25 Things You Should Know About Yourself.

- Thread -

1. What is an ideal day to you?

2. What is your passion?

3. What are your 'non negotiables' in relationships and friendships?
4. What is your life philosophy?

5. What are your strengths?

6. What are your weaknesses?
7. What people like about you?

8. What is successful for you?

9. What can you do for hours happily?
10. What do other people come to you for help with?

11. What activities are boring to you?

12. What drains your energy?
13. What activities you need help with?

14. What kind of people you like?

15. How you motivate yourself?
16. What are the things you are better than others?

17. What makes you happy?

18. What can you sacrifice?
19. What are your values?

20. What makes you lazy?

21. How strong you are?
22. How you respond to stress?

23. How much you already have?

24. What is your self image about you?

25. How far you come in your journey?
30 Days.

5 Products.

And a Promise to Change Your Life.

Get "AWAKENING - A 30 Day Self-Transformation Program" 👇

https://t.co/6jWtz6PX89
Thanks for reading.

Follow (@UpSkillYourLife ) for more threads on Mindset, Skills, Habits, Psychology and Life.

More from UpSkillYourLife

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"