Many individuals feel an obligation to take care of their families, themselves, those around them, maybe their world, their body, to systems concerning truth, be it politics or religion or even in maintaining responsibility over their material things. It would seem normal for these obligations to arise, seeing that people may be searching for meaning, or they see truth necessitates them partaking in these. However is it normal to have any obligation which only pulls you down? How about an obligation which does you no service, but for which you see as necessary? Or, to put it bluntly, an obligation which isn't so much an obligation? This would mean that an individual is partaking in something they think they should involve themselves in, but in reality, they don't. Like gluing oneself to the wall, though there might be more harsh depictions of a similarity, what becomes is attachment.
If you think of the many arguments that arise due to topics in the world, is it not people attached to their way of thinking as right or must be proven to others as better? Perhaps they come at it from a position of just wanting themselves to be right and not that it is actually right, or maybe they do think they are actually right, but how much do they really know? If we put ourselves in an individual like this, it could be easy to say we've figured it out if we think we are right, we wouldn't abandon it. Yet, there are three downsides to this. One, if one is doing right when it's actually wrong. Two, if one is attached to their conception of right without considering those which are wrong and how to get out of them. And three, if one doesn't realize it's not so much about proving oneself right as it is working with others to find out what's right together, with more knowledge and perspective. Therefore, we might have an attachment to our ideology, holding us in place or detaching ourselves from others who could use any truth or perspective, even if we are seeing truth. And we might have an attachment to that which we refuse to unattach ourselves with. In other words, we cast our own chains, even if we think we are free; we may even enslave ourselves in the attempt to free others. These complications comes from one source: complication.
If we apply logic and philosophy, that concerning truth to that of healing and medicine, would the practitioner want to upset the patient in giving them the hard truth or would the practitioner ease into the truth, guiding the patient? Truth is harsh in its own regard, for how many times may an individual cry in forgiveness, in realizing they should be grateful, in realizing they've done wrong? We, as messengers to others, can only help deliver truth and therefore must be strategic with it, because it will be fearful for many. Weight loss, for instance, can be fearful for many. Will they need a tough guidance holding them accountable? Absolutely, but you are there to make it easier, because the condition itself is what's hard. The word disease means dis-ease, so the opposite of disease, be it healing, would mean to help create ease. Would you not think an individual relaxing on a beach with palm trees, salty water and natural elements, would be easing on their body? And if you asked the person who wanted to lose weight, how they would like to do it, would they not say they want it to be easy? How many people have admitted to their life being rushed or unfulfilled, even with all the money or things in the world? How do you enjoy the moment? You stay in the moment, and is that hard? Well, you can breathe, we all can meditate, we all can become present. So what's the point here? The point is to question, to work with the body or the patients needs, to work with other people, but never at any moment, against the question, against the person. Why would I equate the question with the person? Because we don't know each other, we don't know each other's minds, body and experiences. People can be living with all sorts of traumas or projections, internal problems masked or unaddressed.
You can look around and see obesity, makeup, vaping and materialism, it could feel easy and quick to judge, but it isn't so easy. We have an obligation to truth because we must live with it, in the same way we have an obligation to each other because we must live with each other. In doing so however, we must realize it's going to be hard if we never question our ease, it's going to be easy if we always question our hardness. We are inquiring into ourselves, the thing we truly know best. If we have an obligation that seems tough but we feel as if it may be done, I'm not saying to abandon it, but I am saying to not forget yourself. I'm saying for you to question it, because if it's good for the world, it should also be good for you. If anything is good, it should lead to further good. And if it does not lead to good, why does it not lead to good? Nature works in a harmony where these words are of no obligation for our use, morality is also of no obligation; but we use them, why? Do we use them to the point where it does us a disservice, why? Think of any nutrient in the body, do we have an obligation to use them, why? Can we use them to a point where it does us a disservice, why?
To open our own minds is to equally so open others, because we aren't imposing on them what we think we've figured out. They are our fellow kind, and if we want to help them, start with yourself and realize your own help hasn't ended, but can only continue. For instance, I will gladly mention that we as human beings have a strange obligation to this thing we call politics yet it serves no additional function to society, other than to distort protection under the name of police or distort morality under the name of law, human beings under the name of authority; when they are but constructs of the mind creating with it, the exemption to morality or being human. A strange obligation of compliance to people you don’t know. An obligation that is seemingly for truth yet seemingly for evil at times, how could this be? And better yet, how come it gets to the point where the most catastrophe in history is caused from it? All we can do is ask questions, for I have nothing to prove to you, I only ask you to see humanity as humanity, something you should easily do. But it won't be so easy if you are hard in the mind, or at least, if you seek no ease to begin with, no sense of coming back to nature and seeing you would not have some strange obligation to obey a presumed authority if it weren't for your youth-long school indoctrination.
Obligation to truth is not the same as authority, so why would you defend authority, unless you think authority is truth, for which nature could easily laugh at the timeless and non-universal, easily malleable humankind. Indeed, laugh at our morals, our words, if they only detach us from reality, those obligations are more fantasies, an endless matrix. To be free from all attachment, be it physically or not, is true freedom. Slavery can only occur from the lack of freedom, it requires violence, it requires fear; all to attach and depend, to give your life up to another or some thing. If you want to achieve the complete opposite as you oppose slavery in it's entirety, then you want total freedom, requiring nonviolence, requiring love; all to detach and achieve independence, to give your life to yourself, where it belongs, never bound to someone, some thing or any ideology. Remember, be it this diet, that ideology, flat earth or round earth, that moral code or this book, it is limited in form like anything man can try to capture for his very creation; if you can gather one source to another, you have resources, if you can go on one search to another, you have research, if you can cognize one idea to another, you have recognition. Like the concept that all is energy or vibration, the shape of the earth won't matter. Like the concept that we must merely follow nature in its natural course, the exact form of morality won't matter. This doesn't mean we ignore these findings, it means we found them first by finding, so why would we end our finding if it is finding that brought us to our supposed conclusions.
Self-control is much the matter of sovereignty, but it is control in the sense that you are still controlling, moreover however, letting the ship sail upon the sea, owning up to ownership where it should be, embracing the known given, healthy attachment, healthy boundaries. Knowledge which evolves, like the child realizing he is now in control of his own mind into being an adult. Thus, self-control is freedom. To control in any other sense however so that to attempt to mold life, is actually to destroy, it is the attempt to end life. In other words, one must work with the way things are in order for the way things are to be; truth is already present, people merely may only be guided into its light. Our only obligation, being among that way, if not continually finding that way, being sure to be on that way; for a man off road will lack direction, a man not knowing thyself is no longer a man, a life not in reality can no longer be a life.