One becomes formless by being completely within form without attachment to form.
Look out into what appears as form. See it. See into it. See through it.
There is no separate object against which to contend.
There is that which is in sight. “You” are not that which sees. There is only seeing through the sight seen.
Trungpa Rinpoche: "Union with God cannot take place when there is any form of ego. Any whatsoever. In order to be one with God, one has to become formless. Then you will see God."
Arraj, James. Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue / God, Zen and the Intuition of Being (2 Volumes in 1) (Kindle Locations 821-822). Inner Growth Books and Videos, LLC. Kindle Edition.
When Trungpa writes “Then you will see God” does “see God” mean that God is a “see God”? (This is not a verb/object grammar, rather a descriptive of what God is -- God is a see God.
Further, is it the desire to see God that eventuates the see God? (E.g. you ‘will’ see God). Is the “see God” brought into appearance because one wills (one desires) to(ward) see God?
We do not have to see God. Not as some object to be seen as separate. But to see God might be to let gaze go as what is seeing, into, and through.
Are we expecting to see God out there as some definable shape?
Or is our looking a looking as, into, and through what is there without making anything seen that which is separate and distinct as “God”?
Is God, therefore, that which is seeing without object -- rather, a “see God” in itself that which is being seen through?
All time collapses into now.
Like the white haired gentleman I shook hands with in his hospice bed last evening, a non-differentiated touch seemingly three weeks spanning a prison room with low fat milk and cake to mashed potatoes and gravy of a summer’s evening sudden recognition in quiet space.
and live through