To Sandeep--I AM THAT: CHAPTER 14: APPEARANCE AND THE REALITY

[Guest guest]

Sandeep:

You are too wordy.

Get a good editor!

El

 

---

 

Nisargadatta, " Sandeep Chatterjee " <sandeepc@b...>

wrote:

> Hiya,

>

> Playing an amusing game, by having some of the same

questions posed to

> Sandeep

>

>

> ------------------------

>

> Q: Repeatedly you have been saying that events are

causeless, a thing

> just happens and no cause can be assigned to it. Surely

everything

> has a cause, or several causes. How am I to understand the

cause-less-

> ness of things?

>

> S:

> There is an appearance of the cause-effect continum, because

of the presence

> of the notion of time.

> If cause and resultant effect is simultaneously existing, thereby

dispelling

> the notion of sequential time, then is there a cause producing

an effect?

>

> The recent experiments at the University of Princeton, where

the speed of

> light was breached, indicate the simulatenous existence of

cause and effect,

> the existance of the total Picture.

>

> Anticipating your next question, " then why does time come into

the picture,

> bringing with it, the sense of sequential happening? "

>

> It does, because of the way you are " wired " .

>

> As one of my disciples, Ramesh will later on go on to prattle,

imagine a

> painting 20 mile long by 20 mile wide and 20 mile high.

> You, the observer of this picture, can only see a frame of it, at a

time,

> depending on the scope of your eye-sight.

> And thus to see the full picture, you will travel, frame by frame,

bringing

> about a sense of " happening " to you, with the previous frame

appearing to

> be the cause of the next frame, as effect, which in turn is the

cause of the

> next one.

>

> Such a sequential " happening " in turn needs a sense of " time "

and " space " ,

> for the " happenings " to be cognised.

>

> However, the 20 mile X 20 mile X 20 mile Picture was always

there, beyond

> space and beyond time.

>

> It is thus, that you produce the " world " , the world of causality,

the world

> of space and time, the world of " happenings " , both joyfuls and

sorrowfuls.

>

> And since you your self are part of that frame being cognised,

the cognised

> frame, in turn making " you the cogniser " possible, both not

having an

> independent existence of it's own, it is in that sense that we

speak of the

> illusoriness of it all.

>

> Q: But what is your own experience?

>

> Ladeeee Daaaa Deeeee

>

>

> Q: Don't you Ladeee Daaa Deee me.

> I am not inquiring about the causes that led to the creation of

> the world. Who has seen the creation of the world? It may even

be

> without a beginning, always existing. But I am not talking of the

> world. I take the world to exist - somehow. It contains so many

> things. Surely, each must have a cause, or several causes.

>

>

> S:

> It seems to contain so many things, so many " happenings " ,

occurring in

> sequential time, becuase of the way you are " wired " , as

prattled just now.

>

>

>

> Q: My question is very simple: I see all kinds of things and I

> understand that each must have a cause, or a number of

causes. You

> say they are uncaused - from your point of view. But, to you

nothing

> has being and, therefore, the question of causation does not

arise.

> Yet you seem to admit the existence of things, but deny them

> causation. This is what I cannot grasp. Once you accept the

existence

> of things, why reject their causes?

>

>

>

> S:There is neither admittance of anything, neither denial of

anything.

>

>

> Q: Still, the movements of light have a cause.(referring to the

> cinema-light-projector-screen example)

> The film is there, and the actors with the technicians, the

director, the

> producer, the

> various manufacturers. The world is governed by causality.

Everything

> is inter-linked.

>

>

>

> S:

> Cannot better the dude's prattling:

>

> " The entire universe contributes to the least thing. "

>

> Pull a grass, and the Universe shakes.

>

> " A thing is as it is, because the world is as it is. "

>

> The frame cognised by your vision, is SO, because the total

Picture IS SO,

> as the " cogniser " itself is part of that frame.

>

> <SNIP>

>

>

> Q: From the relative point of view, everything must have a

cause.

>

> M: Of what use is the relative view to you? You are able to look

from

> the absolute point of view - why go back to the relative? Are you

> afraid of the absolute?

>

> Q: I am afraid. I am afraid of falling asleep over my so-called

> absolute certainties. For living a life decently absolutes don't

> help. When you need a shirt, you buy cloth, call a tailor and so

on.

>

>

> S:

>

> Do that.

> Buy the best shirt you can afford and work to make that

affording happen.

>

> In the world and all that being " in " , entails and yet not " of " the

world.

>

> Your fear is that, if you start diving into all this spiritual

mumbo-jumbo,

> you will become dysfunctional, as measured against societal

norms.

>

> Your fear is that diving into all this spiritual mumbo-jumbo, you

might end

> up like one of these starving beggars which teem the streets of

India.

>

> If you, as a conceptual entity, have to become a dysfunctional

bum on the

> street, whether you dive into the Advaitic cess pool, or remain

in the

> current cesspool protecting your stocks options, it will make no

difference

> and that particular " frame " WILL be sighted by you.

>

> <SNIP>

>

>

>

> Q: Words like God, universe, the total, absolute, supreme are

just

> noises in the air, because no action can be taken on them.

>

>

> S:

> Correct.

> Have you examined, what action can be taken at all, by you, on

what you

> consider is not-God, not-Universe, not-total, not-absolute,

not-supreme?

>

> And what are these things?

>

>

>

> Q: Don't brush me off like this! You are so quick to speak for

the

> totality, the universe and such imaginary things! They cannot

come

> and forbid you to talk on their behalf. I have those irresponsible

> generalizations! And you are so prone to personalize them.

Without

> causality there will be no order; nor purposeful action will be

> possible.

>

>

> S:

> The brushing off, was your vision of the frame, as per your

wiring.<s>

>

> You say, there will be no order.

> To whom is order relevant?

> How do you define order?

> Is destruction, death, part of your definition of order?

> Is " disorder " part of your definition of order?

>

> If not, you are not yet ready to run the Universe. <LOL>

>

>

> M: Do you want to know all the causes of each event? Is it

possible?

>

> Q: I know it is not possible!! All I want to know is if there are

> causes for everything and the causes can be influenced,

thereby

> affecting the events?

>

>

> S:

> Who is this " entity " who wants to know the methodology to alter

events?

>

> Present that entity, and I will teach it, the methodology.

>

>

> Q: Every morning I pick up the newspaper and read with

dismay that

> the world's sorrows - poverty, hatred and wars - continue

unabated.

>

>

> S:

> So what do you wish to do about it?

> Do it.

> What stops you?

>

>

>

> Q

> My questions are concerning the fact of sorrow, the cause, the

> remedy.

>

>

> S:

> The fact of the sorrow does not exist, for it to be tackled.

>

> The fact of sorrow arises only with a sense of loss.

> A sense of loss, pre-supposes a sense of ownership.

> What do you, truly have, posses, on whose loss, you grieve?

>

> Yes, destruction and death are the facts within a

phenomenality, which

> itself is a concept.

>

> You are dismayed at the large scale destruction in the outer

world.

>

> In your inner world of your human body, at the cellular level,

millions of

> cells " die " every moment and are replaced by a million new

cells, all for

> the apparent purpose of maintaining you as you are, for you to

get dismayed

> at the outer destruction.<s>

>

> At the consciousness level of that individulal " dying " cell, it is

very

> dismayed, as it had big plans to change the way things were

being run in the

> neighbourhood.

>

> To that " dying " cell, you are no less that Hitler/Stalin/IdiAmin

combined.

>

> Q:

> Don't brush me off saying that! Don't label

> me. Your insistence on cause-less-ness removes all hope of

the world

> ever changing.

>

>

> S:

> All hope arises from the assumption, that things as they are in

the moment,

> are " bad " and that something else has to be the new order.

> There must be change.

>

> Look into that assumption.

>

> Do you have hopes that things would be different if you had a

beautiful

> blonde next to you, panting away to fullfill any expressed wish?

>

> <SNIP>

>

> Q: A causeless world is entirely beyond my control.

>

>

> S:

> What is in your control?

> Who is that who worries on having control or not?

>

>

> Q: All I want to know is how to heal with the world's sorrows.

>

>

> Heal your own sorrows.

> Know who is it, to whom the sorrow appears as sorrow and

why.

> What is the stake for you, in this wish to heal?

>

> And whether, all this undersatnding will occur or not, is not in

your hands.

>

> So in the meantime, do whatsover, you think will heal the

world's sorrow, if

> that is what is most significant for you.

>

> <SNIP>

>

> Q: Your universe seems to contain every possible experience.

The

> individual traces a line through it and experiences pleasant

and

> unpleasant states. This gives rise to questioning and seeking,

which

> broaden the outlook and enable the individual to go beyond his

narrow

> and self-created world, limited and self-centered. This

personal

> world can be changed - in time. The universe is timeless and

perfect.

>

>

> S:

> This personal world that you speak of, is nothing but your

perception of the

> vision that you have of one frame at a time of the total Picture.

>

> The Universe of timeless and perfection, is also a perception,

maybe heard

> from someone, read in a book.

>

> For if the apperception of timlessness and perfection had

occurred in the

> body-mind complex in front of me, there could not have been

any other

> perception of a personal world.

>

> The personal world itself would have been timeless and

perfect.

>

> To simply put it....

>

> The presence of the question, presupposes the presence of

the " questioner "

> The presence of the sense of disturbance, presupposes the

presence of the

> " entity " which can be disturbed.

>

>

> Q: My own feeling is that my spiritual development is not in my

> hands. Making one's own plans and carrying them out leads

nowhere. I

> just run in circles round myself. When God considers the fruit

to be

> ripe, he will pluck it and eat it. Whichever fruit seems green to

HIM

> will remain on the world's tree for another day.

>

>

> S:

> Then why bother?

> From where does the disquitetitude arise?

> It arises, because, you want to take matters in your hand, the

fictitious

> God that you envisage, is failing you, all in your perception.

>

>

>

> Q: Yours is a different God. Mine is different. Mine is merciful.

He

> suffers along with us.

>

>

> S:

> Then where is your problem?

> Let HIM/HER/IT suffer.

>

>

> Q: I am not afraid of death. My concern is with sorrow and

suffering.

> My God is a simple God and rather helpless. He has no power

to compel

> us to be wise. He can only stand and wait.

>

>

> S:

> Not being afraid for death, implies that there is a " you " who will

be around

> to experience death, whether in fear or in defiance.

>

> While alive, can you present to me, this 'you'?

>

> A God, which as per you, creates the individual and has no

power to compel

> wisdom in his creations, can only stand and wait for the

individual to

> stumble, fall and learn from the fall, having itself being the

architect of

> the " wiring " , which is lacking and thus vulnerable to falling, and

creates

> the environ within which a fall will occur, such a God cannot be

all

> merciful, all loving, all complete God, can it?

>

> Such a God, is only your conception, your deepest hope, that

no matter what

> happens to me, there will be the loving hands which will pick

me up,

> finally, in the end.

>

> It is that hope of " waiting loving hands " which conceives that

God, nothing

> else.

>

> There are no hands, loving or cruel, for the simple reason that

the soft,

> vunerable and weak falling body and the hard,

uncompromising, cold ground on

> which the hurt of the fall is experienced, both are part of the

Duet of One.

>

>

>

> Hmm, most entertaining..

>

>

> Dobeeeee Dobeeee Doooooooooo

>

>

> Cheers

>

>

> Sandeep