Hi, Jim! Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to express below, only you did it better :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > Hi Judy and Rory, Its a perception thing - I exist as an individual entity > with all my wondrous gifts and challenges, surrounded by a seamless fabric of > invisible dynamism, of tangible pregnancy, potential and love, like being > able to easily breathe underwater again. After so many lifetimes I forgot > what the ocean feels like, always there, a liquid fabric of infinite > connections to play in, and interact with. > > Everything I do is so intrinsically a part of that which surrounds me, so > that the bodily entity of me reduces down to virtually nothing, except the > same pure expression as that which surrounds me. > > Nothing becomes everything, not by virtue of expanding nothing, but rather, > by bringing it into sync with everything else; the self does nothing, and the > Self accomplishes everything. > > > --- 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! > > >
