Page 555
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2026 2:58 pm
It’s not even a conflict, but a person might take the money for the soft-close
doors and then, three days later, say, ‘Pay for the doors’ — again. It’s as if my
reaction is being tested. The point is, everywhere it’s like this: ‘give more
money,’ or ‘you didn’t pay, give more,’ or for example, they didn’t give me
the goods, but then they might say they did. Everywhere there is this kind
of infringement, as if they are waiting for some kind of reaction. And it’s
the system doing this, in the literal sense of the word — it’s not the people.
I’m listing everything for Big Alexander, saying:
— What is happening and what should I do? Should I react or not? Logically,
the system probably wants me not to react to such trifles.
I give him an example, speaking figuratively: if a taxi driver said he would
take me for 30 dollars but ends up asking for 250, then I should just smile
and give him the 250. Big Alexander says:
— No, you must tell him that you agreed on a thousand.
— If I tell him that, he’ll say ‘no,’ and an argument will start. Why would I need
that conflict?
— You must not conflict; you must learn the right words and how to speak
with people wisely and calmly, but you still need to explain to them that this is
their delusion. You must not allow their delusion to stand.
I think to myself, “This is a nightmare.” Why a nightmare? Because if he
had simply said to wave it all off — every little scam where they cheat me
or every time people are mistaken — and just not let it provoke me, that
would be the easy way out. But he says I must react to it, just not with anger.
It’s about finding that middle ground — like explaining to little children
that they are wrong, explaining how they are wrong, and still pursuing the
truth. That is very difficult. Because in reality, it looks like this: imagine I
order food, asking for three Cokes and three salads. They bring me, let’s
say, one salad, and I sit there for half an hour waiting for the rest. Then I say
to the waiter: “Excuse me, when will the rest be ready? Sorry for asking.”
doors and then, three days later, say, ‘Pay for the doors’ — again. It’s as if my
reaction is being tested. The point is, everywhere it’s like this: ‘give more
money,’ or ‘you didn’t pay, give more,’ or for example, they didn’t give me
the goods, but then they might say they did. Everywhere there is this kind
of infringement, as if they are waiting for some kind of reaction. And it’s
the system doing this, in the literal sense of the word — it’s not the people.
I’m listing everything for Big Alexander, saying:
— What is happening and what should I do? Should I react or not? Logically,
the system probably wants me not to react to such trifles.
I give him an example, speaking figuratively: if a taxi driver said he would
take me for 30 dollars but ends up asking for 250, then I should just smile
and give him the 250. Big Alexander says:
— No, you must tell him that you agreed on a thousand.
— If I tell him that, he’ll say ‘no,’ and an argument will start. Why would I need
that conflict?
— You must not conflict; you must learn the right words and how to speak
with people wisely and calmly, but you still need to explain to them that this is
their delusion. You must not allow their delusion to stand.
I think to myself, “This is a nightmare.” Why a nightmare? Because if he
had simply said to wave it all off — every little scam where they cheat me
or every time people are mistaken — and just not let it provoke me, that
would be the easy way out. But he says I must react to it, just not with anger.
It’s about finding that middle ground — like explaining to little children
that they are wrong, explaining how they are wrong, and still pursuing the
truth. That is very difficult. Because in reality, it looks like this: imagine I
order food, asking for three Cokes and three salads. They bring me, let’s
say, one salad, and I sit there for half an hour waiting for the rest. Then I say
to the waiter: “Excuse me, when will the rest be ready? Sorry for asking.”