There are no coincidences. The line of cause and affect may be very abstract, but it is there.
Does obligation have to be a suffering? No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t have to be a suffering, but it only ceases to be a suffering when we see that we chose that set of obligations, and recognize why we do. See ourselves in it.
But, but, but aren’t we “obliged“ to suffer? Yes. They tell us we are obliged to suffer. If we don’t, we aren’t taking the way and the teachings seriously enough including the teaching of “liberation”, and accept that my path is my path and bettered or worsened based on my choices, including obligation.
Suffering is a perceived relationship to circumstance. Two people can experience the same situation yet for one it is suffering and for the other it is a chosen opportunity to grow, expand and serve others. Very true. In fact, often the most “true” choice can make one seem to be a villain in the societal view. Even the original meaning of the word “villain” has its origins in medieval society. Denoted a freeman, usually a craftsperson, who was under no “noble obligation”, and were often cursed because (at least a little bit) they made the surfs consider that they might have a chance at a different life. Consider what one thing would you want most in your lives? Is it not liberation?
Peace. Contentment. Has obligation given you peace? Has it given you contentment? And can you give what you do not have? Would you not want these things for others? Peace and contentment reside in liberation.
Observing obligation to the Aumakua has been a path to the liberation. Ah yes, indeed. I’m not bashing all obligation. In fact, you wouldn’t be justified in cutting off all demand on your person, because in the same turn you cut off supply. You cannot presume to be seeking your own freedom and yet deny another.
What would you say is our first obligation? Your first obligation is to self, and I don’t mean ego. I mean self knowledge. Accepting your feelings, and your traits.
Would you say consciousness? Yes, that is the first obligation. The second is the realization that even those things in yourself that are inconvenient, that you’re told are ugly or have judged as ugly, are still very there and very real. Then you are obligated to make a knowing choice about all of this nature inside you, these weather changes, and to meet your own needs including dealing with others. Does this actually sound selfish? Where is the evil in this order of awareness?
No, but sadly that is how it is interpreted by others as ego. Yes, better we suffer a living death than actually give of our true selves. Better we consent to be a brick laid in that wall they call the graveyard, than actually know joy in life, or so they say.
Why use suffering as a description? The original meaning of the word suffer (which is a very old word) meant to allow without interference, without participation. They would be the same thing. Is this morally right? Is this spiritually sound? There is a passage from the Bible about “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, meaning allow them to live. I say perhaps people should be allowed to live, including you.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.