Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hmm, rules, agreements, both can define them depending on the individual's approach.

Regarding your comments on love, my statements weren't referring to those who try to be with others and attempt to change them. Even in relationships where neither party wishes to change the other people will still worry about how the other party feels. Getting turned down by someone hurts, if it doesn't then you have no feelings for the person.

I'm intrigued on your thoughts of pain though. As for how one should think in combat, I'm interested on your take on that, but I think one should be able to act without thought in that type of situation. After all, it only takes a moment's hesitation for your opponent to get the better of you. That mainly holds true for hand to hand combat though, should one be on the battlefield they should be able to observe their surroundings, equipment, personal limitations, and those of their allies and enemies (if possible) in order to make the best strategy possible to insure victory, preferably in an extremely short time.

Going back to one of the agreements though, "- Don't take anything personally.
Nothing others do is because of you. " That seems both highly egotistical ("I can do no wrong!") and like it's saying people are inherently selfish creatures unable to act upon things without some form of personal gain. Occasionally people do act because of the individual, not because of a dream. Revenge could be an example of this, though arguable due to the desire to bring harm or death upon another being brought on by the other's actions. Still, there are times that people honestly dislike an individual without a valid reason and take some sort of action as a result.

Worrying about how another feels in love isn't always making an assumption, it can also be described as the conscious awareness of the ignorance of another's feelings. If the other party is as open as you about things, then there's nothing to worry about. But people tend to needlessly complicate things, so times may arise where one isn't sure of their own feelings.

And I do agree on your feelings regarding that type of mentality in combat. It is impossible to describe, but one I've been lucky enough to feel myself. It's a wonderful gift that allows one to see their opponent's moves before they even know they're going to make them in a way. I'm quite lucky to have a few opponents spar with me and get serious enough with me so that we could reach that mindset, rather than a worthless match where we do little more than joke around. I do thank you for the recommendation, I'll check it out once the chance arises.

Hmm, while I did appreciate the tale of the monks, it still leaves something to be desired. The agreement does state "opinions and actions", and the story of the monks did not touch on my given examples of people acting directly as a result of another person, not of their own dreams or anything of that sort. I agree with the part of the agreement that says you shouldn't let the opinions of others affect you, but by bringing the actions of others into the agreement as well the idea immediately becomes flawed.

That's very true. Given the choice, it's best for at least one person to be entirely open about how they feel rather than neither party. Things are much less complicated that way.

And I mean no disrespect, but your master was incorrect in calling it "nirvana." I speak from personal experience when I say they are two entirely different things. Nirvana is supreme happiness, which to one who is unfamiliar with such emotions, may be confused with apathy. When I achieved nirvana for a time I was more familiar with apathy and depression than any other emotions, and so I described what I felt as "Kind of like a good kind of apathy." It was only later that I discovered it was an unshakable happiness accompanied by an enlightened feeling and unusual clarity of mind. I stayed in that state for about a week before examining myself and comparing how I was then to my peers and decided in order to live a fairly normal life I would have to return to how I was. Even now words escape me on how to accurately describe nirvana. All I can say for sure about it is that how to obtain it differs from person to person, and if you wish I can relate my own story of how I achieved it. And I would be more than happy to hear more, should you be willing to share.

What you speak of in reguards to actions and opinions is a very good point, but even so I've seen others act without any logic or reasoning behind their actions. But what you say is mostly true.

Oneness with God is a good way to describe nirvana. As I said, I felt enlightened and at peace with everything, and an unshakable happiness. I don't believe "oneness with God" is a good description for the state of mind in combat though. I suppose it could be said as that in the way that your actions seem to be guided by a higher power, but as far as I remember when I've achieved that state in a match I did not feel God any more so than I do at any given time in my life. It's possible that the reason for that would be that I was not in a true fight, so that can make a difference.

And that is a very interesting story. It's amazing what one can do once they achieve that ideal combat awareness. I believe those that are truely horrifying to face would be one who is not only able to achieve that mindset, but who may also hold the title of berserker. Should the berserker be able to have that level of awareness while switched, I wonder how many others with such awareness it would take in order to best him.

But it seems we're going away from the origional topic at hand. Perhaps we should continue our discussion in PMs or a new thread?

I don't think it's that simple. You can't just follow the steps and your life is perfect. If you are following any kind of steps your doing life all wrong. Life is too spontaneous and random. Too many things come up that challange any sort of planned steps.

Well, what the author was trying to imply makes a lot of sense, and even if most of us won't be able to actually do or aply 100% succesfully what the four agreements say, I think they are good models to follow and people should use them in whatever way they can, they are pretty obvious though.

Those actually seem like pretty good rules to live by, if a bit lofty. I say lofty because most people I know, myself included, would find it rather hard to follow all those agreements all the time.

But still, I don't think it's a really big problem that it would be difficult to follow them all the time. The way I see it, there's always room for mistakes, and if you mess up with someone you always should have the chance to try again. Especially because the fifth agreement doesn't say "If you don't follow these, there will be hell to pay! No exceptions!!" I'm talking about the imaginary fifth agreement, of course.

I also appreciate the fact that they're called "agreements" and not "rules" or "commandments" or something like that.