Everything is dancing the wonder of god

Everything is dancing the wonder of god, but none can know god, except through their own highest vision, and dying more and more into it, to get higher and higher.
All metaphors and inspirational works of art, poetry, metaphysics, science etc. – none of them are god – rather all these works of creation are closer and closer to god, pointing towards the unfathomable center(infinite point).
Beings closer to god have more creation power (if we define god as the ultimate power of creation).
The greatest among us beckon us(not out of fear/control but pure inspiration), so that we may discover and live in our own higher potential.

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.

Love and Knowledge

All real knowledge is from love. To love is to BE.
Consciousness can be experienced from any point of view, and full knowledge can be gained about anything in existence, by unioning with it and BEING IT.
Some things/people are easy to BE. Some others are much more difficult.
But full knowledge can only be gained when we BE something totally – greater the extent to which you can immerse your energy in something, greater will be the knowledge you can gain about that thing.
Knowledge is therefore your capacity to BE.
Capacity to BE = Love = Knowledge = Empathy
Empathy is the expression of our shared being.

Spectrum:
Dharana—————– Dhyana—————– Samadhi (union)
In order to union with something totally, you first have to be entirely formless and empty, only then can you completely union with form.
Else your capacity to BE will be reduced accordingly, and thereby your capacity to love and know will be lower too.
Love is the ability to BE something, putting your substance into something, infusing yourself with it, unioning with it.
To the degree to which this can be done, your love is greater, and accordingly your knowing will be greater too.

True illusion vs. False illusion

trueillusion

True illusion is the very dream of life.
It is the very flow of life.
True illusion is shimmering and ever changing.

False illusion on the other hand is,
a solidification and holding on of fragments of the true illusion.
It is like holding a bucket against the river of life/true illusion,
and now the bucket contents stay statically with you as the false illusion
It is important to note that,
the false illusion too, derives its source from the true illusion only
It is just created by one thing only, HOLDING ON.

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.

Energetic Principle of Ego

The ego works primarily on assertion and denial.
There are a lot of profound facts about assertion and denial.
1 – What you assert, is exactly what does not already exist.
In other words, the energy that MAKES the assertion DOES NOT CONTAIN the asserted thing which is precisely why it is making the assertion in order to bring into being that which is not already present.
2 – You can only deny that which already exists.
The energy that makes the denial, already contains the denied object. How can you deny something that does not even exist?
These 2 rules above have profound implications for the understanding of our own psyche and other peoples’ psyche.
So assertion, brings into being that which is not effortlessly present and denial shields that which is already effortlessly present in being.
These are the 2 obfuscating mechanisms, that prevent you from seeing/feeling/experiencing the deeper reality/self.
Both assertion and denial is to be let go, in order to dwell/be/see into the deeper reality.

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.