question: does the knowledge/realization of "do nothing and accomplish everything" affect the content of one's choices? (apart from intellectualizing about the topic); for example - say - in the event that your next door neighbor's house is being being invaded by would-be robbers. Or, protecting yourself or others from muggers. Or, going to a doctor when necessary. Thx ... The apparent dream people are performing apparent acts in the apparent dream world; which - unfortunately, leads to no edifying conclusions as to cause and effect, whatsoever; and may bring "us" back to square one in terms of which actions to perform, or not.
If a dream person is being attacked by a mugger, do something about it, dream or not. The real question is one of importance to the apparent dreamers: if in that world, there is some "value" in performing certain actions as opposed to others. Game theory addresses the riddles without necessarily answering them, or the Paradoxes. In game theory, various values or weights are attached to choices; and the story bascially ends there; then basically wait for the outcome. The Self is equally uninvolved in both the E. and un-E'd people; as well as for rocks, the sky, radioactive babies, whatever. E. doesn't necessarily change the content of choices. http://www.fantasygallery.net/demoray/art_3_the-deadly-departed.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > I interpret this as meaning do nothing as the self, and > > > everything will be accomplished by the Self. In waking > > > state it makes no sense at all. > > > > FWIW, that's the exact opposite of what MMY meant by > > it, with reference to the Gita. For the enlightened > > person, it's the Self that is the nondoer, and the > > self that acts according to the dictates of the gunas. > > * * That was my first thought too, Judy. But then I saw what Jim meant -- > when we (small selves) are surrendered to Wholeness (big Self), it appears > that Wholeness is running the whole show, and we do nothing. But from the > other point of view, as the Gita says, We as wholeness do nothing, and the > I-particles, the small selves, do it all. I suspect that no-one actually does > anything, big-S or small-s, but it all just gets done (or appears to get > done) anyhow. > > Who "does" a dream, anyway? The dreamer isn't doing anything but watching it > unfold, and the dream-characters don't really exist as separate entities, so > they aren't really doing anything, either, though when we are identified with > one of the characters, we sure think we are doing something! >
