In sprite of the embarrassment, our cunning mind has the capability of finding satisfaction quickly in the new conclusion, so that we will turn to condemn and discard the old conclusion and substitute the new one for the old one. Please be alert if we have derived any positive meanings from the new conclusion and thus cherish the new sense of certainty and safety in it?
Once you have an awareness of the above pattern, maybe you will have some new understanding.
As to the pleasure and bitterness, as long as we cherish the sense of certainty and safety in pleasure, we will do our best to run away from the bitterness, obviously this is only escape from the fact and self-cheating using the illusion. If we indulge in the pleasure and unwilling to face the bitterness directly, no problem, just continue to enjoy the illusion until we have no room to escape into and we are forced to deal with the suffering, this moment will come finally and that will be the best opportunity for us to pierce into the illusion and understand the truth.
I will continue to reply this evening.
@晓冬 Winter L ，之前我说我读克的原文版书，所有@阿布 就非要与我用英语对话，我也正好练练写英文。用汉语交流当然更自如一些，不过昨天木兄也说过，英文是精确的语言，而汉语是模糊语言，我深以为然。
您说的生活失去意义，可能只是过去我们从家庭学校社会所接纳的价值观开始退潮，并由此产生某些惶恐，因为那些价值、意义为我们带来的荫护——亦即安全感、确定感无所依傍了。这是一种可产生觉悟的状态，所谓“无所住”。只是一点揣测。
The mind inclines to divide one thing into two, such as positive desires or negative desires, the moral systems are based on this duality. Actually I am afraid I do not think there is any intrinsic difference between the two types with regards to their spiritual effects.
When you set independence as your goal and then pursue it, your mind will always project a fake success and meanwhile escape from its opposite —- dependence, to please you, as I said yesterday. This is the so-called positive method, 有为法 in chinese. I believe we have talked on this topic many times.
The reliance is only a kind of psychological projection, when we are mesmerized in it, we can escape from something negative and meanwhile get something positive. Don’t suppress the desire of reliance, don’t suppress or escape from or fight against the confusion regarding conclusions , just stay with it without any desire to change it, as we discussed before.
价值观退潮，就是某些固定的思维、情感模式，某些意义逐渐松动，逐渐化解。价值、意义、安全、确定，是克的书里很常见的表述，这似乎不需要解释吧。
定义法，无论从中文还是英文defination的字面上，都包含了作茧自缚的寓意，一旦圈定（define）了范围，就获得了明确感、确定感，但灵动感已经被凝固了，觉悟力已经defined了，conditioned了，局限了，定住了。
所以，定义的目的，不是“定”，而是借助文字交流，达成交流共识，便迅速破掉“定”，重归于灵动。如果执着于“定”义，则任何定义，必然有落脚点，有立场；只要有固定立场，必然有漏洞，在另一个立场看来就是硬伤、错误，就值得驳倒，这样就陷入了逻辑争辩，浮于文字表层，被文字障所缚，难以解脱，难有觉悟。
所以，我是不情愿做定义的，那是一个把灵动关入文字障的过程。任何定义，哪怕再周延，也总有漏洞的。既然您反复要求，我只好勉强为之，但目的只是试探是否有共识，定义描述后，我会立即把它从心头抹掉。如果您有异议，想与我辩论，就像前天想与我辩论“对治”那样，抱歉恐怕我不会参与。
在克的语境下，有为，大致等于他说的positive，一种积极的主动的有为，比如thinker与thought，the observer与the observed的二元对立，就是thinker积极地卖力地试图制伏thought。无为，大致等于他说的passive，放下thinker的企图心，反而可能获得二元对立泯化的契机。无所住，不执着于任何认识、感受、模式、意义、价值……心不驻扎于任何安定感中，包括对所谓定义给出的明确感、安定感。
我是学理工的，但这里不是思辨群，所以我不去做逻辑严谨的定义，以上模糊定义的目的，是试探我们是否有共识，如果有，则彼此立即把定义破掉，悠然心会；如果没有，也非常正常，但辩论是不必要的，因为我的定义已经抹掉了，否则容易导致克说的conditioned mind。
勉强说这么多。晚安。
