The curious mind will run into every scenario, prompting as many questions. One tree, a million observations. A thought that may be thought to be old, but nonetheless a thought, regardless of time. There is too, a person thought to be anew in this world, but they are a person, regardless of time. Our love, our emotion, our instinct, our ability to think, to reflect and create, these are regardless of time. And may we add, they are regardless of any condition or presupposing. We have the habit of telling ourselves or others what's natural or not, and this is so often due to pretension, or disease, the disruption of balance or of harmony, of the way or of virtue. Yet I may simply say that the natural is the honest. And that doesn't mean your right. Or I may simply say that the honest is timeless. But that doesn't mean we follow or do the timeless. Just as some problems are to exist, so are our expectations. And yet, as these are recognized, so comes out pretension. This is because we make greater problems out of lesser problems by our dwelling, and we expect that of which may be unrealistic. But in each case, we attach the subjective mind to reality. We make ourselves the authority of nature. When the very idea of any natural problem, any realistic expectation, relies on the idea that there is a natural authority that makes it so. In other words, that truth makes it so, that it simply is reason, or reality, and trained over time as common sense and conscience.
Now what follows this training, if it is not pretentious, it is not forced, it must be flowing, it must be harmony. Some training easier than others, depending on the pretension. Think of it as the lessening of tension, the ease of disease, the heal in health. This is merely the role of what we call “the natural” in nature. It isn't a term to be feared nor gratified, it is a term simply to speak of reality, which is then gratified in regards to illusion. Good is seen in light of bad because naturality is morality, nature gives us consequences, nature must be obeyed. But since the subjective is cast away in such very proceeding, our concept of good or natural is not fixated, despite how nature is fixated. But we don't abandon life just because we can't breathe for a moment. We don't abandon looking for food just because we go hungry for a moment. What we need, we search for, we study, it's a journey that could be enjoyed and entertained. But now this concept of obeying nature has been turned into other forms as well, and how are we sure it's not pretentious?
Some say it's a struggle, and that nature is brutal and destructive. But yet, if we acknowledge it's the reality ever present, who are we to speak of this destruction when we cannot conceive of any other reality, and our actions and our limited knowledge are our own fault? Do you blame nature for your lack of knowledge which your fellow humankind may teach you, or you may teach yourself? Technology was a product of nature. That however means it owes allegiance, just as much as you do. How could you complain to a world you cannot change? You may attempt to change it, and hence the pretension, but observe your effects, as you will see not everything is so programmable, otherwise laws of nature could be altered, and still new laws are being discovered.
When we think of obeying or laws, we come the concept of government, but it's by its nature subjective, man made. It instills a program for people to follow, it forces interactions for people, it tells them how to live their own life. These are not lasting in nature, nor tend to have a natural or supportive use for nature, nor naturally occur in nature without the programming. The illusion is accepted as reality after thousands of years, it's simply slavery by another word. The concept of authority is the very prime of what it means to respect nature moreover then man, and that's why it begs us of freedom. And yet freedom, as too nature, requires knowing and practicing, it is mastery because you become the master of yourself. Yet to then externalize this authority of nature to that of a god beyond nature, how could we separate the world we live in? If it interacts with us, if we are bound to it, we are one with it. To assume it's limited to a book, to some interpretation, to some historical event or figure, we would presume a great emphasis on the subjective when stopping there.
In other words, think of authority as the concept of attachment. Do you attach yourself to the worldly items to attain a higher understanding? Do you attach yourself to another person in order to know yourself? Do you attach yourself to the healing modalities of another person in order to heal yourself? As a bridge, a medium, people will seek these, but attachment implies dependence. And nature you cannot escape, religion you can. And if you can escape what claims to be the truth, do so. Therefore, when religion asks for you to obey, is it really? By what threat, if not nature itself, for which it claims to operate through? And if it operates through nature, then you need not attach to the religion, but to nature. Similarly, if you recognize there is greater meaning beyond words, that translations and interpretations are faulty, then you will not rely on them as the only source of truth or nature, or connection. And if you recognize God's truth is ever present, look toward the forests and the environment which has been here all along. Most evident is the health effects.
Let me remind you, one tree can become a million observations, but also don't forget the tree. You can become someone, but don't forget you. Reality can become altered, but don't forget reality. Nature has sprung amany ten thousand things under its reign, but don't forget about nature. With practice, no need to remember, no need to think, you are one with nature, how then could life be more self-evident.