0
0M. My friend wants exclusivity. I can’t stand his way. And we fight. Its not an issue that he wants something, the problem has to do with the way he asks that.
J. You mean you are ok with the fact that he wants something, but you can’t accept the fact that he demands it?
M. Something like that. There is demand. He asks something and he expects that his desire will be fulfilled. He’s absolutely sure that what he wants will be done.
J. If you resist, fighting back his arrogance then you perpetuate the chaos.
M. He acts like a child
J. If you say “the fact that you are demanding pisses me off, so i will resist, i won’t do what you want” then you perpetuate the madness.
M. I don’t act like that
J. I don’t say you do, i just highlight this “danger”.
M. .. but i really don’t like to do something i don’t want to
J. This is an issue that i’ve investigated so much. It seems that if you don’t identify with your desires, then the problem you describe above seems to dissolve.
M. Say more, if you wish!
J. Lets say i want to go for a coffee alone.. my friend asks “do you want me to join you”? My first reaction is “oh come on, i want to go alone”. If there is identification with this desire then i feel pressure, i get angry. If i see that its only an unimportant thought, this desire dissolves. Probably the whole example i gave you looks unimportant but the root is the same.
M. I see.. but i am not so sure.
J. So if you don’t identify with your desire then there is no problem anymore
M. I read this last message and i smile! But i don’t think its so. I don’t agree.. when a beautiful sense is appearing when i wish to do something why should i lose this because probably the other person will get angry? Is it my problem that he will get angry?
J. I get your point. Its also possible that you do something that your friend wouldn’t approve and do this without fear or agony. I may finally go for coffee alone and say to my friend that we may go together for a drink at night.. and all this may be completely carefree, without fear.
M. Yes, this is perfect.
J. Yet, if i say angrily “oh don’t push me, i want to go for coffee alone, leave me alone to do what i want to do” then i am identified with my desire and i resist which is division. And if i say “i should go with her, because i am afraid that if i won’t do this she will get angry or disappointed” its simply submission, which is again division.. anger and fear, submission and resistance are the two sides of the same coin, aren’t they? They are both division
M. Ok, got it
J. There is not only one right action in our challenges. I may go for a coffee alone, or i may allow my friend to join me, but what is important is what happens inside, whether there is division or not. There is not a specific path, its necessary to be alive, to see the submission the moment it takes place, to see the resistance the moment it takes place. Look how revelating this discussion is. I found, no, we found, which is the root of the problem, its just fear. If fear is then everything will bring conflict. I am almost sure fear is behind your anger for your friend’s demand.
M. My eyes are flashing now!
Comments
Jorge Kapa
The speaker is never important but you may examine the message, if you wish
So identification with desire is rooted in fear. Yes, conflict is rife in attempt to direct what’s happening based on image. So resistance and submission are movements rooted in images. What then is tge significance of authenticity as Gordon Burgess recently posited?
Isn’t authenticity to be alive?
Chuckle…i’m no clearer as to what it means to be alive, Jorge!
Movement unmotivated by an idea or emotion?
Philip Davies to be present, to see things as they are the moment they are. Authenticity can’t be alive when ideas are.
Philip Davies action without hidden motive?
yes to be authentic ideas should cease
Then one’s response is not conflicted in dealing with other’s ideas.. that’s your point, right.
Philip Davies right
I find authenticity is expected to dress up in all kinds of ideation, in order to direct a situation. We mostly relate as ideas seeking to direct and control.
At some point, there is nothing to do but withdraw from contact.
Philip Davies there are conflicting desires all the time.. once desire and identification with desire takes place we will be fighting, so no relationship at all (or call it conceptual relationship, relationship between the images)
Is it possible that a gap takes place? A gap where awareness of desire/identification of desire is possible? That very moment may transform a conceptual relationship to a real one .. yet mutual awareness should take place or relationship still remains conceptual.
PS: We shouldn’t be theoritical, we should see it in our lives the very moment things happen
Absolutely, Jorge. Very clear. Your first paragraph sums up direct experience on homelife. As we’ve discussed before, that gap is certainly possible. Following your words, it becomes clear when mutual awareness is not possible, where struggles forcsatisfaction, security and significance dominate (loud or quiet) and conceptual relationship is on demand. This is the situation that burns for me. It ALWAYS comes back to the reflections in oneself, so only too happy to see it in this moment.
Philip Davies yes once we see this there is beauty, joy.
Then there is freedom and as you say..a real relationship – if only in oneself as undivided. Here it blossoms as moments of incredible grace. There is tremendous lightness…even when faced with great toxicity..