Life is meant to be… whatever it is. I understand the functionality of an idea like “your life is meant to be calm, not distressed.” However, there may be an unexamined paradox in the post here:
“Free will and choice are only appearances…made up to be enjoyed. As soon as there is identification with a someone who has free will and makes choices, suffering ensues…because the entire focus of attention becomes about getting what’s wanted and avoiding what’s not wanted.
Life is meant to be easeful and joyful…a timeless dance with no dancer in particular.”
Does the activity of focusing on getting “whatever one focuses on getting” always produce suffering? Not at all. It is nonsense when stated so imprecisely. Of course… nonsense can also be useful…!
If we are trying to avoid something (such as to avoid suffering by focusing on how life was meant to be calm and joyful, but not hysterical or upset), then does that produce suffering? Yes- it could produce suffering… for the idea of “attempting to totally avoid suffering” is understandable but perhaps naive.
What if we accept that suffering might happen on occasion? What if we respect it and welcome it instead of being hysterical in a terror about possible future suffering and saying “I choose love over fear because love is better than fear and therefore I am never afraid?”
A lot of things that “spiritual people” say are hilarious. Some of them do not seem to like that idea. They “just do not get it” … Or not yet.
As for “identifying as a someone who has free will,” yes that CAN be the basis of agonizing and many related hysterias. However, the language of “I have free will” can be used without ANY of the hysteria or agonizing.
To [the author of the above post], if you have “reached the opening,” it is not evident to me in your words. Someone recently told me that they “had a serious problem.” I thought it might be more of a seriousness problem.
“Everyone should always be playful” is not playful. It is… still the movement of agonizing.
I recently labeled a few groups of people: naive fools (who have no idea of their naïveté), then arrogantly sincere cowards (who pretend or at least hope not to have any naïveté or fear or “anything negative” because of the depth of their terror), and then finally the courageous clowns. I personally have never met a naive fool myself, but I am sure that they exist because it says so in the holy book of the United Empires of the Surface of the Earth.
From hysterical to hilarious in only 961 lifetimes