Why God Realization is an Illusion

[kbone]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You could say It has, it's total because it is limitless, "nothingness" is not a pointer, it's a misleading idea. Maybe it's pointed by some people who don't know what are talking about but they need to appear whise? Just a possibility .

Do you know something? There are people who are so concerned about their self image that they invent that they are enlightened and they believe that history, and it's absolutely impossible that they see the that they are creating an history. It's fascinating to see that phenomenon, it's very easy to detect. 

Yep, always more ways to attempt to say/describe. If you think it's misleading, don't use it. 

Yep, appearance games happen, as do tar baby arguments. Not interesting.

Edited Wednesday at 02:06 PM by kbone

[Breakingthewall]

10 minutes ago, kbone said:

If you think it's misleading, don't use it. 

The problem is not if I use or not, it's that maybe all the Buddhist tradition It's based on an error. I'm not saying this is certain, but it's a possibility.

Buddhism starts from the difference between maya and reality, and from here proposes a dynamic of negating form in favor of formlessness. This has a logical basis: form traps; emptiness cannot trap because it is nothing, but perhaps it can.

Meditation normally consists of discipline, repression of the impulse to create forms in order to achieve the emptiness perceived as the ultimate goal. And this may be mistaken. One shouldn't empty, but rather open up the meaning of form. It's a subtle difference. Emptying implies repressive action; opening implies a change in energetic frequency.

[Water by the River]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

they'll tell you a koan or beat you with a cane until you're unconscious, because they don't know what to say

Koans you can have from SWbtR. I assume that the gig with the cane you can get from other Sellers by the River. Too lazy for that...  

Koan: So who exactly is mumbling "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" towards certain Water Sellers by the River?

 

PS: Just let the Limitlessness you write about saturate and drench your life. Sounds like a good and potentially quite relaxing path to me. Godspeed!

[Breakingthewall]

34 minutes ago, Water by the River said:

Koans you can have from SWbtR. I assume that the gig with the cane you can get from other Sellers by the River. Too lazy for that...  

Koan: So who exactly is mumbling "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" towards certain Water Sellers by the River?

 

PS: Just let the Limitlessness you write about saturate and drench your life. Sounds like a good and potentially quite relaxing path to me. Godspeed!

I said a lot of things, but you don't want to get into the mud right? Why, if you see clear and transparent, you could show me my mistakes. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:05 PM by Breakingthewall

[Water by the River]

40 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

but you don't want to get into the mud right?

Not so good for ones inner Feng Shui. 

42 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Why, if you see clear and transparent, you could show me my mistakes. 

Answering your questions is not for the faint of hearted considering the occasional, um, "tough love feedback" 

But, as in Dinner for One, I will do my very best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XKFoF8jWgE

 

Lots of Love from the chap selling Water by the River!

[Breakingthewall]

33 minutes ago, Water by the River said:

Answering your questions is not for the faint of hearted considering the occasional, um, "tough love feedback" 

It's not though love, just transparent analysis. Coul be accurate or not so.

I didn't ask questions, but statements about the nature of form, experience, consciousness, existence, and nonexistence. What more could someone interested in deep meditation and understanding reality want to engage in conversation? It's impossible for me not to have made subtle mistakes. The process of refinement is constant, so any feedback is appreciated, and it's so difficult to find anyone who's interested this. I'm not so ambitious, I just want to make a conceptual logical frame transparent like a perfect diamond. Of course based in the real openess to the unlimited. then any criticism in not just accepted but sought 

Edited Wednesday at 04:25 PM by Breakingthewall

[kbone]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

The problem is not if I use or not, it's that maybe all the Buddhist tradition It's based on an error. I'm not saying this is certain, but it's a possibility.

Buddhism starts from the difference between maya and reality, and from here proposes a dynamic of negating form in favor of formlessness. This has a logical basis: form traps; emptiness cannot trap because it is nothing, but perhaps it can.

Meditation normally consists of discipline, repression of the impulse to create forms in order to achieve the emptiness perceived as the ultimate goal. And this may be mistaken. One shouldn't empty, but rather open up the meaning of form. It's a subtle difference. Emptying implies repressive action; opening implies a change in energetic frequency.

Sure, every school of thought has its issues and/or gaping holes, I reckon. Some of them are based on a general cart-before-the-donkey fallacy, others may have felt they had isolated and found better method(s) or ways of expressing. None of them will 'save' you, but none of them can 'block' you either. Will there be some trial and error? Absofuckinlutely.

Some earlier SEERs saw this mind thingy and likely addressed it in a way that made sense to them, so they began to spell it out and hash it out in their minds as best they could. SEERs were 'recognized', some peeps believed them, others saw it the same way, schools were founded, arguments between them hashed out, lineages were kept, etc etc etc. There have always been fakers, thieves, and con artists. The regions between the Pacific Ocean and the Mediterranean (and elsewhere, of course) were teaming with thousands of schools of thought, systems of beliefs, and types of practice. I do not think of the biggies as monolithically as many. The variation, sub-schools, overlaps, and borrowings were immense. Some outlandish schools even gave rise to what would eventually become the field of science, with all its own schools, arguments, lineages, etc. It's a fascinating bit of history to delve into if one wants to take some time out and explore. And now, they all seem to be converging again, and everyone continues to hash it out in their minds, just like humanity has for thousands of years... purddy coolio.

Seekers start as swimming in maya, a momentum of ignorance that gives rise to the belief  that "I/the me" is separate from the perceivable world. All of the sensory data and mental conditioning are woven seamlessly together, along with this simple (and powerful) thread of ignorance. For example, up to 50% of the 'physical' brain is used in sorting just the visual data coming in, and so when someone says,"You are the tree", the mind does its usual protests, rejections and misunderstandings take place, and it goes on and on, based on how deeply the mind has failed to grasp the pointer, due to its ignorance of what certain teachings point to. Seekers of Truth or Self mostly think they are looking for something else, but it seems what is actually happening is that they are burning through ignorance (not stupidity, but a structure of existential misperception). You present negative criticisms of the via negativa/neti neti aspects of certain schools for your own reasons, assumptions, and perspectives. Based on them, you aim to present potentially better or more optimal ways that your mind prefers to approach it. That's fine.

To be critical, though, the way it sounds to me is that you are also putting the cart before the donkey. The infinite openness and limitless aspects of the view your mind is proposing sound nice, rewarding, and advantageous, but it also seems to have forgotten HOW you came to these conclusions (and subsequent criticisms of other schools). Undoubtedly, there has been an ample amount of failure (in my book, futility is necessary), which has required the mind to process and/or release and negate a lot of baggage and ignorance, clearing and emptying the mindset of its previous barriers. You've enjoyed a certain degree of space and clarity in the mind as fruit of your endeavors. Does that sound about right? So, could you have arrived at these conclusions without that general process?

It takes a lot of failure to get out of one’s own way, which is what the neti neti/via negativa alludes to. It's how the mind discovers its limitations. Sure, in hindsight, it’s easier to see some of the insanity, silliness and wrong turns, as well as the many shoulda/coulda/wouldas. But, to this mind, it’s also understood that it all unfolded and was done --still -- simply---HAPPENING PERFECTLY SO.  Couldn’t have happened any other way in order for it to happen exactly as it did. Hard to explain, but maybe someone else had the same impression. Gratitude for the whole shebang. If the mind hadn't been so delusional or was more conscious of its ignorance, it would have played out differently.

In general, what changed over time was noticing and recognizing the space prior to the train(wreck) of thought, becoming more aware.... conscious of my patterns of thought/behavior. Most peeps have repetitive patterns that play out in almost predictable ways, once they become conscious of the general trajectory. Good friends, they say, are best when they point them out. Notice, take note, and become conscious of them more, and they may begin to simply fall away... naturally. Or maybe, in a moment of clarity, one notices the repetitive negative pattern in progress, takes a pause, sees the mind gaining momentum, and seizes the opportunity to consciously turn into it, righting the vessel, opening a whole new set of possibilities that the previous unconscious barrier hid from view.

Conscious, spacious presence of  mind in context.... right Here, right Now.

Gotta go.

Edited Wednesday at 11:00 PM by kbone

[Breakingthewall]

14 hours ago, kbone said:

when someone says,"You are the tree", the mind does its usual protests, rejections and misunderstandings take place,

In my opinion one of the problems with spirituality is these kinds of ideas. You are the tree; there is no separate self. Perceived reality is an illusion. Consciousness is the foundation of reality.

Let's see, you are the tree, but it's better to cut down the tree than to have your leg chopped off, right? So these kinds of statements are confusing. Another: the self is an illusion; you are creating your suffering; you can stop doing that. Let's see, the self is an illusion; therefore, you (the self) are creating your suffering, and you (the self) can stop doing that. Well bit contradictory right?......and creating it? How do you create it? If, for example, when you're 8 years old, your mother is tortured in your presence, you create suffering?. Or does your genetic structure create it, relating to a circumstance that occurs? You could say that everything is you. And then claim that there is not you. What's the point of that mess? Just contradictory concepts that are absolutely useless, worse than useless, a trap. 

Why deny reality? That's not going to work. Spirituality is above all denial and religion. Buddhism and Advaita assume that reincarnation is a fact. How do they know this? Their entire discipline aims to achieve a better reincarnation, or, if possible, nirvana. cause and effect, future achievement. escapism. self-deception. We can articulate a spirituality without all that bullshit. But to achieve that we have to look directly without mercy. It's not a matter of narcissism, it's about truth. 

 

Edited Thursday at 12:25 PM by Breakingthewall

[kbone]

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

In my opinion one of the problems with spirituality is these kinds of ideas. You are the tree; there is no separate self. Perceived reality is an illusion. Consciousness is the foundation of reality.

Let's see, you are the tree, but it's better to cut down the tree than to have your leg chopped off, right? So these kinds of statements are confusing. Another: the self is an illusion; you are creating your suffering; you can stop doing that. Let's see, the self is an illusion; therefore, you (the self) are creating your suffering, and you (the self) can stop doing that. Well bit contradictory right?......and creating it? How do you create it? If, for example, when you're 8 years old, your mother is tortured in your presence, you create suffering?. Or does your genetic structure create it, relating to a circumstance that occurs? You could say that everything is you. And then claim that there is not you. What's the point of that mess? Just contradictory concepts that are absolutely useless, worse than useless, a trap. 

Why deny reality? That's not going to work. Spirituality is above all denial and religion. Buddhism and Advaita assume that reincarnation is a fact. How do they know this? Their entire discipline aims to achieve a better reincarnation, or, if possible, nirvana. cause and effect, future achievement. escapism. self-deception. We can articulate a spirituality without all that bullshit. But to achieve that we have to look directly without mercy. It's not a matter of narcissism, it's about truth. 

 

Don't concern yourself with problems if you think there's nothing of value in them. Be as ruthless and unconcerned as you like. I ain't selling nothing.

I had thought you might be more interested in the bit of criticism with respect to your infinitely open and limitlessness model. Does the main point of the criticism make any sense to you?

You're bringing up anecdotal situations, treating massive schools of thought as monolithic, narrowly defined (by you) entities, and drawing conclusions, and I don't really know what to do with all the questions. Are they rhetorical or is there something particular that's actually troubling your peace of mind, blocking your ability to look directly?

Maybe, as an exploration, look at the 3-4 main branches of what you call Buddhism, and see how they differ. Just stick with Hinayana, Mahayana, and Ch'an/Zen for starters. Each have very different focuses, intents, practices, overlaps, and so on.... much like any other major religion or speerchal school. I mean, if you are really intent on just trashing Buddhism, you will at least have a more informed way of doing so.

Hugs, brotha.

[Breakingthewall]

@kbone

1 hour ago, kbone said:

Maybe, as an exploration, look at the 3-4 main branches of what you call Buddhism, and see how they differ. Just stick with Hinayana, Mahayana, and Ch'an/Zen for starters. Each have very different focuses, intents, practices, overlaps

Buddhism has a lot of good points. When they talk about the cessation of suffering, it must be interpreted as the cessation of dissatisfaction with the state of lack. Maya would not be the perceived reality or the self, but rather the closed energetic vibration, which can be transcended or opened, placing you on a plane where Maya is seen as fluidity and not as a closed capsule. Enlightenment would be the breaking of the closure that forms Maya, whereby the structure of the self opens and becomes unlimited. Then everything is perceived as becoming. It is clear that its meaning could be defined as illusion, since in essence everything that happens is undifferentiated becoming and it's nature is the reality/unlimited/absolute 

The problem I see is the denial of the self as an illusion, not because it is a lie, but because it is a limiting idea that encloses and causes the practitioner to have a repressive attitude toward their own mind.

It could be said that Buddhism desires the masculine aspect of reality:  detachment, emptiness, discipline, asceticism, equanimity, austerity, and rejects the femenine: the passionate, the connected, the fertile, the dark, the emotional. 

It's a kind of castration that manifests itself in the character of those who have accepted this philosophy as "truth," and its consequence is closure. An essential facet remains closed, the most beautiful facet of the absolute. Not a facet, a dimension , the depth. Its enlightenment is like disinfectant; it requires great effort, great discipline. So much so that you burn like a bonze without lifting a finger.

Edited Thursday at 02:24 PM by Breakingthewall

[Schizophonia]

10 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

detachment, emptiness, discipline, asceticism, equanimity, austerity

It's an obsessive neurotic self-ideal; non-phallic and therefore the complete opposite of masculine.
It's not even feminine, i's actually infantile.

Edited Thursday at 01:48 PM by Schizophonia

[Breakingthewall]

34 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

It's an obsessive neurotic self-ideal; non-phallic and therefore the complete opposite of masculine.
It's not even feminine, i's actually infantile.

I think it has something masculine, like a warrior who fights against the weakness and purifies himself to be worthy to access to the heavens door . Fight, goal, achievement, renounce, repression 

Edited Thursday at 02:20 PM by Breakingthewall

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

 Fight, goal, achievement

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

renounce, repression 

There is a contradiction there. 👀

A man can repress himself, renounce pleasures, but for something better later; that is different from having it as an end in itself.

I say obsessive-compulsive neurotic because this defense mechanism is more prevalent than average in spiritual people, which gives rise to this value system of scarcity.

But when you ask a normal person to imagine a masculine person, they'll talk about a 100kg rugby player who's a bon vivant, a family man, or whatever; someone proactive.

Nevermind.

[Breakingthewall]

18 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

But when you ask a normal person to imagine a masculine person, they'll talk about a 100kg rugby player who's a bon vivant, a family man, or whatever; someone proactive

Well, but that's not exactly the ultimate in masculinity. He'd be something like Genghis Khan or Achilles. An absolute warrior who conquers his fears, masters his weaknesses, and charges toward a wall of enemies with the absolute faith of someone who knows he's been chosen for victory, thus imposing his imprint on reality by force, crushing obstacles, and laughing in the face of death. A party-loving rugby player would be like a little girl calling for Mom in comparison.

Edited Thursday at 03:52 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, kbone said:

had thought you might be more interested in the bit of criticism with respect to your infinitely open and limitlessness model. Does the main point of the criticism make any sense to you?

Criticism comes when falsehood is detected. Spirituality has focused on the mind, since it is the mind that seeks. Advaita and Buddhist currents tend toward that direction. Huang Po says: Reality is an infinite mind. If he says that, it means he hasn't opened himself to true totality. You cannot see or perceive the total, you can be it. You already are, but your structure is closing. Only by aligning it perfectly for a moment does it open. And to do so, you must open your heart, look into the total fire and burn in it, consume yourself and be the totality. It is not a mind, nor consciousness, it is total. There is nothing but totality, and you are that. It's not a mind, could be said that it's divinity to use a word.

The only Buddhist that i perceived he's open to the totality is Longchenpa , Tibetan master of Dzogchen.

He said: "Emptiness and form are not two: form is the dancing face of openness. Emptiness is not lack, it is unlimited totality.” 

But then, why use emptiness? It's unlimited totality not emptiness. He said that because he's in the Buddhism and has to use this word.

 

He also said: “Rigpa is not a thing, nor a consciousness, nor a god. It is what it always is: clarity without object, openness without limit"

I'm searching in Chatgpt mystics that point to total openenss and are some, but much others aren't . True openness isn't about quieting the mind, but about opening the heart and burning in the fire of the total and be it. I don't see almost any Buddhist who aims for this. if anyone has been close from the absolute it's perceived. For example Plotinus, Ramakrishna, meister eckhart, Jesus Christ, Rumi, Dionysus from aeropagita, longchempa. Searching some others 

Edited Thursday at 09:58 PM by Breakingthewall

[kbone]

55 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Criticism comes when falsehood is detected. Spirituality has focused on the mind, since it is the mind that seeks. Advaita and Buddhist currents tend toward that direction. Huang Po says: Reality is an infinite mind. If he says that, it means he hasn't opened himself to true totality. You cannot see or perceive the total, you can be it. You already are, but your structure is closing. Only by aligning it perfectly for a moment does it open. And to do so, you must open your heart, look into the total fire and burn in it, consume yourself and be the totality. It is not a mind, nor consciousness, it is total. There is nothing but totality, and you are that. It's not a mind, could be said that it's divinity to use a word.

The only Buddhist that i perceived he's open to the totality is Longchenpa , Tibetan master of Dzogchen.

He said: "Emptiness and form are not two: form is the dancing face of openness. Emptiness is not lack, it is unlimited totality.” 

But then, why use emptiness? It's unlimited totality not emptiness. He said that because he's in the Buddhism and has to use this word.

 

He also said: “Rigpa is not a thing, nor a consciousness, nor a god. It is what it always is: clarity without object, openness without limit"

I'm searching in Chatgpt mystics that point to total openenss and are some, but much others aren't . True openness isn't about quieting the mind, but about opening the heart and burning in the fire of the total and be it. I don't see almost any Buddhist who aims for this. if anyone has been close from the absolute it's perceived. For example Plotinus, Ramakrishna, meister eckhart, Jesus Christ, Rumi, Dionysus from aeropagita, longchempa. Searching some others 

With respect to Huang Po, it could be that you either use a different word/logic than the one he's intending. Your use of 'infinite' to point to the same inconceivability, yet the mind is and will constantly try to slice and dice IT, grasp IT, name it, organize it, and all the rest in order to 'get IT'. At some point, the infinite futility dawns on the mind.... collapse. I suspect that Huang baby and you would get along just fine, and he'd just start laughing with you when you two finally got to that pregnant pause.

Dzogchen is the ND wing ding of the Tibetans, so that doesn't surprise me. But yeah, most Tibetan's are tongue tied and mind closed with the general 'lesser schools' of Tibetan Buddhism. I dig the quote you provided. You're struggling with empty/nothing, assuming it is too nihilistic to be real, or too oppressive to be a teaching, when it's simply an innocence that can only be divided and missed by the mind. Don't worry, there are 'reasons' the mind can't know and/or remember ITS presence that is layering over  and obscuring. The list you've compiled there are some great ones. I'll check out Longchempa,,, dunno that one.

Some schools of thought and/or the translations of the words don't always work to help readers go from perception to perspective. Like poetry, so rez, some don't. No biggie. Sometimes, you'll read the exact same thing you rejected a week ago, but you'll see it in a different light, and you might see how it could have some value for some seeker. Or maybe it can be fun to revise it in a way that expresses the core pointer better, or in a way that you think might slip past people's consensus trance thinking. Sometimes, they're just wrong or perhaps have some agenda. I can zip through most any book on the subject, and there's likely only going to be 5-10% that I think might be the core worth focusing on, and chunk the rest. But everyone else might find value in other parts, or miss the trajectory of the whole dealio. 

Is the mind open to the potential that, while it likes to use the word Infinity, it may just be its momentum of having been 'the previous knower' that is continuing its attempts to grasp, name, and organize IT, instead of stabilizing as the very core/Source of/as all conscious experience right Here, right Now prior to mind itself?

Story:

The devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick up?' He picked up a piece of Truth,' said the devil. 'That is a very bad business for you, then,' said his friend. 'Oh, not at all,' the devil replied, 'I am going to let him organize it.'

 

[Breakingthewall]

14 hours ago, kbone said:

The list you've compiled there are some great ones. I'll check out Longchempa,,, dunno that one

In all of these authors, one perceives a real openness to the absolute, but in all of them there is some degree of structural closure except for one: Rumi.

Let's see, I'm not judging these masters but rather the texts that have come down to us, and they are surely distorted by interpretations that don't capture their essence. But we only have the texts, therefore, they are equivalent to their texts. Rumi's case is special because he doesn't formulate an ontology but rather drops samples of his perception into proverbs and stories. Nothing is concrete or defined and therefore not as susceptible to modification over time.

Even so, it's likely that Plotinus said: true virtue lies in despising the pleasures of this world. My friend Plotinus, this world is the reality. What you call pleasures is a structural level perceived by a structure that operates at that level and that perceive them pleasures. Just as for you pleasure is observing the blue sky, for another it is going to a cheap brothel. Rumi would say: both are the breath of the beloved. One is dual, the other nondual. Can you imagine Rumi saying this world is an illusion? That would be blasphemous, he'd say: this world is the beloved in one of its thousand faces. The difference is total: some close, others open.

14 hours ago, kbone said:

The devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick up?' He picked up a piece of Truth,' said the devil. 'That is a very bad business for you, then,' said his friend. 'Oh, not at all,' the devil replied, 'I am going to let him organize it.'

 

Or in other words, only total openness reveals the truth. Partial openness intuits it, and from this intuition, a limited ontology is formulated. Since reality is open, limitedness is synonymous with falsehood.

[Sugarcoat]

12 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Partial openness intuits it

Maybe that’s why I intuit it because I’m closed but not super closed. It’s like a more subtle ego

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Maybe that’s why I intuit it because I’m closed but not super closed. It’s like a more subtle ego

4 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

 

You have spiritual intuition and real inclination, for sure. Maybe not the fanatic will to break everything but probably you don't need it. 

[kbone]

On 7/18/2025 at 9:28 AM, Breakingthewall said:

In all of these authors, one perceives a real openness to the absolute, but in all of them there is some degree of structural closure except for one: Rumi.

Let's see, I'm not judging these masters but rather the texts that have come down to us, and they are surely distorted by interpretations that don't capture their essence. But we only have the texts, therefore, they are equivalent to their texts. Rumi's case is special because he doesn't formulate an ontology but rather drops samples of his perception into proverbs and stories. Nothing is concrete or defined and therefore not as susceptible to modification over time.

Even so, it's likely that Plotinus said: true virtue lies in despising the pleasures of this world. My friend Plotinus, this world is the reality. What you call pleasures is a structural level perceived by a structure that operates at that level and that perceive them pleasures. Just as for you pleasure is observing the blue sky, for another it is going to a cheap brothel. Rumi would say: both are the breath of the beloved. One is dual, the other nondual. Can you imagine Rumi saying this world is an illusion? That would be blasphemous, he'd say: this world is the beloved in one of its thousand faces. The difference is total: some close, others open.

Or in other words, only total openness reveals the truth. Partial openness intuits it, and from this intuition, a limited ontology is formulated. Since reality is open, limitedness is synonymous with falsehood.

I tend to read and decode speerchal literature like a bee. 

Most of modern society seems to read and decode it like a lawyer.

I have a pretty good running theory of why that is. 

If one can't consciously use Intelligence (yes, open intuition gives rise to gnosis) to SEE the nuanced similarities between what Rumi, Huang Po, Plotinus, etc were pointing to, it's the lawyer archetype in charge. Instead, they use carrots of words, logic and reason to pull their own and others' attention (intuition) away from Wholeness, to prove a point, be right, and 'justify', never leaving the comfort of the courtroom in their mind. I have a pretty good idea of what gives rise to that conditioned behavior.

Meanwhile, the BEE that SEES just continues on their way, collecting nectar and honey to take back to the hive, participating in the very existence so perfectly, so symphonically being expressed as the Divine (Rumi the Bee), One Mind (Huang Po the Bee), The One (Plotinus the Bee), and many other words. There are many other known and unknown BEES of the One Hive in the clearest sky, each with their own type and type of nectar... even you.

Rumi would understand this. He and I have had some major discussions. We ripped through and caste aside all the doubts inherent in the mind's capacities, burned through the illusory walls that previously held up our senses and beliefs of existence, opened up to the realization, and saw the moon together. No more pointers, no more effort... IN/AS LOVE. We also realized 'together/as one' that no one can unspin the yard of another's conditioned thoughts, much less undo the knots that bind them. We CAN tell them, "It is possible", and maybe point out some potential.

Enjoy the exploration, brother, bring back some nectar, and make some honey.

Peacely~~

Edited 25 minutes ago by kbone