I can reiterate it, but i cant reexplain it

[kavaris]

I realized today, when it comes to the most basic, the most poignant idea, the basic non dual idea, whatever you want to call it, the farthest im willing to go is a very insufficient sounding explanation, one that is to easily be taken for granted as we are often locked into that default, middle path. Theres no way around it, granted in retrospect you can see ("Ah, right, not only are we in the paradox of unexplaining, but i could have made this long shpeel... to point at it", and yet it still wouldve been carrying paradoxes from the perspective of anyone who isnt like a "im a sevant, i already can get it". Like to get it is to be pushed off the ledge, as opposed to lulled into something "that feels like it makes sense"... thats how you know you are slightly off, cause it has to have a shining, shimmering paradox, a hole inside of it that you are then settling on (as far as communication w others)

For your own self, its not that way of course. Anyway, that is the dilemma. Likely many of yous will get that i presume. i like to imagine everyone gets it cause why not... like its easy with less words, as words are pointing to so many places... or wait... its like, words are "explaining". Thats what i meant. Whereas, im tryina just be literal. Whereby we arent wasting our time. Like...

[kavaris]

Its really intuitive in the context of everything. But, where its Not intuitive is in the reiteration... Like the only thing stopping everyone is their own limit on the reiteration towards (in this case that im attempting to point/explain, already going against myself... but why not. Lets have some fun).

You can intuit it, and you can run it through your mind; I think that religion is sortve the "explanation" for the intuited, As monastery Monk/priest types think that theres something that you can covet and "look for"?

You can technically look for it, but you dont look for something \*new, but rather, you look for something you've taken for granted; Like you are looking for the thing that comes prior to critical thought and structure, in order to then go about said structuring (As the kind of structure thereafter isnt the same thing anymore)

I mean, again, its the "reiteration of", not the reexplaining of... So you dont need more than 1 element in said reiteration. Of course, all of that is itself "that which is taken for granted", so you have to take it w/ the benefit of the doubt that you're gonna be "in the process of taking it all for granted", and to reiterate is to unrraval all of it, or the attempt to, cause its not easy... i mean, whether or not its easy isnt how i think about it anyway. I dont normally put that much thought into it.