Malkom

That's right, "awakening" isn't the experience of "awakening." You can be emotionally depressed, dislike something, or you can be inspired and elated. But Being is simply Being. It's when life itself manifests through you. And that in itself is incredibly cool, and it's much closer to Non-duality in the embodiment of duality than when someone talks about it. Take a little (no need for much, haha) example from children; they may not know anything about life, but they are closer to the Truth.

Many have probably heard of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem. Here's an expanded version. So, let's get started, let's get intrigued. Don't rush, don't spoil anything, and don't jump to conclusions, even if it triggers you. Enjoy the journey of the mind. I'll just say right away that this material was created in collaboration with "Rubicon of Knowledge," and I also used an English translator, so there may be some confusion. Please keep that in mind and allow for that. And since I'm involved in science, I do it. Therefore, I find this material quite interesting, but don't take it at face value. «Imagine a number that mathematicians fear, not because it's infinite, not because it's unpronounceable, but because its very knowledge could destroy mathematics. This number isn't hidden in fantasy or conjecture. It's real, existing on the number line between zero and one, where probability and harmony typically reside. And yet, it brings chaos. If someone were to know all its digits, all of mathematics would collapse, theorems would become meaningless, proofs unnecessary, and the truth too easy. This number contains all the answers, but that's precisely why no one should know it. It sounds like a legend, but it's not a myth; it's pure, proven mathematics. Encoded within this number are the fates of all algorithms, all formulas, all questions that could ever be asked. It knows which programs will stop, and which will spin in an endless loop forever. It knows which equations have solutions and which don't, and hidden somewhere in its infinite digits are the answers to all the mysteries that have tormented humanity since the time of Euclid. This number is called the Gregory-Chaitin (Catalan) constant, or more simply, "Omega." Imagine there is a number that can be written as the decimal fraction 0. ... and then... an infinite, completely random sequence of digits. But each digit isn't random in the usual sense; it's not simply the result of a coin toss; it's the result of an infinite number of calculations. If you knew enough of the first digits of this sequence, you could answer any mathematical question. Any. From the Riemann hypothesis to the fate of infinite series. Everything that can be formalized as a program is already woven into this fraction. This number doesn't just store answers; it encodes the very principles of cognition; it's like the shadow of logic itself, the imprint of the limits of what can be calculated. There's no mysticism in his definition, but rather a cold, mathematical poetry: Omega is the probability that a randomly written program will eventually terminate. It seems like a simple idea. But beyond it lies the fundamental limit of knowledge. And if you feel a slight unease, you're right, because where there's a limit, there's always the temptation to cross it. The history of Omega began long before Gregory Chaitin conceived it. This Argentine-American mathematician worked in the 1960s, trying to understand the boundary between knowledge and ignorance. But before him, others laid the foundations for the world of algorithms. Almost a century ago, a young Englishman named Alan Turing asked a question that changed the course of science. In 1936, he presented the idea of a universal machine, a theoretical device capable of performing any calculation if given the right instructions. Essentially, it was the prototype of the modern computer. But Turing posed a deeper question: could a program be created that could analyze other programs and accurately determine whether they would ever terminate or run forever? The question sounds technical. But it conceals a philosophical horror: the question of the predictability of thought, the boundary between reason and chaos. Turing proved that such a universal program does not exist; no algorithm can determine whether any other program will terminate. This is known as the Halting Problem. Imagine you're writing a program, you run it, and wait—a minute, an hour, a day, a month passes. You don't know if it's frozen forever or just hasn't finished its calculations yet. It would seem possible to create a freeze detector, a program that would simply tell you the truth, but Turing showed that this is impossible in principle. He did this with stunning elegance—he assumed such a program existed and called it H (from "Halt"). H takes any program as input and decides whether it will halt or not. Everything is logical until Turing suggested playing with logic itself. Turing creates a new program, P. It takes a description of the program as input and checks what H predicts about it. If H decides that the program will halt, P does the opposite—it goes into an infinite loop. If H predicts that the program won't halt, P immediately terminates. Now try running P on itself; what will H predict? If P predicts that P will halt, the program hangs; if it predicts that it won't halt, the program halts immediately. In both cases, the prediction turns out to be false. This is a perfect logical loop, a program that breaks the very idea of prediction. Thus, Turing proved that there is no universal algorithm capable of solving all problems; there are programs whose behavior is impossible to predict in advance, not because of complexity, but because of the very nature of computation. And at that moment, mathematics first saw a crack in its foundations, and from this crack, 30 years later, Omega was born. Turing left behind a question that made mathematicians uneasy. If we cannot know the fate of each individual program, perhaps we can learn something on average, for example, what percentage of all possible programs ever halt. At first glance, this seems like statistics, but answering this question requires an understanding of the entire structure of the computational world. In the 1960s, a young mathematician, Gregory Chaitin, tried to look at this problem differently. He proposed imagining all possible programs, short and long, simple and chaotic, written in all possible combinations of zeros and ones. Imagine flipping a coin. Heads is 1, tails is 0. You get a random sequence of bits—that's your program. You run it. It might print "hello, world" and stop, or it might loop and never finish. Then Chaitin asked a question that at first glance sounds harmless: what is the probability that a randomly generated program will ever stop? The answer was the Omega number. Chaitin's constant is the probability that a random program will stop. This number is between zero and one, like any probability, but it has a strange property. It's absolutely precisely defined, although it can't be calculated. Each digit of Omega carries information about the fate of an infinite number of programs. If you knew the first, say, one hundred thousand digits of Omega, you could predict the behavior of all programs up to one hundred thousand bits long. Every program that could be written would either stop or not. And the digits of Omega already contain this answer. To get a sense of scale, imagine that for any mathematical problem, you can write a program that will search for a solution. If a solution exists, the program will find it and terminate; if not, it will loop forever. Knowing enough Omega digits, you can tell for sure whether the program will find the answer, and thus know the solution to the problem. Everything comes down to a single sequence of digits. Omega is like a library of all mathematical truths, only the page in this book is forever locked. But long before Chaitin, there was a man who realized that logic itself has a hidden limit: his name was Kurt Gödel. In 1931, he published two theorems that shook the foundations of mathematics. The first asserted that in any sufficiently complex system, there will always be statements that are true but cannot be proven within that system. The second went even further, arguing that a system cannot prove its own consistency—in other words, mathematics cannot prove that mathematics is infallible. These ideas sounded like philosophy, but they were the most rigorous mathematical proofs. Gödel showed that in any closed logical structure there is a statement that is outside its language, as if chess could not prove that there is no way to make an infinite move. The world of formulas turned out to be not a flawless machine, but a system with an internal shadow, a zone where knowledge ceases to be attainable. When Chaitin created Omega, he unexpectedly combined the ideas of Turing and Gödel. The halting problem showed that the fate of any program cannot be predicted, and Gödel's theorem showed that all truths cannot be proven. Omega became a bridge between these limitations. If we could calculate all its digits, we would know which programs halt and which don't, we would know all mathematical truths, which theorems are provable and which are false. We could discover whether mathematics itself is consistent, because one can write a program that searches for proofs of a contradiction, and if one exists, the program will halt; if not, it will run forever. Omega already knows how this search will end; if someone could read its digits to the end, they would discover whether mathematics itself is self-destructive. This knowledge would destroy the entire idea of proof, because if you can simply look at a number and find the answer, mathematics itself ceases to be a process of reasoning; it becomes a database where everything has already been decided. Fortunately, Omega is protected from us by the very nature of computation. Chaitin proved that it is uncomputable, which doesn't just mean it's too complex; it means it's impossible to create a program that could calculate its digits, because to do so would require solving the halting problem, which, as Turing showed, is fundamentally impossible. You can figure out the first few digits by experimenting with short programs that clearly halt, but the further you go, the more frequently you encounter programs whose fates are indeterminate: some may terminate in a second, others in billions of years, and still others never. And you won't know which of the three categories the next one belongs to until you've lived forever. Omega exists. It has a precise value, but it's forever hidden, not because someone hid it, but because logic itself has forbidden the path to it. This number exists, but it's unattainable, like a horizon that recedes as you take a step forward. The digits of Omega appear random; if you write them out in a row, you'll find no pattern, no formula, no symmetry, no repeating fragments—and this isn't just an illusion. Chaitin proved that they are truly random in the strict mathematical sense. This means that no algorithm can reproduce an Omega sequence shorter than the sequence itself. In other words, Omega is incompressible information, each digit a bit of pure chaos, hiding the answer to an infinite number of logical questions. This is paradoxical. After all, in mathematics, we're accustomed to seeking patterns, simplifications, and symmetry, but here we have perfect order, which appears as complete disorder. Omega is chaos that obeys the strictest possible laws. And somewhere between these opposites resides a strange beauty, as if the universe itself decided to joke about our desire to explain everything. With Omega, we saw for the first time the limits not just of calculations, but of knowledge itself. It demonstrates that there are truths that objectively exist, but are fundamentally unattainable. They are independent of our minds or tools; they cannot be discovered at all, no matter the technology or the intellect. This isn't temporary ignorance, not "we don't know yet"—it's proven, something we will never know. It's not a death sentence, but a fundamental law woven into the fabric of logic. Mathematics has always seemed like an island of absolute order, but now we know that even on this island, there's a shore beyond which an ocean of the unknowable begins. We can see its waves, hear their roar, but we can't enter them. And perhaps this is precisely what makes mathematics human: it knows more than we do, yet still holds secrets. If you think about it, Omega is a protective mechanism of reality, like a fuse in an electrical circuit, preventing knowledge from exceeding a safe level. If we could calculate all its numbers, we would see all truths and all contradictions; mathematics would cease to be a system capable of standing on its own feet. Our mind strives to know everything, but not all knowledge can withstand it. "Omega" seems to be built into the very structure of existence, reminding us that there is a limit. If we could see everything at once, the very meaning of searching would disappear; knowledge without limits collapses the system, just as an infinite current burns out a wire. And perhaps this is precisely why "Omega" is uncalculable. The world itself has ensured that we do not touch what can destroy us not physically, but logically, from within. "Omega" is a reminder of humility, that even the most perfect structures contain mystery. The human mind is accustomed to seeing science as a ladder to absolute knowledge. But the higher we climb, the more clearly we understand there is no summit. And there is no defeat in this. This isn't an admission of powerlessness, but an awareness of scale. Our laws, formulas, and proofs aren't walls, but windows through which we peer into infinity. And if somewhere beyond the horizon lies a number that knows everything but doesn't reveal itself, then the world is wiser than we thought. Perhaps "Omega" truly does kill theory, but only theory that believes in the complete dominance of reason. It leaves room for mystery, for respect for what cannot be explained, and perhaps this is precisely what makes knowledge safe.» But Reality isn't mathematics. Mathematics is part of Reality, logic is a part of mathematics. Moreover, in mathematics there are even moments when you find yourself on the verge of epistemology (but that's a separate discussion). . If we apply Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity, he once said that science is a way of understanding the world, but so is art, simply another aspect of it. God is "Infinite, powerful Imagination."

Science doesn't operate on faith. I say this as someone who studies science. Science operates on experience (not quite facts yet), if we're talking about physics, and physics doesn't answer the question "Why?" it only provides explanations and descriptions. Science doesn't say this is the truth and we rely on it—it says, "Experience shows," and then the explanation begins. If science operated on faith, none of us would use a computer, for example. Furthermore, there's one curious point, again in physics, well, because I study it, and that's why I'm using it as an example. While it's possible to derive, for example, Newton's theory from the postulates and "apparatus" of the theory of relativity (not the laws, they're not the same thing), it's NOT possible to derive the theory of relativity from Newtonian physics. It can literally be GUESSED, and then, naturally, tested experimentally, preferably repeatedly, and only then does it become reliable and usable. In general, when it comes to deep science, like quantum mechanics, yes, you really do need to guess first; this happens often; the scientist's intuition is key. And yes, there's no absolute certainty in science, only certainty within the framework of the application. If something truly extraordinary is suddenly discovered in nature, then it's an immediate yes, it will be truly remarkable; science isn't dogma. But such things require extraordinary evidence.

A rational approach isn't always right; it's more accurate to say "purely rational," rather than "rational in principle." And here's why. There are two cases in history. The first is about a woman who underwent a lobotomy. She lost her sense of emotion and became very rational, seemingly living her life to the fullest. But here's the twist. She seems to make decisions, and everything seems logical, but she's constantly making mistakes, often miscalculating everything. The funny thing is, it actually looks smart, and it's smart. But something's not quite right. The second case is about Phineas Gage, whose forehead was smashed in with a crowbar. His rational side began to suffer, and he began acting as if he'd had a little too much to drink, but he appeared sober. These two cases demonstrate the importance of both rational and emotional-intuitive thinking. They're one and the same. You won't be able to make decisions and correctly assess a situation if you use a purely rational approach. You can even look at the stories of convinced rationalists and see how wrong they are about so many things, and sometimes it's really funny. Personally, I once had an unpleasant situation a long time ago. Extremely unpleasant. And then the person answered me at the end, "Not everything can be controlled by the mind." And I said to him, "HOW? HOW? Did you do that????? He outwitted me so much, he made every moment so dangerous, he simply destroyed me.It was beautiful, albeit unpleasant. So yes, not everything can be controlled by the mind."

Healthy skepticism is a useful function. And yet, when you delve deeper, you discover that skepticism, while useful, is still a parasite on the mind. Those who understand, understand. A healthy ego is one without parasites in your mind, that is, unnecessary beliefs, fears, limitations, and much more. But to make the ego healthy, constant self-improvement is still necessary.

Maybe you already know, but I've highlighted some points and added nuances. And if you look more closely, I've actually discovered something new, and I've also confirmed your understanding. So, thank you.

There's no need to solve the problem of existence. The meaning of existence lies in Infinite Beauty in all its manifestations; it's self-sufficient, it's limitless, you can go on forever and never make a mistake... And if you enjoy solving the problem of existence, you see an intriguing mystery, a beauty in it, then go for it. Why not, when YES? Existence is the same as Love, but that's not how gurus or spiritual movements describe it. Consciousness operates only from Love; there is nothing else...if you look at the most fundamental level. Yes, it seems unscientific. In fact, yes, it is unscientific, but it's not anti-scientific either. For example, in mathematics, set theory has ultra-cardinals and cardinals (we won't go into that), and conventional science there actually came out of a chat, ahaha, but nevertheless, this abstraction is real.

Again, they accuse me of being an AI. That's a compliment ( in parentheses NO). An AI wouldn't give you that. The thing is that I am the person who is deeply involved in science. If you don't believe me, ask the AI yourself and see how it responds. If I used AI, I wouldn't hide it, because I don't see anything shameful in it.

So, is our world illusory or real? In fact, it is REAL. Everything around us is real.

What is the "atom of existence"? In quantum mechanics, for example, a light particle has no frame of reference; one might say it exists outside of spacetime. That is, for it, everything exists as if instantaneously and instantly, as if you were light. The point is that any "corpuscle," be it an electron, a quark, or a Higgs boson, possesses both a wave and a particle, but the essence is that it is the former and not the latter, but something third, which does not exist in our macroscopic world. And no one has ever seen photons (quanta of light), electrons, or other particles. Mathematical apparatus is used because the language of mathematics is a level of abstraction and therefore best able to describe the world at the present moment. You could say that mathematics is a "sixth language," but no one REALLY knows what these languages are. It just works and is practical (the same principle: shut up and count). And since this isn't just a quantum field manifesting itself as a wave and a particle, it could be one atom, or one photon, or one electron for the ENTIRE WORLD. Or another interpretation is that these are different particles as manifestations of one. I remember a very beautiful description of this, but I can't describe it that way. Let's move on. When we studied the radiation of the Thompson atom, the "electron" itself corresponded to a "harmonic oscillator"—this interaction—that is, it itself, this principle itself, emerged; we were studying something completely different. That is, it's nothing more than a "vacuum oscillator," also known as a "vacuum fluctuation," because the vacuum is actually full, according to Schrödinger's uncertainty principle. That is, these aren't even "quantum fields" at this level... What's the point? This proves that science isn't dogma. But the most interesting thing is that any true statements within the system are unprovable—that is, they are true, but unprovable. What this tells us is that Truth and Provability are not the same thing. It also proves that there is no limit to knowledge—Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Furthermore, the limitation and completeness of knowledge contradict the main philosophical principle (if we're talking about philosophy, not physics) of the limitlessness of knowledge. So what is Reality? Some will say mathematics, and they'll be largely correct. BUT. Mathematics is a "language," the language of our minds, which is part of reality. And if you take a few sets of words and try to create a truer definition of reality from them, which definition is truer? Reality is not mathematics. If it is mathematics, then it's the same kind of mathematics as arithmetic is to mathematics, in relation to, for example, geometry or set theory... But it's more true (and still not complete) that Reality is "Alchemy." Because one state transforms into another, it gives birth to another, and even your thoughts work in the same way... Reality is "magic" and "mystery." This is metaphorical, not a dogmatic statement. So, drawing a final conclusion about whether the teachings are good or whether they lead to madness is simply your stage, your conclusion.

God is a playful energy, much closer to true Non-Duality because it doesn't ignore Duality. And it is Infinite, even Infinite beyond Infinity itself, and Infinite beyond Itself. Ahahahaha. This is a profound and precise statement that reveals the essence of the divine. God as playful energy embodies the principle of joy and lightness of being, allowing a person to feel inner freedom and harmony. This interpretation emphasizes the dynamism and fluidity of spiritual experience, offering a way beyond strict definitions and dogmatism. God is not a frozen image or a static force, but a living, ever-changing energy, manifesting through the play and interaction of opposites. It is this quality of play that allows one to maintain balance and flexibility, preserving a sense of freedom and inner lightness. Non-duality does not deny the existence of duality, but rather incorporates it into the overall picture of the world, making it part of a unified whole. This approach brings us closer to a profound understanding of the essence of God and the meaning of human existence. This perspective is particularly resonant with Eastern spiritual traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, where duality is perceived as an integral part of our existence. The principle of lila ("play") in Hindu philosophy illustrates the idea that the entire universe is a grand interplay of divine energies, encompassing both light and dark energies. The playful nature of the Divine expresses the joy of creativity, freedom of expression, and the absence of rigid boundaries. It invites us to let go of control and enjoy the journey, opening ourselves to new experiences and possibilities. After all, it is in play that creativity, inspiration, and spontaneity are born, allowing us to uncover the deepest layers of our soul and come closer to a true understanding of truth. Thus, seeing God as playful energy becomes the key to perceiving reality as a field of infinite possibilities, where boundaries are erased and unity is revealed through the diversity of forms and manifestations. Natural expression of unity: Playfulness implies a free, relaxed manner of interacting with the surrounding world. It is a state of mind free from rigid boundaries and limitations, allowing one to easily move from one aspect of reality to another, sensing the unity of all that exists. Non-separation: In a state of playfulness, the division between subject and object, observer and observed, disappears. Everything merges into a single stream of consciousness, which is close to the state of Non-duality, where differences are perceived as conditional and temporary. Creative process: Play involves creating new combinations, experimenting, and exploring the unknown. This quality of creative energy is inherent in Non-duality, which allows for the manifestation of a multitude of forms and phenomena while remaining the unified foundation of all. Spontaneity and openness: Playfulness is accompanied by a sense of mild uncertainty and a readiness for everything new. This attitude allows one to openly embrace the different sides of reality, including duality, and integrate them into a unified picture. Joy and pleasure: The emotional component of playfulness—the joy and pleasure of the process—is close to the state of bliss characteristic of experiences of Nonduality. It arises when a person frees themselves from attachments and prejudices, enjoying every moment of life. Thus, energetic playfulness serves as a bridge between everyday experience and the state of Nonduality, helping one overcome artificial barriers and immerse oneself in direct contact with the depth and fullness of being.

Let's break this down a bit. Many people preach the idea of letting go of control and you'll be happy and maybe even have peace, hahaha. That's true, in the grand scheme of things. But here's the problem. My friend always gets irritated with me because I'm spontaneous at times, while he, on the contrary, controls everything; everything is so precise and noble for him. I tell him, "Bro, let go of control, you're stressing yourself out." But I feel like I'm still imposing my opinion on him. I'm starting to contradict myself, a kind of self-delusion. I tried something a little different, simply accepting him and understanding why he does it. And here's what happened: I tried to control something myself, and you know what, it gives me peace, hahaha. When you have structure, you're calm, and you can actually let go of control more honestly, as it were. It's a paradox. But that's the reality. Without going overboard, light control, when there's structure, a certain unique beauty combined with spontaneity, a balance that actually enhances presence. It's like in science. It might be complicated, but I'll try to explain it in simple terms. There's entropy, a measure of chaos. It would seem that entropy is the enemy. But in computer science, entropy isn't just disordered information, but a measure of novelty. When there's too much order in the information, it's like you're just pouring water. It's like legalese: it's low in entropy but high in order, making the legal text itself redundant, but at least everything is clear; it's redundant and lifeless. Entropy has a dual nature. So, what's the conclusion? Control isn't bad, but balance is best, and cheerful chaos is always cool, ahahaha, although it does make it a little more lively. P.S. I was recently caught using the gpt chat. Okay, if I feed him this text now, he won't say anything new, he'll just say, "Wow, that's really interesting," something like that. He can also simply structure it, which is generally quite good. And he can also analyze it, depending on the task you give him. So, the gpt chat is on hold for now, not this time. Now, if he actually said something new, and without straying from the topic, something groundbreaking, that would be a masterstroke, because God is always something new and interesting, like a flower growing, or, I don't know, something living is always new, and it's unmistakable. But that's apparently the prerogative of a strong artificial intelligence, which, as we know, we don't have. To communicate with him, you need to at least have your own database. Another thing is that my translator...

Thanks for your participation. I think I'll go to bed for now, I just... popped into the forum. I just went to the bathroom and decided to pop in, wondering how they're doing without me

But it's normal that you're crying; it's all natural, it's who you are, how your life manifests. In fact, vulnerability and openness have much more power here. As for just masculinity, I don't know, but it can even become a bit cringe-worthy, well, it's even funny sometimes.

Being a hippie isn't my thing. No, absolutely not. And I love to bring my fantasies to life and don't like things to wait. Only here and now. Determination and willpower, swiftness.

It sounds masculine and powerful. I love power, supremacy, rule, influence, domination . Finally, someone like me, because spirituality has become an exclusively feminine trait.

This is interesting. I love riddles when I'm bored.

Isn't existence itself the same as love?

This is a beautiful image. But there is one tiiiiiinny nuance. So it is, and yet it is not (non-duality). And in order to comprehend it, you will have to abandon even it, all ideas of non-duality or duality, or whatever else you have imagined. Because it is all in your mind. In reality, everything will not be like this, but rather it will be something like this - everything you have heard, all 1000... variations and images about it, everything contains THIS and at the same time all these images dissolve in it, and you comprehend ONE, all this and at the same time an absolutely new state and at the same time infinitely familiar and infinitely close and dear. It will be neither this nor this and neither that. It will be such Elegant Simplicity and at the same time Infinite Complexity of Unimaginable Beauty of Endless Greatness of Incredible Fullness of Being. And also...you'll even have to give up this image, and most likely with pain, because the image is beautiful, isn't it? Anyway, don't fill your head with unnecessary information. This can only be understood by yourself, and the most truthful way to convey this to another person is Silence, or, as I do, Just Be, ahaha.

The balance between the ego and the spiritual side... ahem... That's not it at all. It's not about balance or compromise, but about Truth. Unfortunately, those who say it's inexplicable are right. All I feel now is regret, and even a little relief and hope. No, you weren't rude to me, don't apologize.

Even not thinking is thinking . Even the absence of emotion is an emotion - I feel coldness, I feel alienation, I feel detachment, I feel indifference, I feel stunned, I feel confused, I feel perplexed... This spectrum and its shades of emotion are large. Yes.

Attempt number two. You don't need a ton of work to grasp this. The irony is that you already know it, you've simply forgotten it, or rather, even put it aside, but you feel it. The ton of work will be needed later, to integrate it into everyday life. Your main problem, as I see it, is that you live in your head; you need to establish contact with your body. You, how should I put it, see the situation incompletely. This is also typical of autistics, when they constantly seek structure and order and the constant repetition of the same rituals. They lack the emotional sphere and the ability to recognize emotions; they rely on intuitive-sensory perception, although both are the same thing; thought and feeling are one and the same. Basically, "turn off your head"—not in the sense of suddenly becoming dumb, in short... I hope you understand, but most likely not. Okay, I'm off to bed. Good luck with your search.

When I wrote "ego," I didn't mean selfishness. Egoism is something else entirely. Your ego is a given right now, just like mine or anyone else's; it's your thoughts, your feelings. When I wrote that "ego" is a hindrance, that doesn't mean eliminating it, it means... but that's where it gets complicated, ahahaha. Basically, your spirit must nourish the ego itself, kind of burn from within... Okay, I give up, I can't explain it. Anyway, bro, don't be offended and don't judge too harshly, ahahaha. Try going to a retreat or something...

The more you try to be right and not deceive yourself, the further you are from sincerity. You've come up with some obsession and think that solving it will bring you happiness. In reality, it's just an empty game. It's just your ego that wants it, or rather, your ego distorts it, while it's your soul that wants it. But what do you REALLY want? "c" We look into souls and find the answers "c"

We're all like that, don't worry, bro . Just let go and allow yourself to be deceived, accept it, and forget about it. This is what I just tried to demonstrate as an example of how to combat self-deception, by first acknowledging it. I certainly haven't invented the perfect method, but you never know. Hehe