S:C

Interesting, so you suggest radical acceptance, cultivated emotions and non-reactivity for after the subject-object paradigm shift? Thus just as before, then you'll need a hell-of-a-guardian-angel to survive (or not-survive as a self subject, depending on your view). 'Be to yourself like you are to others?' Love others like yourself? Now where do you draw the line, give and do work and distribute responsibilities emotions/feelings and blame/areas of personal responsibility, between healthily enough but flawed adults? someone being used to more responsibility will go down the same path all along, no? You rely on the light having affinity with the shadow and the shadow protecting the light? Lot's of trust in the universe not being lazy and relying on coincidences, eh?

Just curious: where exactly do you draw the line? I tend to favor your second opinion / quote from another thread here: Often enough the receiver is the interpreter of the message and can choose between responsibility and/or feeling blamed. The first seems mature, the second emotional (in my opinion). The questioner might just be looking for a neutral intention/causation chain explanation of your perspective and its you who mistakenly assume you are being blamed on a guilt tableau. added: and or at the same time give you advice that others won't handle the circumstances-causes-effects imposed upon themselves by you so well as they did and that you and or others might face severe consequences not being wished upon you or upon others by them. After all, on a certain level or through a certain perspective there's no difference between cause effect, observer and observed, still, some circumstances, causal or not, may require understanding for dissolution or healing or recovery of trauma. Few people seem to be able to show affinity as a different means to understanding. Mature people wish for affinity and peace in their interactions, but are understood falsely at times to be accusatory. So where do you draw your line?

Where can I find a text that explains the two truth doctrine in simple words? Near to the original? thanks