tsuki

@now is forever I am the one that judges the situation to be not judged fairly. I am the one that makes the behavior unfair by saying something. Situations always inter-are. They are not only what happens, but also what is being perceived. It is neither wrong, nor right to act. It is inevitable and choice is an illusion of the monkey-chatter. Aggression is action fueled by suffering. To successfully retaliate is to store your suffering somewhere else. When I'm mindful of other people's suffering when they are aggressive, I hear the screams as a plea for mercy. They cry for mercy a lot in my workplace. Listening to it and watching the suffering is all I can do for them. My particular problem was a bit strange because I got angry because I was blamed for something false. I am long past the point in which I believe that anybody can be blamed for anything and it simply makes me angry because of sheer stupidity of it. Because of that, I retaliated and blamed my manager for blaming me. I feel so stupid . I've seen it before. The former CEO used to erupt very frequently and the whole company was nuts. Thankfully, he retired and with only the manager left - it got better. Actually, it was! I kinda felt like a superhero and my relationship with the manager had improved for some strange reason. He seems to respect me better now. That, or I respect myself and simply not notice his fits. That's actually good advice. Too bad that it always has to be me that handles other people and has to behave sensibly... I wish that people would take care of their own suffering and defuse it.

Thank you . Kind of. I think that the lack of responses was the best response that could have happened. Many things happened over the past three weeks and I'm not sure what is a cause and what is an effect (and what's even the difference). What I do know however that I can notice that I'm much more decisive. It may be the case that I associate the buildup of energy with anger, and anger with something unpleasant. Going through such eruptions may be necessary so that I acquaint myself with myself a little more. Having experience with emotions that I fear is very valuable to me.

@YaMayka Authenticity is not something you do. You are what authenticity does. You cannot be inauthentic. Even if 'the current moment is clouded by feelings', it is clouded right now. You cannot deviate from the present moment even if you are lost in thoughts about tomorrow, or about other people's reception of your dance. There is no 'you' that is constant throughout the day. The dancer that dances alone is not the same dancer that is shy in the crowd. They both do what they do because they are who they are now. Edit: I realize that I sound as if I preached some truth to you, but I don't. I'm simply stating my experience.

@YaMayka Like I said: authenticity is not about your relationship to the public, but to the present moment. Your dancer is just shy and authenticity, or lack thereof has little to do with it in my opinion.

@YaMayka Authenticity is not about being open 100% with other people and letting them know everything you think. That's naivety. Authenticity is about being present to what you experience and reacting to that. Inauthenticity on the other hand, is trying to reconcile your pre-conceived expectations, or past experiences with the present moment. The road from the latter to the former does not lead through any path in particular, because if such path existed and could be explained, then it would be, by definition, inauthentic. It leads through realization that you cannot, in fact, ever be inauthentic.

Mostly google apps: Google keep is the most frequently used for to-do lists that are active for around a week or so. I usually collaborate on those. Google calendar with events that come up that I need to be notified about. I sometimes send out invitations for events. Google photos is my gallery. Forrest for productivity as @moon777light mentioned. I think that more advanced apps with a lot of functionality are generally not worth the effort to learn. I used to use tasker for automatic SMS responses for missed calls, but nowadays I have not much use for it. Social media are facebook and instagram, but I very rarely use them. Reddit is my time sink.

@deci belle Usually, if I have that sort of feeling is when I try to express something and I can't. Then, I say that it's on the tip of my tongue. Now, with your posts - I kind of feel like that, but they are on the tip of my ear. I understand what you're saying, but not quite. They resonate with me, but I can't understand how and I usually don't have any sensible questions to ask (it may very well be the case this time as well). I think that it would help if you said something more about potential and how it relates to inevitability of how situations unfold. Is potential karmic (cyclic)? Is not-doing related to surrendering? I think that the greatest difficulty in communicating with you stems from your rigorous use of terms that you never explain in 'ordinary' language. I understand that nothing can ever be defined, but your words do not bring clarity to me. They are more like an invitation?

Read about shadow work.

@luckieluuke From within non-dual perspective, there is no such thing as science and your question is absurd. Self-inquiry is a technique that breaks paradigms and lets you see the world without them. Science is not going to be broken down because of scientific inquiry into material reality. Science is the scientific method by which you look at the material reality. You are never going to find what science is, if you are looking with the eye of a scientist. That is because a scientist looks at what can be scientifically observed. Paradigms are self-sustaining because of ignorance to assumptions that choose what can be observed. It's a self-referential cycle that locks one into captivity. There is no need to destroy science if it is used as a perspective to solve specific problems. Self-inquiry from the point of view of science is done to shake it off from the throne of a top-level perspective that everything is reduced into. Science is not self-justifiable. Using science is very unscientific, because the scientific method has not been proven by science. What you consider evidence is predicated on your unquestioned assumptions that define your worldview. Following it is tail-chasing and will get you nowhere. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. I had an intense day.

@now is forever Hi!

@NoSelfSelf To suffer because of meaninglessness is to find the meaning itself meaningful.

@luckieluuke In my opinion, science is not doing any enlightenment work. Self-inquiry is done by applying a method to its own definition. Science would have to ask: "what is science?" and try to scientifically answer that question by constructing experiments, synthesizing data on various sciences, etc. The way in which science is defined makes this question nonsensical/paradoxical I'm not dismissive of science, as I earn money by solving problems in the scientific framework. It is a useful and a very well-developed perspective, but it does not have all of the answers.

@7thLetter Because they feel belittled by Leo and his work.

@Preetom Yeah, I get it. It's just imagination. @Barry J Not disappointed at all.

While both are non-egoic. I like to imagine that after non-dual realization of no self, there will be another, higher-order ego that will eventually emerge. From that point of view, we would look like cavemen .

No, you just got 'high functioning' ass-backwards and that's what is keeping you egoic.

By becoming ignorant to fear. Ignorance is the other face of wisdom. The path out of the mind is simple - just pick something and stick to it despite all the egoic emotions that arise. "The fool that is consistent in his folly will have become wise" You can find inspiration on this particular path from Lao Tzu's story.

@SFRL Live off it minimally for as long as I can and make self-transcendence my full-time pursuit. Upon death: pass it along in a sensible way.

@How to be wise Well, the question is: do you believe the theory you just created yourself? If you don't, then what's the point of sharing it? There is a vast difference between unconscious and conscious absence of the mind. There is a difference between a Zen master and a newborn baby. There is a difference between transcendence of the mind and not having any in the first place.

@MM1988 Because you won't die. The pure observer that sees 'through' a person (and its suffering) lacks any qualities, it is literally nothing. When you see 'other people', you may assume that they have 'another instance' of this pure observer that has no qualities, but this is just an assumption. The pure witness has no qualities and therefore it cannot be numbered. It is singular and absolute. You are literally 'other people'. Even if this person you call 'you' will die peacefully, you will be reborn and experience this suffering again. The only way out is to dissolve the difference between suffering and peace and pass it along to other beings.

@Leo Gura Does this influence your stance towards Peterson in any way?

@SgtPepper It's not about information on psylocybin, but on Peterson's stance towards it. Related video that I found:

@Serotoninluv I think that you listened too much to your image of who Peterson is, and too little to what he actually said in the video. What about the rest of the talk in which he seemed genuinely impressed by the results of the study? I'm not a Peterson fanboy, but I'm definitely a fan of not bashing him for something he's not guilty of.