--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@...> wrote: > > question: does the knowledge/realization of "do nothing and > accomplish everything" affect the content of one's choices? > (apart from intellectualizing about the topic);
Good question. I don't see how it could fail to affect one's choices. The "intellectualizing" you speak of in this case amounts to maintaining a deep, fundamental, core belief that someone or something *else* other than self "does" everything. If one truly believes this, how much effort -- however half-hearted it may be -- are they really going to put into "doing" themselves? > 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 As I suspect you're suggesting, I've seen True Believers in the "I am not the doer" theory do absolutely nothing in such circumstances. And then -- the "capper" as far as I'm concerned in terms of intellectual dishonesty -- whine and moan about the unfairness of it all, and how what was "done" by the God or Laws Of Nature they claim to believe in was "off" this time, and treated them unfairly. I suspect you've seen the same thing. > 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. This has never concerned me because personally I have never bought into the "the world is an illusion" meme. For whatever reason, I always gravitated -- even in my TB TM days -- to MMY's "Knowledge [and reality] is different in different states of consciousness" meme. For me, the relative world very *much* exists. And so does the absolute. The latter does not invalidate the existence of the former, and does not in any way mean that the relative world doesn't really exist. They are just separate realities defined to some extent by the predominant states of consciousness associated with them and perceiving them. Therefore, if I find myself in a relative world situation, confronted by the need to make a decision, at the back of my mind there is NOT the nagging thought that says, "This does not really exist. And even if it did, I'm not the person making the decision." That's something that the TB "I am not the doer" types might be subconsciously thinking. My subconscious, on the other hand, would be thinking, "This appears to be a very real situation in a very real world that requires me to make a very real decision. Ain't no one or nothing going to make that decision for me, and I wouldn't want them to if they/it could. I am content with making my own decisions, thank you." > If a dream person is being attacked by a mugger, do something > about it, dream or not. Exactly. Kick the dream mugger's ass. How much force you choose to use when doing so depends on the particular reality of the dream. If it's a "sleep dream," you can cut the mugger up into small bits and feed him to your dream pets. Try this in a "waking dream" and you're gonna do more time in prison than the mugger would. One of the corollaries of believing in "separate realities" as I do is that one has to keep track of which one one is operating in, and the rules and regs associated with that level of reality. :-) > 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. This is the bottom line of what I see as the essentially intellectually dishonest stance of the "I am not the doer" types. Many of them, if forced to declare what they really believe, believe that nothing they "do" is really "done" by them. On the other hand, would they ever miss doing one of the things that they believe helps them achieve enlighten- ment more quickly? No way. They would not skip a meditation or a dome session. They wouldn't eat meat, even if it *was* God or the Laws Of Nature that put it on the plate in front of them when dining at a friend's house. *While* claiming that they are not the doers, they "do" all the time -- 24/7 every day. They even "do" while performing the meditations they wouldn't skip on a bet, *choosing* to come back to the mantra when they find that they are not thinking it. In other words, they live (as I see it) in a 24/7 form of cognitive dissonance -- believing that the world works one way, but living in a manner that implies it works exactly the opposite. I never have to deal with that cognitive dissonance, because my internal view of how the world works -- both relative and absolute -- is consistent when dealing with either. Since I believe that the relative world abso- lutely exists, and that my actions there are not only in my control and matter, I "do" when acting in that world. In meditation, if I choose to "let go" and allow my mind to settle into a non-dual (more absolute) awareness, I similarly choose to "not do." For a while. The key is to match the actions (or non-actions) to the reality I'm working in. > 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. Nor, in my opinion, does it *make* any of the choices. I am constantly amused by people who claim that the absolute is "attributeless" and can by definition involve no thoughts and no actions is the very thing that is making all decisions and performing all actions in their lives. Seems to me that one way of describing such beliefs is as a kind of regression to childhood, and longing for a Daddy or Mommy to "do" everything for them. Me, I prefer being a grownup. > 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! > > >
