tsuki

@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 ??.

@robdl When you observe yourself as ? without ??, knowledge cannot be easily found. As you observe yourself as ??, 'knowledge' of ?? cannot be easily found without ???.

@Faceless Yes. To experience, knowledge, memory I would also add belief. All of those are what create polarity of opposites that attract or repulse the mechanical choice. This same very mechanism is present in ??, but it is not apparent. Just like experience, knowledge, memory and belief are not apparent in ?. Only by self-inquiry of ? you get to know how ? works. Only by self-inquiry of ?? you get to know how ?? works.

Yes. All knowledge is the same from the point of view of ??. It is silly and childish. What you do on the forum when you describe the workings of ?, it is what I called knowledge of knowledge. By analogy, knowledge of knowledge is to ??, what knowledge is to ?. It constrains its movement. It chooses for ?? what to do. You can only see that from ??? or above.

Yes. ? is represented by my first picture. The structure of ? is such that it sees a polarity. When ? sees a choice between A and B, then it can choose A or B if it is clear what to choose. It knows what to choose when there is a polarity. One is (+) and the other is (-). That something is good and something is bad. That something is right and something is wrong. That something is just and something is unjust. This is what knowledge is. Knowledge is polarity that attracts, or repulses the mind. Whatever (+) is, it is preferred over (-). This a mechanical, dead motion of choice. When we are as ?, we feel as if I am choosing it, but from ?? it is apparent that there is this attraction and repulsion. That there is actually no choice (freedom) involved. Whatever you ( @Faceless ) describes within your posts always looks like ?? to me. It is always the same and I see resemblance of ? within your ??. I know that you write from ?? because of what you write, but I can still see resemblance to ?. Inquire into what you do as ?? so that you can actually observe the mechanical motion of this creativity. When you describe ?? by the means of ? it feels like infinite creativity. Like never-ending shift of perspective. That you simply cannot keep up with yourself. It is completely unexplainable by ?.

@Faceless If we speak of the same mysteriousness, then it is not, and yet - you can observe its structure. It is not ?. It is ??. It bears resemblance to ?, but it is not it. Unless you inquire into the nature of ??, it will feel like it is pure, holistic oneness. Unless you inquire into ? it also feels like pure, holistic oneness.

@Faceless Bring this indescribable movement of creativity into the everyday experiences. You don't need ? any longer.

@Faceless I can understand what you wrote and I agree, although I can see that it is only partial. Either because you didn't notice it, or because you simply didn't want to go this deep. The difference between our understanding is that even if you do not make a duality of Fear - Non-Fear and say that Love has no opposites, the there is still a duality between ? and love (in your sense of the word as Non-Fear vantage point that observes the mind). As you zoom out of the ? to observe it - you experience the state of the beautiful infinite creativity which deepens. I relate to this experience, as I am undergoing it myself. What I suggest you explore is to introduce that very infinite creativity with no thought - the high vantage point - to everyday situations where you would normally expect to need thought. The point is that you can learn for yourself that you actually don't need ? at all. The distinction between the high vantage point and ? is false. As you zoom out of ?, the thought is still in place, but its movement gets more subtle. As you observe the [??] (what you called the high vantage point) that observes ?, at some point you will see the similarity between these two movements. Given enough time and consideration, they will actually be recognized into one and the same ?. That is when you know that whatever you are describing as ? right now is actually the same movement of duality, but very diluted. Very subtle. The more you zoom out, the more subtle it gets. As you observe that ? is equal to ??, then you will be able to zoom out of ?? to arrive at ???. There is still possibility of observation of the movement. After some time - you will instantly recognize movements at all levels of magnification and ? will be the zoom itself. This is what I mean by self reference. As you zoom, the level that that is observed is the same as the level that observes.

@Nahm Wasn't it the opposite back then? That tsuki did this. It just feels upside down. It's fun this way I suppose but so it was back then. Does it switch for you sometimes? Wouldn't that make Buddha or Jesus half-baked prophets though? Why would anybody wish for others to be enlightened?

That's a tricky question. Back then, I would rather be somebody I thought would make me acceptable. Even if somebody liked me, then from the point of view of the new 'me', there was nobody to like there. It was more of a mashup of reactions to projected expectations. Overall, there are less people that consistently like me, but now at least they know me. And, there are now long-lasting relationships where I can be 'me' despite the drama. Other people are not a reliable source of acceptance if it's needed. Why the questions though?

@SoonHei Are you a volunteer for the test?

@Zweistein Hahahahahaha At first, some. Then we drifted apart. Then, some others. Then we drifted apart. Then I met the old ones that told me that they wouldn't have recognized me if the passed me on the street. They seemed genuinely impressed, but they didn't stick. Nowadays I just don't talk much about what I do in my free time with people. They also don't ask questions, as we usually don't have anything common to talk about. It doesn't make me feel lonely. On the contrary . I even started talking about the weather lately .