letters and comments

[Guest guest]

, "Anna Ruiz" <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

> -

> fuzzie_wuz

>

> Monday, May 23, 2005 10:08 AM

> Re: letters and comments

>

>

> , michael bindel

> <michael_bindel> wrote:

> >

> > THE MAHARSHI

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > May/June 2001

> > Vol. 11 - No. 3

> >

> >

> >

> > Produced & Edited by

> > Dennis Hartel

> > Dr. Anil K. Sharma

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Letters and Comments

> >

> > I was wondering if someone could help clarify a confusion I have

> over one of Ramana's points.

> >

> > He states that we are not the doers.... Yet, if we are not the

> doers, then who is, if all is one consciousness?

> >

> > I have heard from the Advaita side that because we are not the

> doers, then apparently we are not responsible for our actions.... How

> can this not be a harmful teaching? Haven't all the religions and

> countless masters encouraged people to act in loving ways?

> >

> > I would really appreciate any guidance whatsoever. Thank you and

> blessings to you...

> >

> > - An American Seeker

> >

> > The teaching is correct: "We are not the doers." But as long as we

> live an ego-centered life we are unable to experience the truth of

> this teaching and will have to suffer the consequences of our actions.

> That is called the Law of Karma.

> >

> > Once we completely surrender to the Higher Power, or completely

> efface the ego by Self-enquiry and realize the Self, we know for

> certain that we are not the doer. It is an ever-present experience. Up

> to this point we must make effort to realize the truth that we cannot,

> in fact, make any efforts, that we are only tools in the the hands of

> the Higher Power. Such are the contradictions in verbalizing spiritual

> truths.

> >

> > No true teacher will ever say you are not responsible for your

> >actions. Only when individuality is lost, when we are fixed in the

> >realization of the One Reality, are we not responsible for our

> >actions. In that state there is no one but the Higher Power to be

> >responsible - Editor

>

>

> The imaginary ego cannot "efface" itself nor can the imaginary ego

> "surrender" to another Higher Imaginary Ego (aka "Higher Power"). The

> imaginary ego is imaginary from the start. It's already non-existent;

> like Santa Claus and unicorns, etc. To say that the imaginary ego has

> to do something in order to realize it is imaginary is absurd. The

> imaginary ego cannot "realize" anything. Furthermore, the imaginary

> ego cannot be held responsible for actions which it is incapable of

> committing (again, because it is imaginary).

>

> There is no doer; no "you". It's the old rope/snake trick.

>

>

>

> fuzzie

>

>

> Fuzzie my dear,

>

> Perhap This is where you and I are n

> longer "joined at the hip", so to speak.

> No, I can not imagine it would be so.

>

> When the no-doer, no 'you' is Seen as the play of the One Seerer,

ie Seeing, the Seeing is the Doing....

>

> With full vision of how, what, why, when and where. It is

Responsibility in action, arising moment-to-moment in the

right-here-ness of the right-now-ness in the absolute Presence of This,

> the I Am, again receding in/as Nothing.

>

> Filling, emptying, filling, emptying.

>

> It is the Love of the Universe for Itself.

> It is the Work of the Siddhas.

> It is the Bliss of nothing/everything.

> It is the You and I of We--This.

>

> a.

 

 

Dear Anna:

 

Your posts are often filled with symbolism and metaphor (you would

make a good symbolist poet; Rimbaud and Baudelaire, come to mind). The

interpretations can be varied and multitudinous. I find no inherent

discrepancies between your post and my previous post. Perhaps

something has been overlooked... I don't know...

 

 

fuzzie