God is infinite, bound by neither time or space, meaning Divine Consciousness is limitless; Existential Beings, on the other hand, are constrained by limitations. As such we experience a sense of suffering, as we can never be truly free (limitless) in this corporeal form. But this isn’t a bad thing; in fact, it’s this capacity to be limited that distinguishes God from Man, and what gives life meaning. Without limitation there is no experience, as God is all things at all times, in a state of eternal bliss. Suffering is, therefore, an axiom of this existence - Divine Consciousness consciously chose to condense itself into a limited instance of the material realm (ie take form), to forget everything it knew (eternal truth), and experience the suffering of temporal existence (life). As a human being I have within me both the capacity to do good and evil - I am simultaneously God and the Devil. Morality, then, can be seen as accepting that I have the capacity to cause unnecessary suffering, but choosing not to (or at least endeavouring to minimise my contribution to that which naturally occurs in life).
There are two solutions to the burden of consciousness:
to return to being unconscious, living a life of ignorance
to face the suffering and expand into consciousness, to the point where it liberates you from suffering
To live a life awakened to one’s suffering, and to the suffering of the world, is not an easy life to live. But, that which you want most will be found where you least want to look.
Why being “unapologetically you” is potentially dangerous.
Soundbite ‘wisdom’ such has this has become very fashionable, with it being so easily digestible and marketable. I can see the good intention behind it - being proud of who you are, not letting others get you down. But, what if who you are is actually a bit of an ar$€h0le?
Oversimplification can lead to oversight with regards to nuance. If you can find an instance where something doesn’t hold true, then is it truly wisdom? Whenever I hear soundbites such as these, I take a moment to apply that ‘truth’ to an extreme case and see if it holds up - what I’ve come to call ‘The Hitler Test’. Should Hitler have been ‘unapologetically him’? It may sound ridiculous, but just consider it.
The problem with being ‘unapologetically me’ is that I run the risk of not stopping to consider how I might be wrong - it overlooks the concept of humility. And the moment I’m not willing to admit that I might be wrong is the moment I resolve myself of responsibility for my actions, justifying them as right, and those who disagree with me as wrong.
Discernment is key, and requires feedback to iteratively refine towards ‘better’. Assuming I’m right, regardless of the input of others, can be dangerous. Ultimately, I still may conclude that I am, but at least it’s now from a place of conscious consideration, taking into account points of view other than my own, with a more expanded outlook and understanding.