Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > The thing about doing is that it happens. > The confusion about doing is the assumption > that " I " do it. > > If we get angry we might think, " Ooop! There > all my 'nonduality' went out the window! " > > But no, it is that when the behavior is > especially intense the tendancy to identify > is much greater. > > It is not that there is a cessation in " doing " . > It is that there is a cessation in *indentification* > with doing. Oh, no, no, no. In this case we didn´t understand each other, when talking about no " me " . We´re coming back to our discussion. Where there is doing, there is a doer. They are one and the same and come and go together. There is no anger without the one who´s angry. These seem two separate things, but they are one and the same: thoughts in a thought construct, responsible for emotional reactions. There are no emotional reactions without a " me " . You cannot disidentify from any reaction, either the " me " is there or not. No " me " - no recation. len > Perhaps sitting in quietude, but eventually getting > something to eat, doing work, interactions with > others, all of it. > > Does that seem to contradict the statement, " There > really is nothing I can do " ? > > If so, read it this way: " There is really no doing > that I can identify with as 'me' doing it. " > > > Bill > 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.