[incl] It is nothing but robots trying to fool you into believing, that you are not a robot

On the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog or exists at all. The graphic is a Peter Steiner’s cartoon, which originally was published in The New Yorker.

PART 1:
You can compare a world where there seems to be more than one to an online world with nothing but robots. It might sound potentially interesting to communicate with them and hear about their experiences of the world. The problem though is, that not only do they try to persuade you into believing that their world is real, but also that they are not robots.

But as there is no more than that which is one, since it is formless and therefore endless, there is neither an online or physical world. Thus you have been fooled by non-existent creatures if you experience to be in any kind of world, whether it appears to be physical, spiritual and whatnot. It takes two, however, to be fooled, so you can only be fooled because you want to believe, it is possible to be and have more than that which is one.

Inclusion excludes separation
The moment, you do not want to be and have more than that which is one, there is no need to believe, the apparent differences in the world where you appear to be someone definitive make a difference. As that means you cannot be defined as someone at all, there does not appear to be something hiding the formlessness of oneness.

The way to not want to be and have more than that which is not one is not to stop the desire for more, as that would imply it is possible to be and have more than that which is not one. Instead, you fully include the desire to be and have more, and as a desire – just like everything else experienced – needs a contrast to be felt as something specific, including it will also include its contrast, namely the disgust of being and having more than that which is one.

Inclusion excludes separation and without separation, there is no more than that which is one.

Hence you neither avoid or go for being and having more than that which is one. Not because you have seen it is futile, but because the inclusion of a contrast cancels it out*, so the idea that it is possible to be and have more than that which is one is undone.

You are defined as someone definitive by what you exclude. In other words, if not excluding you are nothing, and so there is not something to hide there is no more than the formlessness of oneness. The animation is grabbed from the web.

INTERLUDE:
To include contrasting feelings is not the same as containing them. Inclusion undoes separation and without it, you are not someone definitive. Consequently, there is nobody to contain something.

Besides, there is not something to contain, when two sides of a contrast are included, because then they do not appear to be separated anymore. Thus they cannot be experienced as something specific.

The first rule of surviving as someone definitive in a world where there seems to be more than one is to exclude something. That is what turns you into someone definitive. Inclusion, on the other hand, does not turn you into anything at all.

Someone definitive is needed to include something – but nobody is needed to not perceive something.

To follow an idea is to separate, as it takes more than one to follow something. Therefore all ideas – whether so-called spiritual or mundane – must be ignored, if you want to have the belief in separation undone. Yet this is also an idea, and so are any one of the duality hacks except for the enlightenment of that which is one.

The duality hacks, however, are not based on the idea of exclusion but inclusion. Hence they do not enhance the belief in separation. They undo it, and without it, you do not appear to be someone definitive hiding there is no more than the formlessness of oneness.

The graphic is grabbed from the web.

What you want to hide from your personality, you exclude by projecting it onto others, so that you can be defined as better than them. The graphic is grabbed from the web.

PART 2:
Being exclusive you appear to be the opposite of what you exclude. If you exclude what you judge to be bad, for example, you appear to be good. In other words, you are defined by what you exclude. That is the way to be somebody in a world where there seems to be more than one.

The main reason for being exclusive is that being inclusive you will not appear to be entirely correct but also mistaken, and being mistaken must be avoided at any cost in order not to be reminded of your original mistake, namely to believe in separation.

To be inclusive instead of exclusive is not complicated at all but plain simply, as all you have to do is to not exclude. If you, however, are not aware of how you continuously exclude something judged to be bad in order to make others appear as wrong and you as right, you cannot choose not to exclude and thus stop the glorification of separation.

You do not become nobody by excluding what makes you appear to be someone specific but by including it. When everything definable is included there is nothing excluded to define you as someone specific.

But when you realise that being someone definitive in a world in a world where there seems to be more than one does not have a happy ending no matter how much you exclude in order to become better, you know choosing to be exclusive is not in your own best interest and so you are ready to stop it. As that means you are all-inclusive, there is nobody but you. You are alone together with the experience of a world where there seems to be more than one.

When nothing is excluded there is no feeling of being something, neither of being alone or anything else, as there is no more than the formlessness of oneness, and it takes more than one to be something.

It does not seem to hide that which is one anymore though because it is no different from that the oneness of that which is you.


NOTE: This article is part of hack #3.1 Every moment is the perfect moment.