Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 I think i get it thanks. somewhat. roslyn > > Dear nne ~ > > You wrote, " I am not sure what he means by we are not the doer (is that > true!?) " > > > Most people think that they are doing things. Most people think that > they have a choice to do one thing or another. This is how most > people experience things. And yet, 2500 years ago, Buddha noted > > " Actions happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer > thereof. " > > Hmmm....no....individual....doer. > > > At any one moment there is a bodymind mechanism so-labeled nne. > Take any given moment, in that moment a thought may arise through > nne. If the thought is compelling enough, the bodymind mechanism > nne may " do " something. In that sense is nne the doer. > > How then is she is, in actuality, not the doer? > > This answer to this rests on two understandings. > > (1) nne doesn't get to select what thoughts will arise in her > localized consciousness. She doesn't get to choose which thoughts she > will respond to. What thoughts are responded and which ones aren't > are a function of the innate conditioning-in-the-moment, a vast > complex of interwoven genetics, experiences, memories, thoughts. Out > of that mental " soup " thought arises. There is no " thinker " behind it > (unless you want to equate " the thinker " with the innate conditioning- > in-the-moment, and that would be a valid equation). If nne > doesn't get to select what thoughts arise, how can " she " be the doer? > Thoughts....happen. We don't willfully make them, at least not on any > conscious level. We can witness them, once they arise, if we are > observant enough. But we can't generate the desire, interest or > ability to DO the witnessing. It's either there or it isn't. > > (2) There is no nne that exists in one moment and then, again, in > the next moment. There is no nne that is persisting. Each > moment, a " new " nne. The " new " version will have much in common > with previous iterations, but it won't be identical, it won't be the > same. Can something be itself AND, simultaneously, NOT be itself? > No, of course not. > > So moment to moment to moment, nne (or, if you prefer, the innate > conditioning-in-the-moment, which is equivalent to nne), " morphs " > or changes and thus, in each moment....a new (and just as beautiful!) > nne. > > So....doing appears to happen, but pointing the finger at a person and > saying " YOU did it! " is a misunderstanding. The " you " who is being > pointed to at that moment is not the same " you " of a moment before; > something thing(s) have changed. There's a LOT of similarity, I'll > grant you that. But the two " yous " are not identical. > > The notion of a " doer " assumes a constancy in the universe which is > simply not there. All there is, is impermanence. > > This is not saying that there are things which have the quality > of " being impermanent. " That would suggests things come and go and > this quality of " coming and going " is an aspect of things, their > impermance. That isn't how it is. Nothing in this universe holds > still long enough to have the quality of impermanence. There is > just...flow. > > The sense of permanence appears only in thought. It is constructed > there by what Buddha called " rebirth consciousness, " the > psychological " glue " that links one moment to the next, producing a > sense of an ongoing, persisting entity (a " me " ) when, in fact, all > there is, is now. And now. And now. Discrete, separate moments. > And in each moment there arises a new world, a new you. It is memory > which links now to " then " producing a sense of " me-ness, " a " me " who > is a doer. > 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.