entertaining the thought
Two religions have had a major influence on my life, Catholicism in it most theological sense (the practice was important mostly in my learning it) and zen buddhism, which simple enough to learn but so much harder to understand. Both would promote an idea of selflessness and for a long time I hated myself. Now I don't think anything of myself at all.
I haven't reached enlightenment, obviously, but I do think I'm about as near to being selfless as humanly possible. That I am still human is what makes it impossible. As long as I am shackled to this self, I can never be selfless. In catholicism, morals come from the idea of an after life which could be the time when you could finally become selfless without losing yourself. Buddhism is more interesting in its morality as it presumes that life never ends. Karma repays actions in successive lives but only with enlightenment, nirvana, can what is right or wrong take on meaning. Reactions in life from actions in a previous life which act on the next life would become cyclical as well, without right or wrong. Only with a way out, some meaning outside what we experience, can right and wrong come to be. Right becomes the way out, wrong becomes the way to be ground into dust in karmic cycles.
truly, i do not understand the morality of another culture but by comparing it to what I know and by reducing to more general ideas, I would present these as my tentative thoughts on buddhism. I have also read that in buddhism the idea of enjoying life is silly because life mostly defined by pain. Living is hell. Nirvana as the end of the way becomes understandable in this way because ceasing to exist is better than existing forever in pain, a flaw to the world.
ideally, both would point towards selflessness, but I wonder if selflessness or enlightenment of a kind could be achieved before death. What would one do with it? Self-satisfaction wouldn't exist for such a person anymore, the context would be lost. Sometimes I think that I can be selfless, but that it plays out more as a folly in reality when I trust some too much and others not enough. Always mindful of the world around me but always forgetting myself. It doesn't work so well.
I would say i'm a poet not because of how i write about what I see but rather how it is that I see. I used to see such things in the world that took on shapes in response to my personality. This world of grandeur and the grotesque becomes apparent to me still but only after periods of time in which I can rest from trying always to be mindful of the world around by being empathetic for others. In other words, only when other personalities to influence me are absent can my own finally come out in a way I know.
I don't know what to make of this because it means in seeing the world, I still see great things but they are great mostly in what they are, because I have no room to judge for others. When discerning for myself, when my life is only my own, i see the things as what they could be because i would judge them for myself. The fact that I my normal way of seeing things used to be more of my own means that I have gained empathy. The way I see things now I would believe in anyone else more than me, but what does that leave me to tell them, or to offer.
writing because i can, because i want to now, this may not make sense now, but maybe i'll find the words if i still want to someday.
I haven't reached enlightenment, obviously, but I do think I'm about as near to being selfless as humanly possible. That I am still human is what makes it impossible. As long as I am shackled to this self, I can never be selfless. In catholicism, morals come from the idea of an after life which could be the time when you could finally become selfless without losing yourself. Buddhism is more interesting in its morality as it presumes that life never ends. Karma repays actions in successive lives but only with enlightenment, nirvana, can what is right or wrong take on meaning. Reactions in life from actions in a previous life which act on the next life would become cyclical as well, without right or wrong. Only with a way out, some meaning outside what we experience, can right and wrong come to be. Right becomes the way out, wrong becomes the way to be ground into dust in karmic cycles.
truly, i do not understand the morality of another culture but by comparing it to what I know and by reducing to more general ideas, I would present these as my tentative thoughts on buddhism. I have also read that in buddhism the idea of enjoying life is silly because life mostly defined by pain. Living is hell. Nirvana as the end of the way becomes understandable in this way because ceasing to exist is better than existing forever in pain, a flaw to the world.
ideally, both would point towards selflessness, but I wonder if selflessness or enlightenment of a kind could be achieved before death. What would one do with it? Self-satisfaction wouldn't exist for such a person anymore, the context would be lost. Sometimes I think that I can be selfless, but that it plays out more as a folly in reality when I trust some too much and others not enough. Always mindful of the world around me but always forgetting myself. It doesn't work so well.
I would say i'm a poet not because of how i write about what I see but rather how it is that I see. I used to see such things in the world that took on shapes in response to my personality. This world of grandeur and the grotesque becomes apparent to me still but only after periods of time in which I can rest from trying always to be mindful of the world around by being empathetic for others. In other words, only when other personalities to influence me are absent can my own finally come out in a way I know.
I don't know what to make of this because it means in seeing the world, I still see great things but they are great mostly in what they are, because I have no room to judge for others. When discerning for myself, when my life is only my own, i see the things as what they could be because i would judge them for myself. The fact that I my normal way of seeing things used to be more of my own means that I have gained empathy. The way I see things now I would believe in anyone else more than me, but what does that leave me to tell them, or to offer.
writing because i can, because i want to now, this may not make sense now, but maybe i'll find the words if i still want to someday.