It is my not leaning on another in any way that truly justifies my position of freedom. Should I tell a friend that they are wrong to do such a thing or take a stand against a powerful corporation about their policy - I am in both cases asking for the same in return, that they can also do the same to me.
Only by not forcing on another, can I be just in my position of true freedom, and not have any force come upon myself.
How then do we take a stand and form the world if we can not act like that? There are those who will saw the branches off the tree. There are those more cunning who will tie the branches at a young age to have them grow a desired way. There are those, like me, who love a natural form no matter how it goes. Most people have grown up with wraps around them, they have restricted and deformed growth of their character that will take big work to even notice before it can be removed. From a restricted growth they look out and too wish to form the world around them by restricting, forming and shaping. They may even take out a saw to get their way.
The only way to go is allow others to have their way so you can live out your own natural form. Hopefully with time they will notice the constraints on them and reform themselves by inner desire than by extremal force.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tao Wow | Daily Cup of Tao
9 comments:
True indeed! This reminds me of another post of yours I liked very much. Be the Buddha and not the Buddhist. People will see the light only when they are ready.
Peace
:-)
Addition:
If I act on another then I am imposing my will upon them. In saying my way is right I am in the realm of the do-gooder and the oppressor.
Only by accepting their wrong and continuing in freedom (with no similar act or intent as the one I wish others not to have on me) do I make a true stand for freedom.
Only by I being free can all be free. Only by letting all be free can all be free. [The USA "fight for peace" is such a fine example of the opposite].
Freedom is an illusion. We are all connected, thus we are interdependend. Even if we get rid of the ego, we still depend on our body. Even if we overcome the body, we still have got limits. That what defines us, limits us. The only free is the undefined and unlimited.
Carina you will notice a contradiction and a trap in your own words as you are talking about two types of freedom in the same point.
I am well aware of interdependence of all things but am refering to the freedom we give to others to be themselves so that we too are fee to be our selves. The points are entirely complimentary as to not have that freedom is to be trapped in the notion of separateness :)
I think I see what you mean but the picture is still blurry. Is it possible that we talk about the 2 different 2 ways to gain freedom/ unity: one way is to dissolve into nothing, the other to dissolve into the whole?
Nothing as No-thing is the whole. The whole is so whole it is not a thing and so can not be delimited by name.
We agree that it is impossible to be free as in; 'removed or separate' as that counters the truth of interdependence. Nothing is separate or free in that sense.
The article I wrote was about the freedom to be you. By telling another how to be (in the way of governments, religions, do-gooders, "If I were you"'s) then no matter how well intended that notion it will remove your own freedom and justify others trying to shape you. Only by not leaning on another to be some way can you be sure that nothing will come back on you. In absolute freedom, and one person dictating, then in no time the freedom of all is gone. So to obtain freedom is to begin by allowing all to be free. Imposing your will on no one, accepting all as all.
The government that fights for freedom would be best to pack up, quit the job, quit office, get a day job and walk in the fields - Being free now and not destroying many lives for a dream of the future. The futures brought about would be built on 1) the aftermath of war or 2) having a nice day and letting others act out their days too.
The only argument against that is that "well they when left alone would too fight and destroy life" - but my argument would still be valid, the problems would be more isolated and less intense. Eventually passing out and not being fueled on.
Most army's stand up to another army. If one did not even show up then, you see.
The same if someone argues in life, the argument is one sided if the other does not argue back, just smile and it goes away.
The same if I do not tell others how to be then they will have no reason or justification to tell me how to be.
The opposite if I put myself into a position of telling all how to be I open myself to great problems.
Ocean not stream.
Yes, you are right, nothing does not exist. I recently came to connect physics and philospohy. 'We are caught in the chains of reaction, we are caught in causality.' The only thing which was truly free was the 'First Cause'. From a physical point of view 'nothing' does not exist: an atomic system at absolute zero retains an energy of ½hν. The electromagnetic zero-point field is loosely considered as a sea of background electromagnetic energy that fills the vacuum of space. It is that what is left if reduce everything, if we go back to the roots: the 'First Cause'. David Bohm (one of the founders of quantum physics) posited, for example, that the field might be the force from which all life (the Whole) unfolds...
So the potential of the Whole is enfolded in the First Cause and to overcome separation we have to unfold it.
True words have never been spoken! This was beautiful.
Post a Comment