Message Boards Message Boards

Morality and Daily Life

Morality of not doing

Toggle
Morality of not doing
Answer
3/8/18 12:04 PM

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/24/15 1:03 PM as a reply to P K.
Paweł K:
I see this topic coming back like boomerang. People worry that if they stop *doing* things or stop some sort of masochistic worrying and punishing themselves they will automatically become heartless stones and will do immoral things. Fact is that there is nothing that does anything in the first place, it is all just a bunch of responses. On the deepest level there is normally notion 'I do this' and it is applied to everything that happens and signified by specific set of sensations. If it is applied or not doesn't change what mind thinks or body does because it is separate from actual action. It is pretty much like headache, its contribution to action is negative because it hurts whenever anything is done so it will actually reduce amount of actions that we could otherwise make. It itself is also added automatically, there is no-one there making this sensation of doing.

Worrying is even more obvious useless dukkha producing sensation. Punishing oneself is also useless, its like beating whipping boy. Like if the response that made wrong action cared if other part of mind produce some suffering. If anything producing suffering for oneself to punish oneself will have negative influence on actions that could be taken 'now'. If those tactics were successful then there would be less bad people in the world. It is not like they have no conscience. Their conscience is just ignorant of how things are and thus ineffective. Conscience of SE and especially at later paths should know better than to cause suffering to oneself and do directly cessation of possible causes.

Analyzing ones own actions and what part of mind made them is shortest way to change behavior, even at lowest level. Directly changing it is felt as click inside the head and should happen a lot during meditation, especially SE and up. That is what makes changes in behaviour, mind altering itself, reseting neuron network in specific places of mind, etc. It doesn't hurt and is actually pleasant and unlike adding sensation of doing things and then some 'remorse' it is working. Of-course it does itself too, so do not even try to pretend 'doing' it as it will only lead to unskillful results. If there is any notion of being able to do something or not do it then it is the part of mind that needs cessation the most. Once it is gone things will go much easier and vastly faster.
To all, 

I agree, 

There is a difference between not doing , and not giving a shit.

Not doing, when it is like cessation, a true cessation, cessation of nonsense, cessation of delusion,  cessation of unwholesome emotional states, that is wholesome and skillful.

Not giving a shit and thinking this is Not doing or that it is cessation, this is unwholesome and unskillful, it is just another formation to be let go of.

I am not saying anyone is doing one way or the other, that is best left up to each individual.

But, as Pawel is suggesting, cessation is more beneficial.

Like untangling a knot vs. untangleing a knot but actually adding more knots.

Knots of Neurons.

Anyway, this is a good subject, kind of gets to the Depths, should be discussed and examined.

So , Thank you Pawel.

Psi

P.S.  To add , in another way, when unraveling Dukkha, there is no reason to add more Dukkha on top of what is already there.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/24/15 5:33 PM as a reply to P K.
Paweł K:
Hi Pawel, 

I want to add to this topic, so I can understand better. I re-read my last post and it came off kind of preachy, not the intention.

Is it clearer to say it this way.

There are formations in the mind that compose a self concept.  By trying to fix this self concept formation with more and perceived better self concept formations, or by trying to fix old self concept formations, just adds to the cofusion, and dds to the self concept formation.

So, it is better to drop the self concept formation, altogether, and let the mind be pure.

A better analogy, is perhaps this.

The self concept formation is like a compter virus, so adding progams to enhance or wall off the computer virus is not as effective as removing the computer virus. 

And then, the Morality of all this is perhaps this.

The smaller the delusion, the smaller the arising of non-Moral desires.

 Eradication of Delusion leads to the eradication of the arising of non-Moral desires.

And, I can see this may ruffle some self concept formations out there.

Am I making sense, or am I just confusing things, as I sometimes do?

Psi

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/24/15 11:06 PM as a reply to P K.
Analyzing ones own actions and what part of mind made them is shortest way to change behavior, even at lowest level. Directly changing it is felt as click inside the head and should happen a lot during meditation, especially SE and up. That is what makes changes in behaviour, mind altering itself, reseting neuron network in specific places of mind, etc. It doesn't hurt and is actually pleasant and unlike adding sensation of doing things and then some 'remorse' it is working. Of-course it does itself too, so do not even try to pretend 'doing' it as it will only lead to unskillful results. If there is any notion of being able to do something or not do it then it is the part of mind that needs cessation the most. Once it is gone things will go much easier and vastly faster.

Love this, I agree.  This automatic change that can occur as a side effect of the purification of the progress of insight is awesome.  I've felts the click in the head a lot lately, and also in the past.  After some time, agitation stops showing up, and before I know it, my habits are slowly improving.

I believe this relates to Kenneth's concept of energetic 'rewiring,'

Don't know if we're talking about the same things here.  Just sharing a thought that was inspired by your post.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/25/15 2:32 AM as a reply to P K.
" If it is applied or not doesn't change what mind thinks or body does because it is separate from actual action" hmm seems to have changed what you just typed...

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/25/15 4:39 AM as a reply to Mark.
I think my point is that the duality of internal vs external phenomena is an illusion, they are all phenomena. It is one big system. So if internal phenomena change then the system changes. If you think there is something independent of that system that can decide when internal phenomena do and don't change the system then the Buddha probably had something to say about that.

Great point about working with desires. I understood that the key insight of the Buddha was reaching freedom from craving and clinging. It is tempting to think that if there is no self then the craving and clinging has gone away. The craving and clinging helped form the conscious and unconscious habits. 

You wrote "Should selfing be gone you would still do everything out of remembered patterns." so this means those patterns are being reinforced, however you followed with "After this year or ten due to not using those thoughts patterns behavior would change." That seems to be a contradiction because the patterns are still being reinforced. I'm not saying the patterns don't change - they would change whether the selfing is going on or not. 

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/25/15 8:18 AM as a reply to Mark.
Shinzen Young does a good job of clarifying what is internal and external but basically if it is detected using one of our senses like ear, eye, etc then it is external and all the rest is internal. I hope that allows you to map the concept of "internal phenomena" to your view.

The idea that neurons are projecting qualities is seems to be falling into a reductionist problem. Neurons process electrical and chemical signals. How mind maps to neurons is not understood. Although it is clear that certain aspects of mind can be lost when certain parts of the brain are lost. Where did you learn that neurons project qualities ?

It seems to me that the self awareness is more about rationalizing behavior than initiating it. A very simple demonstration is the process of writing or speaking - there is no conscious rationalization until after the action (unless you use an internal dialog to review it first).

It seems obvious that the self process is there not only as an inconvienience. It would be interesting to hear what you think the advantages of the self process are.

It seems to me the selfing process is a big part of forming personality, it is a process of creating both conscious and unconscious patterns. "I am that" means "I am not that" is pushed toward the unconscious. "I am not that" pushes "I am that" toward the unconscious.

You don't have a selfing process but you have a "big" personality. Do you see that settling in the future without the selfing ? Are there drivers to do that ?

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/25/15 10:21 AM as a reply to Mark.

You don't have a selfing process but you have a "big" personality. Do you see that settling in the future without the selfing ? Are there drivers to do that ?

I am not sure if I understand the questions. Could you rephrase them.

Do you think your personality will change in the future and if so what will the drivers be ? By drivers I mean what will orient those changes in personality. For example some people might do psychotherapy, some might train physically etc with intentions of making changes that will be visible to others via personality.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/25/15 1:08 PM as a reply to P K.
I think Thannisaro Bhikku said it well. You have to be able to do things you normally don't like that are good for you and to let go of things you like that is not good for you.

If a person follows this they will be doing plenty and much more skillful things than a worrywort. The stress comes from thinking and yearning in directions that cause and effect in this universe won't allow or will punish with negative consequences. Having a clear conscience shouldn't make people feel like they need to do nothing.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/26/15 2:52 AM as a reply to Mark.
Paweł K:
@Mark
Recently I started to eat less so that should reduce my personality somewhat but other than that I do not have anything planned.
To say you the truth I am more interested in spiritual developement than my personality so I do not know what can be done with it.

Do you ask because I have some serious flaw that I should take care of?

Hi Pawel,

I've been experimenting with diet too. The Stoics were big on this as a foundation for personal discipline. We are very attached to food! Typically I fast for around 36hrs each week, it may have some health benefits but it is most interesting working with an attachment.

I'm interested in the idea of embodiment. Many meditation centric approaches seem to encourage us to "wake up" but there are a number of teachers that talk about "waking down". Ken Wilber mentions grow up, clean up, wake up, show up. Shinzen Young mentions appreciate, transcend, improve. I think these are all aspects of spirituality - spirituality that is divorced from the everyday seems a misunderstanding although that may be an essential phase of development for many.

Hopefully you know that I can't have an accurate opinion of you via messages on a forum. Given that you have not been so interested in personality and given how much insight personality gives into attachments then I suspect you could get a lot of "return on investment".

What Ken WIlber refers to as "clean up" is shadow work. I find this fascinating and if you are not "selfing" it is a lot easier to get started. The theory is that we all have some very ugly traits that are unconscious. Our personality and emotional reactions are big sign posts to aspects of the shadow.

I'm still trying to really understand what "show up" and "improve" means to me but it seems to be the aspect bringing insights into the everyday. 

Given that I think we all have serious flaws then yes I think there are things you could take care of. But exactly what they are would be your call.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/27/15 12:43 AM as a reply to Mark.
[quote=
]@Richard Zen
Ok, so assume I have clear conscience, then what? Experience self? and for what purpose? It still need to go, this is illusion, dream. You are much better off without it, you owe it to yourself, to see what your really are. Experience of self instead of experiencing your Buddha nature is pure  cruelty, even with clear conscience.
You will always experience "self" as long as you are conscious. It never goes away, unless you are unconscious. What goes away is rumination and controlling domineering behaviour (after years of practice). Having aversion to "self" is just another aversion. Your amygdala will not turn off completely. Buddha nature is simply when you have less irritation it's easier to be compassionate. Yet for those who are incapable of compassion even meditation won't work.

The "self" is simply the motivation chemicals that gets you to be curious and interested which is up to you on what you want to be interested in. Feeling absorbed at work or having interesting hobbies is a good thing and enlightenment doesn't mean you let go of them. When a person clings less they find that healthy pursuits that allow a clear conscience was never the problem. It was doing behaviours that pretended that one has more control than one has over cause and effect. Eg. Imagining a past conversation and rehearsing it over again to try and say what you wanted to say. Imagning future arguments before they actually happen.

Saying that "self" is pure cruelty, even with a clear conscience, is exagerration typical of posters on this website. There are people capable of great compassion even if they never meditated before.

If you really think the way you posted up above then you should contemplate being a monastic.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/27/15 12:45 AM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Richard Zen:
[quote=]@Richard Zen
Ok, so assume I have clear conscience, then what? Experience self? and for what purpose? It still need to go, this is illusion, dream. You are much better off without it, you owe it to yourself, to see what your really are. Experience of self instead of experiencing your Buddha nature is pure  cruelty, even with clear conscience.

You will always experience "self" as long as you are conscious. It never goes away, unless you are unconscious. What goes away is rumination and controlling domineering behaviour (after years of practice). Having aversion to "self" is just another aversion. Your amygdala will not turn off completely. Buddha nature is simply when you have less irritation it's easier to be compassionate. Yet for those who are incapable of compassion even meditation won't work.

The "self" is simply the motivation chemicals that gets you to be curious and interested which is up to you on what you want to be interested in. Feeling absorbed at work or having interesting hobbies is a good thing and enlightenment doesn't mean you let go of them. When a person clings less they find that healthy pursuits that allow a clear conscience was never the problem. It was doing behaviours that pretended that one has more control than one has over cause and effect. Eg. Imagining a past conversation and rehearsing it over again to try and say what you wanted to say. Imagning future arguments before they actually happen.

Saying that "self" is pure cruelty, even with a clear conscience, is exagerration typical of posters on this website. There are people capable of great compassion even if they never meditated before.

If you really think the way you posted up above then you should contemplate being a monastic.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/29/15 3:21 AM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Richard Zen:
Richard Zen:
[quote=]@Richard Zen
Ok, so assume I have clear conscience, then what? Experience self? and for what purpose? It still need to go, this is illusion, dream. You are much better off without it, you owe it to yourself, to see what your really are. Experience of self instead of experiencing your Buddha nature is pure  cruelty, even with clear conscience.

You will always experience "self" as long as you are conscious. It never goes away, unless you are unconscious. What goes away is rumination and controlling domineering behaviour (after years of practice). Having aversion to "self" is just another aversion. Your amygdala will not turn off completely. Buddha nature is simply when you have less irritation it's easier to be compassionate. Yet for those who are incapable of compassion even meditation won't work.

The "self" is simply the motivation chemicals that gets you to be curious and interested which is up to you on what you want to be interested in. Feeling absorbed at work or having interesting hobbies is a good thing and enlightenment doesn't mean you let go of them. When a person clings less they find that healthy pursuits that allow a clear conscience was never the problem. It was doing behaviours that pretended that one has more control than one has over cause and effect. Eg. Imagining a past conversation and rehearsing it over again to try and say what you wanted to say. Imagning future arguments before they actually happen.

Saying that "self" is pure cruelty, even with a clear conscience, is exagerration typical of posters on this website. There are people capable of great compassion even if they never meditated before.

If you really think the way you posted up above then you should contemplate being a monastic.
Hi Richard,

Pawel sometimes explains perceptions in regards to how neurons behave. You tend to explain the brain in terms of chemicals and a limited number of brain regions.

Where did you learn that the self maps to "motivation chemicals" ?

I assume you picked up a lot of the vocabularly from published material. How the brain "works" is a fascinating topic and the only thing I've been able to convince myself of is that we know extremely little about it. I've never heard a researcher speaking with anywhere near the confidence you do about how the brain works.

It would be great to hear more about the research or books you are basing your conclusions on.

I'm wondering how you define self. I think of it as the process that interprets experience and creates an illusion of an observer. For me we are conscious of the self, so for example in a state of flow the self is not present - basically that process is not conscious , it has "gone away". The self gives an expereince of "I am ..." whereas in a state of deep flow there is just the activity being performed. Beyond that "selfing process" there is personality, ego, unconscious activity etc which I think are still influencing behavior whether the selfing process is active or not. With this definition it seems to me the self could go away ?

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/29/15 8:25 AM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:
Richard Zen:
Richard Zen:
[quote=]@Richard Zen
Ok, so assume I have clear conscience, then what? Experience self? and for what purpose? It still need to go, this is illusion, dream. You are much better off without it, you owe it to yourself, to see what your really are. Experience of self instead of experiencing your Buddha nature is pure  cruelty, even with clear conscience.

You will always experience "self" as long as you are conscious. It never goes away, unless you are unconscious. What goes away is rumination and controlling domineering behaviour (after years of practice). Having aversion to "self" is just another aversion. Your amygdala will not turn off completely. Buddha nature is simply when you have less irritation it's easier to be compassionate. Yet for those who are incapable of compassion even meditation won't work.

The "self" is simply the motivation chemicals that gets you to be curious and interested which is up to you on what you want to be interested in. Feeling absorbed at work or having interesting hobbies is a good thing and enlightenment doesn't mean you let go of them. When a person clings less they find that healthy pursuits that allow a clear conscience was never the problem. It was doing behaviours that pretended that one has more control than one has over cause and effect. Eg. Imagining a past conversation and rehearsing it over again to try and say what you wanted to say. Imagning future arguments before they actually happen.

Saying that "self" is pure cruelty, even with a clear conscience, is exagerration typical of posters on this website. There are people capable of great compassion even if they never meditated before.

If you really think the way you posted up above then you should contemplate being a monastic.
Hi Richard,

Pawel sometimes explains perceptions in regards to how neurons behave. You tend to explain the brain in terms of chemicals and a limited number of brain regions.

Where did you learn that the self maps to "motivation chemicals" ?

I assume you picked up a lot of the vocabularly from published material. How the brain "works" is a fascinating topic and the only thing I've been able to convince myself of is that we know extremely little about it. I've never heard a researcher speaking with anywhere near the confidence you do about how the brain works.

It would be great to hear more about the research or books you are basing your conclusions on.

I'm wondering how you define self. I think of it as the process that interprets experience and creates an illusion of an observer. For me we are conscious of the self, so for example in a state of flow the self is not present - basically that process is not conscious , it has "gone away". The self gives an expereince of "I am ..." whereas in a state of deep flow there is just the activity being performed. Beyond that "selfing process" there is personality, ego, unconscious activity etc which I think are still influencing behavior whether the selfing process is active or not. With this definition it seems to me the self could go away ?
Well first I'm not talking only about motivational chemicals persay in this situation but definitely that is a motivating factor see Loretta Breuning on "Meet your happy chemicals". I'm more quoting Rob Burbea in that perception is always checking things out to see good things or bad things and this supports your consciousness. When you go into Nirvana you slip away from experience. If there's any experience happening it's happening because the limbic system is working. The alarm in the brain never goes away completely. Understanding emptiness means you can skillfully fabricate (condition yourself differently).

I like this Mahayana answer because it avoids hypocrisy. You can see people looking at objects to like or dislike with an automatically shifting attention span. Each shift has a little bit of dukkha with it (often hard to notice when there's so much equanimity). It checks out items to buy or another example is how men and women can glance at each other quickly (much like shopping) and it bolsters the sense of time. "Is this good for me or bad for me in the future, was it good or bad in the past?" You couldn't function in Nirvana. This is why the understandings are very important so that rumination goes lower and lower, but as Rob Burbea points out the sense of self can go up to lots of reactivity and be as subtle as "me here, object over there, and time".

With the understanding of emptiness I can use basic sky-gazing practices of letting go of attention to objects (including mind objects) but skillfully re-engage attention to objects when it's skillful to do so. Not believing in a "self" doesn't mean the mental warning system shuts off completely. You just see it as it is, a warning system. Perception is recognizing objects and assessing their value very quickly.

A good way to test this is the sky-gazing practice. Keep letting go of attention to objects until space is predominent and then let go of space and time. Try and function this way. It will not be skillful (especially when driving a car or walking on a busy street). The senses will fade but at some point the brain will reengage objects for that basic survival purpose (don't walk into light post). Most of this is covered in the following talk:

http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/210/talk/9553/

I can't remember which talk but he was letting the audience know in one talk that the sense of self never completely goes away. You can tell this can scare an audience if they feel that certain basic alarms don't operate at all. I like how Rob mentions that the insight practice is just a way of looking. The intention to let go is just another intention. It's so empty that you can bolster the sense of self or diminish it with choice to use the attention span or not.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
6/29/15 9:19 PM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Richard Zen:


http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/210/talk/9553/

I can't remember which talk but he was letting the audience know in one talk that the sense of self never completely goes away. You can tell this can scare an audience if they feel that certain basic alarms don't operate at all. I like how Rob mentions that the insight practice is just a way of looking. The intention to let go is just another intention. It's so empty that you can bolster the sense of self or diminish it with choice to use the attention span or not.

Ok, that makes sense.  I couldn't see how I could function if there was no sense of self and everything happened by itself.  Would I still want to do hobbies since hobbies involve some kind of desire?  I don't see how anyone would do anything without a tad of liking something or having a preference.  But I can see doing things with a tad of clinging and recognizing it as clinging.  But seems like some kind of sense of self is part of existing here in the Earth experience.  If ALL sense of self were gone, I wonder if my existence here as a separate looking human body would also be gone.  
-Eva  

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
7/1/15 2:09 PM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Richard Zen:

Well first I'm not talking only about motivational chemicals persay in this situation but definitely that is a motivating factor see Loretta Breuning on "Meet your happy chemicals".



I could not find anybody with a qualification in neuroscience discussing her book. She has a PhD in Management and the book was self published. Without a background in the field I'd be very suspicious of what she is writing. Is there anyone respected in neuroscience that references what she writes ?




I'm more quoting Rob Burbea in that perception is always checking things out to see good things or bad things and this supports your consciousness. When you go into Nirvana you slip away from experience. If there's any experience happening it's happening because the limbic system is working. The alarm in the brain never goes away completely. Understanding emptiness means you can skillfully fabricate (condition yourself differently).



This seems to be confusing the experience of self and experience in general. For example in a state of deep flow there is no perception of time or subject. If you intellectualise it and meditate instead of being in the state of flow then you could add the self back in but it seems to be ignoring the nature of the experience ?



I like this Mahayana answer because it avoids hypocrisy. You can see people looking at objects to like or dislike with an automatically shifting attention span. Each shift has a little bit of dukkha with it (often hard to notice when there's so much equanimity). It checks out items to buy or another example is how men and women can glance at each other quickly (much like shopping) and it bolsters the sense of time. "Is this good for me or bad for me in the future, was it good or bad in the past?"


If you go looking you will be able to see those sorts of questions but that does not mean there is actually a selfing process going on all the time. The experience is changed by observing it. I would guess there is a sense of self when there is an intention to pay attention i.e. the subject is being modelled in consciousness.


You couldn't function in Nirvana. This is why the understandings are very important so that rumination goes lower and lower, but as Rob Burbea points out the sense of self can go up to lots of reactivity and be as subtle as "me here, object over there, and time".

With the understanding of emptiness I can use basic sky-gazing practices of letting go of attention to objects (including mind objects) but skillfully re-engage attention to objects when it's skillful to do so. Not believing in a "self" doesn't mean the mental warning system shuts off completely. You just see it as it is, a warning system. Perception is recognizing objects and assessing their value very quickly.


I have more of an impression that we are "predicting" - the perceptions are used to pattern match with previous experience so as to predict what is going to happen. For example we create false perceptions when the prediction starts diverging from what the senses are detecting.




A good way to test this is the sky-gazing practice. Keep letting go of attention to objects until space is predominent and then let go of space and time. Try and function this way. It will not be skillful (especially when driving a car or walking on a busy street). The senses will fade but at some point the brain will reengage objects for that basic survival purpose (don't walk into light post). Most of this is covered in the following talk:

http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/210/talk/9553/


This seems pretty artificial - the insights may be more about that particular state than the states where most of us spend most time.



I can't remember which talk but he was letting the audience know in one talk that the sense of self never completely goes away. You can tell this can scare an audience if they feel that certain basic alarms don't operate at all. I like how Rob mentions that the insight practice is just a way of looking. The intention to let go is just another intention. It's so empty that you can bolster the sense of self or diminish it with choice to use the attention span or not.

I imagine if you look for it then you will find it. But I also imagine the perception of self are related to particular brain functions and when those functions are not active there really is no perceivable self. Rob does not seem to get the relative nature of experience as he tries to ground things - I don't think this is what the buddha's insight was into dependent origination. He reminds me of someone looking for "the truth" but I've not listened to much of his talks - maybe I was unlucky in the talks I listened to.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
7/1/15 7:24 PM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Paweł K:
Self and specifically parts which I am really pointing too are like unbroken colt. Noble ones who strive for enlightenment do go beyond what you are destined to always experience and just do whatever is necessary to be done, even if it defy nature, even if it defy logic, even if it defy universe itself. Buddhas are above gods, above whole cosmos. If something is not possible and have to be done then it is just done.

But Pawel, when people see you they will see your eyes shifting from one object to another like most people. Your limbic system is still operating while you are awake. Unless you want to be in permanent cessation?

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
7/2/15 8:17 AM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Paweł K:
So when it comes to interactions with others, the less you have your sense of self the less others have their senses of self and everyone are more happy, you are liked by others or at least not disliked.

Show no sign of sense of self when you interact with person who have it 'on spot' and such person will be shifted to not feel it too and he/she will like you because you make them feel better. It is really just group dynamics caused by pure reactivity.

Just do not mistake indifference with lack of sense of self. When somebody is indifferent it is actually something completely different and from outside is completely differently perceived and cause indifference toward person who show it. It is just a matter of cultivating skillful character traits and eliminating those unskillful and others will more or less mirror you. If you create image of yourself as some sort of god and worship yourself but do so externally then others will feel magnetism toward you. If you create image of self, identify with it and believe it is you and obsess about it then you will be defensive and make people will feel threatened too and they will attack you.

I see it in myself that I do attack people who show those traits. Fastest way to fix it is not to change own behavior toward them when you feel you are mirroring them but to make other people mirror you. Have so strong personality that they will loose themselves in you. That way you are actually helping them, even without them noticing a thing. Stopping yourself from being reactive when someone is spamming own mind state is necessary but not enough, not for people who strive to liberate all living beings from themselves.

BTW. inside own mind interactions look more or less like this too, just components are simpler and connection much better. As above, so below; as below, so above.
I find the opposite in these situtations. I find that if I don't validate other people's selves then they get quite angry. When I validate then they feel much better towards me. Secondly if you are in a competitive situation with them they will find you a doormat when you act passive and kind with them. Just being in a position that is competitive is enough for rivals to project on you. They will even project on you traits from the prior person in your position. In the corporate world, being so compassionate and empathetic they expect you should work in HR or just "somewhere else". To appear strong you have to be "needed" in workplace situations, in marriages (especially with kids), and friendships. Validation gives them that sense of importance they are looking for, especially if you agree with people on views.

I also believe opposite to you in that I think people who are not awake are self-referencing constantly and that's why they have so little connection to the present moment. If you are at work (and especially with narcissists) they will project their faults on to you, project experiences they had with others on to you, forget facts in debates and twist them against you even to the point of believing it. I've caught people redhanded in lies and these are grown adults and they will obfuscate, lie, and project on to you.

It's basically an addictive web of influence while at the same time controlling envy towards you. Cosimo de Medici seemed to understand it well:
“Envy is a weed that should not be watered." Cosimo de Medici

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
7/3/15 5:57 PM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Sorry but I've done plenty of cessation of all kinds of qualities and it's amazing the stuff they will project on to you. I wish it was as simple as people mirroring peace simply because I'm peaceful. If peace is not their self-interest they won't be peaceful no matter what you do. In fact it's more predictable to see people project on to you their beliefs/views/biases based on their prior experiences with other people. This is especially true if you are meeting them for the first time. They label you like "you remind me of so and so". You could be totally different from "so and so" and they'll still project it because it's comfortable for them to do so.

Doing speeches you can see this. If you pander to their self interest you get better results. If you just do a presentation that doesn't pander (history speech for example) they'll tune out.

Another thing about enlightenment is you get to see who is present and who is not. When awakened it's easy to see who's robotic and repeating old habits. Some people look so unaware it's frightening.

We have influences over other people but that influence is much more pronounced when you have POWER and can control what they need. If you don't have power it's amazing to see how people can treat you when you do nothing for them. They'll treat you like an inanimate object.

I'll never forget some of the office backgrounds I've been in when I was doing Brahamavihara practices. There was one boardroom meeting with one manager and she was trying to get people to give 3 wishes to try and introduce themselves and I said I would cure people of cancer and another manager lady who hated me from day one (because I had an accounting designation) and she said she felt like shit openly because her wishes were more selfish. All she did was project envy because that was her personality. She did persona-non-grata tactics on me simply because I was applying for jobs there. She attacked me becausehad no power. When you have power over others it's amazing how people will change their tune towards you. 

The best way to predict people's behaviour is asking "what is the benefit?" Imagine yourself as the other person and see what is your most basic self-interest and you'll be closer to knowing their minds.

People do want validation regardless of your lack of need for validation and there is loads of cause and effect that we are unaware of. To think everything is a mirror of you is classic narcissism. Beware.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
7/3/15 12:47 PM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Paweł and Richard, perhaps there is another variable besides your power, which is the degree of awakeness of your audience. Eckhart Tolle remarks somewhere that when a deeply unconscious person (padaparama?) comes across someone who's awake, they want to attack.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
7/3/15 2:20 PM as a reply to P K.
I think the click, doesn't have to do with what you do or don't.
What you do or don't do are very important, but the final click occurs when you understand.

Understanding is a diffult topic. You can stare at an equation for hours and not know what it means. And suddenly, you get it.
Staring at it helps, analyzing from different angles helps, concentration in the equation helps, intention to solve it helps, relaxing helps.
But in the end, you can do all those things and not be able to solve it (and it can be very, very frustating).

For me, the click occurs when the mind understands the relationship between many things that shape it's experience.
And that understanding allows us to do major lifestyle modifications.

Understanding is very powerful, its what separates us from animals.

But there is a catch. When you solve an equation, the equation is not part of you, of your brain processes.
So, the solution cannot occur when the mind is conscious, because the conscious mind is part of the problem.

So, the solution occurs somewhere in the brain, someplace cognizant but not affected by consiousness.

Thats why I think that it is impossible to describe awakening. It's an understanding that goes beyond senses.

So, I agree with you, what you do and not do is very important.

But (and this is my opinion) to advance in the path, I would do the same I would do with an equation.
I would stare at it very quietly (meditation), focus on it (concentration), analyze its parts (noting), if possible in a quiet place (retreat) and remember that all those things that I am doing are part of the problem to be solved (who am I). When tired I would relax, just like I would relax from solving an equation.
As what "I think and do" are part of the problem to be solved, it can be useful not to have many conflicts between many parts of the mind (good, bad, regrets, anxiety, etc) (noble eighfold path).

But in the end, I really don't know how the each click arises the first time. There's something cognizant in the brain that cannot be described (in terms of senses or thoughts).

Just an opinion.

RE: Morality of not doing
Answer
7/3/15 4:15 PM as a reply to Derek.
I think this is best processed in psychological terms and to me, indicates its still about status. A mature awakened human being is going to be substantially less emotionally needy, that is, they don't seek validation of their status via social signaling in others. They less depend on others defining their sense of self and their status in the group. This is a non-verbal beacon of status in and of itself. Status, that is, the lack of emotional neediness, is measured by how one treats oneself, one treats others, and how others treat you. These aggregates primarily determine perceptions of status. (Of course, it's more complex, like height for men, beauty for women, etc.)

Thus, this high status of a well grounded awakened person is a power threat, which feeds back into Richards post. The awakened person is giving off extremely high status vibes in a situation where others mental programs say they shouldn't be, 'he's short', 'she's ugly', 'his job title is low', and yet they are signaling high status, creating an uncanny valley effect with the mental programs in the person's mind that's quite viscious sometimes. With intentions maybe this could be shattered, but that entails potentially other shadowsides, who knows.

It's extremely obvious people don't see me, but rather mental programs triggered from impressions of me. I have talked to so many strangers over the years, thousands upon thousands, and am absolutely certain that Richard's post nailed it. It deserved to be reposted 40 times, imo at least.