What should one DO? (1)

[Guest guest]

<<But dear Rajiv you are evading one

question again and again.For Advait Vedantin..... what

should be the sadhna and what will be Moksha

for<br>him...because I feel that Imagining that I am Brahm does not

make me a Brahma......>><br><br>No. I need not

evade a question that doesn't arise. The question

essentially is, 'What is one to DO?' Let us visit this

question afresh, and see how it is a wrong

question.<br><br>Even from the intellectual standpoint, it is clearly

seen that enlightenment is not something that can be

brought about with efforts on part of an individual. Any

deliberate effort will only strengthen the notion of

doership, and the saadhaka will be that far away from

enlightenment.<br><br>Moksha, as explained by Shri Ramesh Balsekar, is nothing

but removal of identification as separate doer. It

happens suddenly, since anything that happens over time

is contaminated by the ego. (There can be a separate

discussion on the relationship between the concept of time

and ego. More about that later.)<br><br>So, the

phenomenon of enlightenment is not denied. What is denied is

the role of a deliberate effort in bringing it about.

Predestination is accepted, what is not accepted is the notion

of one-to-one cause and effect relationship between

events. <br><br>You see, it is the ego mechanism that is

not satisfied with the state of affairs, and wants to

know the how and why of everything. It hears about the

beautiful event of enlightenment, and immediately wants to

have it for itself. Therefore the question, 'How? By

what efforts? By what saadhanaa?' So, the next moment

you are confronted with this question, ask yourself,

'Who wants to know?' That will make clear much of the

confusion.<br><br>To those who insist on some advice as to what to do,

Rameshji says, 'Do what you like'. Because, and this must

be understood, at every moment what you think you

should do is precisely what God wants you to think at

that moment. Make no mistake, by God he doesn't mean

an 'entity' which supervises and judges your

actions. God is the ultimate subjectivity, without the

slightest<br>touch of objectivity. When you say 'I am a man, with

such name, son of so-and-so, engaged in such

activity,' etc., the 'I am' (subjectivity)denotes God, while

rest of the sentence is nothing but objectivisation in

the psyche. <br><br>(...Contd.)