Why Does Living From True Purpose Leaves You Exposed?
I am caught up in this paradox, and I want to resolve it.
I think that a true action arises when someone follows his true purpose and acts from a centre of clarity and understanding, and it is genuine, in the moment, and flows automatically, which many people call effortless effort. And sometimes there are actions that are hollow and not genuine; there is a gap between the centre and the action. A person is thinking a lot and analysing the situation, and then he is saying things that others want to hear or that will provide him with what he wants from others. It is not flowing automatically, and it is definitely not effortless effort. It takes a lot of effort to play this game.
I want to understand that when someone is operating from his true purpose and putting forth effortless effort, and he is not considering the situation around him; that is, the game other people are playing around him, which they are planning to deceive him, rob him, or k*/l him, then he has to make decisions where the game is going on, and that decision will remove the genuineness. And now he has to play the meta-game of what others are doing, and there will be a gap between the action and the actor; otherwise, he will simply be affected in multiple ways, including his life.
The Tibetan monks were the most genuine people, operating from the right centre and acting effortlessly, but they still got overpowered by China because they did not keep track of what others were doing, and then they had to flee, and their very existence became a big problem.
So, what exactly is going on here? What am I missing? When I asked the AP framework, it said that:
"The objection is sound as far as it goes. A man absorbed in genuine purpose can be robbed, k*//ed, or ignored reproductively. The Tibetan monks were genuine and got expelled. These are facts.
But notice what the objection is actually demanding: that the genuine man also be strategically alert, physically imposing, financially secured, and socially dominant. That is not a correction to the previous point. That is a completely different project, and it is the ego's project.
The framework does not promise safety. It says the genuine life is more alive than the defended one, not that it is safer. The man living from actual purpose may die younger, poorer, and without a mate. That is a real cost. The question is not whether the cost exists. The question is what you are actually choosing between: a defended life organized around managing exposure, or a genuine life that accepts it. The Tibetan monks lost Tibet. They did not lose what they were."
So, what is the point of seizing territory that one can't even defend? 'The Tibetan monks lost Tibet. They did not lose what they were.' Very soon the whole world will be overpowered by ignorance and will suffer endlessly, which they were fighting in the first place.