"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"