"It's funny that we focus so much on the satisfaction of our desires, but seldom on satisfaction itself"

A discussion Vs an Argument

Is a discussion same as an argument?

We can imagine talking calmly in the former, and exchanging heated words in the latter - though the topic might still be the same. The after effects will also be different. Maybe the two people won't even be able to have any discussion in future after a heated argument!

One can probably describe it as: 

The aim of an argument is to prove who is right, that of a discussion is to find what is the truth - and the choice is made at the beginning.

But one can still say that even in an argument - both believe that they know the truth! But that is incorrect - in fact impossible. But yes, they can both believe that they are RIGHT and the other is WRONG. And the right person has to win. The 'fight for what's right' can continue forever - till it becomes uncalm, heated, frustrating, hurting and finally an an explosion.

An example of how a simple situation can turn into a argument: Consider two people having a heated argument about who was late. 
"Hey you are 30 minutes late!! Its says 11:00 on my watch"
"But its says 10:30 on mine. I am on time. Your watch is probably 30 minutes faster"
"No! Your watch is probably 30 minutes slower!!"

If their choice is to win/lose, on right/wrong, let's see how the chain of thought proceeds:
"MY watch is accurate, it's from a better company. Your battery might probably have become weak" (Hence you are wrong, and I am right)
"I have been using this time for all my important meetings, travel etc. So it cannot be wrong!!!" (Hence you are wrong, and I am right)
"Of course you have to be the right one everytime, I am just a dumb person who cannot even set the correct time, right????" (You are evil and hence you are wrong, and I am right)
"Of course I am the one who is stubborn. Being right is being stubborn for you. After all, you can never be wrong, right????!!!!" (You are the one who is actually stubborn and hence you are wrong, and I am right)
"Go on be sarcastic!!! You are not stubborn right??? You have already wasted 10 more minutes in this argument - to hell with the appointment. All that you care is to prove yourself right?????"(You are an egoist, hence you are wrong, and I am right) 

The fact that the two people have conflicting opinions - and they think they are both true itself indicates that none of them knows the truth. They are both arguing about their own perceptions of it. One of them might have the correct perception - but until they BOTH have a way to realize that, it still is just a perception like any other. Only perceptions can be right or wrong - the truth cannot. Truth simply is. If they both knew it, they both would not have the need to argue - because they would HAVE to agree with each other!

Truth by definition has to be one. The truth cannot have multiple versions. If it seems to - it is probably not the truth. And even if it is, we still do not know it. Which is the same thing.

Sustaining the conflict, ignoring a solution
They can maybe switch on some news channel and look at the displayed time. Know the truth and then adjust our watches accordingly. Truth is not biased. It simply sheds light. 

It is interesting to note that if one made the decision to win, he can still not want to see the light - but argue forever. He can use the following phrases to justify himself. 
- "I will NOT switch on the TV to verify the time. It is time that you started trustung me and stopped being arrogant"
- "Why should we try asking other people????? You will trust outsiders, but not me, right???!!!!"

The problem here is he is more worried of being wrong now, rather than being sure about being correct later - by knowing the truth.

It is more interesting to note that if one made the decision to win, he can still keep arguing even after the light has been shed. 
- "Yes, now since you have been proved right and I have been proved dumb again - go ahead celebrate your vicotry. You WON!!!"
- "See??? Do you see that you can be wrong too?? I hope you learn to trust people!! And not assume that everybody except yourself is dumb!!!"

Conflict is a deliberate choice
Note the difference - the conflict can never end if anyone chooses to win. But if they choose to find the truth, then the situation automatically turns from a conflict "Is your watch correct or mine??" to a common objective "How do we find out the correct time so that we can adjust our watches accordingly?" The conflict can never arise. They are 'together' to start with!! 

Is a solution even NEEDED?
But what if there is no concrete way of verifying the 'truth'. Mostly that IS the case!! There is the possibility of even the TV channel being wrong!! Point is, the implicit aim of finding the truth is to find an opinion to which they can both agree to - under those circumstances. Else there is no point. They care about truth more than being right. If the two people were on top of a hill - there would have been no way to verify the correct time. The argument could still have gone the same way. But if the priority was finding the truth - the calm decision would have been 'We cannot find the truth anyway. So let's forget it for now. We can talk about it later'. Later on, they would have tried to find the correct time - together. Then adjusted their watches - together. There is no conflict ever - because truth and conflict cannot go together!

The choice is always made at the beginning.

"The first rule of success in the material world is to be aware that it does not work on the basis of reality but everybody's perception of it"

Spiritual growth

Spiritual growth is not judged by the degree of negative emotions that arise within us - but rather on the degree of their internal and external harm

Simply because the latter is in our control, but the former is not.

External harms are the consequences of the negative emotions directed outwards in form of actions: hurting words, violent actions which disturb the peace of the other person. It is an illusion to assume that directing it outwards 'transfers' the harm. The harm on us will still be the same or even magnified. After all, we are all connected

Internal harms are the consequences of the negative emotions trapped inside  which 'rot' with time - increasingly disturbing our inner peace. It is a common mistake to focus on 'controlling' external harm without realizing that the harm still exists, but is directed internally

The goal then is not to 'control' the direction of the harm, but to neutralize it.

Neutralizing is not resisting the negativity. That would mean registering the 'negativity' and our 'dislike' of it. 'Expressing dislike' itself is negative energy. It is like adding fuel to the spark of negativity that stings and turning it into a fire that burns.

Neutralizing is more about accepting the negative emotion as is - not providing any further fuel to it; by trying to resist it, direct it, resist it, deny it, or run away from it. The spark might still sting - but it's nothing compared to a fire

The good thing is, learning to accept even negative emotions 'as is', is a 'positive' effort. The more we do it, the more our positivity increases. The more our positivity increases, we find that the fire that burnt us earlier, now merely seems like a spark that stings. The negativity is diluted. Our positivity expands and absorbs it.

"The funny thing is if you directly aim to be perfect, you might not even end up being better; but if you aim to keep being better, in course of time, you will end up being pretty close to being perfect"

"A perfectionist is the one who does not realize that the only use of trying to  be perfect is to keep getting better"

"The only reason to regret your past is if you did not learn from it"

Perfection

Nobody can be perfect - but trying to be so is  the only way to keep getting better

A perfectionist is the one who keeps getting better but is always sad about not being perfect
A negative person is the one who does not start off to get better offering the excuse that nobody is perfect anyway
A positive person is the one who understands he cannot be perfect but uses it as a means to keep getting better

As time progresses:
The perfectionist will be much better but will never be happy about it as he can be still better - He is trapped in the future
The negative person will remain stagnant always and will become even more negative when he realizes how much he has already lost - He is stuck in the past
The positive person is always happy with what is, and keeps making better choices to determine what will be - He is rooted in the present

"Reason is best used indiscriminately to find what is true, but ends up being used discriminatingly to prove that one is true"

"The love of truth is inversely proportional to the fear of reason"

"To unsuccessfully keep trying to be better, is much better than successfully justifying not trying at all"

"Being the best does not mean being perfect - it simply means being Better-than-the-rest "

"Getting better is the first, middle and last step to becoming the best"

What was, is and will be

Saying we cannot change what was, is truth
Saying we can change what was, is delusion
Saying we will not change what was, is being realistic
Saying we will change what was, is foolishness

Saying we cannot change what is, is acceptance
Saying we can change what is, is denial
Saying we will not change what is, is unnecessary
Saying we will change what is, is a waste of energy

Saying we cannot change what will be, is giving up
Saying we can change what will be, is self-belief
Saying we will not change what will be, is irresponsibility
Saying we will change what will be is action

Acceptance is...

Acceptance is not Approval - That involves judgment
Acceptance is not tolerance - That involves being affected
Acceptance is not meant only for things we cannot change - That would mean helplessness


Acceptance is identifying the present and all that is a part of it.
Acceptance is Acknowledging that the present will in the tiniest moment become a part of the past - and hence unchangeable.
Acceptance is Acknowledging that the future is the tiniest moment away and what we think or do in the same present will determine that future.
Acceptance is to acknowledge the inability to change the past and the power to determine the future

"Low self esteem is when a person thinks he has to be bad first, in order to be better"

Acceptance

Acceptance is a loosely used term. As is 'Accept me for what I am'

This beautiful, deep, all encompassing word often becomes an excuse to get way with whatever we do and then when others retaliate; say "If you loved me, you would accept me as I am", "Yes, this is the way I am. Do not try to change me!!". So where do we draw the line between acceptance and abuse? Between acceptance and becoming a door mat? How do we realize when we use acceptance as a fair expectation or an excuse for our misdeeds?

Words are an insufficient way to express human feelings or ideas. And with as subtle a concept as acceptance - it is all the more difficult. But maybe the following will help prevent its misuse, if not explain it fully for what it is.

The phrase itself if understood word by word completely reveals the meaning. As well as some interesting ways in which it is conveniently misinterpreted.

"Accept me for what I am" is not at all same as "Accept me for what I do".

What we 'are' is the part that we cannot control with our mind or body - our feelings. We might experience feelings of anger, hate, jealousy, revenge, pity, compassion, happiness, euphoria, rage, guilt, regret or any other feeling. This happens due to what we are; due to the stuff we are made of - which is in turn the sum total of our circumstances, learnings, beliefs, past actions and reactions. The same situation - say a game, might induce happiness (of enjoying the game) in one and fear (of losing)  in other. Basically the stuff that arises within our heart before our mind  kicks in. To label these feelings as good or bad, correct or incorrect or to judge ourselves based on these feelings would be foolish, pointless. It is what just we are - at that moment.

However, anything that follows immediately after - in the next moment, depends not on what we are, but on what we choose to do about what we are. And this choice determines who we will be. The labelling itself ("I felt rage at my loved one - so I am bad") is the starting point. It is a choice to "judge" - the mind in action. The justification that follows ("But then who will understand MY problem??? Why should I be the only good person??") is also a choice of our mind, and not who we are. The subsequent action - physical, mental or verbal hurt/help that we cause are our choices realized through our body(Spoken/unspoken/physical). There is a clear gap between our feelings ("who we are" at a given moment) and our subsequent thoughts and actions ("who we choose to be" over a period of time) But our mind fails to realize this difference often when its most needed  - when the gap becomes blurred by our emotions.

Once we understand the difference between "What we are" and "what we become" Acceptance - for ourselves and for others - now simply becomes an obvious option rather than a hard choice.

Nobody can help who we are - including ourselves. By the time we think about it, it is already a part of the 'past' and hence cannot be changed (even if we want to) The only use of the past can be to learn from it during the present, in order to be better in the future. But we are responsible for what we choose to become due to what we are. Expecting others to accept  for what we choose to be is avoiding responsibility for ourselves. Saying "What I am makes me do it" does not absolve us of the responsibility that we choose to let it.

It would now be clear that attempting to "change who you are" is applicable only if someone (including yourself) is trying to change/deny/judge the way you 'feel'. I might expect you to feel happy/grateful (positive for me) at a given moment but you might be feeling sad/unappreciated/vengeful (negative for me). Denying that, judging, not respecting or  acknowledging that feeling would be a mistake - a failure to accept for who you are. On the other hand, choosing harmful thoughts or actions is your responsibility. Tolerating those harmful actions is becoming a doormat.

Lastly, we can see an interesting phenomenon when we ourselves use 'acceptance' as an excuse to avoid responsibility. The starting point of correcting a mistake is to accept it. Even if the whole world accepts us for who we are, but rightly holds us responsible for our harmful actions; unless WE accept ourselves for what we are, the process of correcting the harmful consequences can never begin. In short, acceptance can never work without self-acceptance. When we blame others for not accepting our weaknesses, the question to ask ourselves is "But am I accepting my weakness myself? If yes, what am I doing to prevent it from causing harm to myself or others? Am I accepting myself for what I am by accepting responsibility of the consequences? If yes, how am I showing it?"

The good thing about understanding "acceptance" to ourselves is that it automatically makes 'denial' seem pointless. That it's  about "Cannot change what I am" rather than "Should not change what I am" To others, understanding it's precise meaning relieves them from the fear of becoming a doormat or abused. It allows us to do better in future without making us dwell in guilt about  the past. Doing this consistently makes 'who we are' in future much better than 'who we are' today. It helps everybody in every way.

What's there to lose? :-)

It now seems simple to understand - but that does not mean it is easy to apply. The mind, circumstances, our ego makes it a lot difficult. What are the degrees? What if we cannot accept? What about current limitations? What about unconditional acceptance? Where does 'love' fit in? What's the starting point? What's the final point? Are the intermediate steps of any use? We will talk about the practical application later.