Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 The following quote is from a transcript of one of Balsekar's satsangs on January 12th, 2001, in Bombay, India: (It reminds me of the concept that Larry Epston of this group has been trying to explain to us.) " 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. " " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver-1069@h...> wrote: > > The following quote is from a transcript of one of Balsekar's > satsangs on January 12th, 2001, in Bombay, India: (It reminds me of > the concept that Larry Epston of this group has been trying to > explain to us.) > > " 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. " > > " Silver " > Maybe Balsekar is playing a trick here. Obviously an object cannot do anything without some Source, but it is equally true that no object is separate from the Source. So the statement " I produce my thoughts " is both true and false. Yes, the Source is producing my thoughts and the Source is not separate from the thoughts. Balsekar talks about " object " vs " Source " , but there is only Source-objects, not a separate Source producing separate objects (including thoughts). al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " > <silver-1069@h...> wrote: > > > > The following quote is from a transcript of one of Balsekar's > > satsangs on January 12th, 2001, in Bombay, India: (It reminds me of > > the concept that Larry Epston of this group has been trying to > > explain to us.) > > > > " 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. " > > > > " Silver " > > > > > Maybe Balsekar is playing a trick here. Obviously an object cannot do > anything without some Source, but it is equally true that no object is > separate from the Source. So the statement " I produce my thoughts " is > both true and false. Yes, the Source is producing my thoughts and the > Source is not separate from the thoughts. Balsekar talks about > " object " vs " Source " , but there is only Source-objects, not a separate > Source producing separate objects (including thoughts). > > al. First, I wish you a very happy new year, my friend. Enjoy Day 1. Now, in a sense, yes, Balsekar plays a tricky game here. Whenever we conceptualize and verbalize, things get pretty tricky, indeed. However, Balsekar does realizes this and states clearly at the outset, " That is my basic concept. " With that one statement of his, we understand that what follows in the rest of the above excerpt expresses his thoughts analogically. He does not intend to trick anyone with his concept, if that is what you meant. He likens the human to an object, such as a computer program and the Source to a subject, such as a computer programmer and user. He likens the human object to a mechanical instrument that Source can manipulate according to Its will. You say, " Balsekar talks about " object " vs " Source.... " " I don't think so. The context from which I drew the excerpt would clearly show that he does not. Rather, he attempts to clarify for his questioner (a lady by the name of Francoise) the idea that she is not ultimately responsible for any of her decisions. You would have to read the transcript in its entirety to get his drift. Given the lack of context for this excerpt, you got everything else bang on. Click on the link below to read the entire transcript and you will see what I mean. http://www.advaita.org/Ramesh%201_12_01%20transcript.htm The purpose of my posting the excerpt was to show that there might be some merit to our friend Larry's concept of Source being Life expressing Itself as everyone and everything. I might have misunderstood him to mean that this Source is a Big Person in the sky somewhere, playing God with us or something like that. I don't know. I might have objected too stongly. We'll see. And I believe Larry knows, like Balsekar, that when he uses his concept, he is doing so with full awareness that it is just that: a concept. If that is so, then I would have to finally agree that it's not a bad one. " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " > > <silver-1069@h...> wrote: > > > > > > The following quote is from a transcript of one of Balsekar's > > > satsangs on January 12th, 2001, in Bombay, India: (It reminds me > of > > > the concept that Larry Epston of this group has been trying to > > > explain to us.) > > > > > > " 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. " > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > > Maybe Balsekar is playing a trick here. Obviously an object cannot > do > > anything without some Source, but it is equally true that no object > is > > separate from the Source. So the statement " I produce my thoughts " > is > > both true and false. Yes, the Source is producing my thoughts and > the > > Source is not separate from the thoughts. Balsekar talks about > > " object " vs " Source " , but there is only Source-objects, not a > separate > > Source producing separate objects (including thoughts). > > > > al. > > First, I wish you a very happy new year, my friend. Enjoy Day 1. > > Now, in a sense, yes, Balsekar plays a tricky game here. Whenever we > conceptualize and verbalize, things get pretty tricky, indeed. > > However, Balsekar does realize this and states clearly at the > outset, " That is my basic concept. " With that one statement of his, > we understand that what follows in the rest of the above excerpt > expresses his thoughts analogically. He does not intend to trick > anyone with his concept, if that is what you meant. > > He likens the human to an object, such as a computer program and the > Source to a subject, such as a computer programmer and user. He > likens the human object to a mechanical instrument that Source can > manipulate according to Its will. > > You say, " Balsekar talks about " object " vs " Source.... " " I don't > think so. The context from which I drew the excerpt would clearly > show that he does not. Rather, he attempts to clarify for his > questioner (a lady by the name of Francoise) the idea that she is not > ultimately responsible for any of her decisions. You would have to > read the transcript in its entirety to get his drift. > > Given the lack of context for this excerpt, you got everything else > bang on. Click on the link below to read the entire transcript and > you will see what I mean. > > http://www.advaita.org/Ramesh%201_12_01%20transcript.htm > > The purpose of my posting the excerpt was to show that there might be > some merit to our friend Larry's concept of Source being Life > expressing Itself as everyone and everything. I might have > misunderstood him to mean that this Source is a Big Person in the sky > somewhere, playing God with us or something like that. I don't > know. I might have objected too stongly. We'll see. And I believe > Larry knows, like Balsekar, that when he uses his concept, he is > doing so with full awareness that it is just that: a concept. If > that is so, then I would have to finally agree that it's not a bad > one. > > " Silver " Furthermore, (lol sorry) I have to admit to something here. I like Larry. He pushes my buttons but it does have the effect of forcing me to look at my reactions and at how much of an a**hole I can really be sometimes. Lol. If I truly am not the person I think I am, then why do I react so strongly to his arrogance? And yes, Larry, I do see my own arrogance, too. Grr! " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 - s_i_l_v_e_r1069 Nisargadatta Sunday, January 01, 2006 7:39 AM Re: Ramesh Balsekar Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " > > <silver-1069@h...> wrote: > > > > > > The following quote is from a transcript of one of Balsekar's > > > satsangs on January 12th, 2001, in Bombay, India: (It reminds me > of > > > the concept that Larry Epston of this group has been trying to > > > explain to us.) > > > > > > " 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. " > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > > Maybe Balsekar is playing a trick here. Obviously an object cannot > do > > anything without some Source, but it is equally true that no object > is > > separate from the Source. So the statement " I produce my thoughts " > is > > both true and false. Yes, the Source is producing my thoughts and > the > > Source is not separate from the thoughts. Balsekar talks about > > " object " vs " Source " , but there is only Source-objects, not a > separate > > Source producing separate objects (including thoughts). > > > > al. > > First, I wish you a very happy new year, my friend. Enjoy Day 1. > > Now, in a sense, yes, Balsekar plays a tricky game here. Whenever we > conceptualize and verbalize, things get pretty tricky, indeed. > > However, Balsekar does realize this and states clearly at the > outset, " That is my basic concept. " With that one statement of his, > we understand that what follows in the rest of the above excerpt > expresses his thoughts analogically. He does not intend to trick > anyone with his concept, if that is what you meant. > > He likens the human to an object, such as a computer program and the > Source to a subject, such as a computer programmer and user. He > likens the human object to a mechanical instrument that Source can > manipulate according to Its will. > > You say, " Balsekar talks about " object " vs " Source.... " " I don't > think so. The context from which I drew the excerpt would clearly > show that he does not. Rather, he attempts to clarify for his > questioner (a lady by the name of Francoise) the idea that she is not > ultimately responsible for any of her decisions. You would have to > read the transcript in its entirety to get his drift. > > Given the lack of context for this excerpt, you got everything else > bang on. Click on the link below to read the entire transcript and > you will see what I mean. > > http://www.advaita.org/Ramesh%201_12_01%20transcript.htm > > The purpose of my posting the excerpt was to show that there might be > some merit to our friend Larry's concept of Source being Life > expressing Itself as everyone and everything. I might have > misunderstood him to mean that this Source is a Big Person in the sky > somewhere, playing God with us or something like that. I don't > know. I might have objected too stongly. We'll see. And I believe > Larry knows, like Balsekar, that when he uses his concept, he is > doing so with full awareness that it is just that: a concept. If > that is so, then I would have to finally agree that it's not a bad > one. > > " Silver " Good morning Love, The greatest arrogance is I AM, nothwithstanding in the ONE-ness of I AM THIS. gets me in trouble, or at least thinking it is troubling... " Ana " Furthermore, (lol sorry) I have to admit to something here. I like Larry. He pushes my buttons but it does have the effect of forcing me to look at my reactions and at how much of an a**hole I can really be sometimes. Lol. If I truly am not the person I think I am, then why do I react so strongly to his arrogance? And yes, Larry, I do see my own arrogance, too. Grr! " Silver " ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Very nice, Silver. Happy New Year to you too. Werner Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " > > <silver-1069@h...> wrote: > > > > > > The following quote is from a transcript of one of Balsekar's > > > satsangs on January 12th, 2001, in Bombay, India: (It reminds me > of > > > the concept that Larry Epston of this group has been trying to > > > explain to us.) > > > > > > " 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. " > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > > Maybe Balsekar is playing a trick here. Obviously an object cannot > do > > anything without some Source, but it is equally true that no object > is > > separate from the Source. So the statement " I produce my thoughts " > is > > both true and false. Yes, the Source is producing my thoughts and > the > > Source is not separate from the thoughts. Balsekar talks about > > " object " vs " Source " , but there is only Source-objects, not a > separate > > Source producing separate objects (including thoughts). > > > > al. > > First, I wish you a very happy new year, my friend. Enjoy Day 1. > > Now, in a sense, yes, Balsekar plays a tricky game here. Whenever we > conceptualize and verbalize, things get pretty tricky, indeed. > > However, Balsekar does realizes this and states clearly at the > outset, " That is my basic concept. " With that one statement of his, > we understand that what follows in the rest of the above excerpt > expresses his thoughts analogically. He does not intend to trick > anyone with his concept, if that is what you meant. > > He likens the human to an object, such as a computer program and the > Source to a subject, such as a computer programmer and user. He > likens the human object to a mechanical instrument that Source can > manipulate according to Its will. > > You say, " Balsekar talks about " object " vs " Source.... " " I don't > think so. The context from which I drew the excerpt would clearly > show that he does not. Rather, he attempts to clarify for his > questioner (a lady by the name of Francoise) the idea that she is not > ultimately responsible for any of her decisions. You would have to > read the transcript in its entirety to get his drift. > > Given the lack of context for this excerpt, you got everything else > bang on. Click on the link below to read the entire transcript and > you will see what I mean. > > http://www.advaita.org/Ramesh%201_12_01%20transcript.htm > > The purpose of my posting the excerpt was to show that there might be > some merit to our friend Larry's concept of Source being Life > expressing Itself as everyone and everything. I might have > misunderstood him to mean that this Source is a Big Person in the sky > somewhere, playing God with us or something like that. I don't > know. I might have objected too stongly. We'll see. And I believe > Larry knows, like Balsekar, that when he uses his concept, he is > doing so with full awareness that it is just that: a concept. If > that is so, then I would have to finally agree that it's not a bad > one. > > " Silver " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Hi Anna, Just remember " I AM " means " I am consciousness " in the sense that consciousness is the flow of its contents. And therefore any part of this flow (like an event or an object) and the flow itself IS NOT TRUTH. Consciousness is subjective, consciousness of any human being is unique but NOT TRUTH. If there is something like TRUTH (which noOne does know, at least I don't) then it is beyond consciousness. Werner Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > s_i_l_v_e_r1069 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, January 01, 2006 7:39 AM > Re: Ramesh Balsekar > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@h...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " > > > <silver-1069@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > The following quote is from a transcript of one of Balsekar's > > > > satsangs on January 12th, 2001, in Bombay, India: (It reminds > me > > of > > > > the concept that Larry Epston of this group has been trying to > > > > explain to us.) > > > > > > > > " 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. " > > > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Balsekar is playing a trick here. Obviously an object > cannot > > do > > > anything without some Source, but it is equally true that no > object > > is > > > separate from the Source. So the statement " I produce my > thoughts " > > is > > > both true and false. Yes, the Source is producing my thoughts and > > the > > > Source is not separate from the thoughts. Balsekar talks about > > > " object " vs " Source " , but there is only Source-objects, not a > > separate > > > Source producing separate objects (including thoughts). > > > > > > al. > > > > First, I wish you a very happy new year, my friend. Enjoy Day 1. > > > > Now, in a sense, yes, Balsekar plays a tricky game here. Whenever > we > > conceptualize and verbalize, things get pretty tricky, indeed. > > > > However, Balsekar does realize this and states clearly at the > > outset, " That is my basic concept. " With that one statement of > his, > > we understand that what follows in the rest of the above excerpt > > expresses his thoughts analogically. He does not intend to trick > > anyone with his concept, if that is what you meant. > > > > He likens the human to an object, such as a computer program and > the > > Source to a subject, such as a computer programmer and user. He > > likens the human object to a mechanical instrument that Source can > > manipulate according to Its will. > > > > You say, " Balsekar talks about " object " vs " Source.... " " I don't > > think so. The context from which I drew the excerpt would clearly > > show that he does not. Rather, he attempts to clarify for his > > questioner (a lady by the name of Francoise) the idea that she is > not > > ultimately responsible for any of her decisions. You would have to > > read the transcript in its entirety to get his drift. > > > > Given the lack of context for this excerpt, you got everything else > > bang on. Click on the link below to read the entire transcript and > > you will see what I mean. > > > > http://www.advaita.org/Ramesh%201_12_01%20transcript.htm > > > > The purpose of my posting the excerpt was to show that there might > be > > some merit to our friend Larry's concept of Source being Life > > expressing Itself as everyone and everything. I might have > > misunderstood him to mean that this Source is a Big Person in the > sky > > somewhere, playing God with us or something like that. I don't > > know. I might have objected too stongly. We'll see. And I > believe > > Larry knows, like Balsekar, that when he uses his concept, he is > > doing so with full awareness that it is just that: a concept. If > > that is so, then I would have to finally agree that it's not a bad > > one. > > > > " Silver " > > > Good morning Love, > The greatest arrogance is I AM, > nothwithstanding in the ONE-ness of I AM THIS. > > gets me in trouble, or at least thinking it is troubling... > > " Ana " > > > > Furthermore, (lol sorry) I have to admit to something here. I like > Larry. He pushes my buttons but it does have the effect of forcing > me to look at my reactions and at how much of an a**hole I can really > be sometimes. Lol. If I truly am not the person I think I am, then > why do I react so strongly to his arrogance? And yes, Larry, I do > see my own arrogance, too. Grr! > > " Silver " ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Happy new year, Werner. Cheers. " Silver " Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Very nice, Silver. > > Happy New Year to you too. > > Werner > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@h...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " > > > <silver-1069@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > The following quote is from a transcript of one of Balsekar's > > > > satsangs on January 12th, 2001, in Bombay, India: (It reminds > me > > of > > > > the concept that Larry Epston of this group has been trying to > > > > explain to us.) > > > > > > > > " 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. " > > > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Balsekar is playing a trick here. Obviously an object > cannot > > do > > > anything without some Source, but it is equally true that no > object > > is > > > separate from the Source. So the statement " I produce my > thoughts " > > is > > > both true and false. Yes, the Source is producing my thoughts and > > the > > > Source is not separate from the thoughts. Balsekar talks about > > > " object " vs " Source " , but there is only Source-objects, not a > > separate > > > Source producing separate objects (including thoughts). > > > > > > al. > > > > First, I wish you a very happy new year, my friend. Enjoy Day 1. > > > > Now, in a sense, yes, Balsekar plays a tricky game here. Whenever > we > > conceptualize and verbalize, things get pretty tricky, indeed. > > > > However, Balsekar does realizes this and states clearly at the > > outset, " That is my basic concept. " With that one statement of > his, > > we understand that what follows in the rest of the above excerpt > > expresses his thoughts analogically. He does not intend to trick > > anyone with his concept, if that is what you meant. > > > > He likens the human to an object, such as a computer program and > the > > Source to a subject, such as a computer programmer and user. He > > likens the human object to a mechanical instrument that Source can > > manipulate according to Its will. > > > > You say, " Balsekar talks about " object " vs " Source.... " " I don't > > think so. The context from which I drew the excerpt would clearly > > show that he does not. Rather, he attempts to clarify for his > > questioner (a lady by the name of Francoise) the idea that she is > not > > ultimately responsible for any of her decisions. You would have to > > read the transcript in its entirety to get his drift. > > > > Given the lack of context for this excerpt, you got everything else > > bang on. Click on the link below to read the entire transcript and > > you will see what I mean. > > > > http://www.advaita.org/Ramesh%201_12_01%20transcript.htm > > > > The purpose of my posting the excerpt was to show that there might > be > > some merit to our friend Larry's concept of Source being Life > > expressing Itself as everyone and everything. I might have > > misunderstood him to mean that this Source is a Big Person in the > sky > > somewhere, playing God with us or something like that. I don't > > know. I might have objected too stongly. We'll see. And I > believe > > Larry knows, like Balsekar, that when he uses his concept, he is > > doing so with full awareness that it is just that: a concept. If > > that is so, then I would have to finally agree that it's not a bad > > one. > > > > " Silver " > > > 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.