tsuki

@now is forever Here comes the me part again And the difference between men and women is? Brains? Genitalia? Your personal beliefs? Willingness to zoom? Isn't the last one making me the manliest man of all men? And you, the womanliest woman of all women? With that frame of mind no wonder that we're cuddling all the time.

@now is forever This is what I meant here.

@now is forever As you lose more and more knowledge, you gain more and more unity. There is always knowledge to pull on. What I do now is construct the knowledge about pulling. I want to pull on that. Yes, once you pull on something, it's gone. Once you open Matrioshka, it stays open. But then, you just have to look for another one. It's always there if you look carefully. It is precisely because you dared to open the previous one.

It's not that you will stop feeling. Feeling and thinking will become the same movement. Wouldn't you like to close that gap? Haven't you just say that lies feel disconnected? That's a glaring disconnection between lies and truth. This gap is so vast that I can't resist bugging you with it

@now is forever It's still a feeling, isn't it? Hahaha

@now is forever Explain the difference between truth and lie to me.

@now is forever Bingo! Yahtzee! Ding ding ding!!! ???

@now is forever Now, we're cuddling again. I love (to bug) you.

@Faceless What you're doing here is writing about bondage of thought from the point of view of freedom (sacred creativity). It's important! People will 'benefit' from it, and you will remain timeless. What I am suggesting you do instead is to write about freedom from the point of view of freedom. And don't you dare to assume it's impossible. People bound by thought will not understand you. You are not writing it for them, but for yourself to inquire into the nature of freedom. This will not make you bound by time again. It will make you see the nature of freedom/sacred creativity. Once you see the nature of it, it will explode once more.

@Sashaj That's what I'm explaining. The answer is not: it's insane, you're chasing your tail, don't waste our time with your stupid paradoxes.

@now is forever Not going to argue about your beliefs, friend . There is no such thing as body or a heart, unless you believe in them.

@now is forever Hippies have status of their own. It's still there but it has a different name. There is still hierarchy within hippie communities. There are more hippy and less hippy hippies. The hippiest hippies look nothing alike the busiest businessmen, but they still are the top dogs within their respective domains. So it's not that personal gains are really out of the window, but the gains are in negative space. The wealthiest hippies are the ones that need the least. Yellow can see in what sense these two are the same and be wealthy and poor at the same time.

@Zweistein That's theory that we just constructed. It is obvious what to do, but how are actually seekers = non-seekers for you? To me, the only way is to be a seeker among everyday people. Seeking among everyday things. That way, there is no way to tell who is a seeker and who isn't. By embodying seeking = non-seeking. The most important people are the ones that I think at the moment. Since my soon-to-be wife is the one I think about the most, she's the top one due to proximity.

@Faceless When you are talking to a goal-seeking mind, saying that there is no goal to be sought will not attract it. You have to construct a trap in which the mind will have to observe itself. This is what I am doing with your sacred creativity. Would it convince you to actually listen to me if my advice would stop it? That the creativity would be dead and mechanical like thought? I think not. Self-inquire into the nature of freedom, friend. And thank you for our conversation.

@Faceless You haven't answered my question. Are you saying that there is no ??? How is it that ? can reflect on itself? What is the purpose of self reflection if the point is to stay with ?? You are being led by the nose by your sacred creativity. Find an answer that does not contradict me and does not invalidate what you do here on the forum. The answer is not to say that you are wrong but that you have missed something and can improve your teachings. @robdl can you understand what I'm getting at?

@Faceless Ok. Let's agree. When there is ??, there is no ?. When there is ?, there is no ??. ? and ?? are mutually exclusive. It is either one, or the other. So far, all of this ^^^^ is saying exactly the same thing. The question is: you, as ?? write on the forum on how ? works. How do you, as ?? know anything about ?, when there is no ? in you?

@Faceless Okay, so if absence of ? implies ??, then how does ?? have anything to say about ?? When there is ??, there is no ?. Is that correct?

@Faceless can we agree on this? Do you understand it?

@robdl There is no normal language about it. ? is the I. ?? is the observer of the I. ??? is the observer of the observer of the I. ???? is the observer of the observer of the observer of the I. ... I don't think that it is useful to write it out in normal language. @Faceless, I am trying to point something out to you, so perhaps it would be wiser if you tried to understand what I mean as these symbols?

?? is the possibility of zooming out of the mind of ? and inspecting its structure. As you write your wisdom on the forum, you inspect ? from the point of view of ??.

No. I disagree. As ? looks at itself, it is holistic. As ?? looks at ?, then ? looks fragmented. As ?? looks at itself, it is holistic, but much, much more holistic than ?. The freedom of ?? is much much greater than ?. As ?? looks at ?, it looks as if it is completely determined.

@SoonHei You can think of ? as the I. ?? is the observer of the I. As you look at the I, you automatically 'create' the observer of the I. When you look through your own eyes in everyday experience, there is no observer of the I. There is just I. Unless you have experienced the observer of the I, looking clearly at the I, you shouldn't concern yourself with this discussion. It will only confuse you.

Because you look from the point of view of ??. To ? as it looks on itself, there is choice. As ?? looks at itself, there is choice. It doesn't mean that there is no reason to go from ? to ?? though.

If you have no ??, it 'feels like' ? is free. When ? observes itself (?), there is freedom. But, as you look at ? from the point of view of ?? - the difference of freedom/love is vast.

@Faceless @robdl From the point of view of ?, knowledge is used and does not pre-determine the outcome of choice. As you look at ? from ?? (infinite creativity/freedom), there is no freedom unlike in ??. ?? feels like it is free because there is no ???. From the point of view of ??? looking at ??, it is as constrained as ? when you look at it from the point of view of ??.