well, i do enjoy our conversations very much
and if someone says something nice, i could just say "thanks"
but this is much more interesting
we see some things in similar ways
but some things we see differently
and i'm just trying to communicate how these things might be viewed from another perspective
"I said that the desire for non-identification is also an identification with not identifying with anything."
not exactly
it's more of an exploration
you may have noticed that many people identify themselves primarily by obstacles they've overcome
some accomplishment
or some traumatic event that has happened to them
like batman
now try to imagine who or what batman might be if they simply let-go of their trauma
what would batman be without trauma
so i let-go of my trauma
then i thought, how do i describe myself
well, i find by observation, i tend to describe myself by what i like
what would happen if i let go of that too ?
then what ?
what is my self-image without trauma and without favorite things ?
what about ideas ?
what ideas can i let-go of ?
and at some point you'll find that there is nothing else to let-go of
and it's not exactly that there is "nothing"
but what remains is integral
By the way, that is why there are monasteries and monks who practise this kind of self-discipline. According to the strict rules of their realisations. Since the monks know that they would hardly be able to maintain this kind of self-discipline in life out there, they become monks.
Buddhists therefore make a distinction between lay people and non-lay people. That's why Catholics also have celibacy. So as not to be distracted by worldly things, because they will inevitably be distracted.
It is a self-protection, but of course even monastic life and celibate life still offers enough opportunities to find oneself in a state of anger or resentment or other feelings, since you always deal with people. Only they are reduced to a minimum.
To believe that a layperson only needs to meditate or only needs to do yoga or only needs to "empathise" in order to master lives challenges is ridiculous.
I personally think this is why there is the contrast between monks (experts) and people with families and work etc., because a person who works and has a family cannot work with the doctrine so intensively. The Buddhist monks don't necessarily expect that either, so they see themselves as a point of contact (like modern therapists) for lay people to disturb them with their questions. It is enough for people to believe, i.e. to accept the religion that has been culturally passed on to them. Because you believe, you don't need to separate yourself like a monk from the worldly way of life.
They trust the authorities to guide them wisely. That is the reason I refer to those authorities who keep the ability alive to disturb their clientele with funny questions to make them realize something. The probability to meet such a serene person is higher with ordained monks than with a modern therapist.
That does not mean that a lay person needs to swallow everything what the expert suggests. To keep in touch with the teachings themselves and to be able to distinguish between good and bad advice. Though a monk will not say "do this" or "do that". He might ask the person who seeks advice questions and let them come to their own conclusions. If they don't, they are bad advisors.
Same with Christian priests. But I ask myself who is actually getting in personal touch nowadays with a priest? He could do the same as the asian monks. That was his role in pre modern times.
I very much became in favor of this form of relationship on a personal local level.
From my point of view the protestants got it wrong, since they abandoned celibacy.
please explain
You have an optimum/ideal. The optimum stands in stark contrast to the non-optimum. It makes a categorical statement.
For example: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Everyone is a sinner. Or, to put it in more modern terms: Everyone is a rule-breaker. If I now water down the ideal, i.e. the categorical ought provision, and include exceptions to the rule in the formulation itself, turning it into an optional provision, I weaken it.
The statement would then be lame and would read, for example:
If you can, don't break your marriage.
Or: You can honour your parents.
Or: Decide whether you steal or not.
It's not provocative enough. There is little inner resistance to the wording. You read a sentence like this and could as well shrug your shoulders. If I "can" do something, then I don't "have" to.
I don't immediately ask: "And what if I break the marriage?" Or "And what if I don't honour my parents?"
These questions lead to the exceptions to the rules. Because, of course, there are always exceptions. But if you turn the whole thing round and declare exceptions to be the rule, nothing is achieved. No provocation, no debate. To put it bluntly.
I look at celibacy and monasticism in the same way. Through their renunciation, monks or priests represent an ideal (extreme). They are a living contrast to those who do not live a celibate life. Without them as a provocative ideal, this contrast would not exist.
The monks do not see themselves as being on a superior path (when they are genuine). They offer themselves as a contrast to worldly life. So, as you said, an "other". That's the point, isn't it?
When you look at a picture, you have a foreground and a background. Both are components of the picture, neither superior nor inferior, but necessary to distinguish the foreground from the background. The whole thing then forms a picture.
There's no way I could live the life of a nun, I wouldn't want to give up the occasional glass of wine, beer or cocktail, I wouldn't want to give up my husband and I certainly wouldn't want to give up my son. The monks, who live off the gifts of the people around them, may seem to lead a fairly comfortable life at first glance, but most people would probably not want to swap places with them. Getting up at 4 in the morning, meditating several hours, strict daily structures, frugal food and frugal rooms etc. etc. etc.
But if you are a Protestant pastor, then you can lead a completely secular life and basically you are hardly distinguishable from the non-consecrated. The fact that Protestant pastors can marry, have children and do not have to be teetotallers means that they have to give up very little. That's why Catholics don't get on very well with Protestants. And the Orthodox don't get on very well with the Catholics, I guess. I think it's because of the perceived watering down of the rules when it comes to religious appointments.
The reproach of all non-office holders towards the institutions is precisely that: That water is preached but wine is drunk. They made their nest too cozy and have become indistinguishable. (preaching water remains a correct message, though). Still, even celibacy is already a lot to give up. I think it is easier said than done.
I have heard of protestant female pastors who now preach that being lesbian or whatever sex one might prefer, is "alright" since "Jesus loves everyone". While I think that what they do is erasing all contrast between the ideal and the ordinary.
thanks for clearing that up
some paths are for some people
other paths are for other people
i'd have to think very long and hard before i even considered starting to begin attempting to "make a plan" to "improve" "myself"
Thanks for asking :)
uargh... I really cannot stand this expression. Same with "becoming a better version of myself".
It's too much about "me, me, me"
Thank goodness we can tell each other jokes and provide ourselves with interesting riddles and challenges.
it becomes a schelling-point problem
desire not to desire
if i could scam a bunch of people into paying me to meditate all day and live surrounded by nature, that would be very hard to turn down
but that is merely a different path
not a superior path
seeking enlightenment is like riding an ox in search of an ox
HaHa :D yes, funny way to put it.