20230326 - 13:55
I suppose it’s an old ambition. It had a certain coherency at the time. Now, its methodology seems like a misconstrued dream. We’re talking about the juxtapositioning of paths, of frameworks. It makes sense when you look at it from the outside. An archeology of sacredness, that’s what it is. As if it had died out. As if it was something one could approach intellectually. As if it wasn’t personal. The method admitted failure as its ultimate fruition. It is, of course, the same path. The same trip. Different approaches, sure. Incompatible, well, who knows. Sometimes it certainly seems that way. Either way, they all require, not a scholastic scepticism but a whole-hearted immersion. Herein we find another trap. Surrender does not grant guarantees. If it did, it would just be another trade-off. Suffer now, to get rid of suffering. This is not surrender, this is not faith. This is a rational choice. We must surrender the fruit of our actions. We are, entirely, our act. What happens, happens. We’ve done our part.
To the issue at hand. I find that as a Westerner, there are certain unique encumbrances. I used to object to the identity, but it must first be realized in full before it can be transcended. I am not bound to a path. By the act of my first step, I have already transgressed tradition. The safe path would be full commitment to another, letting it birth anew. I feel like this betrays my origin. It does not, in my case, feel honest. Maybe this is the issue, an excuse to allow myself space. This I cannot know, and so I must follow my instinct which objects. So the path becomes, primarily, concealed. The illumination which others offer must be honestly examined before it can be embraced. This honesty becomes the path. The primary issue with this method is precisely, whom can we trust? Certainly not any myself. Certainly not everyone else. How do we differentiate between the genuine disagreement and the avoidance of the Ego? Or the genuine agreement and escapism? How do we, in short, become honest?
There exists no answer. At least not one that can be written down. It must be felt. This definition is recursive. Honesty becomes the path. The issue with the path, is that it requires honesty. Iterative. It is felt. The process is the path, is the goal. We surrender to it. Nothing is given. We do what we do, whole-heartedly. What happens, happens. Through whole-heartedness, honesty emerges. What is there to conceal, anyway?