Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 Hi, > > > Ramesh says that there is no 'you', and he maybe knows this > better > > > than you do. You don't know that. ;-) Ramesh Balsekar is a ME, and he asserts his own existence by saying 'There is no you'. In other words it is a ME that says so > > LOL. If that is true, there is no Ramesh then, so more reason not > to > > care. Haha. Well, there is a Ramesh Balsekar. > Hehe. Ramesh is nothing but a body/mind mechanism, as he describes > all human beings including himself. When he says that humans are nothing but a mind body mechanism, he is not stating the full truth, but he is also not stating an untruth. A human being without the ego is > nothing but (like) a programmed computer or a robot he says> A human being is never without an ego, even in '''''enlightened''''' beings like Ramesh Balsekar. >It is > the ego that makes a human human, so to speak, and the ego is a > divine hypnosis: the ego is the idea of being a separate entity with > its own will and volition> The ME does have volition and action and will, these belong to the ME and are a part of what a ME is. Enlightenment according to him is nothing > but this idea vanishing in a person. The ego never vanishes, and in enlightened people a ME still does. > I cannot say if Ramesh is right or wrong conceptually (he points out > that what he says is only concepts, not the truth). Truth only exists at the level of relative reflected individuals, it does not exist in the unity / wholeness. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi, > > > > > Ramesh says that there is no 'you', and he maybe knows this > > better > > > > than you do. You don't know that. ;-) > > > Ramesh Balsekar is a ME, and he asserts his own existence by > saying 'There is no you'. > > In other words it is a ME that says so > > > > > LOL. If that is true, there is no Ramesh then, so more reason not > > to > > > care. > > Haha. > > Well, there is a Ramesh Balsekar. > > > > Hehe. Ramesh is nothing but a body/mind mechanism, as he describes > > all human beings including himself. > > > When he says that humans are nothing but a mind body mechanism, he is > not stating the full truth, but he is also not stating an untruth. > > > A human being without the ego is > > nothing but (like) a programmed computer or a robot he says> > > > A human being is never without an ego, even in '''''enlightened''''' > beings like Ramesh Balsekar. When a sage is called by name such as Jesus Christ or Ramana Maharshi, he responds, because the ego is still there, it has to be there or else the human being could not function, but the ego in a sage is without the sense of personal doership, he says. > > > >It is > > the ego that makes a human human, so to speak, and the ego is a > > divine hypnosis: the ego is the idea of being a separate entity > with > > its own will and volition> > > > The ME does have volition and action and will, these belong to the ME > and are a part of what a ME is. When there is a realization that the ME has no individual doership, then there is change in how that ME experiences the world Ramesh says. > > > Enlightenment according to him is nothing > > but this idea vanishing in a person. > > > The ego never vanishes, and in enlightened people a ME still does. He does not say that the ego vanishes, he says that the idea of having personal doership vanishes. > > > > I cannot say if Ramesh is right or wrong conceptually (he points > out > > that what he says is only concepts, not the truth). > > > Truth only exists at the level of relative reflected individuals, it > does not exist in the unity / wholeness. Ramesh makes a distintion between truth and concepts. A concept is something that someone can deny. The truth is that which no one can deny. Truth is the impersonal awareness of " I am " , " I exist " . He asks: can you deny that you exist? This is the only truth, he says. Everything else is a concept. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 Hi again, > > A human being is never without an ego, even > in '''''enlightened''''' > > beings like Ramesh Balsekar. > > When a sage is called by name such as Jesus Christ or Ramana > Maharshi, he responds, because the ego is still there> Yes, you cannot get rid of an ego. it has to be > there or else the human being could not function> Yes, a ME is *needed* in order for a human being to exist as a human being. but the ego in a > sage is without the sense of personal doership, he says. The ME is still the doer and does, and is what does. The ME is not what the sage is, ( this statement of mine is also contradictory and misleading ) > > The ME does have volition and action and will, these belong to the > ME > > and are a part of what a ME is. > > When there is a realization that the ME has no individual doership, The ME still does and is doing. The realization is that ME is not identity. > then there is change in how that ME experiences the world Ramesh says.> The ME experiences the world the same with all the personal inherentness it 'has always had'. > > Enlightenment according to him is nothing > > > but this idea vanishing in a person. > > > > > > The ego never vanishes, and in enlightened people a ME still does. > > He does not say that the ego vanishes, he says that the idea of > having personal doership vanishes. The idea of being a ME vanishes. > > > I cannot say if Ramesh is right or wrong conceptually (he points > > out > > > that what he says is only concepts, not the truth). > > > > > > Truth only exists at the level of relative reflected individuals, > it > > does not exist in the unity / wholeness. > > Ramesh makes a distintion between truth and concepts. A concept is > something that someone can deny. The truth is that which no one can > deny> Truths are also concepts. Truths define consistencies between the subjective self and the 'objective world' it sees. At the level of 'unitary consciousness' there is no such thing as truth. Truth depends on an assumed subject and object split and does not and cannot exist without it. >Truth is the impersonal awareness of " I am " , " I exist " .> This is a conception of what truth is to a ME. Truth cannot exist unless split by conceptualizing subject that sees something else as object. >He > asks: can you deny that you exist? This is the only truth, he says. > Everything else is a concept. This is a conception of what truth is. Truth cannot exist unless defined and split by conceptualizing subject and what it describes or defines. There is no 'truth' outside of consistencies and definitions, always split between subject and object. If subject and object are one, there is not a ''need'' for truth or to explain, define or provide truth. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.