This seems like a brilliant way of summing it up Ian. And how could ‘I’ allow such exposure without freely and naively exposing that ‘I’ am the passions, without any shame - this is what got this body and that body here in the first place.
It seems the thrust of ‘humanity’ has been to deny this nature, which also kept ‘me’ in place. It makes sense that naivete is a necessary precursor to innocence. ‘I’ must first stop trying to dissociate from ‘my’ roots so that ‘my’ full exposure can occur - then innocence is possible.
But innocence has nothing to do with morality or with supression/repression, it is actually in the other direction, where this flesh and blood body exists. Earthly and organic seem like apt words here. As in innocence is not arrived at by dissociating from what one is or from what got this body here in the first place.
This is actually quite incredible to contemplate, I understand now why I was never able to find a shred of anything remotely resembling shaming in Vineeto’s writings. Because those passions which each and every human being is born with they are simply what got this body and that body here in the first place - how could one possibly shame that? They were a necessity for innocence to come about in the first place.
So now it is like ‘I’ am allowing ‘myself’ to see what it means that ‘I’ am the ‘many’, no matter how diminished ‘I’ may be. To see this without a shred of shame or dissociation it seems a necessary step in order to allow ‘my’ self immolation. This all seems in the correct direction - of recognising that I am a fellow human being.
I wonder now and I am also excited at what will end this shame for good.