Post by GusR on Nov 18, 2021 16:59:55 GMT -5
Rose suggests (Ch 3 p53) that thinking we cannot do or that we should do are two opposite ends of a paradox.
Is anything we want to believe that is contrary to it's opposite, equally as correct or false?
The argument that “there is nothing one can do” on a spiritual path, and the belief that in doing anything on one's path only reinforces one's individuality, is prevalent in many modern day Advaita and Zen groups. The simple logic is that more of this reality can not be good. Individuality is the medicine that keeps our identities as egos secure, thinking that in being separate, we are capable of doing great things. Without this “do-er” identity, we would greatly limit any meaning in our lives. Another ramification of not being able “to do”, might be that we have no free will, either. If that were also true, then no one would be responsible for either what “I” thought I did, or what I was not responsible for doing. We would truly be automatic robots or sleep-walkers, and all order and balance in society would need to be under some higher guidance, power or intelligence. Why would I read books, listen to gurus & teachers, or even “think about these things” when great teachers told us to?
So am I responsible for anything or nothing?
If you believed your whole life that you could do nothing, or were responsible for nothing, how would your life have been different?
Where is the line between what you can and can't do?
On your death bed, can you imagine yourself saying “Well, I wasn't responsible for my life or for doing anything”?