Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 .... And the resistance that we have to this idea of fatalism, or non-volition, or whatever you want to call it, that, in fact, is the ego, the " me " , screaming against its own annihilation. Precisely. And a deeper point is, that there is no " me " to be blamed. There is no " me " to blame for this conditioning. Pity. (laughter) You can't pass the blame on to anybody. All there is, is Consciousness. Therefore, all these " me " s, the billions of " me " s, the billions of egos, who's created them? Who but Consciousness, by merely identifying itself with each individual body-mind mechanism! So there are billions of " me " s quarrelling and loving and hating each other, which is what this lila is all about. We had no choice in regard to our parents, our surroundings. We are just born in a particular place, with particular parents, with very definite inherent characteristics. We don't act. The body-mind mechanism merely reacts to an outside event or a thought. Each body-mind organism can react only according to its own inherent characteristics. That is why the same event produces different types of reactions in different organisms. It is not a matter of choice. Each organism reacts according to the inherent characteristics with which it has been created. Each individual organism is conceived and created with certain characteristics, so that certain actions will take place through that organism. These actions are part of the impersonal functioning of Totality. That is why you cannot be really responsible. You are only an instrument through which action is produced, impersonally. You are merely an instrument through which Consciousness is functioning. So, I have to look at ego as also a function of Totality. Then hopefully, if I have that view, I'm in business. Is that right? Yes, then you're in business. But if you keep fighting your ego, you are not in business. Accepting the ego and not fighting it all the time is a big step. A big step. One of the astonishing laws of the universe is that where there is no resistance, there is no conflict. If you don't put up the fight, the ego can't either. The ego must be terribly frustrated if it doesn't find resistance. Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar Consciousness Speaks (Ramesh S Balsekar) published by Advaita Press PO Box 3479 Redondo Beach CA 90277 USA www.advaita.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville wrote: > > ... And the resistance that we have to this idea of fatalism, or non-volition, or whatever you want to call it, that, in fact, is the ego, the " me " , screaming against its own annihilation. > > Precisely. And a deeper point is, that there is no " me " to be blamed. There is no " me " to blame for this conditioning. > > Pity. (laughter) > > You can't pass the blame on to anybody. All there is, is Consciousness. Therefore, all these " me " s, the billions of " me " s, the billions of egos, who's created them? Who but Consciousness, by merely identifying itself with each individual body-mind mechanism! So there are billions of " me " s quarrelling and loving and hating each other, which is what this lila is all about. > We had no choice in regard to our parents, our surroundings. We are just born in a particular place, with particular parents, with very definite inherent characteristics. We don't act. The body-mind mechanism merely reacts to an outside event or a thought. Each body-mind organism can react only according to its own inherent characteristics. That is why the same event produces different types of reactions in different organisms. It is not a matter of choice. Each organism reacts according to the inherent characteristics with which it has been created. Each individual organism is conceived and created with certain characteristics, so that certain actions will take place through that organism. These actions are part of the impersonal functioning of Totality. That is why you cannot be really responsible. You are only an instrument through which action is produced, impersonally. You are merely an instrument through which Consciousness is functioning. > > So, I have to look at ego as also a function of Totality. Then hopefully, if I have that view, I'm in business. Is that right? > > Yes, then you're in business. But if you keep fighting your ego, you are not in business. Accepting the ego and not fighting it all the time is a big step. A big step. One of the astonishing laws of the universe is that where there is no resistance, there is no conflict. If you don't put up the fight, the ego can't either. The ego must be terribly frustrated if it doesn't find resistance. > > Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar > > There is a schism in conceptual thinking which cannot be gotten around and is impossible to speak about. The phrase. " You are that which is thinking. " probably comes as close as one can get...... When the assumed self looks inside....it sees nothing...the void...... It is what is looking. How can that be grasped? It can't. Funny thing huh? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville@> wrote: > > > > ... And the resistance that we have to this idea of fatalism, or > non-volition, or whatever you want to call it, that, in fact, is the > ego, the " me " , screaming against its own annihilation. > > > > Precisely. And a deeper point is, that there is no " me " to be > blamed. There is no " me " to blame for this conditioning. > > > > Pity. (laughter) > > > > You can't pass the blame on to anybody. All there is, is > Consciousness. Therefore, all these " me " s, the billions of " me " s, the > billions of egos, who's created them? Who but Consciousness, by merely > identifying itself with each individual body-mind mechanism! So there > are billions of " me " s quarrelling and loving and hating each other, > which is what this lila is all about. > > We had no choice in regard to our parents, our surroundings. We are > just born in a particular place, with particular parents, with very > definite inherent characteristics. We don't act. The body-mind > mechanism merely reacts to an outside event or a thought. Each > body-mind organism can react only according to its own inherent > characteristics. That is why the same event produces different types > of reactions in different organisms. It is not a matter of choice. > Each organism reacts according to the inherent characteristics with > which it has been created. Each individual organism is conceived and > created with certain characteristics, so that certain actions will > take place through that organism. These actions are part of the > impersonal functioning of Totality. That is why you cannot be really > responsible. You are only an instrument through which action is > produced, impersonally. You are merely an instrument through which > Consciousness is functioning. > > > > So, I have to look at ego as also a function of Totality. Then > hopefully, if I have that view, I'm in business. Is that right? > > > > Yes, then you're in business. But if you keep fighting your ego, you > are not in business. Accepting the ego and not fighting it all the > time is a big step. A big step. One of the astonishing laws of the > universe is that where there is no resistance, there is no conflict. > If you don't put up the fight, the ego can't either. The ego must be > terribly frustrated if it doesn't find resistance. > > > > Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar > > > > > > > > > There is a schism in conceptual thinking which cannot be gotten around > and is impossible to speak about. > > > The phrase. " You are that which is thinking. " probably comes as close > as one can get...... > > When the assumed self looks inside....it sees nothing...the void...... Perhaps it is not that there is an " assumed self " which then " looks inside " ... Perhaps it is that the " looking " can be as-a-self.... and if such is the looking then self-in-relationship is what is seen. In other words it is *all verb*... there is no noun-thingy there at all, *even a false one*. But looking can be other than as-a-self, but then the looking is not centered around a point-of-view... the looking is rather free-flowing, without any self-oriented- agenda. " Looking " takes on a quality of perpetual surprise. Another way to pull all this is that " self " is a kind of *organizer* for behavior/perception, but it is not the only possible organizer... for example with a one-year-old that has not yet a strong sense of self, behavior/perception is organized, but in a looser more open way. But, I am suggesting, an adult too can come to shed the many layers of conditioning around self-based organization of perception and re-enter the kind of open fluidity of a one- year-old, though now with a measure of consciousness beyond that of the 1-yr-old. Bill > > > It is what is looking. > > > How can that be grasped? > > > It can't. > > > > Funny thing huh? > > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville@> wrote: > > > > ... And the resistance that we have to this idea of fatalism, or > non-volition, or whatever you want to call it, that, in fact, is the > ego, the " me " , screaming against its own annihilation. > > > > Precisely. And a deeper point is, that there is no " me " to be > blamed. There is no " me " to blame for this conditioning. > > > > Pity. (laughter) > > > > You can't pass the blame on to anybody. All there is, is > Consciousness. Therefore, all these " me " s, the billions of " me " s, the > billions of egos, who's created them? Who but Consciousness, by merely > identifying itself with each individual body-mind mechanism! So there > are billions of " me " s quarrelling and loving and hating each other, > which is what this lila is all about. > > We had no choice in regard to our parents, our surroundings. We are > just born in a particular place, with particular parents, with very > definite inherent characteristics. We don't act. The body-mind > mechanism merely reacts to an outside event or a thought. Each > body-mind organism can react only according to its own inherent > characteristics. That is why the same event produces different types > of reactions in different organisms. It is not a matter of choice. > Each organism reacts according to the inherent characteristics with > which it has been created. Each individual organism is conceived and > created with certain characteristics, so that certain actions will > take place through that organism. These actions are part of the > impersonal functioning of Totality. That is why you cannot be really > responsible. You are only an instrument through which action is > produced, impersonally. You are merely an instrument through which > Consciousness is functioning. > > > > So, I have to look at ego as also a function of Totality. Then > hopefully, if I have that view, I'm in business. Is that right? > > > > Yes, then you're in business. But if you keep fighting your ego, you > are not in business. Accepting the ego and not fighting it all the > time is a big step. A big step. One of the astonishing laws of the > universe is that where there is no resistance, there is no conflict. > If you don't put up the fight, the ego can't either. The ego must be > terribly frustrated if it doesn't find resistance. > > > > Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar > > > > > > > > > There is a schism in conceptual thinking which cannot be gotten around > and is impossible to speak about. > > > The phrase. " You are that which is thinking. " probably comes as close > as one can get...... > > When the assumed self looks inside....it sees nothing...the void...... > > > It is what is looking. > > > How can that be grasped? > > > It can't. > > > > Funny thing huh? > > > > toombaru no need for 'looking' or 'grasping'. there is nothing 'there' to be seen or grasped. there is nothing 'here' to grasp with. quite simply... nothing is going on. it's not a noun, nor verb, nor adjectival poem. that's ALL part and parcel with the nonexistent phantom 'world'. impressing no one. but a confused many disagree. it is as you say.... good for a great laugh! ....wherever.......?......... :-) ..b b.b. 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.