tsuki

@SOUL I will not argue definitions, as I see no point in it. I may very well use the word adopt in your sense - to make something my own. In this sense I mean that I not merely accept something as possible, or conceptualize it, but to live it. To change myself in a way that me, and what I see as opposite are seen from a certain perspective as one. Not to discard any. It is not a simple act of being aware that brings me to equanimity. It's the adopting. Once you break yourself enough times, you don't care to grow back into something rigid. Only if I take him seriously ;). But to be serious, I think that this is pretty much the point of intellectual openness - to see, that any knowledge is inherently self-contradictory. This contradiction you're showing me is the truth staring right into my face - I don't need to internalize it. I already know it. @Nahm Then, perhaps I'm not the person this video is addressed to (even though I learned something from it). I was simply curious that there is something I'm missing that could use explanation. Perhaps, @Leo Gura did not intend to bring this paradox I'm seeing out.

Martin Heidegger's "Being and Time". While reading it and trying to make sense of it, I was unknowingly doing the Neti-Neti method for months. When it hits me, I was out for two weeks.

I'm having trouble expressing my thoughts, as English is not my native language and because I have recently lost the ability to speak with confidence about what's true and what is not. What I definitely want to say is that I'm grateful that you took my words seriously. @deci belle Your post made me realize that the two problems(?) I was mentioning are linked, which I will use to explain my original statement more clearly. The distinction between "the mind" and "me" is made to contrast two modes of being. One of the modes of being, called the mind, is one that contrasts things against each other. It operates in a self-reifying way, by calling things truth, or lie. Good, or bad. True, or false. It contrasts and picks sides. What gets me is the fact that calling "Me" real and "the mind" false is contrasting and picking sides. There is no "Me" without "the mind", as the first is achieved only by the virtue of emptying the other. It is no more real, better, worse than the other. What the mind does is not a lie any more than the truth. The fact that you have seen the "Reality" by becoming "Me" does not mean that it is any more true than what you see as "The mind". Saying that it is in any way better more real is contrasting and picking sides, which is what "the mind" does. When you are "The mind", there is no "Me". The world is, what it is, always. And it has always been. "Me" has no words - it cannot speak, or think. Language itself is what thoughts are made of, and language is slicing reality into chunks and referring them to every other chunk it knows. @SOUL Actually, I do. In the light of what I said to @deci belle, what "the mind" does not accept, is exactly what needs to be accepted in order to arrive at the "Me". "Me" is the tautology in the logical space. Things I feel strongly about are precisely the ones I need to adopt (learn).