RendHeaven

There's not much I can tell you that you already don't know... Just end it. You're both clearly unhappy. The housing situation is a lie. The vacation is a lie. Of course, they feel real. You're both using whatever means necessary to retain the comfort and security you currently think you have. If that entails making your lies feel real, than so be it. Think of your ideal man. You've already said: it ain't him. Well what are you waiting for?? There are so many charming, sexy, genuinely caring single dudes out there right now just WAITING for you to cuff them. You just don't see it because you don't put yourself in front of them. Clinging to this old relationship is a huge reason for that. You know it'll be over anyway. Do you really see yourself in this relationship in 10, 20, 30 years? In 60 years on your deathbed? What are you really running from? What do you gain by staying together? "Comfort" and "security" are obvious reasons... don't stop there. Ask yourself, "WHY do I hold comfort and security above all else? Above personal happiness? Above what my life COULD be?" Perhaps you're afraid that nobody else will love you. Perhaps you're afraid of loneliness. Perhaps you're afraid of having all of your shortcomings splayed out in front of you like a banquet, shredding the bunker of lies you live in. I don't know. I made all that up From my limited outsider perspective, having heard your side of the story, all I can say is this: 1) End it. 2) Get in touch with your fears. 3) Move on, grow, live life. I imagine you're either furiously nodding your head right now as you read all of this, or you are frowning skeptically. If you disagree with anything I've said, that's perfectly fine. I don't have the full story anyway. I'm sure there are plenty of tiny details that make this all so unnecessarily complicated. But that's also why YOU are the one who must cut through these complications by self reflecting - 9 out of 10, these "complications" are just lies you create to maintain what you've built and avoid loss. Furthermore, if you are in complete agreement with me, don't pretend that everything is fine now because some douchebag on an internet forum understands you. You must then PERSONALLY confront this man and say "Hey. It's over." There's not much else to say here. Just do it. And if you're feeling all sorts of internal contention ("But this! But that!") in response to what I just said, that's also fine. Keep living life the way you do. There's no obligation necessarily to change things. But in that case, recognize that it's your own complacency that is causing unhappiness. If you decide not to end it, don't come running back here that things aren't working out. Best of luck P.S. Regarding the feeling of heart-brokenness, that is a whole another issue deserving of it's own thread.

It's not an accident that many women lie about how much sex they've had and pretend to be less sexual than they really are on average. I suppose you can say the same about some men, but the culture is still different to this day: A man gets laid, he gets a pat on his back. A woman gets laid, she must hide it (unless it's with a trusted longtime significant other - what might that be about? Survival perhaps?) Though things are slowly changing, and you see extremely liberal women flaunting their sexuality carelessly, that does not speak for the majority of women. Furthermore, those individual instances of sexual rebellion are exactly that - a collective ego backlash. Very reactive stuff. People like this are still on a deep level clinging to their cultural values. Otherwise, they wouldn't have anything to react against. Rarely do you see a woman who has all the sex she wants (while maintaining reasonable boundaries), without any shame or guilt, and furthermore without rubbing it in people's faces so as to demand respect. Why? Because that would require her to let go of her cultural values. And for her to do that, she must de-prioritize her own survival to some degree (not entirely).

Plato's soulmates? Sounds fishy. How long has this relationship been?

Rick as a character is stuck in deep orange, locked in the materialist paradigm. The show in general has a blind bias toward rationality, science, and atheism. It tries to explore nihilism without going full circle, painting a bleak, partial picture of the universe. It's entertaining to watch, and certainly thought provoking, but I wouldn't take any of it seriously at all. Nor are any of the themes within it comparable to spirituality whatsoever.

@Marinus Alright, thanks man.

I really liked this part about your "best self." I have a very similar imagination of my potential as well. I've highlighted the overlaps in red. Love the term "spiral wizard" by the way

I wonder how people like that get started? If I decided tomorrow that I wanted to host a course about miracles for $15, nobody would show up. Even if I were a genuine miracle man, I would still have no name and nobody would care. I'm assuming these people you mentioned all amassed a form of social media following first before charging for sessions?

@Marinus I have plans to start Youtube as well, but I think my biggest limiting belief is the same as your first: I'm actually at 3 years as well, and I also have this sense of "who would listen to me?"

You're really freaking cool, dude We share a lot of values in common. Just found this journal, read the whole thing. Rooting for you! I've subbed to your YouTube.

What makes you say that?

The only kind of sex for me >:]

Well yeah no shit lmao. Most enlightened people understand this. Winterknight of all people is the most likely to understand this. I don't understand why there must be a "war" for this.

How do you know you're not stuck up your own ass and deluded? Explain "de-enlightenment." Why war?

Damn bro that made me smile

I like you >:)

@DivineSoda @Marinus I love that you guys just threw yourselves into the mix. Did you have to push through any internal resistance to put out your first video?

Woah, that's wonky! I'm new to this genre of music but I must admit you're very talented

Careful - I find that assigning warning points under the umbrella term "trolling" tends to be myopic and disingenuous. According to Wikipedia, an online troll is: A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses. Though the first half of the definition seems to accurately describe some people on this thread, I would not say that anyone here is doing anything for the sake of provoking emotional responses. I mostly say this because I've been hit with "trolling" in the past, and I found it rather sad and laughable, as I truly had the intent of civil discourse. Those being framed as perpetrators here, I imagine, think of themselves as having civil discourse as well. Whether or not that is true is ultimately subjective, but please be sensitive to the perspective of those being warned. In some cases, truly, they are simply being devils and the points are well deserved. However, even then, I recommend not merely framing them as "trolls." Personally I would appreciate it if mods would be hyper specific about what warning points are for - e.g., "starting non-duality quarrels, distracting from the original point of the thread, projecting onto other people while blindly spreading self-deception." Thanks in advance if you read this

Dude you are seriously awesome (insightful)

"Psychology" is very vague. What do you like about it, whatever it is? What precisely turns you off about studying it?

Many people, including myself, have critiqued "little Conrad." I only meant well for him in this comment, but I got warning points from cetus56 threatening to ban me for "nonduality wars." I suggest you be careful, @Aakash. No, that is little Aakash. You are just telling yourself that it is Big Aakash. Be REALLY CAREFUL. You sorely underestimate the devil. It's obvious from how much you post. I don't want to make this into a finger pointing game so let me just say that I sincerely mean the best for you. Please do take into account what I'm saying. Don't dismiss this just because I'm slightly confrontational. Don't defend yourself in a follow up post, either. Breathe and live. We both have lots to contemplate.

@Charlotte You're shooting yourself in the foot. Your question is riddled with relativistic assumptions. You cannot verify the absolute by using the relative. They call it the "groundless ground" for a reason. Although technically every single word you've typed is a relativistic concept, I've highlighted the worst offenders in red: 1) You are assuming a one/not-one duality. The number line is imaginary. The labels "one," "two," "three," and so on are things which you and your culture have adopted in order to describe phenomena. These labels are not inherent in phenomena. This is to say, you are looking to ground Absolute Truth in a certain point on the number line without realizing that the entire number line itself is only a partial truth. If we want to be hyper-technical, we would have to say that there are an infinite amount of Absolute Truths; that there is only One Absolute Truth; and that Absolute Truth is not quantifiable at all. Furthermore, we would have to say that Absolute Truth is all of these at the same time and beyond. "Infinity = One = Zero" Also, "Infinity + Zero + One = One" Also, " " Etc. They're all saying the same thing. It's so TOTALLY "one" that numbers fail to encapsulate it. Every number ever (to infinity and beyond) is nested INSIDE Absolute Truth. It's so TOTALLY "one" that it's also infinitely fractured and divided, so from certain perspectives it does appear to be not-one. 2) You are assuming "other people." I want you to go and find an "other person" for me. Really, do it. Got it? Good. Now prove to me that they are 1) "other," and 2) "people." This is a trick question, by the way. You cannot actually prove this without contradicting yourself and reality. But I encourage you to try anyway, otherwise this point will not hit you as hard as it needs to. 3) You are assuming that an experience, perspective, mind set, paradigm, or outlook is something that can be possessed and "had." Though all of these words point to the same thing, and the thing which they are pointing to is certainly real, you are mistaken in thinking that "experience" or "perspective" can be possessed. Possession is a lie. Not a single thing, ever, has been "owned" by anyone. You don't own "your" house, nor do you own "your" car, nor do you own "your" clothes, nor do you own "your" money, nor do you own "your" dog. "Are you married?" "Yup! I have a husband." Nope! You made that up. Furthermore, you don't own "your" body, "your" senses, "your" "soul," or even "your" "experience." As if one part of reality can be objectively, metaphysically, and permanently subservient to another part of reality Everything you think you have can be taken from you. You think your house is yours? Not if the government takes it. You think your husband is yours? Not if he leaves you. Would you really be so stubborn as to insist that your husband is really yours if this were to happen? "But what about my body? My senses? My soul? My experience? Surely those cannot be taken from me. They are MINE." Ever heard of death? So you are asking "how could Truth be one thing?" while unquestioningly assuming that "individual" "people" "have" "their own" "experience." If you can see past these dualities, you will realize that your question is not really saying anything at all.

I do this currently as well. It's a lot of fun. I understand the irrational fear where you imagine every wrong thing that could happen haha. Just do it!

Please take a look at this article: https://www.livescience.com/37930-seven-bad-for-you-foods-that-arent.html It claims that wheat and gluten are great for your health and that "wheat is bad" claims are a myth. How do we reconcile this with Leo's health video? I'm just so confused on what to believe regarding wheat anymore, especially since all my friends and family believe it's completely harmless. They keep asking me for "evidence" that it's bad and I must admit no matter what studies I cite I just sound like a fraud. What I'm realizing is that I just don't have a firm stance on this anymore, but if wheat is really as bad as Leo claims, how is this subject so slippery? Shouldn't the answer be straightforward? For example - drinking cyanide is bad if you care about your health.