Were I to say, to someone who had a strong belief, whatever it is, perhaps religious, “the reason you have a strong belief is because you are suffering” (psychologically speaking), they would think or say that one was nuts.
Were I to say, to someone who speculates or theorizes, that the reason you do so is because you are suffering (psychologically speaking) - (actually a tear comes to one’s eyes, writing this), that would not end their suffering at all, nor would that make them aware that they are suffering - mainly because of, and in spite of even saying this, they would continue to speculate and theorize - it is such an ingrained behaviour pattern… tragic…
okay, all shot up , and as one has read, best to do some activities, will be out and about for hours to come. Trust everyone is having a lovely day.
Someone points it out: “Thought IS “fear”. Is that so? You ask. And then you begin to look into it. That memory of yesterday causes pain. That image of tomorrow causes dread, etc. Question arises: why do these disturbing memories and images arise?
Are they ‘necessary’? Does the mind have to ‘shuttle’ back and forth between the past and future? Why doesn’t it stay in the present? Too boring? Just a mental habit that’s never been brought into question? Then if this is so, is psychological fear necessary at all to go through? Necessary to ‘run away from’ when it appears or does that habitual reaction keep the process alive? Is it just thought / images in the wrong place at the wrong time ? The ‘trickster monkey’, the snake in the corner that K says you must keep an eye on?
Were I to say to someone who genuinely believes themselves to have had total insight (when they do not have total insight), that the reason they do this is (probably) because they are still unconsciously clinging to a form of self-interest, and that this unconscious self-interest must necessarily come between the mind and truth - that would not end the belief in their own total insight - mainly because their unconscious self-interest must perpetuate the mistaken perception they presently have, and so they would continue to believe themselves to have total insight, even when they have not - it is such an ingrained behaviour pattern. This is quite tragic.
If K had named a ‘successor’, that person could decide what degree of ‘total insight so and so had reached: 25%,50%, 75% etc. Maybe someone will come along and take on that role regardless…Until then we are left to judge: does it walk like a K, talk like a K?.. if not, it ain’t noK!
K did not name a successor, so when someone comes along claiming to have total insight (which is surprisingly common in certain subcultures), it is entirely reasonable to doubt their claim.
However, if one believes oneself to also be in possession of a piece of total insight (whether 25%, 50%, or 75%), one may not be as willing to question those people making similar claims (to total insight), because one would similarly have to question one’s own claims (to 25%, 50%, 75%) insight. This is a bias that each person may have to one extent or another.
So we are left with the field of relationship to assess all this. In our relationship with each other we can ask of each other,
But the measure by which we measure each other is based on an image that we have of K, and is limited to our understanding of what K has said - an understanding that is not ultimately differentiable from ourselves. So we can never truly answer this question.
However, we are perfectly at liberty to ask - does this person speak to me (or resonate with me)? are they saying obviously contradictory things (saying X when they clearly mean Y, or talking about love while being hateful)? are they generous? are they kind? do they create a sense of hierarchy, of them and me, them and us? or are they willing to put themselves at the same level of importance and talk to me like a fellow human being? etc.
Everyone will have their own answers to these questions.
I keep reading and re-reading the above. I find it very fascinating, interesting, thought provoking.
It seems if we do nothing, just live like ordinary people, who arent interested in truth or the other shore, we will live and die most likely without any real change or transformation or finding the other shore. We will live and die in samsara.
So wise people like Buddha and Krishnamurti point out there is another way to live. The Buddha had his teachings and it seems Krishnamurti had a certain teaching too to impart, just not as prescriptive possibly as the Buddhas.
I think Krishnamurtis teachings are similar to Buddhas in that they too can ferry us across.
Nagarjuna, the little I know, might be saying Nirvana is Samsara, but I dont think he is equating the suffering and conflict in daily life that most of us experience as Nirvana. There is a paradox here, in that yes, the daily life we all live can be where Nirvana is found, but I am not sure if the way we are currently living it, with conflict and suffering and all, if that is it.
“But what Nagarjuna really meant by a correct understanding of this shore remains elusive, because he still apparently (and so contradictorily) accepted the Buddha’s teachings (the Buddhist ‘path of deliverance’) as being necessary for crossing the river to the farther shore.” And what you wrote here, I am not a scholar, but you are suggesting Nagarjuna still accepted the Buddhas path even though it is contradictory to what he wrote/shared.
So this is really fascinating and intriguing. Nagarjuna still accepted a path to the other shore, even though he is saying Nirvana or the Other Shore is right here and now. I think possibly all these pointers by these wise beings is not meant to be taken as the literal truth, absolute way, for they still use words and pointers and it is all limited, partial, incomplete, but just trying to point us towards truth.
So my question now is what about Krishnamurtis teachings, is there a contradictory path here too to follow? It gets tricky for Krishnamurti at times says there is no teaching and he also makes it clear there is no path to truth, and yet he tells us to study and live the teachings, as in the Perfume of the teachings talks/book. It seems there are paradoxes here, that at some point we have to let even Krishnamurti and the teachings go but equally true they are needed to help us to get rid of them.
As previously mentioned, one of the central metaphors for the Buddha’s teaching is precisely that of a ferryboat.
In pre-modern India ferryboats were usually the only way to cross the large sacred rivers flowing through the land. In one of the well-known stories attributed to the Buddha he tells of a person who builds himself a makeshift raft out of reeds and branches to cross the river (of samsara), and who at last arrives on the farther shore. The Buddha asks whether it would be sensible for this person to continue to carry the raft with him on his back - out of gratitude to it for conveying him safely across the river - or to leave the raft behind? It is clear that the sensible thing to do would be to leave the raft behind. In the same way, the Buddha says, the teachings of the Buddha are also to be left behind once the person has realised nirvana.
This story has been interpreted in different ways, but one of its implications is that - from the point of view of the person who has crossed - there is no longer any teaching, any doctrine, any teacher; there is no near or farther shore, nor any river to cross!
This seems to have been the way that some later Buddhists (like Nagarjuna) understood the story. That is, there is (paradoxically) no samsara or nirvana for the one who has successfully made the crossing. I don’t know how others hear this, but for me this resonates with K’s teaching that truth is a pathless land.
However, the main difference between K and the Buddhists is that for the Buddhists the importance of the raft or ferryboat remains central. The way that the Buddhists justify this is through a distinction (employed by Nagarjuna) of an ultimate and a provisional truth.
That is, they said that while it is ultimately true that there is no river to cross - no near or father shore, and so no ferryboat needed (to cross a non-existent river) - there is nevertheless a need for a ferryboat (the Buddha’s teachings) from the ordinary or provisional point of view (i.e. from the point of view of the person who has not yet realised nirvana).
This is why Nagarjuna accepted the traditional “path” prescribed in orthodox Buddhism: while not ultimately true, the noble 8-fold path of deliverance is believed to be provisionally necessary.
We might say of this position that it assumes the nondual truth of the farther shore (nirvana), and from there posits a provisional need for the ferryboat of the Buddha’s teachings (in relation to this assumed ultimate truth) - a teaching which implies a duality between the one who is striving to cross the river from the nearer shore, and the goal of the farther shore.
However, even though K talks about truth, his approach does not assume the existence of an absolute truth. And so K rejected the distinction of an ultimate and a relative (or provisional) truth. There is only this shore - not provisionally or ultimately - but factually. And so this shore has no opposite, no duality. For K, there is no need for a path, a ferryboat or a teaching to cross. There is only ‘what is’.
This is, at least, the implication of what K says. We can see that the actuality may have been more nuanced than this - because K also talked about his teachings as being a mirror that one can break when one sees clearly (just as the Buddha talked about leaving the raft behind once one has realised the truth) - but we should not ignore the literal implications of his teaching, which sets it apart from orthodox Buddhism.
So K’s approach is to say that reality or truth
is a living thing and cannot be captured, and you cannot say it is always there. There is a path only to something which is stationary, to a fixed, static point. To a living thing which is constantly in movement, which has no resting place how can there be a guide, a path? (from OP extract)
And so he asks:
Can you put aside the teacher, the path, the end - put it aside so completely that your mind is empty of all this seeking? (ibid)
No path, no teacher, no farther shore, no ferryboat: but only the near shore, this shore, the ‘what is’. The distance between this shore and the other shore is created by time and thought;
This wants to become that (ibid)
And so the crossing from this to that is to put time and space between what we are now and what we want to be (or what we ‘should be’, which is projected by thought) tomorrow. But clearly, this projection of the tomorrow, of the other shore, of ‘what should be’, is a fiction created by our thinking. It is an assumption made in thought, by thought. So there is only this shore with no opposite, no (projected) duality. Nonduality is now, not merely ‘ultimately’ (as it is for the Buddhists).
So a passive awareness of what is actually happening (i.e. on this shore) is all that the mind is capable of. There is no opposite to the facts of moment by moment actuality, and so no projected judgment or measurement by which the present fact is to be judged. All such measurements are the creation of our imagination, and so are unreal, untrue (not merely provisionally but actually).
I think this is quite a radical teaching, which distinguishes it from Buddhism.
Having said all this, there does seem to be (as already hinted at) some nuance in K’s approach. He does say that his teaching have a value, in the way that a mirror has a value, in reflecting things as they actually are (after which it can be smashed). A Buddhist may well say that this is implicitly admitting the provisional truth of what K teaches. K also talks about the importance of taking time to understand what has been pointed out, the importance of listening to what is said, to enquire into what he has said and “tear it to pieces”. K talked about putting order in one’s house, and that without such order meditation (into truth) is not possible. He talked about the difference between awareness, attention, and insight, implying that there are different degrees of awareness that the mind can have, and that superficial awareness is not sufficient for insight. And K sometimes talked about the necessity of transcending ‘what is’, because beyond ‘what is’ lies the truth.
So all of these nuances must be taken into consideration when responding to K’s teaching. But one must remember that for K these nuances - even though they appear to be paradoxical and contradictory - never deny the true radical truth of his central teaching that truth is a pathless land. The first step is always and ever the last step (no matter how objectionable to the intellect this may sound).
So I read the above with great interest, you did share a lot as usual. All very helpful and interesting. However, I come to the point, we are just two friends discussing, conversing with each other, and I have to ask James to share what he feels, him personally, not what Nagarjuna or the Buddha said.
You brought up this topic of “The other shore may be this shore.” You seem pretty clear about it, from what I can tell. You see it as one and the same? And that there is no what should be, there is only ‘what is.’
Also do you James, as a Buddhist scholar and also a Krishnamurti reader, do you accept the traditional path of Buddhism as a way to cross to the other shore, as a provisional necessary? Or do you stand firmly with Krishnamurti that “Truth is a pathless land” and cannot be reached by any path whatsoever?
Sorry if this seems redundant or you are just repeating yourself. Feel free to copy and paste what you already wrote if you shared it in your own words earlier in the thread. I am just trying to get a feel for what James thinks/feels himself personally, without bringing in what Buddha or Nagarjuna or Krishnamurti said.
From a Buddhist perspective, here is Samdhong Rinpoche, a friend of Krishnamurti and also a Tibetan Buddhist monk, talking about Krishnamurti and Buddha, to help put this in even greater context, about relative and absolute truth, preparation, etc.:
"The Buddha and Krishnaji both tried to communicate the reality they perceived. But it is very difficult to describe the similarities or dissimilarities between these two personalities. They lived in different times, in different environments, and had different listeners. One thing we can say in definite terms is that the Buddha and Krishnamurti approached this challenge very differently.
When Buddha teaches people, he comes down to the level of the listener, whereas Krishnaji doesn’t come down to the level of the listener; he always speaks from his level. The Buddha deals with two levels: namely, the relative and the absolute. When Buddha speaks of the absolute, I personally do not find any difference with Krishnaji’s teachings or the Buddha’s teachings of Prajnaparamita or the absolute truth.
When Buddha speaks of relative truth, he always compromises with the acceptance and notions and thoughts of people with whom he is speaking, but Krishnaji never compromises or accepts the conditions or the levels of his listeners. The other difference between them has to do with the preparation of the listeners. Krishnamurti is silent or doesn’t speak about preparation, whereas the Buddha dealt a great deal with preparation of the person to reach the level of transformation. Both share a similar position that the moment of transformation or transmutation does not involve time, no graduation. It must be spontaneous and immediate. The perception is perception. There is no growing slowly, no graduation or becoming, anything like that. But Buddha dealt with the preparation of the person to reach up to that level with certain graduations and methods. Krishnaji never accepted these things."
This rings a bell with me, the basis for what K says always seems to be the Teachings rather than the person he is talking to.
However, the thing that we are supposed to be aware of is our actual experience and our actual conditioning, rather than get carried away by any idea of Absolute truth - so in that way it is about us.
I wouldn’t say that my knowledge of Buddhism is comparable to that of a truly specialist scholar, so whatever I say about it can only be taken on the level of informed opinion. But it is my view that orthodox Buddhist doctrine evolved gradually from fluid origins, and only became systematised for the convenience of the monastic orders the Buddha set up during his life.
There is conflicting scholarship on the subject, but there is good evidence to suggest that doctrines like the 4 noble truths, the 8-fold path of deliverance - and even dependent-origination - were later, more systematic attempts to capture an earlier teaching of the Buddha’s, which was non-systematic. The Buddha’s teachings were only committed to writing centuries after his death, by which point they included hundreds of distinct, often contradictory teachings as they had been developed by different Buddhist groups over time. So we don’t really know what the true teaching of the Buddha was.
Nevertheless the orthodox Buddhist view remains that nirvana - the other shore - is an end for which the means of arrival (the ferryboat) is the 8-fold noble path of deliverance. I personally believe this to be false, because I believe it to be psychologically invalid.
There is no opposite of anger or fear, so any precept or guideline that creates idea of an opposite is psychologically invalid. Awareness is not something to be practised, because this reduces awareness to being a mere means to something else: it make awareness a thing that can be manipulated for an extrinsic purpose divorced from awareness itself - and I believe this to be psychologically invalid. Awareness that is manipulated is simply not awareness: awareness as a means to a separate end is a projection of the imagination, and not awareness. If one begins with a goal in one’s mind, that goal is a projection of time and thought, and so a mind that thinks this way is not actually aware.
So if one strips the 8-fold path of its structure of goal and means, all it amounts to is the suggestion of certain areas to inquire into: the nature of behaviour, the nature of thought and emotion, the nature of awareness, the nature of mind. At its most factual, this is all that the Buddhist account can point out to others. And at this level there is some or even much overlap with what K talks about.
Yes, I’m aware of what Rinpoche has said about K. In Tibetan Buddhism they interpret the Buddha’s teachings almost exclusively through the prism of the absolute and conventional (or ultimate and provisional/relative) truths. But I think he is wrong to suggest that
K meets the mind where it is. This is the ‘what is’: the divisions and conflict in society, the outward struggles between classes and communities, the prevalence of ideology and religious belief, etc. As well as the psychological challenges faced by all human beings: loneliness, desire, pleasure, fear, suffering, death, relationship, attachment, conditioning - all the contents of consciousness.
But unlike the Buddhists he doesn’t prescribe ‘should be’s’ in the form of moral precepts, discipline, forms of control, etc, because all of these things are an avoidance of what is. They are psychologically untrue, dualistic, false. There is no monastic escape, no escape into doctrine, no system of meditation, no systematic mapping out of meditative states to be reached through meditation, no masters or final authority outside of direct perception. - In this sense, certain forms of Chan come closer to the spirit of K’s teaching as I understand it, but this is a moot issue (because there are many differences there too).
So this is how, overall, I would situate K in relationship to Buddhism; and on all these points I would side with K, not orthodox Buddhism.
But within this overall acceptance of K’s teaching - i.e that truth is a pathless land - I do believe that there is room for nuance. K said that truth is now or never, a total and not a partial insight; but he also talked about the need for sitting quietly, for observing oneself in relationship, for allowing one’s reactions to flower and wither away in the light of ever-renewed daily perception. And perhaps this is no different to what some Buddhists mean by a mindful awareness of what is? I’m open to that. As K says (in the extract in the OP), the whole point is to be
passively aware without any choice whatsoever and no measurement - then see what happens.
If other Buddhists have said this (and some may have done), then I would not disagree with them.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, we dont know actually what the Buddha actually said or taught. That is why I personally find Krishnamurtis teachings so attractive, compared to dead Masters like Buddha from centuries ago. I can watch a video of Krishnamurti and hear for myself what he actually said, not take the word of scripture as Truth, as in Buddhism and other religions.
Now this is very interesting, and this is what I wanted to hear from you. So you dont accept traditional teachings like the Noble Eightfold Path, as a means to deliverance. I too see it similarly as you, but wanted to make sure we are understanding each other.
And this is the genius of Krishnamurti, he eliminated all paths and methods and precepts and discipline and control, etc. One can get caught up in this, in these approaches say of Buddhism and spend the rest of your life working on yourself, and in the end, there still might not be freedom.
And lastly, this comment of yours piqued my interest too. Can you say a little more why you think Rinpoche was wrong to suggest what he did about Krishnamurti.
I find it interesting too that Rinpoche was good friends with Krishnamurti and went to many dialogues and had one on one talks with K, and yet still stayed a Buddhist. I would think being in touch with Krishnamurti would show him the limitation of Buddhist path and he would have dropped it. However, from what I could tell, even though K was harsh in his public talks against monks, religion, traditional paths, he never told anyone to not be a Buddhist anymore or a Christian or a Hindu, etc. But it still puzzles and baffles me how one can still carry on being a traditional person after encountering Krishnamurti.
One has to remember that Samdhong Rinpoche is an official title - it is a lineage that Tibetans believe people are reincarnated into (like the Dalai Lama lineage) - and so Rinpoche (whose real name is or was Lobsang Tenzin) was brought up from the age of 5 to play a particular role in Tibetan society. He was educated in an important Geluk monastery (the Gelukpas are the school of Tibetan Buddhists to which the Dalai Lama belongs), and after fleeing Tibet (because of China’s invasion) he taught in Tibetan schools, including the Tibetan Buddhist university set up near Benares (the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies) at which he was the principle. He was always involved in the political situation of the Tibetan government in exile, and even became the prime minister of the Tibetan people in exile (in 2000).
When one has been conditioned so strongly in this way, in a context where one’s very identity has very real implications for the survival of a particular culture - as it arguably did in his case, where (as with the Dalai Lama) he literally represented the continuity of a persecuted minority culture threatened with extinction - it is understandable that setting aside Buddhism for Rinpoche was never as straightforward as it might be for people like you and me.
For instance, I was brought up Christian, but letting go of that belief structure didn’t carry the same kinds of consequences that giving up Buddhism would have for Rinpoche or the Dalai Lama. In the latter case it would mean letting down thousands of people who have been looking to you for their own identity and well-being, it would have political ramifications vis a vis China (and India), it would be considered by many people a betrayal of Tibetan culture, a betrayal of the Tibetan people, and a betrayal of all those teachers and monks who educated you since you were 5 years old, supported you financially and emotionally through your whole life.
And, for someone who has grown up being conditioned to be a Buddhist from such an early age, one cannot just shake it off as though it is something trivial. The Gelukpas are like Jesuits: they are highly trained, highly educated, highly disciplined monks. They have been taught how to think about every aspect of life, to consider some of the deepest thoughts of mankind, articulated by some of the greatest philosophers of mankind. They are as dogmatic as the Jesuits, as rigid in their interpretations as them, but with more sophisticated arguments than the Jesuits, and operating within a humanistic moral framework that emphasises human dignity and compassion to a far greater degree than them. Buddhism in Tibet is not just a belief system, it is a whole way of life. So it would take something completely revolutionary to see it break down for a person like Rinpoche.
This the reason why even close proximity to K didn’t obviously dissolve Rinpoche’s attachment to his Buddhist outlook. But one has to remember also that K knew a great many people who, despite being on intimate terms, nevertheless remained Theosophists, Buddhists, Vedantins, etc. Such people interpreted K through the filter of their conditioning, as we all do. Sometimes K very directly challenged people on being Buddhists, Christians, Vedantins, etc - but he was never aggressive about it, and never made it a requirement for meeting with him.
There is a fair amount of overlap between K’s teaching and Buddhism anyway, so perhaps Rinpoche just concentrated his attention on where he saw affinities between them, rather than in dwelling on the differences. I don’t know. But Rinpoche’s reflexive adherence to his Gelukpa training quite possibly influenced some of his judgements about K’s approach, which is why one has to be wary about them. Rinpoche’s implied criticism of K’s refusal to talk to people at the ‘relative or conventional level’ is one such judgement that one ought be wary of, because for Gelukpas the absolute and relative (ultimate and provisional) perspective is axiomatic to everything they believe the Buddha taught. The very importance that it has for them means that it is liable to distort the way they understand K. - Do you see what I mean? So one has to take such criticism with a pinch of salt.
I found what you shared about Rinpoche and Buddhist conditioning absolutely fascinating and helpful. The funny and ironic thing to me is that while reading it, your descriptions of Samdhong Rinpoche and Dalai Lama, their titles, roles, identities, and how hard it would be to give it up, all I could think about is that is exactly what Krishnamurti did! He gave up his role as being the World Teacher. So it can be done, by an exceptional person. And in fact, I have heard many comparisons over the years between how K was brought up in his role to be the World Teacher and how the Dalai Lama was brought up to be the Leader of the Tibetan people. Krishnamurti somehow stepped out of the role and gave up his Theosophical conditioning and Dalai Lama fulfilled his role he was brought up in and continues to live from Buddhist conditioning, as does Samdhong Rinpoche.
Yes, I see what you mean and somehow overlooked this before, just accepted that Rinpoche was objective and seeing things clearly, as they are. But I agree with you, take his criticism with a pinch of salt. I have to remember the context where Rinpoche is coming from and his training and conditioning, which you so eloquently brought out. Thank you again James for your input and sharing, it was most helpful to helping me to see this in a broader, bigger, more accurate picture.
Imagine how much more exceptional it would be for a Rinpoche than it was for Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti’s audience was everyone - not merely an isolated, tradition-bound culture - knowing, as he did, that there were enough open-minded people to welcome the teaching, and to support him.
K had nothing to lose and everything to gain by losing the Theosophists. A Rinpoche has everything to lose and nothing to gain by questioning what his audience never doubts.
I see what you are saying Inquiry, but the two cases are difficult to compare precisely because of their differences.
The commonality is that for all of them - for Rinpoche, the Dalai Lama, and for K - they were selected when very young, and groomed to be heads of the organisations they were selected for. The organisations were in each case explicitly religious, believing the selected children to be avatars of one kind or another - reincarnations of realised people or supernatural entities - with a responsibility to carry out the organisation’s goals.
The major difference is that in the Tibetan context, the roles of Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama are also geo-political (like the role of head of state), in part ceremonial roles (like the role of a king, or a priest-king), and are inseparable from the ethnic identity with the Tibetan people. Given that Tibetan culture is under existential threat - much like that of aboriginal peoples the world over - the responsibility of people like Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama extends beyond their own capacity for independent thought (and insight), to the people they have been (s)elected to serve.
The situation was quite different for K. The Theosophical Society of the early 20th century was a voluntary, non-ethnic based organisation with a largely affluent following. It had its ideals and aims (to change the world, to bring freedom to humanity), but its worldview was separable from the culture and ethnicity of its members. Theosophy is/was an amalgam of historical Asian religious philosophy and Occidental esotericism, all of which remain publicly accessible even without the existence of Theosophy. The same is not true for Tibetan Buddhism, which is largely endemic to Tibet (or Tibetan society in exile), and was threatened with extinction by the invasion of China. The situation may be changing now, because many forms of Tibetan Buddhism are now practiced outside Tibet and India (in the US and Europe), and Tibetan culture has a certain degree of established continuity in exile. But they are still a persecuted ethnicity in their homeland, and exist in India at the will of the Indian government, so the situation remains uncertain for ethnic Tibetans.
However, one should not overlook how fervently Theosophists believed in the the role that K was groomed for. At one time there were hundreds of thousands of people who were committed to the Theosophical outlook, and for whom K’s 1929 speech (dissolving the Order of the Star) was a major turning point and even trauma. For K himself it meant hurting those closest to him - like Annie Besant - and disillusioning all those people he had grown up with and given lectures to about his own role. It meant losing friends, losing financial security. In the build up to his decision it will also have meant losing his own theosophical beliefs, whatever they may have been (e.g. his belief that his brother Nitya would be saved from bronchitis by the “masters”).
Giving up conditioning has consequences. For K the importance of ‘giving up’ always outweighs its social and material consequences. But each person must consider this for themselves, because the consequences we each face for doing this are not to be compared.
Yes. K had no choice but to drop the Theosophists, but he knew he wouldn’t lose any real friends or supporters (only those who were clinging to illusions), so he wouldn’t have been conflicted about it. The only difficulty would be trying to explain his action to those who were perplexed and upset by it.
But each person must consider this for themselves, because the consequences we each face for doing this are not to be compared.
How much do the consequences of freedom matter when freedom is all that really matters? When I’m not free I can think about the consequences of losing my self, the will to be what-should-be, but I can’t imagine freedom, so it’s all speculation and comparison.
, and as one has read, best to do some activities, will be out and about for hours to come. Trust everyone is having a lovely day.