About indifference, expectations, and freedom in relationships with people

– The topic is indifference. I don’t know whether you encounter this, but most likely to some extent you do. I think that a huge number of people living today, especially in certain countries, feel as though the world and people are indifferent to them.

If I refer to my own experience, it causes a kind of existential horror: when you encounter indifference, you don’t know what to lean on when communicating with another person. It feels like there is simply emptiness toward you.

Do you ever experience this, where you feel indifference? Or how do you act when you feel it directed toward yourself?

– This is an astonishing aspect. The word “indifference” has been made into something bad.

What is indifference? It is equal souls. If you consider another person indifferent toward you, then that person perceives you as the same as himself.

I understand: if we ask the internet what indifference is, it will provide a different description. But if we look at the word itself, at its etymology, then if I treat you indifferently, it means that I perceive you as the same as myself. I perceive you as equal.

If I perceive you as equal — then that is happiness. To perceive everyone as equal, the same, as people.

What does “to perceive as people” mean? It does not mean perceiving the same soul. Moreover, the same soul is even closer. Everyone says: “This is my soul,” “We are soul brothers.” That is already a kind of appropriation. Therefore, here we are speaking specifically about perceiving another person simply as a person, without elevating him.

When you come and tell me something about one of your qualities, and I perceive it indifferently — what does that mean? It means that I perceive your quality the same way as a similar quality in other people. I try to give it attention. I try to perceive it humanly, genuinely, but I do not exalt it. I do not elevate your quality above other people, or you above other people, and I do not diminish you, your quality, or other people.

Or, for example, I do not join with you and say: “I’m so great. And I have the same quality. And together we are above everyone else.” We sort of single ourselves out. People do not like that.

We recorded one video on my YouTube channel about how, when people ask for forgiveness, for some reason it is believed that if a person apologized, then you must forgive him. And if you forgave him, then it is as if you must also ask forgiveness from him.

Let’s look at this from the perspective of exchange. Example: a person did something toward you, and it altered your life for twenty years. He can ask for forgiveness endlessly — it is useless. He will not return that energy back or change what happened. And who said that I must ask him for forgiveness? And who said that I must perform these actions?

This is the same as when a person asks how I am doing. Who decided that I automatically must ask how he is doing? This is not a position of emotional coldness or neutrality. On the contrary: it is a question of the ability to give a person the freedom of his own actions.

Therefore, when you say that you meet a person and feel indifference, it means that at that moment he did not react to your emotional state? For example, to your outfit?

– It’s as though he pretends you do not exist. When I talk to you, I understand that at the same time a person can experience both sympathy and indifference.

– Let me give an example. We recently met with our families. I said to you: “What a beautiful blazer you have.” You replied: “Actually, it’s a dress.” We laughed together, and that was it. I’ll point out that you were not offended that I called the dress a blazer. I supported the conversation and said: “Yes, probably.” I even separately noted: “You probably ordered it online instead of buying it offline.” I calmly joined the conversation, I was interested. And you, while responding to me, did not try to refute my “blazer” in any way. You simply expanded the area of my perception, meaning that we had normal human communication.

When I told you what a beautiful dress you had, did I say it in order to appear cooler, more polite, more interesting, more refined in your eyes? No. I said it simply because I genuinely liked your dress. Well, let’s call it a dress-blazer. I liked your outfit, although I also liked the outfit you wore before that. Then you changed clothes, then later you were in jeans or something else. I simply liked it — and I told you that absolutely calmly, humanly, openly. I saw a certain beauty. Did I exalt it? No. Did I diminish it? No. And this is important: I did not exalt it.

Now imagine another situation. Imagine that I came and said nothing at all, paid no attention to how you looked. Did I have the right to do that that day? Absolutely. Of course, you would say: “Sasha, you had the right.” That day I could have had my own processes and переживания. Moreover, I could have been in certain impulses that were overwhelming and completely oppressing me.

But people like only one kind of justification. You would say: “Sasha, why are you so indifferent?” And I would answer: “Because four of my relatives died the day before yesterday.” And you would immediately say: “Oh, I’m sorry, please forgive me for even approaching you with such a question.” Everyone likes that kind of justification. But no one likes another one: “Since this morning some kind of energy has been acting within me, I do not understand what is happening to me, I feel torn apart.” But I would not even tell you that. Why? Because you would initially come with a complaint and manipulation. Not necessarily, but you could come with the question: “Why are you so indifferent?” And then what should I do? Explain my inner state to you?

You should not care whether someone pays attention to your outfit or not, because you did not dress that way for that reason. You simply decided to dress that way. You look good every day. Here you came this morning, and I say: “How good you look.” So what now — compare whether you look better than before or worse? Start choosing? This is about something entirely different.

– So indifference is a lack of resources in a person? He is occupied with other processes that are more important to him?

– The first thing is an inadequate perception of another person’s state.

If a person feels indifference from someone else — this is an inadequate perception of another person’s state. You are presenting the person with a complaint that he did not give you attention. From the point of view of state, this is one hundred percent ego. If you see that another person is absorbed in himself — he has the right to that. We cannot even attach ourselves to whether he listens to you or not, whether he looks at you or not.

Another aspect: if you begin talking with a person and see that he stops noticing you, while you understand that he is simply absorbed in himself — stop imposing something on him. Say: “Well, then not today.” Turn around and leave.

When you arrive at a closed store, you do not scream: “Open the store for me!” You do not break down the doors, call the police, or try to change their schedule, their state, and everything else. You simply relate to it calmly. That is the essence. But when people call you, they immediately say: “There’s something wrong with your voice,” or “You seem rude today.” This is a standard topic for many people.

Because I have a very wide range of states, I can remain silent a lot, or I can talk a lot. I can speak loudly, quietly, softly, sharply, rudely — however. And I endlessly listen to people discussing my states.

But this is their interpretation: they do not understand what is happening inside. Perhaps I am deliberately creating a specific state in order to launch some kind of wave. I have a strongly developed ability to simultaneously hold five or ten layers of perception. I am capable of this. I can simultaneously conduct a meeting, explain one line, at the same time build a manipulative structure to achieve a result, observe how people react, and simultaneously think about tomatoes or what I will eat for lunch.

I have this ability: to simultaneously perceive many lines in parallel. People do not even understand the kinds of states I can simultaneously be in. In order to understand this, one must try to perceive me.

And what does it mean “to perceive me”?

1. First of all, that this is not a materialistic, scientific, or social perception. People say: “We will analyze facial expressions and gestures…” But that is not the layer of perception.
2. Secondly, one must know the person: his circumstances, his understanding of life and current events, understand his goals — what he is doing at that moment, how he acts, where he is, what he knows, and so on.

If, when inviting people over, you announced a rule: “Every person must pay attention to your dress,” or “Every person at the meeting must look at one another,” — fine. Then we could say to each other: “We have such rules, therefore we are allowed to ask things of each other.”

This is the problem with children. When you tell one child to apologize — he apologizes, while another child looks at you and does not do it. I gave the example with children because they are less socialized, but adults do the same thing.

Here one can come to the question: what should we do with these people? How should we interact with them? Where should we coexist with them?

If we analyze our Sunday gathering, it is a meeting of ego-constructions. It is a meeting where people are still within their own states, living through their own processes. People want to say what they want to say; to remain in their own spaces, primarily thinking about themselves.

Someone worries and thinks about another person. There are those who arrive with small children — and begin thinking only about them. Someone arrives and thinks only about the cleanliness of the space. Someone else begins thinking about something different. Everyone’s own impulses turn on.

I have a friend who is fixated on the cleanliness of space. There are people who do not think about this, but while being in his space, I try to maintain it; I try to remember that this is important to the person. This is attention toward the person. There are people who do this, and there are those who do not. Moreover, a person may have such a state on a particular day that he wants to change something.

If we evaluate people’s moods, their state, indifference, sensations, feelings based on such absurd things, then this is precisely what leads a person to suffering. They invented it themselves, created it themselves, while the other person did not even blink an eye. You tell him about something great and beautiful, while he stands there thinking: “I have an upset stomach today. Will I make it in time or not?” There are people who easily say during a conversation: “Excuse me, I need to go to the restroom.” And there are those who will endure until the very end, but physiology will do its work. A person’s head and perception will shut down. Is he guilty in that moment?

– Who owes what to whom, and does anyone owe anything at all?

It seems to me this is a favorite topic on the internet. There are constant arguments there: men supposedly owe women diamonds and cars, while women owe men children or simply beauty. Others say: “No, I must work no matter what.” So there are also so many ego constructions, illusions, and so on here.

But at the same time, if we go completely to the extreme and say that nobody owes anything to anyone, then it turns out that I do not have to care for my child while he is small. Of course, I would not be able to do that, because I also have an inner sense of duty.

I’m interested in your unconventional view of this situation.

– To answer this question, we must determine from what level we are considering it.

For example, do you owe me something at our online meeting? No. You promised to come, but you also could have not come. It is a verbal agreement. Moreover, we did not fully discuss a huge number of details: we roughly agreed on what and how things would be.

• If the internet goes down, I can tell you: “I don’t understand why your internet disappeared,” or “I don’t understand why you didn’t prepare and arrange separate satellite communication with power backup,” or “I don’t understand why you didn’t solve the issue of no one entering your room,” and so on. If we look at this aspect, then these things seem not to have been specified.
• If we are talking about a house rental agreement or the provision of cellular service by an operator, then the contract is written out, and the main details are specified in it. There are questions that can be resolved verbally and personally, and there are questions that are then resolved within the framework of a specific law, court, country, jurisdiction, and everything else.

When we talk about what a husband owes his wife, it is important to understand: this exists without any documents. It is not as though people were super developed, spent twenty years preparing to describe their agreements, build a system of interaction, think everything through, configure it — and only then this system began to function. After all, one must also prepare for this. Can you imagine what kind of education one would need to receive in order to do this? For some reason everyone believes one must study to become a doctor. Although even a doctor can later make mistakes; he has a license for mistakes.

At the same time, no one says that one must prepare for the most important thing in life, because it is a process much longer than professional activity. In reality, there is almost no preparation. Therefore, when we begin talking about the fact that a person owes something to someone — that you owe something to your children, or that a person owes something to his husband or wife — it is always important to look at exactly what you are relying on.

If, for example, in the matter of the house I relied on a contract, and in our interaction — on social norms and personal agreements, then with your three children you did not have any agreements at all. Moreover, you would not even have been able to build them. And the children can also предъявить something to you: no one agreed on anything with them. They can say: “But I wanted something completely different.”

– During adolescence children can often say: “I never asked to be born.”

– They have the right to say: “Mom, we did not want this room. We did not want to wake up this way. We did not want to do things this way.”

And it turns out that if you say: “I am obligated to be a mother,” then they also have the right to say that they would not want certain actions from you. This is also important to understand. Just as you formed a certain set of ideas within yourself, another person has exactly the same right to his own perception and his own desires.

When there are no clear discussions and agreements, a person still has to seek some kind of support for himself. And here the main question is what exactly he relies on.

• Some rely on books by certain authors.
• Some rely on textbooks or courses.
• Some rely on the social norms of a specific country.

These norms are completely different. There are still countries where one can have several wives. For example, in Egypt. I was there recently, and there it is possible. You can agree on something in advance, or you can write into the marriage contract that there will be only one wife. Everywhere there are different social foundations, different people, and different perceptions.

It is important for a person to study which impulses move him when he comes into this life, which causes and effects operate within him — to study himself. And the only thing a person truly can do is to follow some part of the fundamental laws of the Universe that cannot be canceled.

For example, to treat all people as people. Not to single out one person as more worthy of love or attention than another. It is important to build for yourself a certain set of principles: in relation to people, in the perception of the world, in how you interact with life. And beyond that — it is already your choice and your own construction of understanding what is happening.

On the one hand, you say that you owe something to your children. But your perception of this “owe” is illusory. Your husband may have a completely different understanding of what children need. I may have a third one. The nanny — a fourth. The grandmother — a fifth. Your mother — a sixth. Your mother-in-law — a seventh. Everyone will have their own perception. And most importantly: the child himself will also have his own.

1. The first thing to acknowledge: this child chose to come specifically into your family. It is not that you simply created a set of rules and placed him inside them.
2. You and he did not agree on any rules in advance. This is also important to acknowledge.
3. To understand that he has his own life, his own combination of circumstances. And your task is to try to do everything possible not to harm this life. Not to harm means trying to understand what kind of life he has, what kind of person he is, what is characteristic of him, and to figure this out.

The person who is now two years old will remain the same being thirty years from now. We will simply see him in a different external form. But it will be the same spiritual being. He may begin talking more or, on the contrary, become withdrawn; he may develop illnesses or lose them. But in essence it is still the same person.

And here the question arises: why did you decide that before the age of 18 the child owes you something, but after 18 — no longer?

Another matter is that there are certain social foundations. We understand that if a small child is not cared for at all, he will simply die. At the very least he must be fed. There are many other restrictions and rules that are part of normal human existence.

Therefore, to say: “Well, if nobody owes anything to anyone, then I will not take care of the child” — one can say that. But in reality people act differently: some spend 14 hours a day with the child, take him to clubs, engage in homeschooling, while others practically pay no attention to him, and the child grows up on his own. Such people sometimes do not even know how much the child weighs. But who said that knowing a child’s weight is the main criterion of evaluation? There is no such law.

However, there are other laws. If you live in a certain country, then you must follow its rules, because we still live within a social society. Every country has its own laws. If in one country it is considered that a child should be treated in a certain way, then those are the rules operating there. And this is why many people do not like it when someone says: “In this country a child can go to the police, say something — and they will take him away.” While somewhere else, on the contrary, one can hit a child’s fingers with a hammer, and no one will interfere.

But this is already a question not of your inner perception, but a question of the laws of a specific country. If you live in that country, then you exist within its system. Perhaps you had no choice. Perhaps this is your path, your circumstances, your karma. But while being there, you are still forced to live according to those rules.

We have been forbidden in this world to move around easily. Once, a person could travel anywhere, move freely, and then someone came and said: “No.” Exactly the same way someone once decided that only 10 thousand dollars could be carried across a border. And this rule still exists in many countries, although prices have long changed. In essence, this is a prohibition that over time began to be perceived as normal.

At the same time, in the past, if there were one hundred kilometers between people, meeting was difficult: one had to travel for a long time on horseback, spend an enormous amount of time. But now those hundred kilometers mean nothing. If you and I wanted to meet, I would say: “Let’s have lunch together in two hours.” You would answer: “Let’s do it.” It takes me 30 minutes to get there, you 30 minutes, and there we are sitting together. Distance has ceased to matter. The same applies to communication. Previously people could not communicate so easily with each other, while now they can do it instantly.

When we speak about who owes what to whom, it is very important to study the real processes occurring inside a person. Why does a person develop the feeling that someone owes him something? Why does he believe another person is obligated to stay beside him, sleep together with him? Are you prepared to consider for yourself the circumstance that one day this may no longer exist? Are you prepared to accept that today I may adore you, feel endless love toward you, admire you, and in five years look at you and think: “Who even are you?” Because my inner impulses have changed.

If you calmly allow such a possibility, understand that this too is part of life, that it can happen — then a healthier state appears, from which one can already discuss who owes what to whom.

We see how the world works. People who invent laws later break them themselves, change their opinions. Today they say one thing, tomorrow — another. Today they dislike one president, tomorrow they like another. Today they are convinced that things must be done one way, and tomorrow they completely change their position. I look at this calmly, and I tell the person to look calmly as well. After all, just yesterday you claimed something entirely different. But I understand why this changed. Circumstances changed, mood changed, inner impulses changed. For example, you suddenly stopped liking the color green, and you removed all the green chairs from your apartment. Did you have the right to do that? Of course, that is absolutely normal.

It may happen that we stop communicating; or it may happen that in a week my children will never see me again in their lives. I may die — and this is precisely where healthy perception of life lies. In any case, this will someday happen to every person: everything eventually ends. And then there are a huge number of circumstances: illnesses, catastrophes.

Such an approach leads a person to the ability to negotiate normally where it is necessary to negotiate and sign a document. To study where it is necessary to study and sign a document. Because it is important to understand: in a certain situation a person may betray you or change his opinion.

I had a very difficult experience of partnership in business. Back then, it was not one elephant against me, but an entire army of elephants. And the person decided to legally protect himself from me. But when he began doing this, he did not take into account that I know how to structure documents ten levels better. I anticipated not only his protection, but also very seriously secured myself, and that saved me.

The point lies in the ability to understand that people can behave differently.

If you initially calmly accept that a person may violate a contract, change a law, change his decision — then you begin looking at life realistically. Because in exactly the same way the weather may change, a hurricane may begin, everything may change.

– It seems to me that a contract, in a certain sense, even makes relationships easier. It removes part of the burden.

– Of course. But at the same time it is important to understand: if a person agreed to certain conditions today, that does not mean he will not change his mind tomorrow. If the law allows it — he will change it. And sometimes he will change it even without the law.

I have businesses where I do not sign anything at all with partners. And there are businesses where I am ready to turn everything upside down, involve lawyers, and specify every tiny detail.

– Why do you not sign certain documents in certain businesses?

– Because in some cases I understand: the presence of documents will stop a person from certain actions and allow everyone to feel calmer. And in other cases I see that it has absolutely no significance. If a person wants to destroy everything, no document will stop him. Everything will fall apart anyway.

We live in a world where a person constantly has to make such decisions. For example, when a dog appeared in our family, we agreed in advance. I wanted a dog, my wife agreed too. We discussed what kind of dog it would be and how we would live with it. And we had a rule: the dog does not lie on the beds. Time passes, and someone begins to believe that the dog actually can lie on the bed. For example, my wife decided this because her inner perception changed.

And here an interesting question arises: what should I do?

– Relationships have crises. It is almost like a signal that it is time to renegotiate, to rebuild. It is impossible to agree once and for all for an entire lifetime ahead.

– I would view this not as a crisis, but as the natural flow of life. It is normal for a person to change his state, his opinion, his feelings.

In exactly the same way, one day I may develop the impulse to say: “There will no longer be a dog in the house.” If I have the authority and will for this — I can make such a decision. Children, for example, may also develop such an impulse; they do not have the authority to implement it, but they can launch it.

Therefore, the ability to negotiate is the ability to discuss even unsolvable situations. To discuss them calmly, without complaint, understanding that another person may have a different opinion and has the right to keep it.