Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Monday, June 25

Expand Messages
  • umbada@ns.sympatico.ca
    JUST THIS fascinating isn t it. kind of like lining up in front of a department store for the big washington birthday sale and rushing in to make sure you get
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 27, 2001

      fascinating isn't it. kind of like lining up in front of a
      department store for the big washington birthday sale and
      rushing in to make sure you get the thing you want before its
      sold out. i wonder what it is that makes people think there
      is something in the front of the room that isn't in the back.


      Good point! I'm not sure exactly what makes people think
      that. Non-locality and ubiquity are hard to grasp. I know
      many satsang-attendees in my area, and they've told me that
      they think "It" is embodied in (only) some people. So they
      want to be close to that person. More enlightenment points up
      front! The closer the better, so that it might jump or rub or
      flow off onto them. Or actually be granted like the touch of
      a feather or the passing of a torch.


      Like a kid, I like being up front myself. :-) In fact I went
      to Nirmala's satsang that was packed and Joe, who normally
      holds satsangs there at his house, knew I was coming and
      saved me a place right up front. :-)



      Experiencing The Teaching

      Ramesh S. Balsekar

      Chapter 10

      Ramesh: Hello, you are beaming like a lamp. what's up?

      Questioner: Well, have you seen the latest copy of the Times?
      No? Don't bother. I have a copy right here. Page 5.

      Ramesh: Ah, here we are. A photograph of you, a nice write up
      too. Is this chap a friend of yours?

      Question: He is now! Why are you smiling like that?

      Ramesh: Was I? Like What?

      Questioner: Like you have something up your sleeve. Like the
      cat who ate the canary.

      Ramesh: Oh, well. I was just thinking about "that bastard"
      who wrote a nasty piece about your book in some "rag" a few
      days ago.

      Questioner: Are you making fun of me? Wouldn't you be upset
      if someone said something rotten about you?

      Ramesh: Of course not. Why should I be upset about a brickbat
      thrown at an image in someone else's (aspect of) mind. It's
      entirely his own creation and quite unrelated to the
      phenomenon ("me") to which the image is attached. In your own
      case, a few days ago someone threw a brickbat at an image of
      you in his mind. Today, someone else through a bouquet at an
      image in his mind. The phenomenon, that is "you", has
      remained the same while the images in mind have been

      Questioner: How do you mean "images in mind"?

      Ramesh: Dualistic discrimination in the process of
      functioning as "self" and "other". It's a universally
      condemned process also known variously (in non-dualistic
      teaching like Advaita and Tao) as discrimination, false
      thought, objective seeing, etc.. It is the very mechanism of

      Questioner: In other words, objectifying a purely subjective
      concept - creating a effigy and then throwing bouquets or
      brickbats at it.

      Ramesh: That is well said. It should be remembered, however,
      that the understanding itself would preclude all "saying" -
      there is no need at all to express what is understood. It can
      only make the truth untrue.

      Questioner: I can buy that. But the theory aside, which is
      the real you - the one that deserves the bouquet or the

      Ramesh: You have missed the point. I could be not just one or
      the other, but a host of others as others might see "me".

      Questioner: You really are serious aren't you? This is not
      just theory for you, but a fact.

      Ramesh: Look. As "I", I am precisely nothing - no thing. I
      appear as whatever I am perceived to be. And this is as much
      "fact" as anything in phenomenal manifestation could be said
      to be. How could "I" be anything but I AM?

      Questioner: Let's be practical. Am I to understand that you
      have no personal identity, no personality at all? How can you
      live without one? Surely, you yourself must know what you
      are, even if someone else may not.

      Ramesh: I'm not trying to be funny or clever. See for
      yourself. Why should my perceptual and conceptual
      interpretation of my appearance (which is "me") be any more
      valid or invalid, phenomenally, than that of any one else's.
      My own could well be perhaps a little more flattering and
      exaggerated, but certainly equally imaginary!

      Questioner: I would still like an answer. I am not just
      superficially curious. I am seriously curious.

      Ramesh: I have so many "selves" and while some of them may be
      "good" - gentle, kind and noble many others would be "bad" -
      cruel and obnoxious Again, let me assure you, I am not being
      flippant. Actually the range of our "selves" in this waking -
      dream is very much more inhibited than in our sleeping
      dreams. In our dreams we accept ourselves for whatever we
      appear to be, and it is only in retrospect that we judge
      ourselves according to the "waking" standards.

      Questioner: You mean it is in this spirit of relativism that
      we should view what other people think of us?

      Ramesh: Would not anything else be absurd? Whatever people
      think of me is their thought, visualized in their own aspect
      of the split-mind known as "memory". It is their mnemonic
      impression, which has nothing to do with me, with what I am
      or what I am not.

      Questioner: I find you amazing.

      Ramesh: All that your amazement shows is that my appearance
      in your mind is not very flattering if you believed that I
      would care about what happens in a split-mind!

      Questioner: Phenomenally, then, are we nothing other than
      what is perceived?

      Ramesh: Perceived - and conceived: a concept. Our supposed
      "self" is what "others" conceive; and of course "others" must
      include our own self-conceiving because each of us is an
      "other" supposed by a supposed "self". The point is that both
      the "self" and the "other" do not exist apart from being
      merely the mechanism of manifestation in duality as

      Questioner: Then what are we?

      Ramesh: Is it not obvious? We are, very simply, "I",
      eternally unaware of what I-ness is.

      Questioner: What you say seems so clear and so obvious that
      it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise. As
      appearances we can only be concepts in the split-mind,
      whether "ours" or those of apparent "others".

      Ramesh: How could it be otherwise? Sages, men or vision, have
      been saying so for thousands of years.

      Questioner: And yet people have not believed that!

      Ramesh: The sages did not ask people to believe anything.
      Belief is also a concept. They merely pointed to the truth.

      Questioner: But how are "selves" supposed to act?

      Ramesh: "Supposed to act"? How can an appearance be supposed
      to act? This was also told to us by the sages thousands of
      years ago, though of course in words and terms prevalent in
      their times. Therefore perhaps the need for books like this
      one. Anyway, the "selves" do not "act" - they appear to react
      to stimuli from outside, as images in mind.

      Questioner: What precisely is the manner in which such
      apparent reaction takes place?

      Ramesh: What they appear to do is conceptual interpretation
      of such reacting, and apparent functioning that we call our

      Questioner: But surely, if the "selves" are merely
      appearances in consciousness, images in the split-mind, there
      must be something behind them. What is that?

      Ramesh: This is the real trouble. I mean, trying to put into
      words something that is indescribable turns it into a
      concept. Anyway, we may try to apperceive it by thinking of
      it as a functioning which is spontaneous acting without any
      reacting. That is the Taoist way of looking at it, and as
      good as any, and better than most.

      Questioner: How would you explain it?

      Ramesh: I might perhaps say that THAT is transcendent
      noumenality which is immanent as phenomenality (otherwise
      phenomenality would have no "substance"), objectifying what
      it is as what we appear to be through a process of dualistic
      manifestation in the conceptual extension of the media know
      as "space" and "time".

      Questioner: Where do we come in, in this functioning?

      Ramesh: "We" as WHAT-WE-ARE, being all that is, can never be
      out of any functioning. As an appearance in the mind, we are
      nothing; as WHAT-WE-ARE, we are everything. Noumenon and
      phenomenon are not two, nor are they different. As I said,
      what they are is transcendence phenomenally and immanence
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.