Everything is self-evident

Everything is self-evidently perfect
The one with eyes will see
The one without eyes will not see
The one with blurry eyes will see blurry
The one with clear eyes will see clear
The one with tunnel vision will see tunneled
The one with wide vision will see wide
The one with desire will seek
The one without desire will not seek
The one with guilt will punish/deprive oneself
The one with pride will pleasure/provide oneself
The one who feels worthy will celebrate
The one who feels unworthy will feel sad
The one with hope will strive
The one who loses hope will drop his efforts
…and so on

General masses vs. sociopaths vs. contemplators

GENERAL MASSES
In my experience, for most people, their emotions like desire, anger, liking, aversion etc. is all mapped to specific outer stuff.
There is a recognizable structure in their emotional mappings to the outer world.
But when you question them, they will always only point to the literal person, object, some situation happening, and attribute causation directly to the outer.
They cannot see their own structure, because they are seeing through that.
All their emotions are outward mapped onto a specific world image, projected from their structure, which is completely invisible and thereby absolutely true for them.
When you question them, they do not introspect, rather they might try to attack you/avoid you/ignore you/deny everything you say/attack the finger that points/ manipulate the finger etc.
This is because they cannot see what you are pointing at, at all.

SOCIOPATHS:
Sociopaths are on the far end of this spectrum.
They see the world through a hard integrated simplistic structure, that is opportunistic and looks to exploit everything for itself.
Their self structure is almost totally invulnerable to influence.
Nothing can change their reality orientation from outside since their eyes are always looking outward only.
So if you point to a structure they have, its as if you are pointing to something that does not exist. They would simply view that as an attack and try to attack your view.

Broadly the spectrum is:
Total self-reflection (total self-incrimination)—————– Total self-projection (total blame)
The spectrum could also be viewed as:
Sociopath ——————— Contemplator.
I would say, sociopaths are closer to animals, in the sense, their nature is unchangeable and immutable.
They cannot reflect on themselves and see ‘self’ as object.
So their whole world is their playground and they will demand everywhere and manipulate.
What are people on the other end of the spectrum called? – I would say, contemplators.
The following introspective functions are present in contemplators:
self-contemplation, self-examination, self-observation, self-questioning, self-reflection, self-scrutiny, self-searching, soul-searching, self-analysis, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-recognition; introversion, self-absorption, self-centeredness, self-concern, self-involvement; self-actualization, self-discovery, self-exploration, self-fulfillment, self-realization; self-knowledge, self-revelation; self-concept, self-image, self-perception; contemplation, meditation, reflection, rumination

Contemplators cannot outrospect/project easily and operate from seeing all of reality as their responsibility including serving others.
Their self is likely prone to getting into ruminative thought loops, chaos, getting caught in logical paradoxes, conflicting desires, traffic jam energies…and so on.
The mindset of total self-projection, the state of the sociopath, is the state of mind one has when in a stage performance or when facing a big threat like a wild animal. One’s attention is then totally outward focused and that gives a taste of what a sociopath mind state is like to the contemplator folk.

Generally, when does inward focus happen then? – It happens in boredom, when there is 0 outer pressure, and when there is no threat OR if the threat is inescapable, then you retreat into total inward focus.
Another way to look at it is that sociopaths are like one-time programmable only chips, after that they function without being influenced. They are like clay that has hardened into rock.
The contemplators on the other hand are permanently programmable chips. They are ever malleable and changeable.
Contemplators stay permanently as clay.

I would think, sociopaths can comfortably roam around in the social world, because they are immune to all influences, and their total outward focus is the ideal state for survival and self-protection.
A contemplator on the other hand tends to avoid the social world, because he is very impressionable and malleable, and his outward focus is only when there are threats (i.e. he freezes into a structure temporarily only when there are threats), else he stays in his total malleable state.
So freezing into various forms and staying that way in social environments is ok if it is temporary, but to do that every day is burdensome for the contemplator.
That is why taking up one profession is difficult for a deep contemplator, because that is like forcing a malleable entity take up the same configuration/structure every single day for most of the day.
It is denying him the freedom he feels inside him everyday.
Contemplators are living in the meta-programming world itself.
Surviving in a world full of solid people is annoying for the contemplator, because he is exceptionally free and flexible but can never interact with others in that freedom.
The only way to interact with most people is to create quasi structures and interact with them within the acceptability zones intuited.
The contemplator is formless i.e. he has no intrinsic form and he is continuously aware of his freedom.
Whereas the sociopath is like a rock, a solid form, and he sees the entire world through this filter.

Ego as an assertion(activity) to cover its dual

egoprojection

The implied background always wins over the projected foreground.
The whole game is that the ego attempts to strongly project more and more of the opposite, in order to hide the background.
Every assertion is a force that is trying to cover up its background.

Its like there is a self-definition downloaded, and there is this feeling of “ohh shit, I hate that, that is horrible” and therefore the whole self agitates and goes into turmoil/resistance/suffering and pushes out/projects the opposite strongly to the degree to which the turmoil was present.
Greater the degree of non-acceptance/resistance/turmoil/agitation/suffering, greater the degree of the opposite force “asserted” IN ORDER to cover up the suffering within.
So the whole purpose of the ego shell, which is a outward projected doing, is to cover up, and is a protection/shell against the suffering underneath.
More there is to hide, stronger the projective force of ego, and the louder it is.
So the ego is the false self put out, IN ORDER TO, cover up the unacceptable.

For example, why does a person push to be more popular?
The pushing is the foreground which is the assertion.
The background is the belief that “he is not-popular” and also that “he ought to be popular”
So this background agitates as a result and tries to project a strong persona forward that stays and pushes to be more and more popular.
However, since the person never stops, the background is always winning, and all the person succeeds in doing is in masking this deeper belief about himself.
When he runs out of energy and if he is unable to assert his popularity, he falls into its “Dual state” of being unpopular and suffering as a result of that(non-acceptance) which was his original condition to start with.
So the way out, is to drop the assertion first, and live through the base definitions you have about yourself and accept it.
Interestingly when the base definition is totally accepted, then even that vanishes from being along with the need to be popular which becomes redundant.
His strong outer ego shell was projected from its inner core, precisely to avoid the inner core experience which was some unbearable reality (the definition and its non-acceptance) that was programmed into him at a formative age.

Freedom is by staying as void

Freedom is in the void.
It in when you have both:
– anti-knowledge and knowledge.
– perspective and anti-perspective
– matter and anti-matter
etc.
The freedom eagle needs both the wings of creation and destruction to move.
Otherwise free movement is not possible
That is the art of learning alchemy and transmutation.
Of sliding along the poles of the same things.
Depression —————————- Joy
Bad ———————————- Good
Preoccupied ———————– Available/free
Stuck ———————– Free
Negative ——————- Positive
Non-sexual —————- Sexual
Passion ——————— Anti-passion
To be stuck is to be unable to shift perspective/shift reality/change.
The ability to shift perspective like this along the poles of things is the greatest freedom.
Else I am enslaved and CANNOT MOVE out of a rigid interpretation or structure.
The ability to focus and move along the poles axis of thought and perspective, is the freedom.
This however requires a lot of energy.
Greater the energy, greater the ability to shimmery change into anything.
Spectrum of available energy:
Low energy stuckness ————————– High energy shimmery change.
As your energy reduces, your karma accumulations will get to you.
It is like imagine someone started giving you $1000 a day and gradually increased it each day until it reached $100,000.
Say you bought a bunch of things with it and made a bunch of investments.
Once it reaches 100,000 a day, say the money given everyday starts reducing until it becomes $1000 again.
Now your life investments in the downward phase will be constantly grating on you. You will have to sell, give up, let go of a lot of stuff and still how much ever you give up, there will still be a strain on resources. All your investments will continue to be unsustainable.
This is until you give up everything and get back to your long ago state of having $1000 a day.
Karma looks to be something like that.
It is a cycle.
There is high energy to begin with, super high vibration, we create all kinds of reality with that, and enjoy them, then eventually the excess free energy gets exhausted, and then the energy starts decreasing causing you to drop all your creations, until 0. Then another wave starts.
Karma is created by attachment and investment.
So riding the wave without attachment and with dispassion/dis-investment allows you to live the energy flow without losing any to upholding/maintaining karma accumulations(which inevitably result in the pain of loss in the downward cycle) and transcend the cycle.

Knowledge is the substitute for love

Knowledge is needed when you cannot see the thing/person, when you are not connected to the thing, when you are not ATTUNED to that thing.
So in such a state, you are essentially blind, and you’ll therefore need all kinds of memorized knowledge, facts, rigid methods and theories about the thing and use that to RELATE with the thing, which looks like a “black box” to you.
Knowledge is not required however when you can directly SEE the thing/person.
I could say, DIRECT SEEING = LOVE = DIRECT KNOWING/APPREHENSION.
For imagination sake, it is like a superior sense organ that directly sees/perceives/knows instantly.
How is this achieved? – By ATTUNEMENT.

I read a very interesting fact in psychology which now makes a lot of sense:
“The overly solicitous mother is that way to her child, PRECISELY because of her inability to LOVE/CONNECT/SEE the child which makes her resort to such a behavior as a SUBSTITUTE.”

Imagine the situation of the blind men and the elephant.
The blind men are blind from their lack of willingness to SEE (in this analogy).
So each of them explores different parts of the elephant and makes up complex theories on its structure, say.
But supposing you come along and you are in the KNOW/SEEING, then you can directly see the elephant, you can also see the blind men, you can also see their strange theories/deductions and last of all, you can also see the entire elephant and its structure instantly and clear as daylight.
That is the difference that connection/attunement/love/’direct seeing’ make.

Stuff about ultimate reality being love sounds like BS to me

Are you universal love right now?
[What if you are feeling all terrible, diseased, sick, disconnected, scattered, lost, miserable, lonely, desperate now? Does that resemble “love” in any way?]
If your answer is no, and that love is another state of exalted existence which is what is actually real and this is partially unreal at-least compared to that, then you are giving that the higher reality status, and have already created a spectrum of:
Less real ———————————- More real
Now, you have to find another reality that transcends this spectrum, and which will send you back to the drawing board with regards to the ultimate truth.
The ultimate truth has nothing to do with a specific experience of ‘love’, by any definition that is commonly known.
If we want to call the ultimate reality as love, then the definition of love would have to be radically revised, and it should mean, Love = Ultimate reality. What could that be? Such a definition of love is as inconceivable and beyond, as ultimate reality itself.
Then why is the word ‘love’ somehow treated as more relatable, than ultimate reality? It looks equally strange/inconceivable/unimaginable.
That is with regard to all the conventional definitions of love, all of which have a connotation of FEELING pleasant/good.
It is exclusive, and not all-inclusive that the ultimate reality is.

Let me try to re-look from a deep esoteric/abstract angle:
If I ponder over it now, I think ‘love’ represents the reclaiming of wholeness in its fundamental substance that is the substrate and field for all form manifestations.
In that line of thought, “Love = Reclamation”.
The self is fundamentally what we claim to be.
So love and self are analogous. Love = Self.
So then I could also say “identification” is love.
Because what we identify with, is our self at that moment.
Then, Love = Self = Identification.
Identifying (as a verb) = the act of loving = the act of self-ing.
We could then say, the journey from “identifying with the personal” to “identifying with the universal”, is the journey of the expansion of identification, the expansion of love, to include everything as one-self.
But it goes beyond the inclusion of everything, because then we are assuming the ‘everything’ has a definite existence, when in truth, its all changing/real-unreal/flow.
So then, if ‘love’ is all inclusive, it also includes love for the process of creation (which we all readily relate to) and for the process of destruction too (which includes all the stuff we generally abhor in our culture – death, sickness, disease, weariness, tiredness etc.).
Universal love would obviously include all forms of the field. That would imply it would also include society’s most hated criminals – serial killers, brutal hate crimes, all kinds of torturers, destructive leaders and every other form of stomach churning/pain inducing manifestations.

And then another common misconception of love is that, it implys/means that you MUST/OUGHT TO serve the CONTINUITY of existence for that living being/object (in whatever form) etc.
Why should that be the case?
Then again such a love is exclusive, since it might exclude your own well-being, like say a serial killer is attacking you.
If you love the serial killer, does it imply that you just ALLOW him to kill you? OR Do you kill him as a preemptive move in order to protect others you love? OR Are you supposed to simply defend yourself by causing the least harm to both yourself and the other?
What is the correct principle or behavior?
Each principle or behavior is invariably exclusive, while love is all-inclusive.
We can know about others only through their behavior.
How can we possibly have any ideology/conception with regards to what all-inclusive love looks like, when it transcends everything?
The love could be both, a nectar that draws you towards it and exalts you or it can also like the moth being pulled towards a flame.
The commonality in both cases is the PULL force.
Then is love the pulling force? No, we can’t say that, because then it excludes the pushing force.
Can a person not push you away, because he/she loves you? (sounds plausible right)
Eventually with this reasoning we may conclude love is existence itself.
But love transcends that too, and also includes non-existence.
I cannot even say love is the movement of existence because love would allow existence to move, be-still and even non-exist, since it is all inclusive.

This inquiry was to illuminate the common notions and expectations of love we uphold, which are all only various forms of exclusion.
Even the serial killer, after all, loves his serial killing hobby (it might make you cringe to even consider that).
In the light of all that, I even question, why do people insist on using the word ‘love’ to refer to the ultimate reality? Is that even appropriate, considering all the baggage it brings at every level?
If love is all inclusive, it allows EVERYTHING, including the most ghastly things that nobody would dare even call love.

Louder passions vs. softer passions

Whatever is done/spoken/communicated/acquired in passion – dies with the ending of the passion.
It is a passionate state of mind – and it ends quickly.
The lack of deeper passion is what we call lack of soul OR the deeper passion is subconscious and in chaos, and to escape from that chaos, a passion is created and pushed out – to create the passionate state of mind.
This is what creates the feeling of superficiality and deeper emptiness.
To give an example, Lust is passion too.
The arousal of lust is the arousal of passion.
One can become addicted to states of passion and always desperately stay passionate, because when they sink deeper into themselves, they see the chaos that actually lies underneath.
But passion is a highly limited/limiting state.
The louder the passion, the more limited it is.
Spectrum of passion:
Very soft ———————— Very loud.
The loudest passions take the most energy and are sustained for a very short period of time. They create intense purpose and also dissolute as easily and fast.
The softer passions are the more enduring ones that give a person a sense of prolonged fullness and purpose.
So if you are feeling empty in life – then you probably need to go deeper, and become more dispassionate, silence yourself more and see the softer/lighter/subtler territory you are blind to at present, because of drowning that with louder passions (arousing them to escape the deeper pain).
Passion Blinds! The louder passions drown the subtler ones.
[Like notice when lust fills you up, almost all your motivation energy is redirected]
Moving to the subtler realm of passions may feel like death, because it is sinking and letting go of all the louder passions that have hitherto driven you.
What we call the soul, might refer to this deeper realm of subtle passions/forces.
Passions = Forces, basically.
So it can also be worded as, greater forces drown the subtler forces.
[Just like loud noises drown soft ones, and just like how bright lights drown softer lights (like how we cannot see stars at daytime)]

Entropy and Anti-Entropy, States and Stations

Having a specific meaning/story in your experience is still ‘lower entropy’ than changing meaning/story/timelines themselves.
That total shifting of everything is what is called madness.
In-fact greater the extent of shifts and discontinuities – greater the madness.
Whereas when a specific timeline/meaning is retained day after day (the same persistent story), interestingly whatever theme it may take, it is still be lower entropy.
In a sense ego(a persistent self) retaining continuity at almost all times, represents coherence and anti-entropy.
It seems like any DELTA/CHANGE would involve energy expenditure.
Like if you are in dissolution and discontinuity, then to maintain continuity would take a lot of energy.
Similarly if you are highly solid and coherent, then, trying to access ideas of totally changing realities, again will take a lot of energy for you to maintain such states.
It is like states and stations.
Station A ——-x——– Station B ——–x——– Station C ———–x——– and so on.
For a person in station A wanting to reach station C – he needs 2x free energy.
Station C is State C – for a person in station A.
Similarly a person in station C wanting to reach station A again needs 2x energy.
Station A is a State A – for person in Station C.
So the implication of this is that, it is as hard for a 5-D creature to live in our reality(congealing their vibration into a definite form) as it is for a 3-D create to have a 5-D experience (to dissolute yourself and let go enough to reach that).
The 3-D reality is a state attainment for a 5-D creature and the 5-D reality is a state attainment for a 3-D creature.
Another analogy would be of Steam -> Water -> Ice.
It takes a lot of energy to compress steam into ice, just like it takes a lot of energy to vaporize ice into steam.
So, it can very well be, the Gods in the higher dimensions would need a lot of energy to come down and live in earth, just as someone on earth needs great energy to rise to the dimension of Gods.
Which means, both represent distinct realities, and any DELTA/CHANGE OF STATE would require energy – and probably from a transcendent viewpoint, both are creative forms, and both are equally desirable (the god state and the human/animal state).
Another implication of this would be, if any change of state takes energy, then what you effortlessly are – represents 0 distance.
Trying to be anyone/anything else or in any other state would exhaust you and create another cycle of […recuperation -> expenditure/attaining -> exhaustion…]
So freedom in a counter-intuitive way, represents 0 distance, when you remain exactly as you are (If you do not do that, you exhaust that freedom energy by moving elsewhere).
If you are an animal, you stay exactly as that.
If you are a God, you stay exactly as that.
Any attempt to move away from your natural state, will enter dualistic cycles, and there will be periods of seeking/attaining recuperation/exhaustion.

High/Low psyche energy duality

Intense psyche energy – moves experience, increases possibilities, novelty, wonder and creates anticipation, joys etc.
When the psyche energy is low – there is flatness, dullness, disenchantment, disinterest, loss of consciousness, loss of interest/passion/desire/love/focus. Such a person falls into a stupor-like state almost only driven by bare survival and when even survival is surrendered, he falls into the unknown void/blankness.
When very low on energy, the strain is on survival only, the deepest desire, attention/focus is pulled from the reserves to do the bare minimum to survive. It is a hard desperate struggling state.

The best way to illustrate this duality is – ON PSYCHEDELICS vs. the next day PSYCHEDELIC HANGOVER.
The psychedelic awakens the soul energy, that is precisely the feeling of high interest/curiosity/wonder/passion/love/joy/abundance/overflow/sparkles of energy/impressions(impressiveness).
The exact opposite happens in the hangover:
disinterest/flatness/dread/deadness/discontent/struggle/scarcity/low energy/depression/unconsciousness.

Desire comes from lack

All desire is from lack.
Lack -> (puts out) Desire force outward to seek the lacked quality.
We repress qualities in ourselves and then seek it in others or enhance it with others.
Its as though, we vicariously live those qualities through others (the ones we denied in ourselves, that is)
This repression/denial of quality potentials is unconscious (and might be part of the whole play of existence to believe you do not possess a quality yourself and need an other to get it from).
It is part of the childhood programming, when these structures are formed.
These structures decide, what you will find in yourself and what quality you will seek in an other.