--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > Small self surrounded by Big Self is not anything of value. > > CC precedes GC precedes UC. If you think you're having some kind of UC experience when not already in CC (no small self), then you're not having UC.
But Whos on first? Or is he? > > > L. > > --- 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! > > >
