Mellowmarsh

Because it’s not sticky.

Look at me, hear me. I know something you don’t know, which is I am not telling you anything you don’t already know. There’s no such entity as an enlightened guru in conversation with another enlightened guru. It’s impossible for two saves to talk to each other, as there’s no one there in the other to bounce off. You’re only in conversation with the voice or image of your own projector upon the blank screen of awareness, where no one is talking , and no one is listening. The truth doesn’t want or need to be heard.

You are not the one to teach the sea how its waves move, nor the wind where it blows. You are a drop that learned to be the ocean when you let yourself fall without fear. ~ Rumi

Well since you’re asking, allow me to chime in with an answer, one caveat being there’s no obligation to like or dislike it. A relationship is nothing more than pure fantasy arising within the dual nature of the mind. Forget relationships, because no matter who you are with at any time of your life, you will still be bound within eternal singledom. The pure fantasy world of relationship doesn’t actually exist, who you really are is alone, always, even with another. Both the self and other of ‘You’ and ‘I’ is an empty room. This idea is either perceived as loneliness or solitude. It’s either the misery self or bliss, or both, which ever way it’s perceived.

Many authors appear. Only one reader reading stories no one ever writ. The story is inseparable from the book.

Distinction is real only in the sense of it’s opposite meaning Indistinct. For example: The changeless change. Or, the unlimited limited. ——- What does A I say… A Möbius strip is distinct in the sense of having only one side despite existing in 3D space) limitations are relative to the perspective of the observer—what appears as dual and separated at one level is unified at another. “The limit of a thing is but the two sides...": This suggests that the boundary, edge, or definition of an object is what defines its duality (inside/outside, front/back, start/end). “...as change for one dimension reflects as two": In a lower-dimensional context, a change on one side implies a corresponding change on the other, creating a dualistic or two-sided view (e.g., changing the top of a line affects the bottom). “...and two dimensions reflect as one.": As you move to a higher dimension, what appeared as two separate, opposite sides can be seen as a single, unified, and continuous surface (e.g., the front and back of a piece of paper are connected when viewing the paper as a 3D object, or a Möbius strip-having only one side despite existing in 3D space). It is a poetic way of saying that limitations are relative to the perspective of the observer—what appears as dual and separated at one level is unified at another.

Death and ruin cannot destroy or ruin what is always imprinted to memory everlasting, already dead, gone but never forgotten. Memories of past is what gives seamless continuity to the present, namely now. There’s no gap between past present and future, it’s always now. Thanks for the memory. R.I.P This illusion is real. Always be yourself, the real fictional impressionable character. 🤭

I wonder if you personally, the one who goes by the name Breakingthewall, can answer what’s the real motivation of the guru’s.

Any search for the origins of consciousness makes no sense of finding the origins when you’re already the origin. Searching for consciousness as if it’s inside or outside of consciousness itself is absurd because there’s no gap that divides it. The idea that consciousness is inside or outside of the body creates the idea of division in the mind. If this division is the minds belief then the search is on for the division of consciousness, not consciousness itself. Then what happens is consciousness is searching for itself in all the wrong places looking for a gap which doesn’t exist for it. Eventually it calls off the search after realising it cannot split into two consciousnesses, where one is the knower and the other is the known. If consciousness is infinite then it cannot be a number, there can’t be multiple consciousnesses that can be counted as being here, there, and everywhere in between. Consciousness can only be a concept, known now, here now, nowhere. And so that’s where it is.

The last fall.

Nature being artificial , maybe they don’t know they are making those walls?

Yes, it’s amazing. There’s nowhere or no thing at which to point their guns at.

There was no other way to define ourself. It couldn’t have been any other way.

Maybe the source intended to lose itself just for the fun of finding itself?

Once you have recognised become aware of knowing yourself. What happens to all those authors you previously mentioned?