[quote=starnight1So, finally , all I need to do is staying as the same, no change, nothing to do....
just accept and enjoy the current situation as whatever it is......since it is Source wanted me to "experience" in this incarnation.....if I want too much , that is from my disbelief the ego and duality mind.[/QUOTE]
The
idea that Source' just 'wanted' or 'wants' you to experience what you call 'the' current situation strikes me as being a
personal is a projection/belief that is every bit as
questionable (in terms of whether it makes sense to think of
that as being 'the truth' about 'reality')
as the
idea (which others have) that 'God' 'wants' 'obedience' and/or 'surrender' to His/Her/Its 'will'.
Riddle me this:
If 'Source'
didn't 'care' what It experienced (through you, me, etc.)
why would It have bothered to 'create' 'the world' of 'duality' in the first place.
Just to 'twiddle' its 'thumbs' in roll-of-the-dice 'random' fashion?
What if the 'Essence' of "Source"
is something like "
LOVE and JOY" and it 'created' 'the world'
in order to (in due cousre)
maximize Its expression and experience of "
LOVE and JOY"?
So It
doesn't really 'want' you to
passively 'live'
in an UNloving and UNjoyful state, or a
minimally loving and joyful state. Said
idea is
conceivable and so may at least be worth contemplating, aye what?
This is
not to say that 'wanting'
too much (i.e. more than is is 'available' at any point) is the the best way to go, mind you.
That 'way' will lead to 'greater'
dissatisfaction and
disappointment, i.e. UNloving and UNjoyful UNhappiness (for 'you'
and 'Source')!.
From what I once wrote:
"More than two and a half thousand years ago in what is now India, pondering the human predicament in light of what was then and there believed and known, the one most have since called Buddha, because distress was so pervasive, ‘saw’ suffering as a central feature of earthly Life, and, because people were generally so selfish in aspiration, identified desire itself as the root-cause of such condition. Consequently, as a first order of business, he counseled a nirvanic state be sought wherein desire is renounced and, if not relinquished completely, at least held in abeyance.
But, though extremely beneficial in many ways, such advice is partial and therefore deficient unless there’s complementary learning. Because it focuses on the problem of suffering and ways to bring about its cessation, those who ‘religiously’ attend to it frequently end up giving short shrift to what is equally, if not more important: the why
and wherefore of creative proficiency and joyful expression. While it is true that much that is of negative consequence can be prevented or, at least, overcome by relinquishment of desire, we won’t bring about, and so won’t enjoy, ‘greater’ goodness unless we comprehend and learn to constructively channel the dynamic of Creativity.
Since Life is Creativity and Creativity is causal purpose in action, desirelessness is far from being an optimal goal (assuming such a state could actually be sustained, it would be totally Life-denying!). It is therefore important that we recognize that focusing on extinguishing desire, more than as a temporary exercise which enables us to develop the equanimity necessary to stop ourselves from being swayed by instinct, since other creatively crucial tasks—namely, developing and extending our capacity for constructive relationship and beneficent generativity—are then neglected, may not only be a waste of precious vitality, but result in atrophy and be crippling in effect in the long run.
For Life to flower and be more fruitful, desire must be discriminatingly refined and selectively accentuated. That is, what we desire and how we go about trying to attain it must be beneficially altered by greater awareness and understanding of the unitary nature and psychospiritual dynamic of Being.