Xonas Pitfall

Note: This is a PARODY of Leo's blog post on Masculinity & Truth https://www.actualized.org/insights/masculinity-and-truth. I am not claiming that this perspective is true; I'm simply pointing out and trying to balance the biases I observed. We must remember that femininity and masculinity are dualities, each with its own survival-based strategies. These strategies offer different access to truth, with their respective advantages and disadvantages. I think Leo’s original post unfairly focused on the advantages of masculinity, so this parody serves to explore the feminine side. I’m NOT trying to promote an anti-men or women-are-superior agenda, this is simply a playful attempt to address and correct biases! Yay! Femininity & Truth The feminine has advantages in pursuing truth over the masculine. This may sound sexist, but here's why it’s the case: Since men are naturally stronger and bigger, it's easier for them in terms of survival, and therefore much, much easier to fall victim to their ego's desires. "I see! So, since I have the most strength and power, I get the final say. In that case, I'll just do what I want and make my minions serve me!" This approach leaves no room for the ego to grow, let go, or practice love and humility. Why would it? The ego is getting all the satisfaction it could ever crave. Now, the focus shifts to lying, manipulating, and forcing others, whether mentally or physically, to submit. Their ego gets wrapped up in dominance, ownership, pragmatism, and the ability to "bend" the truth to their benefit. We know that the ego is a lustful devil, and if you give it access to its desires, it will take them without a second thought. So, obviously, the gender that has more freedom to indulge in these desires will do so, and we can clearly see this pattern both in history and today. Eventually, society imposed upon them a role, and their duty became to focus more on survival in the "real world" than women do. They don’t care about truth because, functionally and survival-wise, they must manipulate, control, and change it to ensure their own survival and that of their offspring. Women, on the other hand, are either required to cultivate the virtues of submission and acceptance, qualities that bring them closer to the practices necessary for God-realization, or they are shielded by the protection of their man, with that burden already lifted. This allows them the freedom to focus on higher pursuits: honing intuition, engaging with beauty, children's innocence, and embodying the qualities of a sharing, nurturing, and loving mother. These practices are the foundation of spiritual growth and connection to the divine, as they are rooted in selflessness and an openness to higher, unseen realities. It’s easier for the feminine to be empathetic, mirror goodness, love, and not get so wrapped up in their own agenda. This is critical for actual truth and God realization, which is in direct opposition to the materialistic reality and egoistic behavior. Truth must be prioritized over survival. Cutting through illusions and fantasies is ruthless work, requiring self-submission. The masculine focuses on dominance, power, control, hard science, pragmatism, ego-driven battles, wars, debates, competition, external conquest, winning, achieving success at any cost, "owning" or "containing" the feminine, making her submit, "conquering" her, building empires, hierarchies, systems based on competition and survival, achieving individual success, protecting personal resources, whether through politics, business, or physical prowess. All of these aspects have nothing to do with spiritual truth but are all about the truth that the ego needs to continue surviving. This is the direct inverse of what is needed for actual enlightenment. Why do you think women are so drawn to art, beauty, and creativity? Because these are the most direct expressions of God. At their core, art and beauty represent a higher reality, one that moves beyond the superficial and taps into the essence of what is real. When you engage with these expressions, you begin to see that everything is illusory, everything is a reflection of beauty, a manifestation of creation. The true art of existence lies in seeing yourself in others, in understanding that everything is interconnected. Women, with their natural inclination toward empathy and intuition, are often more equipped to grasp these higher truths. Why do we often say that women are more intuitive, or able to feel energies? Why do you think nature made women capable of giving birth and creating life, similar to God? By this very fact alone, they are more connected to the creative nature of God. The masculine societal pressure and patriarchy push men to focus more on keeping their resources, power, and ego safe, so they can protect their family and create a kingdom for everyone. They have no time to ponder things beyond the tangible and ego, because that goes against their survival instincts. Men, societally, are more allowed to be disagreeable, egoistic, narcissistic, and violent, wrapped in their own delusional fantasies. Why do you think historically there has been so much inequality? Women only recently gained the ability to vote. History shows the evil and blind spots of masculinity. If masculinity was so rooted in truth, men would have realized that authoritarianism, wealth inequality, fascism, racism, sexism, patriarchy, classism, exploitation, colonialism, and the oppression of marginalized groups were rooted in evil and not truth; so why did it take them so long? It’s their ego, selfishness, and inability to hold space and empathize beyond themselves that locks them in this way. That’s why femininity is heavily needed. And by the way, all of these decisions were made by men on their own, with no women allowed to vote or suppress these actions. These choices are pure examples of masculine blindness. Women, on the other hand, are socially conditioned to be kind, soft, pleasing, empathetic, and understanding. They already know what it’s like to be victimized. They know how nasty ego corruption can get, and they already hate it. Therefore, they are in a much better place to realize the truth and go beyond this "materialistic" ego-driven reality. Look at all the current world leaders we’re accusing of child abuse, sex trafficking, music stars involved in scandals, criminals, and even spiritual gurus who use fake spiritual language to justify polyamory and sexual exploitation in cults. Consider the countless high-profile figures involved in scandals: politicians with multiple accusations of sexual misconduct or corruption, famous CEOs and business magnates exploiting workers or engaging in shady deals, grifting and insider trading, actors and musicians who abuse their power to manipulate vulnerable fans, etc. Are we really going to deny that the prevalence of these behaviors is linked to unchecked masculine power, entitlement, and ego? Who’s significantly and disproportionately involved in these actions? Men. Are we honestly suggesting that this gender is more grounded in integrity, truthfulness, and free from cheating and lying? Seriously? The feminine is less dominated by lust, horniness, and aggression. It is impossible to seek the truth if you are overly impulsive, horny, and angry. Too much masculinity leads to hard science, materialistic thinking, power-seeking, capitalism, inequality, oppressive, and tyrannical systems. Who do you think elected Hitler, Trump, and previous tyrants and leaders? Who do you think was doing the most of the oppression throughout history? Who do you think was suppressing science and calling paranormal research and spirituality "too woo-woo" for science? The masculine yearns for more control. The feminine is better at enduring suffering and is less prone to harming others. They have been perpetual victims throughout history, "prizes" in war, raped, molested, enslaved, tortured, and used for men’s pleasure. Truth-seeking is all about the endurance of suffering, and who better to endure than the perpetual victims of history? The feminine has better emotional control because she is less controlled by her lust. She is more emotional on average, which means she is way more familiar with her emotions and knows how to be present with them. Societally, women are also less suppressed when it comes to sharing and expressing their emotions, meaning they are less prone to building up uncontrolled anger, depression, and bitterness. Why do you think there is so much more suicidality in men? Why do you think it's usually men who cheat or have second families and hide them away? In fact, today’s male mating strategy is largely based on lying, manipulating perceptions, and control. This mindset is far more popular than any female mating strategy. Women, by contrast, don’t have to lie to get laid; it’s much easier for them. Men, on the other hand, train themselves and others to lie constantly, both to themselves and to women. How do you think this perpetuating mindset will ever bring a gender closer to the truth? It cannot. Men do not want to accept the harsh reality that they are not inherently desirable by nature. Instead, they soothe themselves with OnlyFans girls, fake porn, fake video games, fake lives, everything fake, because they cannot accept the truth. Women, on the other hand, are more able to face this reality. Men are the ones largely living in delusion in this day and age. The notion that the masculine prefers to lead rather than follow is simply wrong. The second men start suffering (e.g., the incel pandemic), you get school shootings, murder, propaganda, and ideological torture. Women cannot lean on violence, so they have to learn how to control themselves, knowing when they need to let go of their desires and when their desires are valid. This is key to achieving God-realization. If you’re too wrapped up in your desires and easily spoiled, and instead of stepping back and thinking, you resort to complaining and violence, this is what you get. I can’t think of any female podcast as whiny as some red-pill podcasts, or huge oppressive systems and religions that use God in the name of oppression, keeping women away from education, self-expression, and only serving self-serving agendas. Masculinity, in its most toxic form, is completely identical to ego; it uses anyone and everything to serve its own agenda. And women are often on the back burner of that. From patriarchal political structures to religious dogmas that limit female roles, to economic systems built on exploitation, men often design these institutions to protect their own interests. Think of capitalism, which thrives on inequality, or the historical suppression of women in religious institutions where leadership roles were almost exclusively male. Even in many traditional societies, women have been restricted by laws and customs designed to reinforce male dominance. All of these systems are crafted to perpetuate the power dynamics that benefit one gender over the other. Men also love hearing things that soothe them, and once you can whisper those things into their minds, they too can be easily controlled, manipulated, and will submit to whoever the authority figure whispering sweet words is. The female's mating (and therefore survival strategy) is simply being herself. Throughout history, wars have been started purely over the natural beauty of women. Most women would likely reject a man asking them out, but most men would not reject a woman asking them out. Therefore, the gender more prone to using 'lying' strategies is the male gender. And remember, survival drives everything, and mating is a huge part of that. So, if your survival strategy relies more on your ability to lie and manipulate, you are much less likely to care about the truth. The feminine is valued for qualities much closer to the divine in its purest form: love, care, understanding, acceptance, purity, beauty, mysticism, unfilteredness in expression, and perfection. These qualities align with higher, spiritual truths. On the other hand, many masculine values are more rooted in survival and ego. Men are often more allowed, and even encouraged, to be impure, psychopathic, disagreeable, and harsh. Some male-centered spaces allow men to cheat, not control their lust, and even take multiple wives, each of whom they must keep under control, often lying to each one about how much they love her. These spaces often promote participation in degeneracy and pick-up artist behaviors, reinforcing a culture of manipulation, dishonesty, and the pursuit of power over genuine emotional connection or spiritual truth. Most of what men desire is deeply self-soothing to their egos. They seek a partner who doesn't question their intellect, financially depends on them, is more emotional, smaller, weaker, and subservient to them. They expect their partner to handle all the housework, be sexually submissive in bed, fulfill all their desires, and cater to their ego. They expect their partner to be virgins, pure, never grow old, never gain weight, never complain, whine, and wholly devoted to them, while they themselves are free to cheat, have multiple wives, and exploit their partner's labor however they desire. Meanwhile, men are often encouraged to maintain a strong ego and a sense of self, with no authority, societal norms, or mating strategies to ever hold them accountable or push them beyond their own self-centered existence. And cultural norms reinforce all the above. Historically, the feminine was often kept under control, branded as 'heretical,' 'witches,' or 'subversive' for daring to speak their own truths or practice spirituality outside of prescribed norms. Women have long been denied the ability to express their spiritual insights freely because their truths were seen as a threat to patriarchal structures. The very act of a woman speaking or living her truth often posed a challenge to the masculine order, which is why many women were pushed into roles of submission or suppression. If men are so naturally oriented toward truth-seeking, why then feel the need to suppress the spiritually gifted and label them as witches? It almost seems like one gender really doesn’t want the truth pushed when it hurts their agenda. Hmm... The point is that this issue is more than cultural, more than social construction. The biology and, therefore, the psychology of men and women is different. It's not good or bad, it just is what it is. And you will find handfuls of individual exceptions. In fact, a larger percentage of the highest values and pursuits are very much aligned with what we might call 'feminine' qualities. (Imagine an alien or an unbiased person with very little knowledge of what masculine and feminine qualities are reading this.) Values of: love, empathy, compassion, mutual understanding, unconditional motherly-like love "A face only a Mother can love", reconnection with the present moment, simply feeling and being, presence, acceptance, receptivity, ego submission, giving, nurturing, healing, supporting, purity, emotional rawness/vulnerability, seeing others in oneself, connecting with the divine, with Mother Nature, spiritual intuition. Overall, hardcore truth-seeking is going to align better with the feminine. And the hardcore part is important because the truth is hardcore. Truth-seeking has to be hardcore because it requires self-annihilation. Or in other words, pure Ego-submission. Men's egos tend to be much more dominant and stubborn. They shudder at even the mention of the word 'submit'; their entire lives, they are running from its very essence. They are too fragile to break through Maya because Maya is so powerful.

Death? Not so much, no. Gradually losing my cognitive abilities, chronic health problems, the strength of my body, the vitality of youth, the joy of living, the brightness of hope, the clarity of thought, the vibrancy of passion, the warmth of connection, loss of loved ones, the slow erosion of relationships, the gradual fading of memories, the heavy silence in my mind, the looming specter of decay, the helplessness in watching others fade, possible ageism around me, dismissiveness of my worth, the alienation from society, loss of excitement, the hollow void inside, anhedonia, the numbness of feeling, the cold emptiness that replaces joy, emotional exhaustion, growing apathy, anxiety about the future, the sorrow of fading dreams, the weight of regrets, the fragmentation of identity, the erasure of purpose...? Yes!

🤍

https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/ 😓😓😓

HahahahahahHAHhahahahahHAHhahaha, I love you. Bless your comment 💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗

An old friend of mine briefly introduced me to witchcraft (also known as these "religions/cults") that are often associated with demons, Lucifer, Satan, etc. Funny enough, these religions used to be pagan religions before organized religion took over. You'll notice they had symbolism of actual good, helping, and giving power to their fellow man, and some still do. Organized religion then "renamed" and redefined these pagan beliefs to associate them with Satan and evil. It's a very standard tactic for any system or ego that wants to self-preserve: say your religion is one of love, peace, and beauty, and then demonize any pre-existing religions as Satan-worshipping to persuade and gain new followers. The irony is kind of cute! ^^ Satan represents selfishness, ego, and hypocrisy; any cult ever can be related to it.

<3

@TheGod Really? So, do you have no desire for love, just sex with women, in your opinion? Sex with squirrels then, perhaps? 🐿️

I appreciate the honesty! I love this kind of deep reflectiveness and rawness. Although one suggestion I'd make is not to fall victim to polarizing thinking once again and swing the pendulum to the other extreme after this insight. An easy way to challenge this is by asking yourself: Do you know of any black men who were deep spiritual teachers (the most enlightened teachers)? If not, given that I was asking for men, does that mean we should argue for white supremacy? When a particular gender or race is suppressed for centuries on a topic that is already rare, this is the outcome you get. People, in general, don’t care about spirituality or the ultimate truth, not just strictly women. You can also find many women who had Disney handsome prince fantasies fed to them and then realized hard truths about men. But again, this applies to people in general; we were all fed fantasies about life. Plus, we come from a pure, innocent, and naive perspective as children, so of course, that will be flawed. We then hold onto these lost ideas of love’s fairy tales as our last savior, and project that if only those few good feelings at the beginning of relationships could last forever... (then I will know love is real!) May I ask, what was your ideal fantasy like? What did you hope to get from a woman? One thing I’ve noticed with people is that the ideal fantasy is often of something so nurturing and perfect, selfless, never to hurt them, while they’re still allowed to be childish and selfish. A mother to the child. This all happens unconsciously, of course. These biases creep into us. We don’t put on our best performance, people react, and we end up creating an environment that lacks the safety to act in those idealistic ways. When you say you’ve been wanting from women the thing you had in yourself, exactly, but if you put that version in front of you in an actual, deep relationship, you’d probably have a much better shot at finding a woman who corresponds to that as well. It’s easy to project what we want from a person and keep telling ourselves, "If only they were like this, I’d be better too." The way I see relationships now is that both parties, with all our selfish, corrupt egoic tendencies, are trying to create an environment that’s as close to peace, beauty, and divinity as possible. It is something to be nourished and built together. You can’t expect perfection from the other person if you aren’t actively working on yourself to build it, making sure your ego isn’t getting in the way of that process. (As you stated later on, most of your relationships were corrupted by sexual desires. You can’t expect your ego to attract an angel if you're lusting after a succubus "hot witch" pornstar girlfriend.) If I may also ask: how do they corrupt your view of women?

It’s alignment with yourself, knowing yourself, loving yourself, and feeling yourself being loved. If possible, take the life purpose course. Other than that, ask yourself questions: What makes me happy? What makes me laugh? What kind of people make me feel grateful, positive, and like life is worth living for? What kind of work makes me feel fulfilled and energized? What do I want to contribute to the world? What activities make me lose track of time? What do I deeply care about? When do I feel most at peace with myself? What does success look like to me, beyond material achievements? What am I passionate about, even if it doesn’t lead to any tangible rewards? What excites me about the future? I know these questions can seem vague and difficult to answer, but the happiest version of you eventually figures them out and aligns with them. Just don’t fall into the trap of thinking there’s only one thing or that it never changes. People’s values and alignments can shift throughout life. Awareness is crucial; you’ll be asking yourself these questions over and over again as you grow. Also, don’t fall for the trap of believing meditation or psychedelics will give you infinite, permanent happiness. They won’t. Human happiness is most definitely conditional. You can reach states of pure bliss, but your baseline will remain human most of the time, unless you deliberately pursue a yogic path, and even then, it’s not guaranteed. That’s why making these questions as clear as possible is key. And if you don’t know the answers right now, that’s fine, your next goal is to find out what they are. Experience, test, try, and explore. In many emotional frequency charts (such as David Hawkins' "Map of Consciousness"), shame is considered the lowest, followed by guilt, apathy, and fear. Shame is directly a pure lack of self-love or a desire to deny and suppress yourself. That’s what depression often is, the suppression of the self due to a lack of love and shame. Given that depression is one of the lowest emotions you can feel, the direct opposite would be self-expression, self-love, a lack of self-shame, and acceptance, which would be the highest emotion, i.e., happiness. What is yourself? Who are you? Do you love it or do you hate it? Would you want to express more of it or suppress it? This is the key question to answer.

You have to contemplate what are truth and logic. To "spoil it" for you, haha, you can do a dictionary lookup: What is logic? Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. What is validity? The quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency. What is factually sound? With regard to what is actually the case; in relation to fact. What is a fact? A thing that is known or proved to be true. What is "to be true", truth? The quality or state of being true. (This definition becomes self-referential, as 'truth' is being defined in terms of itself, leading to an infinite regress: 'truth' can only be explained by itself, and thus cannot be further defined without repeating the same concept.) It'll always end up with something related to true, truth, or being truthful. Logic is the foundation of truth, or that which describes truth, or gets to the truth. You should be able to see the correspondence between truth and logic (I don’t think you should have issues agreeing with this, as it’s highly intuitive that we use logic to get to “correct,” “right,” or “truthful” expressions). So, this step of contemplation shouldn’t be an issue. Now, the question becomes: What is truth? Well, the definition itself is self-referential in most dictionaries; it just means "to be true, to be factual, to be real," but you don’t really contemplate further what that means in the mainstream. Simply put, truth means correspondence, connection, A=A, symmetry, that things ARE what they ARE. Look up what a truism is or what a tautology is. Basically, if A = A, it means A being A is true. If we said A is not A, but A = B, then A is not A, but A is B. This would imply the initial A was not “real,” “truthful," “actual,” or "properly described/understood," but what is actually real is B, so B is real, and A is fake. It's very loopy and almost silly to say this out loud, but this is the foundation of logic and truth. Examples of Tautologies: A circle is a circle. A bachelor is an unmarried man. A square has four sides. A leaf is a leaf. The blue sky is blue. These are tautologies because they are true by definition; they cannot be false. They simply restate the same thing in different words or affirm the same concept. The Law of Identity you mentioned here, which is the foundation of truth and logic, is the core of what God is (truth). The Law of Identity asserts that "A is A," meaning that something must be itself. If A were not A (if God were not God), it would contradict its own identity, making it unreal or false. The moment something is not itself, it ceases to exist in the realm of truth, because it violates its own identity. In other words, if A is not A, then it is no longer a real thing; it becomes an illusion or a lie. Logic seeks to identify the truth, and a lie cannot be truth because it does not correspond to reality. To make this a little less abstract, it’s similar to how scientists constantly push off the answer to the question of reality by narrowing it down to smaller and smaller subatomic particles. What is the foundation of the universe? What is truth? “Ah! Molecules created everything.” So, truth = molecule? Okay, how did the molecule come to be? “Uh... atoms!” So, molecule isn’t truth, then? You’re saying the atom is truth? Okay, how did the atom come to be? “Uhh... !?” And the answer might shift to "quarks," "strings," or something else. Do you see how they’re constantly pushing the question of truth to a second, third, and even smaller order of explanations, but never actually addressing it directly? This cycle continues indefinitely. The deeper you go, the more distant the original question becomes, without ever touching on what the true foundation of reality actually is. This mirrors a kind of infinite regression, always searching for smaller and smaller explanations, but never answering the original question. This means that all of these explanations are second-order concepts, never truly addressing the actual "first-order" truth. However, God is THAT absolute, direct "first-order" truth, or correspondence to reality. Reality = Reality; God = God; Reality = God, God is being itself, God. That’s what you experience during enlightenment, psychedelics, yoga, etc. You remove all the filters of others, your ego, language, and you just are pure identity, pure being, pure God, pure reality. It’s a direct connection to the actuality of things, with no filters of comprehension. The Law of Identity simply states that things are what they are, and this is the purest form of truth and what it means to "be." A less abstract example: When are you the most truthful? Answer: When you simply are who you are, when you are your purest self, your most "authentic" and real self. When you don’t filter your words, when you don’t white lie or obfuscate, when you don’t hide or camouflage for the sake of your ego. That purity and unfilteredness is God.

What a strange concept! I hadn’t thought of this before. I love this post… I opened this thread to contemplate it more. Has Einstein ever spoken about his theory in this manner?

@danilofaria Ironically, no! In fact, it’s the ONLY law needed to understand the entire universe and God. It’s also the only law that not even “God” can break, because it is God (God can only ever be God, aka God Must Equal to God, God = God, the Identity of God). All = All; Everything = Everything; 1 = 1; Infinity = Infinity. If you have a set of all 10 numbers, then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be included. If they weren’t, then the set of “all 10 numbers” wouldn’t actually be a set of all 10 numbers. The set of 10 would not be equal to the set containing 10. The same goes for infinity. Infinity means it contains everything.

@Leo Gura Thank you so much for this share! What an absolutely fascinating concept. Would we then conclude that light is pure consciousness and awareness, the medium through which God tries to observe Himself? Or perhaps a better conclusion is that we are limited by light (through our eyes) as a tool of comprehension, and if there were a way, whether through psychedelics, mental thought, some “epi-light with FTL,” or dark matter, we might see a complete reversal of the universe. Is light then the initial “bias” of our universe, perhaps? How curious!

You seem cool!

It’s the same with grammar, sentence structure, and words! Without some kind of reference point, some shared understanding of what words mean and how sentences are structured, all you get is gibberish. You need a frame, a context, or an experiencer to make sense of it, and it will only make sense to that self. If you create a different observer, it might see something entirely different. x̷̡̖͖̙́͗̔́͐͑̓̾̌̀̓̐̈́̆͝j̷͈̳̹͔̀͋f̵̀̈̈́̈́͋́̏͒̿̑͂̆̃͘̕͜9̷̻͍̣̘̭̩̩͋̎̎̀l̴̢̨̦̬͚̼̞̳͙̪̼̒͛̔̀͊͐͝ͅq̶̭̤̼̰͗̑̐͗͐̓́̏̏́̅͂̿̋ͅo̵̢͕̳̹͎̱̙̙̿̌̏͊̆̈͑p̷͚̮̬͇͓̬̣̝̫̣͔̺̤̦̗͗̓̍͛̂̉̈́͆̽͊͛͝!̴̨͙̞̰̻̝͙̹̳̼̼̱̣̻̭̅̾̊͛̒͂̑̿̃͌̀̄͛̕ ̷̧̗̤̪̳̦͈̦̠̫̙̗͗̐̽̍̄̒͑͛́͘͝͝'̵̢̨̡̧̤̖͔̙͍̺̭̬̭͓̋́͐̈́͌͋͝͠'̷̢͚̫͔̬̼̗͔̟̯̬̉̾́͐̉̓̄̾̀͆̕͜͝͝'̷̛̠̏̋͐͋̒̿̔̔̾͐͋̚'̵̨̛̛̦͖̗̯͉̦̬͉͓͐̋͌̓̈́̄̋̍̋͆͝ ̷̡̛͙̗͎͉͔͙̂̌̾́͛͊̎̍͂̓̐̚͝A̴̹̍͛͐̐̉͐͋̑̎̏͠ź̷͙̘̆̆̔̉̌̎͂͑̀̕͝h̶̖̣̜̱̥̟͓̙̖̹͌̄͐͗͒̐̏̚͜͠͠B̴̯̭͍̠͗́̈̎̀̔A̷̖̯͍̻͍͈̔̃̐͗̔͘͝͝K̸̨̰͖͇͆̋̈̽͂̏̑͒̓͐̄̎͌͘Á̶̰͛̂̀̈́̆̍͗̾Ǘ̴̧̨͓̭̦̗͓̘͔͗͋̔̎̂͋̔͠Ủ̸̞̗̪̟͔͂4̴̧͚̺̬͓͚͍͓̘̻̟̩͉͒̾̂͂̌̂̉͊̑͐̓̚͘0̸̡̺͚͉̟̜͓͈̹̭͈̝͉̱͒̏͂̎̉̂̽̎̿͝^̷̡̯̳̲̹̠̙̰̱̫͋̽̎͊̀̄̓̽͑͆̅͘͝͝ͅ^̴̮̣͉͕̘̥̺͖̖̞͍̮͙̩͂̉̑̽̓̿̃̄̚^̸͇͖̯͐̑%̷̖̜̈́̾̎̂͒͋%̵̛̥̳̪̦̺͙̦̲̼͔̎́̎̈̅̂%̶̨̛̛͍̝̻͍̲̗̪̟͕̤̫̣̓͆͛̄̄̐%̷͙̖͇̊̿͛%̶͓̻̰̮̭͔̳͂̃͐̏̓̉͗̋͝%̸̭̬͕͚̜̠͇͚̠̌̏̽͒͆͒̒̏ → gibberish to most people. To a trained cryptographer, the same string could be decoded into a meaningful message! To a computer running the right program: 01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 → “Hello” To a musician reading sheet music: ♪ ♫ ♩ ♬ → a melody that can be played and heard To someone fluent in sign language: a series of hand gestures → a full sentence To a mathematician: ∑(n=1 to ∞) 1/n² = π²/6 → an elegant formula To someone unfamiliar with chess notation: Nf3 → meaningless; to a chess player, it’s a move in a game https://libraryofbabel.info/ https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/ → Go through here! This is what torture looks like to a no-self!

I’ll try my best to explain this. When we are talking about God, especially the absolute infinity, you cannot talk in dualities anymore. All dualities must collapse, because to prefer one thing over another is to be “limited” or to have an inherent bias, and since God is infinity, this goes directly against infinity. So we must always speak from a non-dual lens when we are talking about God. Do you agree with this? When working with non-dualism, reality versus possibility collapses. For a possibility to “exist,” it must be “realized,” i.e., real. By making a possibility real, it always collapses to reality, to existence, for God. It’s the same question as: can a “non-being” be (exist)? Well, no, because if a non-being can exist, then it is, it is real, it is being. Again, the duality between real and possibility collapses. Can “nothing” exist? Well... if nothing can exist, then it exists, there is "something" that is "existing". When dealing with “God’s domain,” you are dealing with paradoxes, because all dualities collapse into one, merging into each other. Not necessarily. Again, remember we are looking from God’s perspective, from God’s point of view. Notions like “who is enslaving what” disappear. God is both “free” and “chained.” It is chained by its own nature, and free because there is nothing outside of it to control or change its nature; it is enslaved by itself, you could say. Again, remember: all dualities collapse. That means the duality between master and slave, chains and freedom, is entirely eradicated. God’s nature is that of absolute infinity. It is infinity; therefore, it must be all by its own nature. You are assuming suffering is suffering for God, but it is not. It is a part of itself. To illustrate this, consider a classic example: an antelope and a lion are both praying to God, “Please let me survive today!!!” The antelope prays because it wants to escape the lion. The lion prays because it must feed its children and itself to survive. Whose wish does God honor? In one case, one party would suffer, and the other would experience pure bliss. Suffering is a relative bias. When you say God must suffer, you are projecting your limited human notion of suffering onto God. To God, nothing is suffering because it is all itself. God is simply being itself, which is the ultimate freedom. Being itself is being All (Infinite), the good and bad, beautiful and repulsive, harmonious and chaotic, gentle and violent, orderly and chaotic, loving and indifferent, creative and destructive, everything and its opposite, infinitely. Let me help you contemplate it! Chained to what? Why are you assuming God doesn’t want to experience suffering? Couldn’t you say that if God only wanted to experience happiness, it would be chained by its desire to be only pure, beautiful, perfect, and happy? Being a slave or chained is “bad” to you, but how do you know it’s bad for God? If you are always escaping suffering, aren’t you chained by the desire to avoid it? Why would God not want suffering? Why would God not want to be a slave? What is so bad about suffering and being chained? And again, don’t answer from your human point of view, that is clear. Try to imagine it from God’s perspective: if everything is Himself, if all is God, then why would He fear suffering, chains, or enslavement? He can only ever suffer by His own hand, bound by His own chains and His own self as the master. Do you see how the duality collapses? If your infinity needs to hide away from all pain, horrors, and suffering, and deny the reality we are currently experiencing, then your infinity is a weak, scared child who wants their mommy to protect them and say, “It’s not true! I don’t have to experience this!” Mine, however, embraces it all and wants to experience everything, good, bad, beautiful, ugly, joy, terror, ecstasy, despair, creation, destruction, and love. Mine is brave and free. If your infinity wants only to be grand, beautiful, perfect, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, and glorious, then that is nothing more than a selfish god, one who refuses to understand or truly connect with His creations. Why would such a god not want to experience all the suffering and horrors of others? How would He know what it feels like to be limited, weak, vulnerable, or enslaved, experiences necessary to truly love, support, and nurture His creation? Your god is isolated, selfish, and trapped in an ego. Mine is expansive, caring, selfless, and fully embraces all existence, in every aspect, joy, suffering, beauty, terror, love, despair, creation, destruction, freedom, and constraint. But hehe... jokes aside, I just wanted to give you these sentences back to show a reframed, alternative perspective! I don’t want to have a conflict or debate over whose infinity is “better” or not! I just want to discuss and contemplate it more. I agree that God is free, but God is also “limited” in the sense that it can only be itself. Since... well, all is God! A part of "All" or itself is suffering, so why would God hide from that? It’s kind of like refusing to use your right hand even though it’s a part of you. If God tried to deny a part of itself, that God would be scared, living in a delusion about its own nature. Does this make sense?

Hugs to you too!

Hugs!

No, this is an illogical contradiction. Infinity is all; therefore, it is all. All exists. It’s really not much “deeper” than that, but experientially, it’s overwhelming haha. When Leo or we say “God must experience,” it’s just semantics; you can define it better. You have a set of all 10 numbers. That must mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are included, and they must be. If they weren’t, then the set “all 10 numbers” wouldn’t be a set of all 10 numbers. The same goes for infinity. Infinity means it has all, therefore freedom and restriction, horrors and goodness, self and lack of it, etc. If infinity couldn’t contain horrors or wouldn’t want them, then it would be limited by that, and it wouldn’t be infinite or free. (Again, when I say these human things like “want to” or “experience this,” it’s anthropomorphizing infinity.) Infinity is much more “impersonal” in that way. You can think of it more as a necessity or tautology. That’s really it!

I seem to have a ? of consciousness that’s difficult to understand and grasp. I have a decently easier time understanding during my trips the nature of truth, beauty, love, masculinity, and femininity. But I think one thing my mind still has trouble wrapping around is this reality versus consciousness chicken-and-egg problem, which I feel is holding me back. I wanted to contemplate it here to potentially hear my thoughts out loud and get some help with it. I think the issue I see is this: (I’m not saying I believe this necessarily, I’m just voicing my thoughts that seem to block me from fully realizing this.) I have trouble understanding: if, let’s say, reality came first: a spontaneous Big Bang or white hole or whatever, then there would be “no consciousness,” and consciousness would slowly emerge later. Now, once emerged, the mind is infinite and conscious, yes, but how does that imply it’s the absolute creator or generator of reality? Even if the mind is infinite, it could just be an infinite property of it, like how my hand can move in infinite ways, yet it’s still just a hand. The way I understand the consciousness-first argument is that the entire current moment is constructed by your consciousness, and to make sense of it, the ego creates stories, “you were born from your mother,” and “there were particles,” "mitosis, Big Bang, this is philosophy, "etc. Even if I accept the argument that everything needs a creator, it doesn’t mean that creator has to be consciousness. It could be a spontaneous clash of particles, and now universal patterns are emerging from it. And if you go with the requisite variety argument, that a complex system can only be created by a more complex system, that’s not really true. Parents, who are “less smart,” give birth to children who can be smarter. Humans created AI, which in certain tasks is infinitely more intelligent and complex than us. Also, if I go with the idea that everything has to be contained within consciousness to exist, I don’t see how that necessarily follows. It implies the ability to be observed, but it doesn't imply that it cannot exist or be created outside of consciousness. I just have a really hard time wrapping my head around this stuff. Any help deconstructing this would be great. Thank you! Which questions should I keep asking myself?

♥(ˆ⌣ˆԅ)

Yes! When I say 'property,' I just mean 'to be infinite.' What does it mean to be infinite? Then, you can derive conclusions from that!