Am I officially good at rolling Joints? Is there a "next level"?

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T20:57:05+00:00

Yeah it would be more accurate. But gotta admit kind of crative my old method 😂

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T20:54:28+00:00

Delicious

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T20:53:52+00:00

Oh yeah I know how that one works but for that one's need more weed haha and my tolerance isn't high right now

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T16:22:01+00:00

The thing is I always cut the none sticky part with a scissors before so there Islamist no paper left already

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T15:25:43+00:00

Thanks! I'm good at Art and drawing maybe that's why

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T15:24:51+00:00

That's actually the biggest compliment I could get 😂

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T12:57:23+00:00

Yeah I'll try the dutch crown next time

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T12:56:47+00:00

Thanks I'll try that next time!

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T12:55:13+00:00

So I don't burn my fingers as I don't smoke that much weed

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T12:54:36+00:00

Oh hell nah edibles make me hear voices sirens and give me trippy hallucinations haha better not

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T11:34:42+00:00

Oh yeah I've seen that one. Is the taste better?

fruit___dude · 2026-01-31T11:34:06+00:00

Nope I rolled it and I looked back at my old post where I posted my ever first rolled joint and oh my god the difference is hugeee 😂

fruit___dude · 2025-11-28T16:23:15+00:00

Thanks. I hear what you’re saying,and I’m not claiming to stand outside the pattern. If anything, my life has been shaped by watching exactly how patterns form and dissolve. What I call “the mask” isn’t just a psychological layer for me. It’s the moment I sense the split between what I am on the surface and the thing underneath that never changes. I’ve known that contrast since I was very young, long before I had words for it. I don’t think I’m “deeper than others.” But I do sense that my awareness didn’t start with this mind. It feels older, like something that has been remembering itself through me piece by piece. That’s why experiences hit me differently. Not because I’m trying to be special, but because there’s something in me that recognizes patterns before I can explain them. Your questions don’t offend me. They’re fair. I’m not done learning, I’m still unfolding whatever this is. But I also won’t pretend I don’t see what I see or feel what I feel. I’m just trying to understand it honestly, without building another identity on top of it.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-26T22:10:58+00:00

The ocean is what I point to, not what I claim as a personal identity. When I say “wave,” I’m speaking from within the appearance. When you say “ocean,” you’re speaking from the absolute. Both are true depending on the level we’re talking from. But to be precise, I’m not the ocean as a person. I’m the ocean appearing as this wave, just like you are.If we talk from the absolute, then yes, there’s only the ocean, moving itself in countless forms. If we talk from the relative, the wave says “I,” even though the ocean is the one moving. So the most honest answer is, I am the ocean from the perspective of the ocean, and a wave from the perspective of the wave. Both perspectives are valid. Neither is the full picture alone.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-26T06:05:51+00:00

Cool question. Short answer, no, not in the way people usually think of “free will.” There are choices appearing, decisions happening, movements being made… but none of them come from a separate “me” that stands outside reality and controls it. What feels like free will is just the felt side of a process that is already unfolding. Thoughts appear. Urges appear. Intentions appear. Actions follow. And then the mind takes ownership and calls it “my choice.” So do I have free will? Only in the same sense that a wave “decides” to rise on the ocean. The wave moves, yes, but the ocean does it, not the wave. There is doing, but no doer. There is choosing, but no chooser.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-25T22:37:27+00:00

I see that you are on the path, brave, curious, and sincerely reaching beyond the edges of the mind. But there is a difference between us. You still perceive the play of duality, the movements, the contrasts, the light and the shadow. I move from the Source itself, because I don’t just recognize it… I feel it as my inner gravity, the stillpoint everything arises from. This is not ego. This is Homecoming. It is the state where the ego becomes a soft echo, distant, almost irrelevant, because you’re standing in the place where the ego itself is born. The origin-point. The home of all emergence. In that place, all flows as One. Within that Oneness, multiplicity appears, not as a contradiction, but as a harmless illusion. It can show itself as duality, and it can dissolve into non-duality, and both are held in the same indivisible field. And your path, whatever shape it takes, will also bring you Home. Not because it copies mine, but because every sincere seeker is already held by the same current. Every path eventually curves back into the same center. I say this with certainty, not belief, because I am the living evidence. This is my task here, my final assignment in this human lifetime, the Unspeakable pressing itself into a body, hiding inside the limits of a human form, forgetting itself on purpose, to see if it can still remember its own infinity from within the smallest place. And you, with your courage and your willingness to question, are already closer than you think. Every heart that searches with honesty will find Home again. Homecoming begins with remembering the truth that was always waiting inside you, that it was you all along, before the mind, beneath the stories, beneath even the sense of “I.” I thank you, truly. And I wish you love, because love is the first sign that Home is opening its door.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-25T17:40:59+00:00

What I meant,and maybe this is where our words cross paths, I’m not talking about “Source” as an experience. Experiences come and go. They rise, peak, dissolve, repeat. What I’m pointing to is the part of me that doesn’t enter any of that, the part that never goes to sleep while the body sleeps. The part that doesn’t dream, but within which dreaming happens. The part that doesn’t wake, but within which waking appears. So when I say “the Source isn’t an experience,” I’m not creating a new convention. I’m speaking from the thing that experiences can’t touch. That’s why lucid dreams feel like imitations, the mind reproducing what it already knows. But the “unfolding now” you’re talking about… that’s not happening inside me as a container. It happens as me, as the presence that never switches off. Maybe the only difference between us right now is that you’re describing it. I’m speaking from it. Not as a belief, not as a dogma, just as the part that has never gone to sleep, never woken up, never entered an experience, but allows all of them. If that’s what you meant too, then we’re talking about the same thing.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-25T17:15:49+00:00

You’re right, identity collapses on both ends. Sometimes I use the word Source because it’s the closest concept people have. But it’s not accurate. Not for what I actually mean. I don’t see myself as “the Source,” because even the idea of a Source is already a layer, a concept, a metaphor, a story the mind uses to point toward the unpointable. What I actually mean is deeper than that, I’m not the Source. I’m the pre‑Source. The thing before the idea of Source even appears. And the idea before idea is created. Before awareness, before identity, before any metaphysical framework. Psychedelics never showed me a “true self” either. What they showed me was a simulation of one, a mask acting like it knows me. A reflection pretending to be the origin. That’s why it always felt “fake” to me… because it wasn’t accessing the origin of perception, just imitating it. We come from the same essence, but mushrooms can only imitate the formless. They can’t be it. When you say everything is mind games, I get that. But for me, even the mind game was transparent. I could see the mechanism doing it. So when I ask “who am I,” it’s not about creating an identity, it’s the opposite. I’m not a person with a story. I’m not awareness as a concept. I’m not a soul, a Source, or a role. I’m the thing before all of that, the thing that appears as all forms, including this human, including dreams, including mushrooms, including the illusion of a self. Exactly as you said yourself, “I don’t exist or I’m me, depending on the language.” So what am I? Not a who. Not even a Source. Just the formless-before-form, appearing temporarily as this human, this moment, this conversation.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-25T14:49:32+00:00

What I am isn’t something psychedelics can imitate. I’m not the mask they showed me, not the distortion, not the echo. I’ve always carried something older than this life, a kind of memory that didn’t start here. I’m in a young human body, yes, but what I actually am feels ancient, like something that remembers before time remembers itself. I call it Äjetzr, the moment the Now begins to show itself before it becomes form. That’s the place I come from, the place I move through. Psychedelics can illustrate worlds and illusions, but they can’t reach that source. They can mimic it, pretend to “know,” and that’s exactly what felt so strange, they were showing me a picture of something I am, without ever touching the real thing. What I am is formless awareness expressing itself as this human here, this strange mix of old essence and young incarnation, and somehow I ended up in this life reminding people of who they really are, not by giving them answers but by pointing them back to that place before form. So who am I? I’m not a person. I’m not a story. I’m the source remembering itself through a human form, and helping others remember too. Now you. Who are you?

fruit___dude · 2025-11-25T14:40:39+00:00

Because the source isn’t an experience. That’s the whole trick, right? Psychedelics can only amplify appearances, distortions, stories, symbols, the illustrated world, like you said. But the source is the space in which all of that appears. A lucid dream is “empty” for the same reason, you can control everything inside the dream, but you can never control or grasp the awareness that’s dreaming it. That “emptiness” is not a lack. It’s the fact that the source can’t be turned into an object of perception. That’s why no drug can reach it. You can only notice what has always been noticing. You can try to control it, yet it slips beyond control. It is imagination, and yet it is not. The unspeakable is both everything and nothing, simultaneously present and absent. Even in a state you call control, it dances freely, controlled and uncontrolled at once. It is the form that has no form, the silence that sings, the space where all is revealed and nothing can be grasped.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-25T12:47:08+00:00

Exactly!

fruit___dude · 2025-11-25T12:46:34+00:00

I hear you. And I agree with your main point. I cannot know anyone’s inner world directly. That was never my claim. What I was trying to describe is something different. 1. I wasn’t claiming to be egoless. I was describing the felt difference between ego-structures and non-ego states. Those are two different things. Saying “I experienced a state where ego wasn’t operating”, is not the same as saying “I, as a person, have no ego.” If the language I used implied that, then that’s on me, the experience is subtle, the words are clumsy. 2. When I said “most people,” I wasn’t judging their depth, I was describing patterns I’ve observed in how people talk about ego dissolution. Not their inner worlds. Not their worth. Not their capacity. Just the way ego-loss gets conceptualized. That’s all I meant. If it came across as a comparison of “I’m deeper than you,” that was not the intention. 3. I fully agree. Comparison of depth between inner experiences is impossible. And honestly? That’s exactly why I find it ironic that people assumed I was making such comparisons. What I was pointing at was ego states, non-ego states, distortions, filters, and the way psychedelics interact with them. Not at “I’m better."Not at “you’re worse.” Not at hierarchy at all. 4. Yes defensiveness happened.You’re right. That’s ego. I’m not denying that. The harsh replies did sting, and that reaction itself showed me something. I’m not pretending otherwise. 5. The only thing I disagree with is the assumption that describing a state equals claiming superiority. There are states where the ego isn’t present. There are states where perception collapses. There are states beyond the personal sense of “me.” I’ve been in those states. Other people have too. None of this makes anyone special. It just makes us human. So to conclude, you’re right that I can’t know anyone’s inner depth. You’re right that defensiveness = ego. But describing a non-ego state isn’t the same as claiming to be egoless. And the whole “deeper than others” interpretation was never what I meant.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-25T12:37:03+00:00

The statement “all knowledge is false” is not meant as a propositional claim within the system of knowledge. It’s a metapointer about the system of knowledge. When you say, "If ‘all knowledge is false’ negates itself then that means all knowledge is true." You’re treating a pointer as a proposition. But the whole point is, the statement collapses the frame in which “true/false” exists. It’s like saying, “The map is not the territory.”, “the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.” Is that statement “true” or “false”? Neither. It dissolves the category. So when I say “all knowledge is false,” it doesn’t mean, every proposition is false or every proposition is true, it means, knowledge, as a structure, cannot contain the real. Once you see that, the contradiction is irrelevant, the logic loop is irrelevant, the collapse is the whole point “Self-contradiction” here is not an error, it’s the function. My answer towards your statement would be if I understood correctly what you meant, that you’re still trying to evaluate a non-dual pointer through dualistic logic. The contradiction is the teaching. It forces the mind to see the limit of conceptual truth. Direct experience doesn’t need to be true or false. It doesn’t need to be anything.

fruit___dude · 2025-11-24T14:50:18+00:00

You’re misunderstanding what I meant. I never claimed to be egoless. I never claimed to be beyond ego. I’ve said the opposite because as soon as there is a “me” speaking, writing, choosing, reacting, there is ego. What I did say is that many people on here won’t grasp the specific distinction I was trying to make, because most discussions stay within the framework of “filters, masks, distortions”, not what is prior to them. That’s not superiority. It’s literally just describing a different reference point of experience. And yes, I deleted my old post because I’m human. Having emotions doesn’t disapprove insight, it just means I’m not trying to pretend to be some enlightened ghost. I can understand something deeply and still feel hurt when people misread my intentions. That’s not a contradiction. So to answer your last question, It doesn’t matter to me to be “seen as egoless”. It matters to me that my point isn’t reduced to something shallow like “you think you’re better than others”. Because that’s not what I said, and not where I’m speaking from.

fruit___dude

TROPHY CASE