on free will

[Guest guest]

Sorry this is so long, but it's really good and made me just crack up at the

end.

love to all, Shawn

 

========================

Transcript of Ramesh Balsekar Satsang

Bombay,India January 12, 2001

 

Q: We can choose to be here today. It's free will. And we can choose

to listen today with free will or not to listen today. In that sense

I think that we have free will.

 

R: But there, you can only decide, right? What happens (from that

point forward) you don't know. Your plane may (be late).

 

Q: Yea, but it can leave later.

 

R: Yes, but then you won't be leaving (at) the time your free will

(thought it would).

 

Q: But it's a matter of time.

 

R: Yes. So what exactly do you mean by 'free will'?

 

Q: I mean the power to decide.

 

R: To decide. That's all, isn't it? The power to decide. That's all.

Coming from your own experience, what is your experience? You make a

decision, but whether it happens or not, you really can't say because

other forces come into the picture... What the results will be, that

also you're not very sure.

 

So you're quite right. You have the free will to make a decision.

Quite right. You have a free will to make a decision. Was that your

only question? Your name is?

 

Q: Francoise.

 

R: Francoise. From France?

 

Q: From France. I live in New York.

 

R: What brought you here, Francoise? Do you know what we are talking

about?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: Somebody told you about what we are talking about here?

 

Q: Yea.

 

R: Did you read any of my books?

 

Q: No. Not yet. A friend sent me here.

 

R: A friend sent you. I see. Your friend was here?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: He told you about what we are talking about?

 

Q: Briefly. Briefly.

 

R: So briefly, what do you think we're talking about here, Francoise?

What are we talking about?

 

Q: Yes. I'm here to find out.

 

R: Well, I can tell you we don't talk about sports, we don't talk

about good food, we don't talk about good wine. (laughter)

 

Q: I'm sure. I'm sure. (laughs)

 

R: Would you consider yourself a spiritual seeker, Francoise?

 

Q: Yea, I think so.

 

R: Many years?

 

Q: Not many years. I'm a young spiritual seeker.

 

R: A young spiritual seeker.

 

Q: Yea.

 

R: What started it, do you know, Francoise?

 

Q: What started it? It started one day I lost my eyesight for three

months.

 

R: You lost sight for three months?

 

Q: Yea.

 

R: I see. And that made you think of God? (laughter)

 

Q: Yes. And light and darkness. Darkness and light.

 

R: Yes. Until then you didn't think of God?

 

Q: Until then, I didn't really think of God, no.

 

R: I see. So now. Is that all you wanted to know? Whether you have

free will or not?

 

Q: No, that's not all. There are plenty of things that I wanted to

know, that I try to know...but I'm here mainly to listen to you, not

to listen to my voice.

 

R: Yes, but to listen to me: I talk. I don't give lectures. You see.

I don't give a lecture. I talk to people as when you and I talked

this morning. If anyone has any questions, they are free to ask.

 

Q: OK. OK

 

R: You see?

 

Q: I see.

 

R: So, in life, what do you think you're looking for? In life, what

is it you're looking for? Now, you said you were blind for three

months...

 

Q: I think I'm looking for happiness and peace.

 

R: Happiness and peace?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: By happiness, you mean peace? Is that what you mean?

 

Q: Peace and happiness.

 

R: So, supposing you have to choose one. (laughter) What would you

choose?

 

Q: Peace would be the good one.

 

R: Peace would be better.

 

Q: Peace means happiness, right? Also you know? If you feel peace,

you feel happy.

 

R: Happiness means you want happiness without the unhappiness. In

life, our experience is we always have pleasure and pain, happiness,

unhappiness, comfort and discomfort.

 

Q: This is true.

 

R: You see. So when you mean happiness, you mean one - and not the

other.

 

Q: No, I mean to find the peace in both cases. Acceptance.

 

R: In other words, what you mean is, you would like to have the

ability to bear whatever life brings.

 

Q: Absolutely.

 

R: Sometimes happiness, sometimes unhappiness.

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: And that ability to bear whatever life brings is what you call

peace.

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: I agree.

 

Q: In a peaceful way.

 

R: I agree. So how do you think now? Now? What is your understanding,

Francoise about how to achieve that peace? What is your understanding

now?

 

Q: Through acceptance. Acceptance.

 

R: Can you explain that word: acceptance?

 

Q: True acceptance of the events or emotions.

 

R: To accept whatever happens in life.

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: Are you able to accept it?

 

Q: Maybe.

 

R: How do you think you can achieve that ability to accept whatever

life brings? How do you think you can achieve this ability we all

want - to be able to accept whatever life brings: sometimes

happiness, sometimes unhappiness. How do you think that can happen?

 

Q: I think it can happen if you...

 

R: What is your understanding now, about how to achieve this peace we

are all looking for?

 

Q: I think it's something... Happiness and unhappiness is something

that doesn't last.

 

R: Yea. So that is what life brings. Sometimes pain, sometimes

pleasure, sometimes happiness and sometimes unhappiness.

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: Now, my concept is that we do have that peace. That peace

everybody has. So we don't have to achieve it. But what happens is,

that peace is obstructed by something we think or do. That peace

which is always there, is obstructed by something we think we do. So

we don't have to achieve the peace. My concept is, basically, we

don't have to achieve the peace which is already there. What we are

concerned with is removing the obstacle to that peace, you see?

 

Q: Yea.

 

R: Removing the obstruction which prevents that peace from happening.

So what is the obstruction? In life, what is your experience,

Francoise? What prevents that peace? Now, from my concept: peace is

there. What do you think prevents you from reaching that peace during

whatever you do in the waking hours? What is your experience?

 

Q: Too much attachment. Too much ego. Too much emotion.

 

R: Now, emotion - you'll find some people with more emotion than

others, isn't that right?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: I have a friend, a German friend who is very emotional. I often

see him. Tears come to his eyes. Emotional. And his family history

is: he's been in a soldier family of six generations. So he's been a

soldier for six generations, but when I talk to him, if something

touches him, tears promptly come to his eyes. And yet he has been a

soldier. He has been a good soldier. You see?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: So the arising of emotions has not prevented him from being a good

soldier. So my point is if emotion arises, what does it matter? Why

are you concerned with emotion not arising? Have you ever wondered if

it is the arising of emotions which disturbs you from the peace,

which means you don't want the emotions to arise. Why do you not like

emotions to arise? Fear of what? What people will think?

 

Q: No. Fear of suffering.

 

R: Yes, but emotion arises and emotion can be anything. Fear itself

can be an emotion. You see? So the arising of whatever (emotion) does

not prevent you from having that peace. Suppose fear arises. You

don't accept the fear and you stay around to be a brave woman, and

you're unhappy. Therefore, you're away from the peace. Anger arises

because it is your nature to be angry - more angry than another

person. More afraid than another person. So arising of fear, arising

of anger and also arising of compassion, happens because according to

my concept, it is the nature of the human object. Each object has it

own nature and that nature according to my basic concept, Francoise,

is this: according to my concept, every human being is basically...

What do you think a human being is basically, essentially, in this

manifestation, in life as we know it? Basically, what is a human

being? What do you think? What is a human being? You see the

manifestation, the universe, the manifestation, what is it made of?

What is the universe or the manifestation made of, Francoise? It's

made of objects, isn't it? Heavenly objects. Objects in land. Objects

in air. Objects in water. Planets, stars.

 

So whatever exists in phenomenality, whatever exists in the

phenomenal universe in an object. Isn't that right? My basic concept

(that I suggest you contemplate is): what is a human object?

Everybody wants happiness, peace, whatever. But who is this

everybody? Let's first consider that. Who is this everybody? Who

wants this peace?

 

Basically, my point therefore is, Francoise, that a human being can

not be anything other than one type of object, which along with

thousands of other types of objects constitute the totality of

manifestation. Isn't that right?

 

Q: That's right.

 

R: Essentially, basically what I'm saying is that each one of us is

an object. We forget that. We forget that we are an object because

the Source has created that object with such a design, let us call it

nature, that the object considers itself a separate entity with

volition. "I have free will. I can do what I like. I'm responsible

for my action. Therefore I can either do good action or bad action. I

can be brave or I can be timid. I can be kind or I may be unkind.

Everything is in my control. I'm in charge of my life."

 

So, for that person who thinks in terms of "I am in charge of my

life" my question is, who is this 'you' that you're talking about?

And my point is that all that you are is basically an object. One

kind of object. One type of object. One specially designed and

programmed object, but nonetheless an object. Basically, the human

being cannot be anything more than an object. That has to be

accepted, doesn't it?

 

Q: Yea. (laughs)

 

R: In other words, we are either the subject, pure subjectivity,

potentiality, energy, God, whatever you choose to call it - the

Source - the one reality from which the entire manifestation has

come. So there is only pure subjectivity, pure reality, the one

Source which is the subject, the pure subject, and everybody else is

an object. It's very clear, isn't it? And yet, this is the basic,

simple truth which everybody forgets. "I want this. I like you. I

don't like (such and such)." So therefore, my question always begins

with: Who is this who wants something, who does not want something;

who likes something, who does not like? Who is this? It is basically

an object, you see? So if that object is able to think that it has

volition, then that ability to think that it has volition and is in

charge of life, that itself must have come from the Source.

 

So an object who considers himself a separate entity with volition,

has that ability to think so only because the Source has created that

ability in that object. That is clear, isn't it? So what is a human

being? My concept is, a human being is an object, uniquely programmed

by the Source. Now, when I say the Source, you can give it any name

you like so long as you remember that all those labels refer to only

one thing - the Source. Therefore, you can call it the Source. The

Hindu Upanishads call it 'Consciousness', 'the impersonal awareness

of being'. 'I am'. Not as Francoise or Ramesh, or Krista, or anyone.

The awareness that we have is simply of being alive. I am. The

impersonal awareness of being is the Source. So the Source has

identified itself with each human object and created this impersonal

awareness and immediately identified it with an individual entity. So

the Source or consciousness itself has done (this). So this

identification, 'ego' you said, has been created by the Source.

 

And what is this programming? Each human being has been created as a

unique individual entity, a unique individual human object so that

Source itself, by whatever name you call it, may be able to use each

individual, each uniquely programmed human object to bring about

whatever the Source wants. That is my basic concept. Each human being

is a uniquely programmed instrument, object, or computer created by

the Source so that the Source can do whatever it wants, can bring

about whatever it wants through each human object, through each

uniquely programmed instrument. Therefore, anything that happens

through any human object is not something done by an object. An

object can do nothing. Therefore my basic concept is: anything that

happens through any human object is not something done by an

individual, but something brought about by that Source which has

created that human object in a special way so that whatever happens

to that birth is exactly what the Source wants to bring about.

 

You think this is strange for you? What I've just told you? I repeat,

every human being is a uniquely programmed, designed human object so

that the Source can bring up through each uniquely programmed human

object whatever the Source wants to produce. Not what the object

wants to produce. You see.

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: It seems strange, doesn't it?

 

Q: Yes, it is. (laughs)

 

R: And yet, what am I saying? What I have said is: 'Thy will be

done'. Thy will be done. Is that strange? It's been there in the

Lord's prayer ever since you were a child. So what I'm saying is

exactly what those four words say. Thy will be done. Thy will is the

Source's will, you see.

 

So what is this programming I'm talking about? The unique programming

which enables the Source to bring out whatever the Source wants and

not what the objects wants. The programming, according to my concept,

is this: you have no choice in being born to particular parents,

therefore you have no choice about the genes - the unique DNA in this

particular human object. This particular human object has a distinct

DNA which not even twins have. Even twins have different DNA and the

DNA in the body can identify that body as that particular individual

body.

 

So, Francoise has no choice about the genes in this human object

called Francoise. But for the same reason, Francoise had no choice

about the environment in which Francoise was born to particular

parents. In France, in a particular environment, physical, social,

the particular environment in which this human object Francoise was

born, Francoise has no control. To which human parents, in which

environment, which geographical environment, which social

environment, (Francoise) had no control. And what Francoise is, what

Francoise really is, the personality, the persona called Francoise

is, according to my concept, nothing more than this programming. The

genes or DNA plus the environmental conditioning, which includes

social conditioning, your education, your social upbringing,

everything is part of that conditioning which is changing every

moment.

 

Ever since a baby has been born, this conditioning has been going on.

You see? A baby is born, a child, six months, eight months, the child

is not concerned with which other child there is; but as Francoise

grew up, the environmental conditioning told her she must associate

with these children and not with those children. She must go to this

school, not to some other school.

 

So at any moment, Francoise the persona, is an individual entity

which had no control over either its genes or the environment and

social conditioning. What else is Francoise? Therefore, Francoise is

a fiction. There is truly no Francoise, except this feeling of being

an 'independent' entity, and this feeling of independent entity which

has been imposed on the personal awareness of being is called

the 'ego'. So the ego, according to my concept, which makes Francoise

think she is an individual with volition, to be in control of her

life, is really only a fiction created by what the Hindu's call:

Maya. I call it: divine hypnosis, you see?

 

So, when the Source created this human object and the parents gave

her the name Francoise, then, by divine hypnosis a fiction was also

created; a hypnosis that Francoise is an individual entity. By

creating an identification; a fictional, conceptual identification

with a particular body/mind organism and a name. So what is

Francoise? Basically a name given to a human object over the

programming of which the so called Francoise had no control. You had

no control over your genes. You had no control over your

conditioning, and what Francoise is, is nothing but genes plus your

conditioning right at this moment.

 

So you say you make a decision. When you make a decision Francoise,

on what is that decision based? That decision which you think is your

decision, according to my concept is based essentially on the genes

and the environmental up to date condition. Any decision that you

make.

 

Supposing on a particular point you made a decision ten days ago.

During these ten days you have met people, you have done some

reading, and that reading and talking during the ten day may have

changed your existing conditioning so that the decision on the same

subject, in the same circumstances ten days ago could have been

different from your decision today. You see what I'm getting at?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: The conditioning keeps on changing. Now what is happening now,

Francoise? You and I are having a talk. So the talk that we are

having could change the existing conditioning in either of us. You

see what I'm getting at? So the conditioning is getting on all the

time, and whatever decision you think you are making is based on the

genes plus the up to date conditioning.

 

So you call it your decision. But is it really your decision,

Francoise? When, on analyzing, investigating you'll find that what

you call your decision is based entirely on something over which you

have no control. So even that decision which you think you make is

based on something over which you have no control. And the decision

that you think you are making is exactly what the source wants you to

make.

 

So, what does the Source do? It uses every human object, uniquely

programmed object, as a computer. It uses each human object as an

individual, uniquely programmed computer. How do you use your

computer? You put in an input and your computer has no choice but to

bring out an output strictly according to the programming. Isn't that

right? Do you use a computer at all?

 

Q: Yes I do.

 

R: So when you use your computer, what do you do? You put in an

input, then you press a button and the output that comes out has

nothing to do with the computer's choice. It is strictly according to

the programming. Isn't that right? But your computer has no ego to

say that it is 'my' action. But this computer (the body/mind

organism) has an ego. So, the output is strictly according to the

programming. The brain reacts to an input over which you have no

control, an input being sent by the Source.

 

So what is the input? Mostly it is a thought. You have a thought

which leads to an action which Francoise says is 'my' action. Now,

that next thought that you're going to get, you have no control over,

you see? And it has been proved in the laboratory that the next

thought that you get will happen almost half a second before

Francoise reacts to that thought and decides to either do something

or not; the thought arises half a second before you can react to it.

That means you have absolutely no control over the input. As we have

just been saying: we have no control over the programming. So you

have no control over the input, you have no control over the

programming, and yet you say that the output is 'my' decision. You

see what I'm getting at?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: Therefore, on analysis, what we find is that every decision

through a particular body/mind object is exactly the decision that

Source wants made. Even the decision is what the Source wants and the

subsequent happening to that decision is also God's will or the will

of the Source. That is basically why we say: Thy will be done.

Because He (Source) has done the programming. He is putting in the

input; the output therefore has to be according to his will. You see

what I'm getting at?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: Thy will be done. Why? Because it is according to his will that,

first, the object is born. Two, in that object the genes and the

conditioning have been created by him. He puts in the input.

Therefore, the output has to be according to his will. Every single

output through every single human computer, every single moment at

every single place, has to be the will of the Source. And it is on

this very sound reasoning that the Bible says: Thy will be done. You

see?

 

So, if we are able to accept this, then nothing can happen unless it

is the will of God, and when we say God, we mean the Source. Most

times the word God is used mistakenly. The word god is used as the

chief executive of the multi-national manifestation. (laughter) And

this god has various vice-presidents called Avatars (laughter). That

is how the word god is used but that is not the way I use it.

 

So if you analyze it, investigate it, you come to the conclusion that

every decision, therefore every action and its result are all

entirely a matter of the will of the Source. And the intellect says:

how does God's will function? We can say: according to a cosmic law;

according to a natural law or a cosmic law. Then the intellect in

this human object says: on what basis does God's will function? On

what basis does the cosmic law function? And that, the human being

can never ever in a million years understand. The human intellect

asks the question: on what basis does God's will function? On what

basis does God create a healthy child or a handicapped child? On what

basis does God create a healthy child in a rich family or a

handicapped child in a poor family? And that, the human being can

never ever know. Do you know why, Francoise? Because the one who

wants to know is a created object. The one who wants to know the

basis on which the subject functions is a created object. How can an

object ever know the will of the subject?

 

If you create a statue, a figure of a human being out of rubber,

gold, metal, whatever, you'll create a human figure. In that case,

you are the subject and that is the object. So the object which this

subject has created can never know why you created the object at all.

The object which you have created - either in a painting or in an

object, can never know why you created it. The human figure created

by Francoise can never know the basis on which Francoise's will

works. Similarly, the human object can never ever know the basis on

which the pure subject, or the Source or God functions. That is why

we have to accept 'Thy will be done'. Nothing happens unless it is

the will of God. So if something has happened, we have to accept that

it could not have happened unless it was the will of God.

 

Jesus Christ happened, Mohammed happened, Moses happened, Ramana

Maharshi happened, Ramakrishna happened. Then it can simply be that

they could not have happened unless it was the will of God. So Jesus

Christ happened because it was the will of God, but Hitler also

happened, Stalin also happened; so they too could not have happened

unless it was the will of God. So why the Source or God produces what

human beings consider good and bad, good and evil, beautiful and

ugly, the human being cannot know. All that the human being can do,

as the German mystic Meister Eckhart said is to: "...wonder and

marvel and the magnificence and variety of God's creation." We can

only accept it; we cannot question it. So if this is accepted, that

whatever happens is God's will and is not anybody's doing... In

other words, if we are able by the grace of God to accept what the

Buddha said: "Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no

individual doer thereof." then...

 

So, events happen, deeds happen but there is no individual doer doing

anything, which means that any action which we think is mine or yours

or his or hers is not really anyone's action. Nobody has done

anything but it has been created, it has happened because it is the

will of God. And if this is acceptable Francoise, what is the result?

If Francoise is truly able to accept that no action is her action, no

action is Ramesh's action, no action is anyone's action, but a

happening which had to happen at that time at that place because it

was His (Source's) will, then what happens? Then what happens is, it

would be silly for Francoise to blame anybody for any action,

wouldn't it? If I'm truly able to accept by the grace of God (even

that is God's will)... If I am able to accept by God's will that

nothing can happen unless it is God's will, and therefore if anything

has happened which the human being, the human, society considers good

or evil, if it has happened, it could not have happened unless it was

the will of God. One. And two, whatever has happened, if it has not

been done by anyone, we cannot blame anybody.

 

So if we accept 'Thy will be done', what have we come to? We do not

and cannot blame anybody, neither myself, nor you nor he or she. So

the immediate effect of being able to accept that nothing can happen

unless it is the will of God means immediately I cease to blame

anybody. I cease to blame my self or anyone for whatever happens.

 

So, actions happen through this body/mind organism, actions happen

through every body/mind organism: I can only see them as God's will.

So if an action happens through this body/mind organism and the

society considers it a good action and honors Ramesh, then the

honoring by the society as seen or heard or read, becomes an input in

Ramesh's body/mind organism. The brain reacts to it - strictly

according to the programming and a sense of pleasure arises; a

natural, mechanical, biological reaction. A sense of pleasure. But

having the total understanding that it is not my action, that I

cannot produce any action, it is therefore not my action that has

been appreciated by society. So while there may arise a sense of

pleasure, there does not arise a sense of pride.

 

At the other extreme, an action happens through this body mind

organism which is condemned by society for whatever reason. It has

been condemned by society. Let us say I have hurt someone's feelings;

then the condemnation of society is an input in my body/mind

computer. The brain reacts to society's indignation and the

biological, mechanical reaction happens to produce a sense of

regret - a sense of regret that an action has happened which has

hurt somebody's feelings. So in that case a sense of regret arises,

just as earlier a sense of pleasure arose. This time a sense of

regret arises, but there is also the absolute total certainty that it

is not my action which has been condemned by society because I know

I can do no action nor can anybody do any action. Therefore, that

action which has been condemned by society, happened because it was

God's will and it is not my action. Therefore, while in this computer

a sense of regret may arise, a sense of guilt cannot arise. A sense

of guilt or shame can never arise.

 

So for the whole range of actions, from honor to condemnation,

actions will arise and the natural reactions in the brain will

happen. Sense of pleasure, sense of regret, but not pride and

arrogance, guilt and shame. For any action which arises through this

body, with this understanding that nobody does anything, there will

never be any moment at any time of pride and arrogance or guilt and

shame. And if some action happens through some other body/mind

organism hurts me, it causes a hurt, physical, psychological or

financial... With an action which has happened through some other

body mind organism, he or she may not have that understanding which I

have, so he or she may think that I am his or her enemy and they may

be very happy that they have succeeded in hurting me because they

think they have done it. But when I know that if I have been hurt it

was only because it was God's will and cosmic law that I would be

hurt at that time and place... If it were not God's will that I be

hurt, no power on earth can hurt me. That is the understanding. You

see? So the hurt is accepted as God's will, but knowing no one has

hurt me, that no one can hurt me, it is not possible for anyone to

hurt me, how can I bear malice or hatred toward anybody? You see what

I mean? Hurt I have to accept; but I do not bear malice or hatred

toward anyone. Nor jealousy and envy for something which God has

created.

 

So what is the total result? All actions through this body or any

other body, whatever happens is accepted with a biological reaction:

sometime pain, sometimes pleasure, but without that enormous load

which every individual bears: the load of pride and arrogance, guilt

and shame, hatred and malice, and jealousy and envy. It is this load

which obstructs peace from happening. The peace is there. It is this

load which is the obstruction which stops the peace from flowing.

 

So where did we begin: Thy will be done. And where have we ended:

nobody is a doer. The Source is the only doer and the result of that

is that the peace which is already there shines forth when there is

no obstruction. So when this understanding is there and the peace

shines forth, we call who has attained this understanding a 'sage'.

But basically a sage and an ordinary person still have to carry a

body/mind computer which has been programmed by Source. The sage can

do nothing about his genes just as an ordinary man can do nothing

about his genes. Therefore, the genes in a sage may bring about an

action which sometimes the society condemns. How could he do that?

He's supposed to be a sage. How could he do that? My point is that if

an action is brought about because of the genes, and science today,

especially in the last year or two, the amount that is 'blamed' on

the genes is fantastic. You're a vegetarian or non-vegetarian: genes.

You are a person who is not loyal to his wife or husband: blame it on

the genes. That is what I read. All kinds of things these days. The

scientists, the biologists have come out with this research which

confirms that no-one is doing anything; it is happening.

 

So an action happens through a sage which, as I say, is condemned.

The sage accepts it with a sense of regret but it has happened. So

the sage accepts the result of that bad action which may be some kind

of a punishment. So the sage accepts an action which has happened

through his body/mind organism which has been condemned by society

and law as God's will, and also accepts the punishment for it as

God's will, knowing that it is truly, as far as he's concerned, not

his action.

 

So, do you have any question now, Francoise?

 

Q: I don't think so. I'm going to let my neighbor ask some questions.

Thank you for your answer.

 

R: But wait. Don't you have a question? I would like to get that

plain acceptance, firm conviction that God is the doer, no one is the

doer. I would like to get that total conviction. (pretending to be

Francoise:) "At the moment, I like your concept, I like your

intellectual concept. It gives me a sense of freedom from this

horrible load of pride, guilt and hatred and jealousy, but it is

still intellectual."

 

Q: Yes it is.

 

R: So how do I get that understanding which is total? Is that not a

question?

 

Q: Yes it is really a question. (laughter).

 

R: All right. I anticipate that question for you. And the answer is

basically, if it is to happen, it has to be God's will. It cannot

happen unless it is God's will. But it is God's will that has brought

you here. It is God's will that you have heard what I have to say. It

is God's will that the concept appeals to you intellectually, and

this is what Ramana Maharshi meant when he said to the seeker: a

seeker's head is already in the tiger's mouth - there's no escape.

So, your question: 'Can I do anything about it?' I say, subject to

God's will, there is something you can do. You being the ego. By ego,

Francoise, I mean identification with a particular body/mind and a

name with a sense of volition, doer-ship. So in the ego, there are

two aspects: one is mere identification with a body and a name. But

the core of the ego is a sense of volition or doer-ship.

 

Therefore, a sage, when he is called by name, the sage responds. So

the fact that a sage responds to his name being called obviously

means there is identification with a particular body/mind organism

and a particular name as a separate entity who responds to his or her

name being called. So the sage also is identified with a particular

body and name as a separate entity. So a sage responds to his name

being called. An ordinary man also responds to his name being called.

Then where is the difference? The difference is this: while the

ordinary man believes everyone is a doer of his or her action and is

therefore responsible for it, the sage is equally convinced that no

one does anything. All actions are divine happening. That is the only

difference. Therefore the sage has that obstruction removed so that

peace flows; and the obstruction remains in the case of an ordinary

person and peace does not flow.

 

So what is it that I suggest that you do? At the end of the day, sit

for twenty, thirty minutes by yourself (and incidentally this is the

only spiritual effort or sadhana I suggest), sit for twenty, thirty

minutes. Think of any action during the day which you are convinced

is your action. Think of one action. Whichever way you look at it,

you think it is your action. Then investigate it thoroughly and

honestly. How did that action begin? Did I, from out of the blue,

decide to do it or did my doing it depend on happenings over which I

had no control? I saw something, or I heard something, or a thought

came to me which led to the action. Then, if what led to that action

was something over which you had no control, how can you call it your

action? And every single action thereafter that you investigate, you

will come to the same conclusion. Some happening over which I had no

control led to an action. How can I call it my action?

 

So when this type of investigation happens for some time (how long

again is a matter of God's will and your destiny), at some point,

Francoise will come to the conclusion: I myself have investigated

from my own experience and I have come to the conclusion: no action

is my action. And therefore, I have to accept that no one action is

anyone else's action either. So only from investigation of your

personal actions will you come to the conclusion that no one does any

action; that all actions are only divine happenings, happenings

according to God's will and therefore, no one need be blamed for

anything. That is the conclusion you arrive at from your own

experience. Then what was once an intellectual concept becomes the

personal truth from your investigation.

 

Q: I can see that we are not the doers of our actions. I can see

that, I can understand that. I also see that the Source creates the

computer of the body/mind organism and puts it in the world. My

question is: how do I know that everything that happens after that -

let's say the computer starts functioning, they live, they do

actions in every moment in their lives, but why is that the will of

God and not just coincidence?

 

R: What you are saying is: is there a basis to the functioning of

God's will? Is it God's will at all? Is that your question?

 

Q: Yes.

 

R: Supposing it is a coincidence, what is relevant is that it is not

my action or your action. Whether it is a coincidence or somebody's

will, who cares? What is the relevant point? What is the relevant

point? It is not your action or my action. Whether it is an accident

or coincidence or a cosmic law, the fact remains that it is not my

action or your action.

 

Q: So when you say it's the will of God, that's just one way of

saying it, that's just your choice of naming it...

 

R: Yes. Some power is working. Some power is bringing about the

coincidence, accident.

 

Q: That power is the energy, the electricity, that makes the gadget

work.

 

R: Sure. Yes. Therefore, the physicist will, rather than say the

Source, will use the word primal energy. Sure. No problem. You give

it whatever label to the Source. If you prefer to say energy, say

energy. If you prefer to say God, say God. Or if you prefer to keep

using the Source, that's fine. But the relevant point is that the

individual is not responsible for the actions. Actions happen in

spite of the individual. That is the relevant point.

 

Your name is?

 

Q: Teerth.

 

R: Where did you get that name? In Puna? (laughter). OK Teerth.

 

Q: When I'm in my daily life, I read your books and I feel peace and

then life happens and I get caught up in whatever comes up like envy

or dissatisfaction and sometimes I feel I'm very close and then back

to...

 

R: Yes. Now, Teerth, tell me: who is this who feels whatever he

feels? Who is it? Is there a Teerth at all other than a name? All I

see is an object to whom the name Teerth is given. A uniquely

programmed object with a name. So who is it who likes his feelings

and doesn't like his feelings? Who? An object.

 

Q: A body mind organism.

 

R: Yes - which is an object. Therefore, if a feeling happens which is

acceptable or not acceptable, if it happens, you accept it. The

problem arises because you say it should not happen, 'I should not

have had that'. But it is there. So accept whatever happens as

something that had to happen according to the destiny of this object.

But the main point is that it is not in your control, but if you

think that it is in your control, nothing prevents you, according to

my teaching, from doing whatever you want to do. You see, the bottom

line of the teaching is: at any moment, in any given circumstances,

do whatever you think you should do. Can you ever have more freedom

than that? At any moment, in any given circumstances, do whatever you

think you should do, and doing means merely deciding between the

alternatives that are available to you. Select any alternative that

you think you should do because your choice is based on the

programming over which you have no control.

 

Q: In that it's God's will.

 

R: Therefore, what I'm saying is, God's will need not prevent you

from doing anything you think you should do, because what you decide

to do will be exactly what God wants you to do because he has done

the programming. Let me repeat: whatever you decide to do, whatever

the results, whatever the consequences to anyone, is exactly what God

wants you to decide because that will be according to the programming

which God has created. In other words, the biggest freedom is: to be

able to do whatever you like, whatever you think you should do with

the total conviction that never ever will you have to ask God's

forgiveness. The freedom is not only to do what you'd like; the real

freedom is that you can do whatever you like without the danger of

ever having to beg God's forgiveness. Not now, not in the future, not

on your deathbed. Whatever you decide to do at any moment cannot be

against God's will, you see? So your decision is God's will, what

happens to the decision as an action is God's will. The results and

consequences of that action are God's will, whoever may be affect by

those results or consequences. That is why I say you'll never ever

have to ask for God's forgiveness for any action, for it is not your

action. What more freedom can you want?