Question: Sir, is understanding of non-doership incumbent to love ones adversaries or are there people who feel no hate right from the onset?
For instance, Buddha would regard someone hitting him, like a twig falling on his head- each karma- each cause and effect dependently originated in wholeness. I, on the other hand, understand that non-doership is to feel no particular aversion to any state of affairs. What is ‘non-doership’?
Answer: What is understanding?
How do you know that you understand?
Is understanding a thought that can be witnessed? Is understanding a conclusion that can be stated? Is understanding anything that can be perceived?
What do you mean when you say, “I understand non-doership”? You mean that you have been able to translate the word into a language that you are familiar with. The old game of principle-making and conceptualization.
Non-doership is. It does not have to be analysed. IT IS. One does not accept it. If you have accepted non-doership, then you are still bigger than, and other than, non-doership.
