What I'm saying here, i'll try to frame as better as i can not to fall into the usual stereotype nonsense that divides us Brothers and Sisters. Not because We're stupid, just cause it hurts so much that the shortest path is often accepted as the most likely answer, as neurology discovered. The most comfortable resting point. Yet the path goes much further beyond that mere simplifiyng, and stopping there is tearing us all down. Tonight i was incredibly grateful to have this conversation peacefully, with one of the dearest friends i have. She's a great listener and supported my path like nobody ever did, listening, respecting, confirming, pushing me further, challenging and hugging me through most of it, even if the occasions to see or phone each other were very rare, even if my vision hurt her at times. We talked about this thing i am going to share, or better i rambled and she listened attentively, got really uncomfortable but very interested, concluding with "there's some truth in there, i'll think much about this". and i am really grateful. There is an unspoken divide between human females and human males. i've realized it is so rooted and it is so deeply unconscious that whenever it comes up knives are unsheated. Nobody wants to talk about that. Everyone gets uncomfortable. Yet it is Love. Deserved. Felt. Ungiven, denied or not shown. Therefore a shadow, and maybe one of the greatest. Both of us are doing our particular flavour of the fault that causes it, and sometimes discuss with friends or strangers of the same sex about the fault of the opposite sex, and most oftenly argue about this when it comes up with the opposite sex. Much more often never admitting our side's faults. My intuition tells me women usually go much more in depth with their closest friends, while men are usually more sarcastic and circle around it. You know... feelings... :P Basically: When we speak with a woman, say Romina, there comes a specific point when we project unto her all the injustice from all the females we have endured through life.

In order to become an adult, you have to learn to let go of the childhood you didn't get. You can't pick up adulthood if you're still holding on to whatever it was you missed as a kid. And you focus on this fault because healing is not about regaining something, it is about realising that what is lost is lost for good, and with that, you lose the hope of ever going back. That realisation frightens you, so you keep staring at the gap between what happened and what should have happened, hoping to close it somehow. But that fixation keeps you trapped in the past. Every decision you make is still an attempt to reconcile those two versions of your childhood. So now you live in a world you don't fully enjoy, because you adopted the mindset of that incomplete child trying to travel back in time and fix whatever wasn't right. How much easier would it be to simply accept that part of that was missed, instead of putting your adult development on hold to wait around for it? Because childhood is not a progress bar. It's not task-oriented. It ends with age. Whatever it was, is what it was supposed to be. It is not a new responsibility, something you have to go back and complete. It's done. You have to move away from this fault, because only then can you pick up who you are supposed to be as an adult.

I don't really buy the reincarnation thing, though it does mess with me that some people believe in past lives. What are some opposing views you have with reincarnation?

You don’t have a self, you have a habit. What you call “me” is repetition. The same thoughts, the same reactions, the same emotional patterns, over and over again. Repetition creates familiarity. Familiarity creates identity. And suddenly, a pattern feels like a person. You say, “That’s just who I am.” But if it were truly you, it wouldn’t change based on mood, environment, or memory. Most of what you defend is not you. It’s conditioning you’ve practiced long enough to believe. That’s why change feels hard. Not because it is hard, but because you’re trying to change what you’re still identifying with. There is a moment where you begin to see this clearly. Where you notice that thoughts come and go, emotions rise and fall, reactions appear and disappear. But something remains. Something that is aware of all of it. And that changes everything. Because you are no longer inside the pattern. You are the one noticing it. And from there, what felt fixed becomes flexible. What felt like you becomes something you can let go of.

As long as one assumes that God is something separate, something “out there”, one remains within separation. Prayer, devotion, asking for help or grace all presuppose this division. This statement is a worldview articulated centuries ago by Prakashananda Saraswati, an Indian philosopher and teacher who most likely lived in the 15th or early 16th century. I recently came across his perspective and spent some time engaging with it more deeply. I want to share a short overview here as a possible point of reflection. Prakashananda belonged to the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Unlike devotional or religious movements, this tradition is not concerned with belief systems, rituals, or the worship of a personal God. Its focus lies elsewhere, on the question of what is ultimately real. According to Prakashananda, there is only one reality. This reality is not a being, not a creator figure, not a higher entity standing apart from the world. In Indian philosophy it is often called Brahman, but the name is secondary. It can just as well be described as fundamental being, absolute consciousness, or the underlying principle from which everything arises. What matters is this: it is not separate from us. From this perspective, everything we normally call “the world” has no independent existence of its own. Bodies, thoughts, emotions, objects, nature, time and space all exist and function, but they do not stand on their own. They are appearances, expressions, or objectifications of this one underlying reality. The same applies to the human being. What we usually experience as “I”, personality, biography, thoughts, emotions, belongs to the level of appearance. The true self, according to Prakashananda, is not individual. It is identical with the reality that underlies everything. In classical terms this is expressed as Atman is Brahman. In simple language: what you are at your core is not separate from the foundation of the world. This is where the initial statement becomes clearer. If reality is one and undivided, then the idea of a God outside of oneself becomes problematic. As long as God is imagined as something external, something to be reached, approached, or addressed, separation is already assumed. Prayer, devotion, worship, and the hope for grace may offer emotional comfort or structure, but they operate entirely within this framework of division.