lower. Heaven is more good and earth is more bad. Mud is not good, clouds are good. Mountains are spiritual, valleys are deadly. (It’s a valley of death, not a mountain of death.) So wind must be better than water, sky trumps fields, up bests down, tall is better than short, more holy, actually.

Therefore, don’t eat because food is at ground level . Obviously this whole way of thinking is ridiculous. I’d throw it all out.

Frequencies are an experience, they are not identities. Our true human identity is the fastest frequency there is. This is who we truly are. Don’t believe it, just ask god (he is laughing now about this as he writes it) and the only variable is that an infinite frequency can experience a lower frequency as its reality. (“What am I doing in a place where this is real?”

Thigh-slapping guffaw from god right now. Very unseemly.

Because He doesn’t ever, ever, seem.


Does not exist. It’s just slow love, in the same way that matter is slow light. (I see I couldn’t slip that one by you, then, very good. I’ll come back to it.)

Slow love is clumsy. If you think that hate really exists, notice that all the time it’s trying to tell you that it isn’t real. It is always is trying to tell us that it really is masquerading love.

Poetry is not for everyone but following is actually the clearest way I have found to express this quite subtle and counter-intuitive finding that love and hate are the same.

Walking A Way

w sterling
november 2006

walking is like
nothing else
as much as it is like
not walking

not planting first foot
not pushing off
not shifting haunch
not swinging next foot

not walking has a not
every single where walking does not
have a not

not walking is a complete exact faithless copy
of walking

every thing you precisely do
when you walk
you precisely don’t do
when you don’t walk
there is no difference
except the un

not eating is not like walking or like not walking
it instead is not chewing not tasting not swallowing
making it more like eating than it is like walking or
not walking or
anything else or
not anything else

not walking is the closest thing there can be
to walking, its unskin its closest

so nothing
is as much like everything
as nothing

now come with me
off the cliff,

why hating is
like nothing else
but the similar obsession
of love


© William Sterling

We could say, what seems to be hate, is very slowly vibrating love. It’s ignorant love. It wants exactly the same closeness that love wants, but it does not know how to go about it. So it tries to control, and imprison the object of its attention so it cannot get away.

If someone loves me, they can’t stop thinking about me. If someone hates me, they can’t stop thinking about me.

Hate can obsess over me by cruelty, even torture, manipulation, all the objectives of which are to keep me as close as possible. If somebody really hates me, they don’t want to leave me alone. If they technically leave me alone in 3D reality, their thoughts don’t leave the thought of me alone. If I really hate myself, I also refuse to leave myself alone. If I hate myself, everything’s all about me. Who I believe I am never leaves my awareness. It is only the illusion of me that I can hate, because it’s impossible to do anything but love who you really are, as soon as you find you. Bump into the real you in a dark room and all the lights come on everywhere.

When I am hating the false me, it’s difficult for other items to get into my awareness because my awareness is fully clogged up with who I think I am and what I don’t like about it. I am therefore always trying to change me. I become my priority project. I am my own obsession. If I am a supermodel I might think my lips are too thin, and so all I can see are my lips. It is just as if I loved my lips, I look at them all the time, but in distaste. I see my lips in the mirror, but in the mirror image of appreciation, IE, distaste. Precisely like appreciation, but reversed. There are two mirrors in my vanity. The one that shows me my lips, and the one that shows me that distaste and appreciation have identical effects.

When a pickpocket sees a saint, he sees only the pockets. It’s all about to what do we attend. Our attention is where we attend. Its the school we send ourselves to. What we intend is where we attend.

But if I love myself, I am free to think about anything. I need not think about myself all the time.  I am free to investigate and appreciate nature, nurture, everything. I can give attention to others, get the light out of seeing their perspectives which may be very different from mine. Whereas if I think I hate them, I am always trying to force their perspective into being the same as my own because I don’t trust my own. When I love myself, everything else becomes interesting, too. Appreciation flourishes inward, and outward everywhere.

Anton Checkov is supposed to have said, “To a chemist, there is no such thing as a bad smell.”

I’d like to say that, to a lover, there is no such thing as hate.

If I don’t like myself, I don’t actually trust my own perspective. Because nothing seems to be working out, so how could my perspective makes sense. Ideologues and fanatics of all types insist everyone believe what they say they believe, so that it will help them feel they are right. And if they are right, then they are okay, and if they are okay, they can like themselves. These behaviors are doomed, and the way back from them is hardly easy. Of course, the fanatic, the torturer, the ideologue, the hater, have all trapped themselves in deep suffering. Which is ironic, but irony is always lost on ideologues.

One wants to think the image of the self imprisoned hater is funny, but these spiders are trapped in webs, and it is just very sad. The only solution for severely lost ones, is their own pain. If they hurt themselves enough by hating others, they might stop it. Just like we, who eventually turn our own beautiful love on ourselves, these ones do the same, turning their inverted love upon themselves resulting in ether shocked realization and change, or death. Love always reflects back to the self, whether it is the highly vibrating love or the slowly vibrating love of hate, it always goes back home.

When I am in love with self, all this bizarre complexity is not present. Love is infinitely simpler than its apparently opposite, the tricky, meaningless, hurtful, tedious, banal, and illusory inverse double we call hate.


This seems like a great time for a discussion of truth.

A few years ago I asked my higher self “What is true?” The answer came back in the snappy way the higher self always replies, “Everything is true.”

I dismissed it as my lower mind fooling around with me. It seemed remarkably unhelpful.

But over the years that reply has improved. Even when I first heard it the answer was etched in emphasis, a kind of word glow. Which everything has from our higher selves. You may perceive it in a different way, but everyone having a chat with their higher self experiences that each reply has a ring, a specialness about it. Visual or auditory or in other ways, in a genuine reply from the higher self this quality is always there.

Everything is true. What a bizarre idea. Once you seriously start searching for truth, it’s addictive.

It’s crazy, really. Truth is like crack cocaine. Once you taste it, you can’t stop. If I’ve got it, you don’t. If I’m right, you’re wrong. If we both have it, don’t you make any changes because you’ll make me wrong. The historical beat goes on and truth becomes a killer. The killer.

But If everything is true, the props go out from under the truth podium. A whole host of nice things suddenly happen. Tolerance. Agreement. Harmony. Alliance. Security. Peace. It’s a long and welcome list. It’s true. And then and I think only then, we can forget about truth.  We are the truth.

Hopefully it’s coming clear that he only way out of the human dilemma is to discover you. And the easiest way to discover you is to let your attention go into free fall, inside of you. Since letting isn’t doing, its not-doing, there really isn’t anything to do to find you. It’s more like saying “Lets see seeing see.” Watch your attention look around in there. See what is. Attention and watching are the same, and the attention wanders on its own. Which is why you can notice that that there are no steps to is.

Next we will take a look at how boundaries seem to separate us from our real self, and therefore from God, but really don’t.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment