The Message Of Naturally Being

1. What-is is ungraspable and unknowable.

It is neither something nor nothing, neither existent nor non-existent.
It is the unnameable “no-thing” that is beyond all positions.
There is no knower to know or stand apart from what-is, only its own self-evidence.
Because no division can be found within what-is, it may be described as whole — not as a quality or property, but simply as the absence of separateness.

2. Everything that appears is already this no-thing appearing as everything.

There is “not two”: no background and foreground, no absolute and relative, no deeper and shallower reality — just what-is, appearing as the multiplicity of experience without ever becoming two.

3. Perceiving, sensing, recognising, and interpreting are themselves appearances.

“Human perception” is not a subject observing an object;
it is simply another expression of no-thing, as impersonal as a sound or a colour.

4. All appearances inherently appear.

They do not require a background knower or a witnessing entity.
Nothing illuminates them; they are their appearing.

5. The sense of ignoring or overlooking what-is appears as a contraction in the mind–body.

This contraction is not a mistake or a fault; it has no cause and no separate agent.
It is simply another appearance of what-is.

6. This contraction contains the felt sense: “I am the one who experiences.”

What comes with this is the dream of being a separate person living in a world of separate objects.
Experience seems to happen “through the eyes of the dream,”
and the world seems divided into:

• an inner knower

• an outer world

• a centre

• a boundary

• a life moving through time

This entire structure is an appearance, not an entity.

7. From this apparent contraction arises the sense of a split world.

The universe seems divided into “me” and “not-me,”
reinforced by cultural narratives of individuality, control, and linear becoming.

8. This apparent sense of self seems to veil what-is.

But nothing is actually hidden.
The veiling itself is an appearance made of no-thing.

9. Methods, inquiries, and practices may or may not appear, and may or may not soften the felt separateness.

They may reveal its illusory nature, but they cannot remove it, because there is nothing to remove and no one to do the removing.
Any attempt to achieve freedom reinforces the imaginary doer.
Nothing is offered here as a method or a path.
Yet in meetings, words may appear — sometimes sounding like a suggestion, an inquiry, a pointing, or an invitation to rest — but these are not given to anyone and lead nowhere.
Even the natural orientation sometimes referred to as the “universal family” is simply another appearance, not a step or a practice.

10. The apparent ending of the illusion of separation is causeless.

It does not depend on readiness, practice, awakening, insight, or understanding.
It simply appears to happen — or not.

11. It may become apparent that the dream of the illusion of separation ends — not as a real event, but as the simple recognition that nothing was ever divided.

No separation ever existed.
No one awakened.
All that appears is simply no-thing appearing as everything.
It also becomes clear that the mind has no evidence that this no-thing is a personal object or belongs to anyone.

12. Practices and inquiries may still appear

**But only as a natural celebration of what is already clear.**
Daily life itself becomes a continuous confirmation of the obviousness of what-is.
A natural orientation may appear in which no-thing is felt as the effortless, loving, always whole and complete “parent” or ground of the mind and body,
from which they gently and spontaneously decontract from any residual echo of the belief in separation and certain habitual behavioural tendencies of avoidance, suppression and dysregulation.
This is referred to here poetically, not literally, as the “universal family.”

Philosophical Clarifications

“No-thing” does not denote a metaphysical substance or ultimate essence.
It points to the impossibility of locating inherent existence or a final reality behind appearance.

Words such as “whole” or “complete” describe the absence of boundary,
not an intrinsic nature.

This message avoids asserting a universal consciousness,
and it avoids asserting an absolute void.
It remains faithful to the Middle Way.

Love, beauty, and understanding may arise when separation is not assumed,
but they are not essential qualities of reality.

Causelessness is an epistemic recognition:
no cause can be located for the appearance or disappearance of separation.

Poetic metaphors such as “parent” or “family” express felt intimacy,
not literal structure.

A Note on the Luminous Ordinariness of What-Is

When the idea of an ultimate witness or metaphysical background is absent, nothing stands “above” or “behind” life. Appearance is not divided into higher and lower, sacred and ordinary, real and unreal. Nothing is more true than anything else, and nothing is diminished by comparison to an imagined Absolute.

In the absence of a background observer, appearance is not degraded or secondary; it is the fullness of what-is. The ordinary becomes radiant, not because it has acquired a new quality, but because nothing is held at a distance. What some traditions call “nirvana” and “samsara” are not two different realms. As the Middle Way points out, they are identical — not metaphorically, but literally, as the immeasurable immediacy of what-is.

When the witness is not imagined, the aliveness of appearance is not reduced — it is simply released from division. What remains is intimacy, immediacy, warmth, beauty, aliveness, and a sense of nothing being withheld. This is not a special state or spiritual realisation, but the natural simplicity of appearance when it is not filtered through the dream of separation.

This is why it may be said that the world is nirvana, and that the aliveness and energy of what-is are celebrated in their ordinariness. Not because the world has changed, but because no distance is imagined between appearance and what-is.

A Note on Love, Understanding, Beauty, and Aliveness

Although no-thing has no qualities or attributes, there can be a natural sense of love, understanding, beauty, and aliveness when the assumption of separation is not active. These do not belong to a self, nor do they arise from an ultimate source. They are simply spontaneous appearances — expressions of what-is, as unowned and impersonal as a sound, a colour, or a movement.

Their emergence does not imply that reality is fundamentally loving or beautiful. Rather, when no division is imagined, the immediacy of experience can feel tender, open, or luminously alive. This is not a property of no-thing, but the felt freedom of not insisting that reality be any particular way.

A Note on Awareness

Many contemporary non-dual teachings speak of “awareness” as the constant background of experience, the unchanging witness in which the world arises. What appears here as this message uses different language, because the idea of “awareness” can easily solidify into a subtle but persistent form of metaphysical certainty — a final refuge for the mind.

Here, “awareness” is not treated as an entity, a ground, a true self, or an ultimate observer. The appearing of experience is undeniable, but there is no evidence that this appearing belongs to a background knower or witnessing presence. What some traditions call “awareness” is simply the immediacy of appearing, without a subject standing behind it.

It is also common for a sense of spaciousness, boundlessness, or an impersonal “I am” to appear. This can feel open or expansive, but it remains an appearance — a temporary energetic movement. It does not reveal a true self, universal consciousness, or a witnessing presence. Anything that can be recognised, described, come and go, or feel like “me-but-expanded” is still part of the dream of identity, simply appearing in a more subtle form.

The tendency to treat awareness as an Absolute often arises from several natural movements of mind:

1. Inherited assumptions from traditional frameworks
Many spiritual systems affirm a single metaphysical essence such as pure consciousness or presence. These inherited assumptions encourage the mind to posit awareness as a final reality behind experience, even when no such entity can be found.

2. A fear that groundlessness implies nihilism
Without an ultimate witness or metaphysical ground, the mind may imagine a collapse into meaninglessness. To avoid this imagined threat, it may elevate awareness to the status of a stable foundation. Yet groundlessness is not nihilism; it is simply the absence of inherent essence. Appearance remains vivid and intimate without needing an ultimate host.

3. The psychological comfort of an unchanging presence
The idea of a permanent awareness offers emotional reassurance. It feels like a home, a safety, a continuity. But this comfort does not constitute evidence. When examined, the “ultimate witness” cannot be located as a subject, an object, or a metaphysical principle.

4. A philosophical expectation that reality must have a ground
More than two thousand years ago, Buddhist philosophers such as Nāgārjuna examined this human tendency — the instinct to assert an underlying observer or ultimate essence. Their analysis showed that any proposed ground collapses when examined: if it is separate, it cannot be absolute; if it is not separate, it cannot serve as a background. This insight revealed a tension still found today: the desire for an ultimate observer meets the impossibility of locating one.

For these reasons, this message does not describe awareness as an Absolute or as the ground of experience. Instead, it points to the simple, immediate fact that appearance appears — without a background, without a witness, without a knower.

There is no separate awareness looking at the world.
There is no ultimate observer behind experience.
There is just what-is, utterly intimate and inseparable,
not two, not one, without centre or circumference.

This does not deny awareness.
It simply leaves awareness ungraspable, unfixable, and free of metaphysical weight —
an expression among expressions, not a special essence behind them.

PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFEGUARDS

1. The message does not replace therapy or psychological support.

2. Contraction, anxiety, and confusion may appear; this is not failure.

3. “No doer” does not remove responsibility, care, or consequences.

4. Dissociation or numbness is not clarity.

5. Grounding, rest, connection, or therapeutic work may be deeply supportive.

6. The message is descriptive, not prescriptive; no belief is required.

IV. Objections And Counter-Objections

Objection 1: “This is nihilism.”

Counter:
The message denies inherent essence, not appearance.
Nothing is negated.

Objection 2: “This sneaks in a metaphysical absolute.”

Counter:
Terms like “whole” are observational descriptions, not qualities of a hidden substance.

Objection 3: “If nothing causes anything, why act?”

Counter:
When the message speaks of “causelessness,” it refers only to the apparent arising or ending of the illusion of separation.
Nothing causes the illusion to appear, and nothing causes it to fall away.
It is not the result of practice, effort, discipline, insight, purity, or readiness.

This has nothing to do with everyday functioning.

In daily life, actions still take place: bodies walk, hands cook, conversations happen, choices appear to be made, and ordinary cause-and-effect relationships operate just as they always have.

You touch a hot surface and the hand withdraws.
You plant seeds and plants grow.
You speak harshly and someone may feel hurt.
You care for someone and they feel supported.

The message does not undo physical, social, or relational causality.
It simply points out that none of this is being directed, chosen, owned, or controlled by a separate self.

Causelessness applies only to the illusion of the separate experiencer.
It does not imply fatalism, apathy, or passivity, nor does it deny that actions have consequences.
Life continues to function perfectly well — often more fluidly — without the imagined controller.

In short:

• Causelessness applies to the apparent contraction, not to the world.

• Life’s functioning remains intact.

• Consequences still unfold.

• Nothing in daily life depends on a personal doer.

Appearance appears.
Action acts.
Life lives.
All without a separate agent.

Objection 4: “This message can destabilise people.”

Counter:
Human experience is not denied.
Therapy, boundaries, and support remain entirely valid.

Objection 5: “This is solipsism.”

Counter:
Solipsism requires a self and a mind.
This message denies both.

V. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Does this deny the world?

No.
It denies inherent essence, not appearance.

Q2: Is “no-thing” a cosmic source?

No.
It is a pointer to the absence of definability.

Q3: Is awareness being denied?

Only the idea of a separate awareness-entity.
Appearance is self-evident without a perceiver.
There is no listener, just listening.

Q4: Is mind–body healing irrelevant?

Not at all.
Mind–body healing may be deeply supportive.

Q5: Is social wellbeing irrelevant?

Not at all.
Support, connection, and relational wellbeing may be deeply supportive.

Q6: Are practices pointless?

They may soften contraction, improve mental wellbeing, but they do not cause the end of separation.

Q7: Could this encourage dissociation?

Not when properly understood.
The message embraces the full range of human experience.