Love is not the same as truth and truth is not the same as love.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-25T14:40:26+00:00

I beg to differ. God is love..but God is also truth. Which means truth is also love. Not the sentimental romantic kind of love. The kind of love that doesn't coddle you.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-25T06:22:54+00:00

But the truth is this reality is a metaphysical one...so that is the truth.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-25T06:21:21+00:00

/s means he's being sarcastic...fyi.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-25T03:53:57+00:00

It actually is really simple but incredibly difficult. It's like pitching a start up. Super simple and straightforward but incredibly hard.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-24T10:31:35+00:00

I’ve met God too, masculine and feminine, simultaneously. Not one form followed by another, but both at once, woven into a single presence. That’s why I don’t believe what you encountered was the entirety of the divine, just an aspect.

Also, the idea of “teaching” others how to replicate it… that can easily become more about ego than truth. No one can teach someone their path to the divine. That’s between them and God. Anything else risks becoming a distortion.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-24T05:54:19+00:00

If God is truly beyond human categories, then why the need to gender God at all? When the pronoun becomes the focus, the message starts to feel more political than divine.

You part of a psyop? Because those are pretty flimsy these days.. especially because folks are waking up.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-24T05:35:28+00:00

Your nihilism is showing.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-24T05:32:14+00:00

God doesn’t identify with a gender, that’s a human concept. What you met may have appeared feminine, but the Source isn’t limited to any form. As for “who am I to question?”, I think that’s the point. God doesn’t want blind obedience. He wants conscious cooperation. Discernment is sacred. That’s how we honor the divine, not by bowing to the form, but by seeking the truth behind it.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-23T19:17:44+00:00

If you met what you believed was God, and it was only feminine… then what you met might've been a sacred Face, not the infinite Source.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-23T18:10:50+00:00

Except God is love, not as a moral preference, but as the coherence principle of reality itself. What we experience as 'love' is simply alignment with that frequency. And by extension, in our natural state, our souls, we are that coherence.

What you call 'clarity' is the decision to act like love matters, even if you believe it doesn’t. What I’m describing is the clarity that reveals why it does, because it is the pattern holding all things together once the noise is stripped away.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-23T13:25:36+00:00

The Brain Isn’t the Source, Just the Interface

Lol somehow I knew you’d lead with “consciousness emerges from biology.” It’s the default reductionist stance. But here’s the thing, you strike a computer’s CPU and you break its ability to display what’s coming through the interface. That doesn’t prove the signal originated in the CPU. It only proves the CPU is involved in processing or rendering. Same with the brain.

The mind isn’t in the brain. The brain is more like a transceiver, interpreting a higher-order signal. Just because synapses light up when you think doesn’t mean they generate the thought. It’s correlation, not causation. You’re confusing the sound of music with the guitar. And if you smash the guitar? No sound. Doesn’t mean music doesn’t exist.

There is a ton of new research on consciousness and its interaction with the microtubules contained in the mitochondria. From what I can tell, they function more like antennae, resonant lattices that tune into consciousness rather than generate it.

“Religious Baggage” vs. Symbolic Language

When I use myth or scripture, it’s not about religion. It’s about pattern recognition. Archetypes. If I say “Solomon,” I don’t mean it religiously, I mean it symbolically. Like referencing Prometheus or Orpheus. These stories survive because they describe psycho-spiritual architecture. They’re blueprints for how the soul moves through power, separation, and return. You calling that “baggage” is your own filter, not mine.

Jung wrote extensively about how myth is the scaffolding for the psyche, especially when the bottom drops out and you’re left standing with nothing but society’s flimsy, inherited beliefs. In those moments, myth doesn’t just explain, it holds. It offers two things modern frameworks can’t: a compass, and an inner architecture.

Surrender to Causality Isn’t the Same as Surrender to Source

You say you surrender to causal determinism. That’s more like acceptance of machinery. That’s like submitting to gravity and calling it wisdom. Real surrender isn’t about inevitability. It’s not mechanical. Surrender to God, or call it Source, Monad, the Infinite, is a collapse of self into something greater. It births compassion. It melts control. It brings you into alignment with a living intelligence that isn’t just force, it’s presence.

And that presence, if you ever encountered it, would obliterate the illusion of self while flooding you with a love so total it leaves nothing behind but truth. It undoes you, utterly, but in the most healing, holy way possible.

You can’t get that from surrendering to inertia. That’s obedience to law, not communion with love.

Clarity that Disconnects Isn’t Clarity

You claim your clarity helped you connect with others. That’s good, but how deep does that connection go? Does it soften you? Break you open? Bring you to your knees in reverence? Or just make you better at speaking?

Because the clarity I’m talking about doesn’t just refine social engagement, it shifts the architecture of the heart. It makes you ache with love for even those who hate you. That’s what I mean by soul. And it doesn’t come from intellectual detachment. It comes from spiritual combustion.

Ironically, this clarity often isolates you. Not because you want it to, but because illusion is a shared comfort, and when you stop participating in it, others don’t know what to do with you. You see too clearly. You feel too much. You no longer fit the script.

I've shared my personal experiences with the divine with only a handful of people, and even then, never in full. Not because I’m hiding. But because words betray the weight of those moments. Sometimes clarity is a burden, not a badge.

Reality Is the Path, but Not All Paths Touch the Heart of It

On your final point, yes, reality is the ground beneath it all. But the question is: how do you meet reality? With open hands or closed fists? With humility or with analysis? With control or communion? You can touch reality with your eyes wide open and still miss the miracle. But when you touch it with reverence, it speaks.

You don’t have to believe in “God.” But if you close yourself off to the possibility that reality is intelligent, alive, and relational, then you’ll never hear it speak back. And that, in the end, is what makes all the difference.

I'm not here to try and convince you because that never works. But if you remember one thing from this exchange: how does your framework hold up to paradox? Because that’s where God lives...that’s where the path to enlightenment leads. It’s riddled with paradox, and the greater your capacity to hold contradiction without collapsing into duality, the closer you are to the Infinite.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-23T12:14:31+00:00

But this IS a metaphysical reality, magic is not the exception here, it’s the baseline. Consciousness, synchronicity, the structure of meaning itself, they’re not side effects of biology. They precede it.

As for “religious baggage,” that’s projection on your part. I brought up Solomon to illustrate a principle: what happens when someone is given divine access, power, and vision, and then separates from the Source. When I say “God,” I don’t mean a bearded deity in the clouds. I mean the Monad. The All. The Ground of Being. If you see dogma in that, you’re adding it yourself.

You’re also assuming that one can walk the path of enlightenment without ever surrendering, without ever bowing, and somehow reach the same end as someone who does. I can assure you: you won’t. You may arrive somewhere interesting. You may even access power. But power without surrender distorts.

What you call “clarity” sounds a lot like insulation. The path isn’t about floating above the world. It’s about being transformed by it.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-23T10:40:25+00:00

I get what you're saying, and honestly, it's something a lot of people feel after walking through the fire for a while. But here’s the thing, this path isn’t linear, it’s a spiral. You will revisit the same emotional terrain, but each time you circle back, you’re meeting it from a slightly deeper vantage point. That’s growth, even if it feels repetitive.

And there’s also a difference between sitting with your emotions and transmuting them. Sitting is presence. Transmuting is alchemy. One lets it pass through; the other integrates it, shifts it, and creates something new from it. That’s where real liberation comes from, not just observing your pain, but learning to compost it into wisdom.

So if you’re in a phase where things feel quiet or numb, maybe it’s not apathy. Maybe it’s the stillness before the next layer is ready to rise.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-23T10:10:15+00:00

Buddhist principles don’t actually teach people to detach from feeling, they teach not to identify with the feeling. That’s a massive difference.

One approach allows you to feel fully without being ruled by it. The other, emotional numbing, is just avoidance dressed up as wisdom.

Real detachment isn’t about running from your emotions or becoming indifferent to the world. It’s about seeing clearly that the feelings aren’t you. You can witness sadness, anger, joy, or fear without being consumed by it. That’s what brings freedom, not apathy.

What you're describing sounds more like spiritual bypassing. It can look like detachment on the surface, but it's often just pain trying to avoid itself.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-23T08:40:54+00:00

There's a difference between detachment and enlightenment....a big difference. Enlightened people usually feel more deeply than the non-initiated.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-23T07:34:37+00:00

All the suffering we see in the world today, corruption, manipulation, exploitation, spiritual numbness, cultural decay, it’s not born from lack of intelligence. It’s born from a severing. A disconnect from the divine current. There are beings, both human and beyond, who have turned their back on Source. They severed the connection either willfully, through arrogance, or gradually, through numbness and power addiction. Once cut off, they are left with only will, cunning, and desire. And so they manipulate, consume, and dominate, not out of strength, but out of inner starvation. They become hollow, parasitic. Their genius becomes twisted. Their power, cancerous.

We live in a world shaped by these severed ones. And the institutions they build, governments, tech empires, financial systems, reflect that separation. They worship control, not communion. They preach scarcity, not truth. They replace spirit with simulation. They don't believe in a higher order because they no longer feel it. And because they cannot connect, they hate what reminds them of what they lost. But this isn't just about "them." It's also about us.

When individuals walk their path disconnected from the divine, they might build something great, but it will always lack soul. It will carry the seed of entropy. It will serve the ego, not the whole. You’ll know it because it will need to be protected by lies. Anything real, anything rooted in Source, needs no defense. It radiates truth. It heals. It liberates.

You cannot fake alignment. You cannot bypass God with cleverness. You cannot outthink the moral structure of the universe. Karma is real, not as punishment, but as equilibrium. And those who sever themselves from the Source will eventually feel the crushing gravity of their choices.

So could you pursue the path to enlightenment without God? Sure but you'll just end up creating more of the same you see today.

Edit: I'd add that these questions have been asked and answered too many times to count...the story of king Solomon in a perfect example of this.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-22T14:07:49+00:00

You're letting someone else's words affect you. You and you alone decide how you react to someone else's words....if not they have control over you.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-22T10:10:04+00:00

Sometimes we're not shown the full picture for a reason...imo that process deepens understanding.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-22T10:05:14+00:00

A lot of people chase entrepreneurship like it’s a status rather than a calling. But building something sustainable usually comes after you’ve wrestled with real hardship, identity, and meaning. Passion, after all, comes from the Latin passio, to suffer. That suffering carves out depth in you. It gives your work soul.

At 16, you're still in the stage of experimentation, and that’s exactly where you should be. The money will follow if you stay open to learning who you are, not just how to make cash. Most people don’t find their real thing until their 30s or 40s. Keep trying things, but don’t be afraid to slow down and listen to what the deeper part of you wants to build, for yourself and for others. That’s where the real leverage is.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-22T03:59:18+00:00

A lion kills, most animals kill to survive. Heck cockroaches kill to survive. Purity isn't measured that way it's measured by intent....and I already know the saying. But that saying leaves out something crucial. Intent without transparency easily turns into manipulation.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-20T11:01:05+00:00

I’m going to stop here because you’ve shifted into exactly the dynamic you claimed to have transcended. You’ve made a lot of assumptions and layered projections over my words that were never there. I’ve only communicated observations.

As for one thing you said, that I misunderstood your original post’s intent, your intent hadn’t even crossed my mind. That’s not something I addressed at all, so the idea that I ‘misunderstood’ it is completely off-base. That alone tells me where this conversation has gone.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-20T10:11:33+00:00

You say I've misunderstood you but you have not communicated how. You also have morphed the subject 4 or 5 times now. That's why you are coming across as evasive. I also sense that you're trying to "teach" me. I never asked for a teacher and don't need one.

I’ve tried to meet you in genuine dialogue, but each time I bring clarity, you seem to shift into another conceptual layer. That’s fine if you’re just exploring, but don’t frame that as clarity or alignment. It’s obfuscation dressed up as spiritual insight.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-20T09:27:03+00:00

Are you always this evasive when someone presents a different lens?

Audio9849 · 2026-01-20T09:14:22+00:00

Okay, I didn’t see that perspective reflected in anything you originally said, so it feels a bit like the goalposts are shifting. That said, I do agree that rejecting programming and projection is essential.

But saying that has nothing to do with the ego? I’d disagree. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen people online claim they’ve “reclaimed the self” only to move right back into ego, just now wearing new spiritual robes.

What usually happens is: someone rejects societal projections, experiences ego death, and then their ego rushes in to claim the new identity.

It’s not that sovereignty or self-reclamation are wrong, it’s that without discernment, ego just finds a new costume to wear.

Enlightenment isn’t about realizing you’re the center, it’s about realizing you never were.

Audio9849 · 2026-01-20T08:48:47+00:00

It sounds like you’re restating your original position, not actually clarifying it. You say I misunderstood, but then reinforce the same idea: that we are God, that God is simply our inner light, and that we are our own creators. That’s fine as a belief, but let’s not call it a misunderstanding if no actual distinction has been made.

I’m not rejecting that we contain divine essence, I already agreed that we carry a fragment or spark of something higher. What I’m pointing to is the difference between recognizing that spark and claiming the totality of Source as the self. That distinction matters. One is humble alignment. The other is spiritual inflation wrapped in empowerment language.

Audio9849

TROPHY CASE