|
It works both ways I think. To listen to somebody else is to listen to yourself. To "listen" to yourself is to engage with ego I reason. One might think, am I not listening to myself as I write this? I am certainly focusing on one subject based on experiences. Contemplating understanding and the nature of the what is as it relates to entanglement with emotions. The idea of freedom from myself and the awareness or observation of how "entanglement" comes about. Emotional and intellectual and thought entanglement with others and with oneself.
But then "to not engage" means solitary I assume. But then one can engage with ego all alone. Though others around means one will be forced to engage in some respect. And if I engage with them, I engage with myself. It's probably not practical nor "spiritually" advantageous to lead a hermit like solitary life. It probably has benefits but then like I said, being alone does not necessarily mean we will not be engaging with our own ego. I think the reality is "all are one" in some way. So one needs to "engage" in some way. It is probably our purpose and if one is advanced in some small way, one must share that in some way.
Maybe just commit to emptiness awareness and observe interactions so that one can be "present" as conscious awareness, while not "engaging" ones ego which will trigger emotional responses. I think language in itself added to others brains biased reactions and the "defense centered" nature of egos will always lead to misunderstanding and conflict as I assume it is designed to do. The tricky part is perhaps to be here now, without engaging with ones own ego no matter what circumstances might be present. If I am not engaging with my own ego, I am still engaging just as something else. A vessel of emptiness.
|