tsuki

@MrDmitriiV Thank you and good bye. You are not trying to understand why I called you a racist. What you are doing is asking me to show you how your behavior matches your definition of a racist. These are not the same thing and I guess this is why we're having this discussion. To me, a racist is not even an insult (like @Zweistein noticed when picking my response apart). You are assuming that when a speeding car rushes towards you, you have the liberty to stay or to go. You don't. It seems like you think you have control over your life which comes from your identification with your mind. What I am suggesting is to inquire into its nature so that you could actually notice that this very discussion is the speeding car you can't help to argue with. That would require from you to abandon the position of: which is understandably difficult as I am not willing to let go of this very desire myself. It was based on logical conclusions that stem from my definition of racism. You are mistakenly thinking that your definition of a racist is any less metaphorical than mine. You seem to be assuming that some definitions are more precise than others simply because they are widely accepted. That is correct only in so far as you do not question the constituent meanings of the words that define them. Floating on the surface of 'hard facts', 'science' and 'objectivity' is fun. What I would ask you to contemplate is: why is it logical to use logic? In case you come to a conclusion that it is illogical to use logic, then it would be interesting to rethink the sentence I underlined in the quote above. Like I said: fire and ice mix very well.

Once one is aware - one can choose to surrender or resist. Once one realizes that one has a choice, one can also question whether there is a difference between the two. They seem to be paradox at first, but through contemplating they can become one and the same "thing". Surrender vs. resistance becomes surrender = resistance. (I learned that from @tsuki - Thank you!!!!). @Zweistein What is the difference between love and hate?

@MrDmitriiV I think that the meaning of the metaphor of the racist is lost on you. It's okay, you're just a 7-year old. If you ever wanted to know what I meant go back to my post where I explained it and read it carefully. It's all there. It is also linked to @Zweistein's questions about self-reflection: Let me repeat my question @Zweistein: is there anything wrong with fighting? Is there anything wrong with not wanting to see something as our own projection and emotionally defending it?

Oh, so I should instead respond with: I called you a racist because you fit my definition of a racist? Would that satisfy your inner 7 year old? Is there anything wrong with fighting? It's a naked tea party after all.

I think that the only appropriate dress code here is nakedness I think that all four of us are doing a wonderful job at that.

Yes. The other questions you asked are not as simple as this one. Racist is a metaphor (just like not wiping your feet). You are thinking in labels. Adjectives have meaning to you. You think that me calling you racist has any other meaning than the one that you project on it. I am not racist. Beige, purple, blue, orange, green, yellow, turquoise - doesn't matter. To me, it does not matter whether you are a black, white, yellow or a nazi. It does not matter to me if you are racist. Meaningfully calling people racist is what a racist does. I do not speak to you. There is no 'me' other than the one that you understand from this post. Whatever you think about me is not about me at all. You are supposed to read what you think about me and resolve that. The question: Was not a question about factual statistics of people being yellow. Nobody cares. It was a question that was supposed to nudge you into self-reflection and critiquing spiral dynamics. We are not building knowledge here. We are understanding how our knowledge is fundamentally limiting us. Read my signature. And wipe your feet!

What @now is forever says makes perfect sense to me. And don't you bully her. That's my job. You're not bullying her.

@sleeperstakes Interactions with others are a problem only when you actually believe that you are making progress with your self-development. Making progress with self-development is like trying to outrun others in a row of treadmills in the gym. Nobody can help you with your self-development. If you understand that, then there is no reason to talk about it. If you still want to talk about it, then it means that you don't have anything to talk about besides self-development. If that is the case, then you probably should think whether you should be talking at all. Is the silence making you uncomfortable? Or is it that you're projecting your uncomfortability onto others and justifying your need for conversation? Stop watching the news and learn them from 'normal people'. Stop watching weather and enjoy the weather talks.

Enemies are just teachers that we're not willing to listen to. The more they hurt us, the more valuable their lessons are.

@now is forever It's the hairdresser's studio that I'm fond of. For some reason I have always been fascinated with the mirror-tunnel and I noticed it immediately. When I notice the thought-pattern of infinite strangeloop I immediately recognize that it's just me mistaking my reflection for another person . When you mistake the mirror for a door, you may get upset that the other person is not letting you through . @MrDmitriiV Ice and fire mix very well. Did you at least bring some biscuits for the tea?

Yes

@Torkys The only spirituality we experience is our personal understanding of it. I know nothing about 'all of spirituality'. What I was saying is that trying to stop desire=suffering is pointless. Upon reflecting on my response, I think it would be much better if I remained silent, as I am going directly against the flow of this forum. Why would I even come here to write such nonsense? This place is founded on this assumption. Sorry for bothering you.

@Torkys So, you've realized that desire is the other face of resistance. Have you realized that 'inner work' is just a fancy name for 'resisting resistance'? Or that it is the same as 'desiring to not desire'? Ego backlash is just a fancy spiritual term for change. Once you are on top, the only way is down.

@Zweistein You're back! Too bad that I'm gone now . I really enjoyed our deep conversation in the other thread. It was a goldmine. Is there a difference between our thoughts and 'other people'?

Are you=I=we ready to watch the ego build and tear itself down with equanimity? Are you=I=we ready to admit that the ego is not a wound to be healed? Do we watch other people, or do we watch our thoughts about them? Do others think about us, or do we think about them thinking about us? I=you=we=us=them=others Just two mirrors facing each other.

@Privet Oh, thank you for your concern. The funniest thing is that I intended the same thing for you with my response. My answer was not conceptual. I guess that the key 'problem' with any discussion is the unwarranted feeling that we all are Rinzai zen masters, trying to send each other out to meditate more. Monks in the monastery however understand their position as a student and anticipate a koan from a master. Perhaps I should listen to your questions as a student then, so that we can understand each other. Desire is just the other face of suffering. Nothing else for me to see.

@Privet ? What's up with the video?

@Privet Too many profound questions in one post that I can answer in a short reply. I will get into that later on today. For now - everything is a thought. Thoughts are not somewhere behind your eyes in the colorless space. There is no such place. Thoughts are 'out there', intertwined with everyday objects. I usually call them obviousness. As you look at the screen, it is obvious that the screen is a screen. The Narrator does not have to say in the inner voice 'screen'. The screen is, what it is. Same for your fingers and the effortless movement of your eyeballs as you read this text. What are thoughts made of? Meaningful duality that is mindlessly resolved by choosing either A or B.

If I understand your question correctly: a problem is when expectations are not met by the given circumstances. The mind is, of course, responsible for both setting up expectations and interpreting circumstances. All problems can be permanently solved by working with the mind alone. That doesn't mean that we will then be a constant sloppy mess of a person. On the contrary. Calm mind is much better at observation and adaptation.

@Privet @robdl Would it be a stretch to call the do-nothing 'technique' simply making space for the realization to occur? Getting used to the idle workings of the mind so that we do not mistake it for reality. In this sense, meditation is a trap for the meaning-seeking mind. When you 'get it', there is no point to it, but when you 'don't get it' you want to meditate to solve your problem with the mind. The absurdity of this situation comes from the question: who is the one that sees the problem? The mind sees itself as a problem, and yet - proceeds to select a method, or a teacher, to solve itself. Why would the problematic mind trust itself with the important task of solving itself? lol Isn't that the whole point of it? To stop the mind from solving problems it invents itself?

@CreamCat There is only one ego in existence.

Memories (past) are just fantasies that you call real. Plans (future) are just fantasies that you call possible.

@SoonHei That is a very good analogy. When you think in terms of relativity of motion - who is moving? Are you moving, or is your friend moving? Or is it perhaps that motion and stillness are just a result of perspective? That they are in fact the same thing from within your analogy? Given your excellent analogy with a train, why is it that consciousness is something that does not move at all? Isn't it that motion and stillness are just a result of a perspective? What if you can observe consciousness by yourself simply by recognizing its constant, never-changing movement? Your signature is also an excellent reference point for this discussion. If we return to past and future, can it possibly be that these two things are actually one thing from a certain perspective?