Joseph Maynor

But it is too. You're not seeing yourself as a creator. It's your circus.

Yeah in a fantasy land.

I think so too. But it's like a chord in music, all the notes can be played at once or as an arpeggio where the notes are spelled out in a sequence. I've argued with people over this. It depends on how you want to explain things.

What always confused me is people who do the white heart. It seems so lack luster. Just do one red heart. That's it.

Japanese Tea is no joke. There's tea and then there's Japanese tea.

There are pros and cons to this though. I think Truth comes before Love so if you don't have brain you don't fully understand heart. Just my opinion.

Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes judgment is spot on. It depends. Judgment is a very difficult topic in this work. We all do it but no one seems to have an adequate account of it.

What is Universe?

I think you're being too hard on yourself here.

Who is truly living?

This is what I still don't understand: Why is the body taken to be real but the mind is seen to be problematic? This seems like the inverse of intellectualism. It reduces everything to body and how things affect the body, including the emotions.

Okay.

That's it right there. You're associating the mind with ego, and you're assuming there is something bad about ego. That's the logic. I'm not saying you're wrong, but what you say is understandable. That's good!

What is so bad about mind? Is there anything good about mind in your opinion?

This is why I tend to think that Love requires Truth but actually goes beyond it. It requires Embodiment not just Understanding. There's a necessary mystery with Love because it's about Relation and the magic of communion with Truth.

One aspect of Love is realizing that all finite perspectives are necessarily different, including our own. This doesn't mean that influence doesn't happen: We're all artists being influenced by other artists so to speak. Thus paradoxically, everything is both One and many. I think a lot of what makes someone insufferable is when we think they aren't the way we prefer. But then this creates suffering too, because we have an unrealistic expectation for how finite perspectives operate in the world. It's a moral expectation that things ought to be more like my finite taste prefers to be right and good.

Why does the body exist for you but the mind does not?

It's rare that someone even values Love in this work, let alone understand it.

I'm familiar with this neo-advaita account of Love. I don't agree with it, but It goes something like this: The Absolute is Love (which is Feeling). It is ego that takes us away from Love by introducing thoughts of a separate self, thoughts of "I" and "you" -- and the most important thing to realize is nothing is happening but This -- and this is not happening either. Nothing is right or wrong, good or bad. Those are just erroneous thoughts too. The point is to dismantle and deconstruct the thoughts and set them down, and a lot of time is spent doing this to others' writing or thoughts.

What kind of food do you like? I cook myself.

The no arguing and debating thing is groupthink. This is so selectively applied.

But who is this need arising for? You, right? Why is need seen as divorced from an "I"? What purpose does this reframe serve when need arises anyway?

Until there is, right?