The system of ‘should’ doesn’t seem to have anyone who’s knowingly in charge. It’s sort of like a mental virus. Choice is power. Should is force and static.
When I give my talks I tend to just go with the flow of inspiration, regrettably it means I sometimes “leave no trace”, even in my own mind.
I like the format of these discussions, going with the flow. It gives all a chance to talk and is more interactive. People learn by doing, not by being done to is my experience. I believe in the true meaning of education. All are better served by educement, drawing out.
I know plenty who want to intellectually sword fence with me. I won’t bother with that. They aren’t teachable in that state, and they can gain nothing while they want to duel with me. Just to be able to talk and discuss is important, even if their statements run counter. Many seeming contradictory truths aren’t at all. I feel that I often teach well by someone sharing a seeming contradiction. I welcome that. If they don’t like to be told, I can show.
I am trying to climb my own ladder these days and not someone else’s. Reaching my own goals. Competing to be my own best. Not trying to compete with others. Not living up to anyone else’s idea of “good” even with seeking enlightenment. Being jealous of someone else’s path does nothing but put you off your own, which serves no one.
With Buddhism there is a tendency to say “you are suffering” to people, and I am not sure if this is the right thing to say if a person is not even aware that they are suffering? It isn’t even a mandatory announcement. When in the presence of one who does not suffer, often no word need to be said at all. The person will be moved to speak. There is one case in particular where an academic student began questioning a teacher. The teacher watched him, but would not speak. The student spoke on and on, and couldn’t seem to grasp why the teacher would not teach him. That went on for quite a while. The student becoming more and more exasperated, till one day he began in with his usually rhetoric, then stopped. He saw what he was being taught, so they just sat together and the teacher smiled at him. I have heard of another teacher who at first answers any questions from a student with “no”. When they find quiet, he starts asking questions.
My problem with Buddhist enlightenment is that one may be weary of the world, and so come to be enlightened and find peace. But then when peace is found and they have compassion, there is no choice regarding rebirth because when compassionate one could not leave the earth when others are not enlightened. It is like a paradox. In being reborn they are still in no way disturbed, that endures. When you see that peace, you understand that the struggle of others is natural and part of the process. So you lose attachment to fixing that, and the choice of helping or not is simply that, a choice, to make or not. Both are fine, and then you have freedom to choose rebirth.
Their compassion is not compromised, nor is their peace. One can find peace by resting the seeking mind or by exhausting the passions. This is a schism in seeking liberation.
Compassion by its nature sympathizes with others, and it’s like feeling the pain of others. How to become detached from that? Not all Buddha’s were beatific. There is a reason they say, “The slayer who thinks he slays is slain.” Many soldiers rather than breaking under the pressure of war or repressing its horrors, see the way in their experience. They feel no guilt for the killing nor any lust for it. They see that in the chaos of the passions the spirit is still there. Detachment is the elimination of craving or aversion, acceptance, and letting the pain flow without holding or pushing away. So you actually become more engaged. In my case, my path involves an exhausting of the passions, not an abstinence, not “resting”. When I try to rest I’m unrestful, but when I express I‘m relaxed.
The Christ (Christ being another title) was actually passionate, and more so than any usually learn. There is a passage in the Bible where they decided his wrath was just. The people decided hundreds of years after his life what actions of his were just and which were supposedly not what he did. But the apocrypha has more examples of the wrath of the Christ, and even of the passion of his love. He called his disciples brother with feeling, not philosophy. I would ask, were his insights less valid than the Buddha’s?
The connection between Buddhism and Christianity is interesting. It goes back into Gnostic Christianity and the modern Christ’s consciousness movement, which I saw no evidence actually in any way contradicts the Bible.
But I think it is the “good ” acts, the miracles of healing, and the raising from the dead that made Christ famous? I would say his good and his evil were parts of the same dynamic. He even in the Bible says “Why do you call me good? Don’t say that, but rather say I am on the path”. His was on an “ecstatic” path. Interesting note is that neurologically they can find no difference between the experience of extreme agony and orgasm. The ecstatic path is both in a sense philosophically ecstatic and literal.
You think that because you do not feel guilt about an act that it is ok? No. In fact, because I do not feel guilt about an act, I can see clearly what is and is not ok. I have no idea of repentance or atonement, nor any basis for justifying anger.
In my case, as I matured I began trying to comprehend my religious/spiritual/psychic experience and at first I turned to the faith. I did try with all my heart to understand it in that context, but I was treated to a darkness that was projected onto me. I was subject to an exorcism of sorts without them crossing any legal lines. My father was driven to fear, because “paranormal” phenomenon were emerging as I entered my teens. Walls speaking in whispers, things breaking, nightmares. I seem to cause nightmares reliably, though such is not my intent. My path is “dark” and in a sense it is not my choice. My path itself isn’t. On that path, I can and do make choices. But to be demonized for my own essence? The fear is not anything I force. Do you feel I should feel guilt for their nightmares, for their fear, for the horrors I have witnessed firsthand and in my sensitivity?
We find our way in our nature. I have a song on my Myspace page. The lyrics are very meaningful to me. It is a remake of “Walking in my shoes”. A few lyrics come readily to mind, “You’ll stumble in my foot steps, keep the same appointments I kept, if you try walking in my shoes”. I may seem strange to others, but likewise the world has an extra element of “scary” for me.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.