Love this! The spaces, the restraint. The chicken or egg questions are endlessly fascinating to me but I usually arrive at the conclusion, does it matter? Either way you end up in the same place haha.
You don’t argue whether sin or love came first, you let them circle each other like day and night, each revealing the contour of the other. That feels deeply aligned with a non-dual seeing: not morality as a ladder, but experience as a field where even fracture becomes instruction.
What lingers most is your movement from ache to intimacy, not as redemption, but as recognition. The kiss at the nape, the softening distance… it isn’t dramatic, it’s inevitable. As if love was never absent, only waiting for the illusion of separation to thin enough to be felt.
And then that turn; away from Hollywood’s spectacle toward something more self-lit:
“a self-love finger up / me and me / loving you”,
it lands like a quiet thesis. Not rebellion, not indulgence, but sufficiency. A fullness that doesn’t grasp.
It also stirred something for me around sin as seen through an Advaita lens, the idea that what we call “sin” may simply be misperception, a forgetting of wholeness. Who knows, I may have already wandered into writing something of my own along this very question.
The closing lines widen the frame beautifully. Sin and love not as opposites, but as seasons of the same earth: necessary, cyclical, indivisible. There’s a maturity in allowing even “sin” to belong, without glorifying it, without exiling it.
If anything, I might only wonder: could you trust the ending to be even more spacious? You already arrive at infinity, perhaps a touch less naming, a breath more silence, would let the reader dissolve with you rather than conclude.
But the pulse is true. This feels lived, not constructed.
Hi Dipti, just wow……can we have dinner and talk for days? 🤣💛. So much resonates in your words in a way that corroborates the ‘inbetween’ or the unspoken in the poetry - what a compliment to think this energy was conveyed. I agree on the non-dual reference my personal view that entanglement does negate any argument of one for the other. Even in more modern terms stoicism would reduce any rating of one over the other for an acceptance of veritable truths and outcomes amidst both frames.
‘It also stirred something for me around sin as seen through an Advaita lens, the idea that what we call “sin” may simply be misperception, a forgetting of wholeness. Who knows, I may have already wandered into writing something of my own along this very question’. Please do write something on this.
And absolutely for the ‘cracks are where the light gets in’ the embodied undoubtedly something beyond the liminality of good and bad, both above beneath and all around.
And within this if we take a cognitive lens like that of rational psychology that asks where is the evidence that we must be ‘good’ that we must not ‘sin’. Certainly we can endeavour and have preference for such but no rule or power exists and therefore how can we rate its power or influence.
Thankyou for taking the time to engage in our work and incite so much beautiful curiosity around all of it. 🙏
I’m thrilled that the energy resonated so deeply. You’ve articulated the inbetween with such precision. Your reflections on entanglement and stoicism expand it further, showing how experience itself can hold contradictions without needing hierarchy. I’ll take that as encouragement to explore my own wandering around sin through an Advaita lens, the idea that what the Abrahamic faiths call “sin” may simply be misperception, a forgetting of wholeness. The cracks and the light, the liminal spaces beyond good and bad, keep calling me back; there’s a quiet gravity there that feels almost alive, insisting on being noticed rather than resolved.
A lovely reading Dipti and following arc of both pieces beautifully.
For this piece, I feel the resolution is fine, as it’s not really resolution in its truest sense. It’s the cyclical nature of sin and love and the balance between them that keeps the energy alive.
Thank you for such a warm and indepth reflection on the piece. 😊
Ah, the chicken-and-egg question, haha. Truly, you two did well. In the end, love wins.
Hahah - Yes!
Love wins, with a little bit of sin floating in the wind 😄
Of course. How else? :D
I love this. The first one feels soft and true… I can relate.
And the second flips it completely, like fuck it, but somehow it finds its way back in anyway.
Also, I’m glad I’ve had the chance to get to know you both. ✨
Thank you so much nina.
It was really interesting to see which directions we both took, yet they both end up at the same conclusions.
Really glad to get to you too. 😊
Ohhh, I completely missed this—congratulations to you both! Your writing blends so seamlessly together. Intriguing.
Thank you Be!
That finger circling the top of the mug like a question worn smooth, oh~ There it is~
Just there Asuka ~! 😊
Love this! The spaces, the restraint. The chicken or egg questions are endlessly fascinating to me but I usually arrive at the conclusion, does it matter? Either way you end up in the same place haha.
Thanks Kate!
I love the journey we both took separately to arrive there, at the same place. Was a fun, and quick morning write!
You don’t argue whether sin or love came first, you let them circle each other like day and night, each revealing the contour of the other. That feels deeply aligned with a non-dual seeing: not morality as a ladder, but experience as a field where even fracture becomes instruction.
What lingers most is your movement from ache to intimacy, not as redemption, but as recognition. The kiss at the nape, the softening distance… it isn’t dramatic, it’s inevitable. As if love was never absent, only waiting for the illusion of separation to thin enough to be felt.
And then that turn; away from Hollywood’s spectacle toward something more self-lit:
“a self-love finger up / me and me / loving you”,
it lands like a quiet thesis. Not rebellion, not indulgence, but sufficiency. A fullness that doesn’t grasp.
It also stirred something for me around sin as seen through an Advaita lens, the idea that what we call “sin” may simply be misperception, a forgetting of wholeness. Who knows, I may have already wandered into writing something of my own along this very question.
The closing lines widen the frame beautifully. Sin and love not as opposites, but as seasons of the same earth: necessary, cyclical, indivisible. There’s a maturity in allowing even “sin” to belong, without glorifying it, without exiling it.
If anything, I might only wonder: could you trust the ending to be even more spacious? You already arrive at infinity, perhaps a touch less naming, a breath more silence, would let the reader dissolve with you rather than conclude.
But the pulse is true. This feels lived, not constructed.
Hi Dipti, just wow……can we have dinner and talk for days? 🤣💛. So much resonates in your words in a way that corroborates the ‘inbetween’ or the unspoken in the poetry - what a compliment to think this energy was conveyed. I agree on the non-dual reference my personal view that entanglement does negate any argument of one for the other. Even in more modern terms stoicism would reduce any rating of one over the other for an acceptance of veritable truths and outcomes amidst both frames.
‘It also stirred something for me around sin as seen through an Advaita lens, the idea that what we call “sin” may simply be misperception, a forgetting of wholeness. Who knows, I may have already wandered into writing something of my own along this very question’. Please do write something on this.
And absolutely for the ‘cracks are where the light gets in’ the embodied undoubtedly something beyond the liminality of good and bad, both above beneath and all around.
And within this if we take a cognitive lens like that of rational psychology that asks where is the evidence that we must be ‘good’ that we must not ‘sin’. Certainly we can endeavour and have preference for such but no rule or power exists and therefore how can we rate its power or influence.
Thankyou for taking the time to engage in our work and incite so much beautiful curiosity around all of it. 🙏
I’m thrilled that the energy resonated so deeply. You’ve articulated the inbetween with such precision. Your reflections on entanglement and stoicism expand it further, showing how experience itself can hold contradictions without needing hierarchy. I’ll take that as encouragement to explore my own wandering around sin through an Advaita lens, the idea that what the Abrahamic faiths call “sin” may simply be misperception, a forgetting of wholeness. The cracks and the light, the liminal spaces beyond good and bad, keep calling me back; there’s a quiet gravity there that feels almost alive, insisting on being noticed rather than resolved.
A lovely reading Dipti and following arc of both pieces beautifully.
For this piece, I feel the resolution is fine, as it’s not really resolution in its truest sense. It’s the cyclical nature of sin and love and the balance between them that keeps the energy alive.
Thank you for such a warm and indepth reflection on the piece. 😊
Love this y’all!
Thanks Damien!
Absolutely.
😊
And if there was no such thing as "original sin?"
I think it’s possible there isn’t. A little discussion of such in the post comments too if you’re interested. 🙏
Maybe it was never about a sin. Love pic choice, very rebellious.
Oooohhh, spot on MoTy!
Thank you!
Omg, I loved this!! A must read
Thanks Pratishtha 😊
There’s something very honest here about love not being perfect, but still deeply alive. That touched me.
Thank you so much for sharing Diana, and you’re right — it isn’t and doesn’t need to be perfect. 💛