Princess Arabia

Don't agree but we're entitled to our differences of opinions. When I substitute different things, words or circumstances in each case, I can't seem to find the similarities. Example, if I have a bias of preferring oranges to apples, it doesn't mean I don't like apples, it just means I prefer oranges. If I prefer black men to white men because of a bias towards white men because of an experience I had, it doesn't mean I dislike white men or think black men are superior to white men. I could even think white men are superior but dislike them for that and that's my bias to why I prefer black men. One cannot be racist towards an orange or an apple but they can a bias towards either. Racism only applies to race and that's why I am showing the differences. An Italian woman doing something to make you dislike Italian women on a whole, or even substituting white for Italian, doesn't make one a racist but biased because that's not comparing another race to another. If there were only Italians that existed in the whole world, no one could be racist whatsoever but they could still have biases and preferences. So, to me they are not the same thing.

What you have described, imo, is biases not racism. A bias now towards Italians and Psychiatrists. By definition, racism is the belief that a race is superior to another not the likes or dislikes of it.

No seeking is also a form of seeking. There's no point in seeking and there's no point in not seeking. Freedom cannot be escaped; it is all there is. Seeking is a concept, and non-duality cannot be applied. If one feels relief from not seeking, that is just a function of the seeking energy. If one says they'll keep seeking because it's all bullshit to not seek, no one is doing that but the seeking energy. It's energy. Seeking energy can be nothing other than a seeking energy. It cannot stop seeking because then it wouldn't be there to stop itself from being itself. I don't mean seeking for a lost purse, i mean seeking for things pertaining to spirituality. Seeking for a purse is still seeking it's just the content is supposedly or seemingly different. Stopping the seeking for a purse that was never found still implies that the seeking energy stopped the seeking of the purse, not that the energy is no longer there. If an orange turns up missing and seeking arises again, that's the seeking energy appearing to rise again. No one is seeking for the orange, seeking is what's happening. If someone decides to not seek for enlightenment, no one is doing that, it's merely the still apparent seeking energy appearing to not seek for enlightenment. That's what not seeking means by that's still seeking. There's no one to even know they're not seeking anymore because knowing is also the seeking energy appearing as knowing. There's not actually anyone seeking to begin with and no one knows this. You can analyze, think through, dissect and rationalize and analyze all you want, there's no escaping the seeking energy because it's the same as knowing. A baby isn't seeking but there's no one there to know that. When it cries for food, that's the body's response to hunger and not the baby knowing it's hungry. Man's dilemma is the tree of knowledge. That's where the eating of the apple from the tree of knowledge came from. Good thing is it never really happened and is just a story just as everything else written or told including this post.

The Absolute cannot be seen. It is the seeing itself. The sense of self is illusory and isn't really there so it cannot really dissolve but recognized that it never really happened. That recognition will still be the Absolute appearing as recognizing that. There can be an understanding of the Absolute through the Absolute and a relaxing of the energy structure, but nothing is really seen through because seeing implies someone to see through. It's still the Absolute appearing as "seen through" and "understanding". None of it really means anything because nothing is separate, they are only appearances and like a movie screen with all the appearances happening on the screen which isn't separate from what appears on it. What is seeing through all that; nothing can because it is all one happening. Me talking to you, you talking to breakinthewall, me typing, you typing, all happening in one timeless, spaceless movement.

I re-read your initial comment and you're right, we're speaking of two different things. You did say "flare us the wrong way" And I read and interpreted it as shine the wrong way. So now, I get your point and it has been taken and understood.

You're still explaining what the sun's shining can result in. The solar flares is not the sun itself. The damages it caused is not the sun itself. All the sun can do is shine; the results of that shining is a separate issue from the sun being the sun and it's essence.

Some people are seeking enlightenment but don't even know what enlightenment is. They can probably tell you what it's not but not what it is. Pretty insane to me to be seeking something and not know what you're seeking. Can you learn how to become a teacher from something or someone that doesn't know how to teach. How can a book, a mantra or practice make you enlightened if that thing doesn't know how to become enlightened. I can read a book on how to become a teacher, the book isn't telling me how, the author is by telling me with words using the book. The author knows. I have to do the processing of the words. I have to understand what's being said. How can something tell or show you how to become enlightened without you processing the information. There are lots of things involved in this process. How will you know when you've reached enlightenment. That's also a processing that has to happen. You know you can teach once you've processed that information that you know you can teach. A person who hasn't taught before can still know they can teach because of other competencies. Knowing you're enlightened still requires processes and knowing. If one is enlightened but doesn't know it, since it's not considered as a process, who is there to know it if they don't know. If you know, then it required a process and someone has to be there to process that knowing to know. You cannot 'unknow' something and knowing is separation. If you know you're enlightened, you're only enlightened to the notion of being enlightened. Can't be both. If you're a teacher, you are first and a teacher second. That's two. You are/I am enlightened is separation there's nothing separate. I am a teacher is not the I AM. I am enlightened is not the I AM. Maybe all I'm saying here is a bag of crap anyway and a bunch of nonsense, but I just was writing from thoughts and what I believe is the case. I don't know shit.

The sun isn't man-made and cannot be anything other than the sun and do anything other than shine.

No need to be funny in a picture for dating. It's received differently than in person. Dating site pics are shown to everyone and doesn't have the same "funny" impact it would to a female that loves it when a guy is funny. Being funny in person, doesn't come off as an act, if done authentically, pictures do. Females don't respond to general acts, they respond to acts mostly directed at them, that's why a woman can marry or date an axe murderer because she doesn't view him as that because he wasn't trying to axe or murder her personally. (Exaggeration there, but you get the analogy), could be as simple as a player, he didn't play me.

Scary!!!

👍

Did you become the forum to understand how to use it. I'm sure the racist down the street didn't need to do existential and epistemic work to become racist. Seeing something as being stupid doesn't mean one doesn't take it seriously; maybe seriously stupid. God can also be stupidly racist.

It is all and none of that. It is all and none of that. It's not a source, it is all of that. There is nothing or no one reading this page it is the very words, page, reading and presumed seeking. Infinity isn't seeing anything. Infinity is seeing itself... There is not a 'you' for the Universe to be inside of. Infact there is no Universe only appears to be. It is all and none of that. Infinity is not beyond anything, it is everything and nothing. That's duality and there's no 'that'. Sorry for the dissections and it really makes no difference since that's Infinity too, just felt like breaking your balls.

potato, potaaato.

Start with the self. What OP explained was something he took personal. Maybe start to see that no one owes you anything and that people are in our lives impermanently and to not be owned. When we get attached to our experiences and see them as what we want the outcome to be, that's when internal conflict arises. Do something about the way we see the things that passes through our lives. Don't get attached especially to strange people we've met for only a short period of time. The man speaks about a stranger like that he barely knows, not his wife or gf and has expectations so soon. Thatls the issue. He was in it for himself and couldn't relish the moment for what it was. That's the problem. Not ruthless women, but ruthless expectations.

I'm so tired of hearing this gender-related kind of remark suggesting that I can't understand because I'm a woman. What you're failing to see is that it is being directed at a specific gender, my gender so I can, and have the capacity to understand. It goes both ways and I can definitely relate because the hammer that hits the foot is just as related to the foot it hits - without being or taking it personally.

This thread will demonstrate for itself what I'm trying to relate in the OP. There will be different responses, different meanings applied, different interpretations, which is already happening, and different feelings felt that will align with the responses given. Did I generate those feelings in each and every one of those individuals with those feelings related to the responses. There is one thread starter with many different responses and comments and the thread will evoke many different feelings in each person. Some may get upset, some may agree, some may be neutral, some angry, some understanding.....whatever. Each will be a result of how the thread was interpreted.

Yes, I think I'm being misunderstood thinking I'm suggesting to not feel hurt or that one needs to take responsibility for other's words or actions or that it's your fault for feeling hurt. That's why I try to put in examples and lengthy explanations so it's better understood what I'm saying.

I specifically mentioned that I was speaking about mental abuse, and mental pain. Whether there isn't an existential difference or not is not the issue at hand that's really being discussed.

Yes, I agree but this doesn't take away from the purpose of the post. You have put your own meaning to what I was trying to communicate and it's purpose and gave your own meaning to it. Not to undermine your statements because you have a point, but your comments have also shown how interpretations can bring about feelings that were generated from within. Someone else might see the post from a different perspective, feel differently and therefore respond in a way more aligned with those feelings. Neither is right or wrong. This just, to me, illustrates what the post is saying, not to say one needs to take responsibility for anything.

Someone smacking me with a broomstick and i feel the pain from that I doubt is the Universe trying to make me conscious if the truth that I need to come back to alignment with. That's just going to be felt by the body. There's no existential difference between physical and mental pain; but as the post is in the self-improvement section, it's more about the practicality of it. You're right and i explained this in a response I made to Sugarcoat earlier that it's difficult for a child to even understand this. My post is not a suggestion to bypass the feelings and that one should own and be responsible for their feelings but one of awareness on trying to explain how no one can actually make you feel a feeling. I believe that when this is understood other destructive feelings can be kept at bay when dealing with the situation at hand.

This is a very delicate subject because kids process things differently than adults and have a harder time seeing through the reality of the situation. That's why there's so many trauma responses and memories of childhood abuse that's so hard to get rid of or not affect one in adulthood. What I'm saying isn't easy for a child to understand. A child isn't processing the fact that they have no problems with how they look so I'm not going to feel hurt. Not even an adult will process that in the immediacy of what's occurring. I still have a time period where I have to consciously process it. I made the post for awareness of the notion that people hurt you in the hopes that us adults can see how hurt is felt and to not let the poisonous remnants like i mentioned linger on and on and flood into other areas of our lives. I still see how people are saying such and such hurt me from things that happened a long time ago and maybe if this information is understood, those statements will be eradicated from one's vocabulary and better relations may be formed with oneself and others.

I would say 80%. The other 20% is the processing time it takes to really integrate it because of who the person was. An example is my brother and I had a little quarrel the other day and he said somethings I didn't like. I felt the emotions right away, but 5mins or so later I gave myself the time to process the feelings and then allowed for them to transform. Not by force but by allowing the energy to flow freely and by also incorporating thoughts that made for a better feeling. Feelings of relief. Example, he's been hurt himself, he feels frustrated by whatever, i'm feeling this way because of disappointment etc. Within no time, feelings of apathy took over my relationship to the encounter and i felt normal again. He called the next day and he explained why he blew off the handle, I listened with no judgements and the conversation ended with him and i back on good terms. I have many more stories to illustrate my integration, but that was the most recent. It's not a mental trick but what's actually the case. The actual case also is that one feels badly, but as I said in my post, it was a matter of interpretation and not the words itself. The difference I'm trying to point to is going around saying that so and so hurt me is way more poisonous than the recognition that the hurt came from you and your thoughts and interpretations and may result in one feeling less and less hurt if processed correctly.

Nice, but to me, this is still an avoidance to recognize that even if one feels hurt by another, it wasn't the person that did that. It's not really about standing your ground, but to see through it and recognize how hurt feelings are generated - through interpretation which no one can do for you and you're solely responsible for. It's not to say you won't feel hurt by them, but maybe other feelings like say resentment, hate or detest won't emerge also. One may only feel hurt in the moment and the feeling passes though easier and quicker because they realize what happened without it's remnants like hate, fear and resentment because of that hurt. Hope that was clear.

Someone told you that and it's not the actual experience of the actual situation. People who have been friends before can certainly get together romantically later on. Infact, a lot of women have been in this situation. Guys are the ones that introduced that concept and has nothing to do with the relationship's outcome.