Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Michael: Atman is The Self or Shiva or God My son has coloring books and he talks about talking cars... talking toasters etc... These are cars and toasters with eyes and mouths. I wonder if it is appropriate for my eyelid to say, " I am Paul " ... or the leg of a chair to say it is the chair when in fact it has very little chairness about it... so ego is " I " dentity, and there sure seems to be an " I " here... perhaps I am severely deluded... but if it aint my " I " it is a bigger " I " ... and that " I " is the universal being.... so the private " I " I have needs to be transformed or married to the universal " I " ... the two must become one.... or the division must cease... or whatever..... the ego must be transformed.... I think... Paul... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Hi Michael, A response to your questions, for whatever such response is worth (or not worth ;-) : Where does morality fit in with the idea of " non-doership " ? In my view, the idea is a " pointer " to the " reality in which no doer can be assumed or negated. If it's taken as an idea for a philosophy of morality, then it's being used to " do something " which is what is being pointed to: this very tendency to want to do, to want to get (an answer to a question, a system of morality) ... If I am not the doer am I responsible for my choices? Again, if the question seems to be based on something (an " I " who can have or not have responsibility) then the reality to which is being pointed may not be fully clear (apparently) ... The idea is only useful as a pointer. If there is still the sense of " a limited I-being " who " sees, experiences, knows, thinks, and does " .... then what the pointer points to, isn't fully clear If I am not responsible for my choices will I make bad choices. By bad choices I mean choices which result in suffering for me or others. The reality of no doer is clear, when no doing entity is assumed nor negated. If no doing entity is assumed or experienced as if real, then one reacts spontaneously and naturally (whatever course that takes) to perceived suffering of self or others. Can you trust spontaneity and your natural being to react? Who is the entity that stands aside from spontaneous and natural being -- to try to decide whether or not to trust, to determine whether such being will lead to good or bad choices? Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 KKT: To avoid this embarrassing inconvenience, the Buddhists " invent " the theory of two levels of Truth: relative and absolute. Peace, KKT Sure, just as the theory of " conceptual " and " nonconceptual " reality is invented. And when nothing is invented? Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.