Location: Nagpur, India
Dear Francis, I understand from the basic tenets of Advaita that no efforts/practice (as they are in time & space) e.g. holding on to the ‘I’ consciousness, be oneself, meditation etc. are required to be done (or not done) (as there is no doer) in order to realize our true nature. The advaita seed of understanding implanted in the consciousness (and forgotten) is bound to bear fruit sooner or later automatically. However, I notice that various kinds of practices are advised by advaita teachers. Please will you explain the apparent paradox. What is your opinion? Or is the undestanding flawed? Thanks in advance for clarification. —Shanko
You must follow your understanding and your experience. If it is your understanding and your experience that there is no personal doer, then there is nothing for a personal doer to do, and the question “to do or not to do?” doesn’t even arise. Doing and not doing happen, even without a personal doer. However, if it is your understanding or your experience that you are a personal doer, then you can assign to the personal doer, decider, thinker and perceiver you believe to be the task to discover her or his own limits in time and space, if any.
The paradox exists in practice only if one takes simultaneously two opposite stands: 1. I am a separate entity and 2. I am not a separate entity. Choose one side, and the paradox evaporates.