tsuki

@zoey101 I just read this thread and I feel heartbroken. You seem very lost within yourself. From what I understand, you have a burning desire for acceptance. That is extraordinary. It is not a flaw. It is a strength. All you want is for others to feel good in your company. This is why you want to conform. To be exactly like others want you to be. There is nothing wrong in doing that. It's admirable. Your will to please others is so deep that not only you want to please them, but you also want to please yourself. You want to feel good in your own company, just like everybody else. That is what self-love is. You have a past that you think would upset others. That is why you hold it as secret. There is nothing wrong with having secrets from people. All you want to do is not upset them. It's okay. The problem is that you cannot have secrets from yourself. Not because it is bad, but because it's impossible. You cannot feel good in your own company by keeping secrets from yourself. That is why you need to do something different than simply wanting acceptance. You have to accept. Acceptance is similar to pleasing others. It's practically the same thing, but seen from the other point of view. Can you locate this person that is evil within you, that you do not want to expose to others? All you have to do is to become a person that would make this 'evil' you feel good. Just the way like you do it with other people. You show them the nice you. Show the nice you to the evil you. Talk to her, like you want to be her friend. Don't be afraid of her and don't hate her. It is very important to get along with her, because you are in it together and forever. She will never leave your side. The point is to make her your friend, so that she doesn't have to work behind your back. Yes, she is working her thing all the time. It's not wrong, she has every right to do that. In fact, she has a great strength as well. She will do whatever it takes to survive. You need that. You have to get along with her, or else you are in for a tough ride. Just become a person that would make her feel good about being who she is. She will take care of you, like she takes care of herself. You just have to become her friend. That is what acceptance is from the point of view of pleasing.

@zoey101 It really is the best way you can describe it. You are both evil and good at the same time and there is no contradiction. The world is whatever it is. It doesn't introduce itself to you and describe itself so that you know it. The only way in which it speaks is through people (they are a part of it), or through you (your thoughts). The world by itself is blank like a Rorschach blot. You are a part of this world and you are just like that. Deadly innocent. Good and evil are words. They are no ordinary words in the sense that they are important. Whatever you call good is what you wish to be. If it exists, then you want it to remain that way. If it doesn't exist, then you want to change it. Whatever you call bad is what you wish to be gone. If it exists, then you want to change it. If it doesn't exist, then you want it to remain that way. Wanting/wishing is not an empty thought. It is a feeling. You are compelled to act. These words are used to share 'wanting' with other people. To test whether you want the same things. If you say that abortion is bad, I may (or may not) get upset. This is how you know that we can work together. What you are experiencing is the effect of your parents sharing their 'wanting' with you, by calling things good or bad in your childhood. Children are not aware of what these words do, so they do not understand what saying 'being fat is bad' means. Saying 'being fat is bad' is asking 'is being fat bad for you?' and expecting an emotional answer. A child may not know what is good and bad for it, but that is also a valid answer, as the world does not speak by itself. Parents that ignorantly call a child good or bad simply express their desperation. So, how to cope with your situation in which you see yourself as good and bad at the same time? There is no need to. You are starting to see the world as it is. It is a Rorschach blot. It is blank, empty, Śūnyatā. You are getting wiser. Now start seeing everything like that. Other people as well.

@Viking I described something similar in this thread: Can you relate?

@Lynnel Given the background you presented, my advice is simple: start meditating. You are saying that you have no emotions. That's not true. The only way to experience the world without them is to simply not notice them. That happens because the paradigm of practicality you inhabit judges them as impractical. Meditation will help you see them, and contemplation about the use of emotions will stop you from rejecting them. Think of emotions as effortless thoughts that arise in response to transgression of your value system. The problem with them arises if your conscious values are constructed without the regard for your unconscious ones. You are supposed to construct your worldview to incorporate your unconscious value system. Here is another post I wrote about this topic:

@blazed Just might interpret it differently? What the actual fuck? What exactly are facts, if you just ignore interpretation? Facts are exactly what you make of them!

@Chives99 Oh my gosh, the universe better explains itself to you!

@Zweistein I have to address the issue of brainwashing. We find ourselves in existence as a dark room with a minuscule torchlight. The more we grow, the stronger and stronger the light becomes and at some point, we see that the room is furnished. The room is furnished, but who did the furnishing? Things move other things around. This is how you recognize people. At some point you understand that you can move furniture yourself. This way you become upset that it is not furnished your way. The healthy way. You may blame people for furnishing your room however they please. To return to the early bliss is to understand that people are the part of the room. That way, you can understand that there is nobody that furnishes it. The room furnishes itself and all that had changed is the amount of light.

@now is forever There are various ways in which one can say no to things. I am not saying no to everything disrespectfully. That it should be torn down because it is meaningless. I feel disappointed when I encounter disrespect towards what is. To me, everything is exactly how it should be, including the fact that it will change. Even though I feel emotions, I am neither despairing, nor joyful about the fact that everything is meaningless. To me, meaninglessness itself is meaningless. In this sense, I'm saying no to a no. I am disrespectful towards disrespect. Nihilistic towards nihilism. In this sense - I'm saying yes, but it is an implicit yes. A mute yes. @Zweistein Your drawings are very touching. I can tell that you draw from a vulnerable place. I wish I could draw like I can explain.

@Zweistein To conclude my last post, I think that the feeling of suffering that we encounter when we observe our inner trauma is the feeling of releasing something. People that had experienced trauma and decided to face it simply had the opportunity to observe, and in doing that, learn that there is something positive in suffering (release). That is the prerequisite to learn short-circuiting. Seeking suffering (hardships) in life is a way to lessen the polarities. It's like purposefully damaging your body that makes it stronger. What do you do when you go to the gym? You tear your muscles so that they can grow back differently and tear less. Of course, there is a limit to what you can do. Jumping under a car (unprepared) will kill you. So does trauma that is too great. The key is the amount of suffering you experience. It cannot be too great and too sudden, because it can break you. This is why voluntary seeking is so important. You cannot force suffering unto others if they come unprepared because you may overwhelm them. Self-actualizers that had experienced trauma have the gift of material to work with towards short-circuiting.

@Zweistein The key component that I identified as the difference between 'us' and 'them' is what I call a short-circuit. A short circuit is an ability to create a positive feedback loop between suffering and pleasure. 'They' seek pleasure and are repelled by suffering. The direction feels like willingly chosen, but it is a mechanical navigation in relation to these opposites. Pleasure is positive, suffering is negative. However, the more one avoids negativity, the more negative it becomes. It is then, a closed feedback loop of reinforcing the poles by seeking positive and avoiding the negative. 'We' have this ability to treat suffering as something positive and pleasure as something negative. In the act of willingly going against the flow of polarities, we upset the hierarchy of strength. It is either that polarity becomes smaller and suffering lessens (but so does pleasure), or that we become more resistant to both. This way we have this freedom of choice and opportunity to sail anywhere. At some point however, any place becomes exactly the same, just like on ocean that is still. Any place becomes 'here' and any time becomes 'now'. In doing that, everything becomes 'I'. This stillness is too intensive to most. They call it boredom. They treat it with disgust. They seem to miss that boredom is not the feeling that everything is uninteresting. Boredom is the feeling of everything being equally interesting. Without any point of reference. This feeling of everything being equal is what most identify as suffering, but what it is is simply stillness. It is peace. Bearing with it is what shows the bliss of life. I am a nihilist, aren't I? Hmmm...

@now is forever It was kind of underwhelming, but that is perhaps because of my exhaustion, lack of scenery and high expectations. Having watched pictures, I was expecting it to be more reddish, but that color was much softer. Strangely enough, I prefer the moon in its original color, but I'll generously allow it to be whatever it chooses to be. I love the moon

@now is forever I'm starting to understand, I think. I agree that cultural symbols are very powerful. My favorite medium for reading symbols are movies. Ever since I became interested in spirituality, there is a vast, almost never-ending depth to practically any artistic movie. It's like I'm actually the one that makes the movie by watching it and interpreting it. It's like authors of that movie didn't understand themselves what they were talking about when they created it, because they are so deep, that it is inconceivable to me that any human being could punch so much meaning into 2.5 hours. More and more movies that I watch, even the completely mundane ones, simply scream enlightenment at me. It's unbelievable. And yes, there seems to be a code. It almost feels like there is a giant conspiracy that tries to hide all of that deep knowledge in plain sight, trying to sell it as food for our addictions. I really can't wrap my head around it. From one perspective, it's like these directors are infinitely intelligent making these movies, or that I am so brilliant that I read their unconscious minds. Neither of which seem reasonable to me. I may simply be out of my mind, reading things that aren't there . Tell me more about nihilism. What is nihilism to you? How is it a strength to you? And yes - I can see that a no is much more versatile than yes. I prefer to say no. One can say 'no' to a 'no' and get a 'yes', but a 'yes' to a 'yes' is still 'yes'. Can you see that? Have you been peeling the layers of the ego? I tried to understand myself for many years, but at some point there was a transition, a spontaneous jump, that peeled most layers off and shown me the middle. When you peel off all of the layers of the onion, there is no middle, because there is no more onion! Sorry @Zweistein for hijacking your journal. I hope that we're not intruding?

@Hamilcar Equally strange is self-awareness. How can you actually think, that you can think about yourself. That you can fit yourself within yourself. It's absurd.

@Laymen A theory is as useful as its predictions. What can you predict, when you say that reality is neither causal, nor non-causal? To say that reality is chaos is to introduce order, but to say that it is neither causal nor non-causal is to show chaos. Go ahead, live this theory of paradox and see what happens. Also, welcome to the forums.

@Pluck Thank you for your warning. You are an interesting individual. I hope that the rest of your posts will be equally well thought-out and entertaining. I'm tempted to say one more thing, but please read it in the context of the whole post, not in separation: Aren't you a brave one, coming here to the devil's den and protecting us, little defenseless sheeps. Is that your ego, or is it egolessnses? Is there a difference?

Having chosen this avatar and nickname, I'm definitely going to watch it.

@now is forever Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're saying. Not even the relationship between what you said and the post that you are quoting. Are you hinting at a possibility to find a universal trend that all humanity follows? From what I understand, you're saying that this trend can be found by curiously exploring the symbolism of religions in the context of political philosophy. I don't understand what do you mean by that. You seem to be saying that this universal trend is the basis for oneness with everybody else. It is also possible to predict where we're all headed, but I fail to see why would I want to know that. I think that you're trusting my intellect too much and drop topics that are too deep for me at once. If you want me to understand you, you have to start from a common place and first gain momentum before dropping them. Baby steps. If that how you define it - it is impossible for me to survive. To me, positivity is a drive towards incidental values that I cling to. It is again, a matter on how the values are chosen. If I am the one that chooses these values, then I need something to optimize. How do I choose what to optimize, if I have no values? If I am not the one that chooses these value, then my values have nothing to do with me. So does my positivity, or negativity.

@Zweistein It is not a matter of insolence, but a matter of honesty. What is the difference between a master and a novice? They are both unconscious, so the difference is competence. What is competence? Competence is a measure of performance given a certain set of standards. The degree of your competence is therefore predicated on the standards you compare your measurements of performance against. So, the question arises: who is responsible for establishing the standards that are used to measure your performance? If somebody else is responsible for that, then the distinction between a master and a novice is their choice and it has little to do with you. If you are responsible for the standards, then you can call yourself a master, or a novice on a whim. In a sense - yes. It is not something voluntary, though. A master knows what he knows so, by extension, he knows the limit to what can be done. A novice not only doesn't know, but also doesn't know what he doesn't know. There is no limit to not-knowing. If there is a problem to be solved, a master will know when it is impossible to solve it, because he knows what can be done. A novice however, has no such limitation. To a novice, there can always be a solution, because his search space is not constrained. Knowledge of a master is a lens through which he perceives the world. If the world is misaligned with his knowledge, he calls it a problem. A master that knows to be a novice understands that and can re-frame a problem so that it lies in a different domain. Out of his expertise. This way, not only solutions can be found that are not bound by knowledge, but the problems can be solved without doing anything. One may find that a problem in one domain is necessity for another domain. That a problem is actually a solution. This is the path to peace/infinite intelligence that I'm following.

@Zweistein Intuition is exactly the word I was looking for. Thank you. There is a deeper connection to learning and nihilism I will go into later. For now, I think that your diagram is incomplete: The squares are logic-based. It is a symbolic, mechanical manipulation of knowledge. Transitions however are intuitive and occur when there is an equilibrium within a stage. When all beings within a stage are of equal importance. When search within a stage in exhausted.

@Zweistein I never considered this difference. I simply used a word that felt appropriate. After reflecting on it, I think that the difference lies in openness towards the I=you=we. I think that beliefs are aggressive in nature. One believes in order to orient oneself in the world. If one is not accustomed with the unknown, one becomes upset when beliefs don't work in a particular situation. By not working, I mean - the hierarchy of things (values/importance) is being messed with, and whatever one holds dear is brought among beings with no significance. It's like when you tell a Christian, that the Holy Bible is just a fantasy book. That upsets his hierarchy (order) and the unwillingness to face the unknown (chaos) makes him suffer. What beliefs tend to do is to make people try to influence 'the other' so that the other conforms to the believed hierarchy. They try to change the world so that it doesn't upset their order. What I called a 'vague hint' is different in its nature. It is non-aggressive. Beliefs arise as a substitute of contemplation. Contemplation being a process in which things become unknown, so that one can watch like a child. This hint is born (or rather, is open) as a result of contemplation. This hint is not something that is used to orient myself in a hierarchy of separate things. That particular hint that I was talking about is a hint of totality that joins instead of severing. It cannot be used for orientation. What hints do, as opposed to beliefs, is actually upset the order (the inner order) so that the order fits whatever arises. That is why I was talking about its relationship to infinite intelligence. It bears similarity to a still mind, but it has nothing to do with the mind per se. It is a singularity within the mind. It is neither no-mind, nor a mind. Thinking of it as a hint is not a good way to put it. As a 'vague hint', it is much more 'vague' than it is a 'hint'. It is a form of openness, a smear, a cloud, a mist, a smoke, a water. It does not cut things into order, nor it can be cut. Do you know what I'm talking about? Do you have any words (cuts) to point towards it?

@Athena I did! You realized that you are the problem, but the root of your problem are not other people. Very good! What is a problem? What is any problem? What does any problem have to do with you?

@Zweistein Thank you for your kind words. I love answering questions. There is this vague hint within me that total peace with whatever is is equal to infinite intelligence. To be able to jump any chasm and understand where the other is coming from. Regardless of whether the other is a person, or any part of Maya. Because who said that I=you=we is limited to living beings in a biological sense? Who said that I am a biological being that should empathize with others? I have never seen my face. I have seen a mirror, though.

@Athena Let me ask this question in a different way: what would have to happen if there would have to be no more problems in the world? Since you missed what I was asking once, here is a hint: That is pointing fingers at others. Haven't you realized that you are the problem? Realize that I am not pointing a finger at you and blaming you (like you did with others just now). You are a problem. What does it mean? How does it relate to my questions?

Normal is not a very helpful word here. Most people have no idea of what you are talking about. You are growing. The question is: what is the root cause of all problems (including the problem of you being the problem)?

@isabel Yes. You know the teachings and your job is to 'look through your own eyes' and see how they are true. Assume that the teachings are 100% true and try to 'squeeze' your understanding of your perception so that it fits into the theory. Suffering is resistance to what is (isness/suchness/self-apparence/obviousness). You avoid acknowledging what is happening and try to change it. It is not that suffering is unpleasantness of something. Suffering can be very much co-existant within pleasure. For example, you can suffer when you are having a pleasant evening. Suffering is the context in which you anticipate the ending of this evening and thinking about your tomorrow's work. You can also not suffer when you argue with your partner. That happens when you actually focus on the negative emotions you experience and are honest to what you are doing. Suffering is resistance to what is. Suffering is dishonesty towards your experience. Suffering is an action, or an attitude towards whatever is happening. There are answers on many levels to this question. At the basic level - you can cause suffering to others if you assume that they do not see the difference between suffering and pain. At this level, you can cause pain to others and that makes them suffer. At the higher level - you cannot cause suffering to others. If you know that experiencing and embracing pain makes the suffering go away, then your doings are not related to other people's suffering. For example, you can actually cause others to suffer by being nice to them if they start to worry about being rejected by you. That suffering is then related to their ignorance towards the nature of suffering. If they were present with your niceness, then they would not suffer and you cannot be held accountable for their response (neither to pain, nor to pleasure). At yet higher level - you recognize that whatever you assume about other people will influence your perception of their suffering. Not only that you have an intention of inflicting pain or pleasure to others, but you also are the one that reads their response to it. Your understanding of their response is dependent on your assumptions about how advanced they are, so by influencing your own perception you can swap between the two levels I mentioned earlier. From this point of view you can neither cause, nor not cause suffering of others. From this point of view, suffering is an incidental idea that you use to orient yourself in maya. Empathy towards animals is what causes your suffering. You assume that they feel whatever you feel when you cut your finger with a kitchen knife. You extrapolate that experience and imagine that dying is that experience multiplied by 1000 times. That of course is an assumption, as it may very well be that an organism releases painkilling chemicals upon near death, so that it is anesthetized to pain. Nobody knows that though. You empathize with animals out of your ignorance to what I already said. These answers are my personal answers, so they may not be applicable to you.