enlightenment is merely an impersonal happening

[Guest guest]

The other day I stopped to feed the llamas that live in the field down the road.

Watching them I remembered what you said, " When I'm hungry I eat, when I'm tired

I sleep. " The llama does all that, the llama has no doubts.

 

The llama has no intellect. In his case there is no concept of bondage.

Therefore ...

 

He doesn't know he's liberated.

 

No, no. There is no concept of bondage, therefore there is no need to be

liberated from that concept. Since there is no concept of bondage, the question

of liberation or enlightenment is irrelevant. All that happens is, a body has

been " born " and will " die " in due course. That's all. Millions of bodies are

created and destroyed, and that will be one of them.

 

How does that differ from someone who is enlightened and doesn't know he is

enlightened?

 

No difference at all. That is precisely what I am saying. Enlightenment is

merely an impersonal happening. We give it the taint of a personal achievement.

Therefore the question arises, " What is an enlightened being like? " There is no

such thing as an enlightened person. Enlightenment is merely another event.

There is a flood, a fire, an earthquake; there is enlightenment, just one

happening in the whole process, all part of the phenomenal process.

Enlightenment has significance only in phenomenality. Therefore, it is still a

concept. And in phenomenality the mind wants to know what the original state of

void is like. It is precisely like wanting to know what the state of deep sleep

is like. Nobody asks that, because everybody has the experience of deep sleep.

So the question, " What is it like? " can only happen to a person who has never

slept in his life. Only he can ask, " What is that state of deep sleep like? "

 

It would be impossible to describe it to him.

 

Exactly. A more mundane example would be: how will you describe colour to a man

blind from birth? He can only know by touching or hearing or tasting or

smelling.

 

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Grant " <g-ssummerville wrote:

>

> The other day I stopped to feed the llamas that live in the field

down the road. Watching them I remembered what you said, " When I'm

hungry I eat, when I'm tired I sleep. " The llama does all that, the

llama has no doubts.

>

> The llama has no intellect. In his case there is no concept of

bondage. Therefore ...

>

> He doesn't know he's liberated.

>

> No, no. There is no concept of bondage, therefore there is no need

to be liberated from that concept. Since there is no concept of

bondage, the question of liberation or enlightenment is irrelevant.

All that happens is, a body has been " born " and will " die " in due

course. That's all. Millions of bodies are created and destroyed, and

that will be one of them.

>

> How does that differ from someone who is enlightened and doesn't

know he is enlightened?

>

> No difference at all. That is precisely what I am saying.

Enlightenment is merely an impersonal happening. We give it the taint

of a personal achievement. Therefore the question arises, " What is an

enlightened being like? " There is no such thing as an enlightened

person. Enlightenment is merely another event. There is a flood, a

fire, an earthquake; there is enlightenment, just one happening in the

whole process, all part of the phenomenal process.

> Enlightenment has significance only in phenomenality. Therefore, it

is still a concept. And in phenomenality the mind wants to know what

the original state of void is like. It is precisely like wanting to

know what the state of deep sleep is like. Nobody asks that, because

everybody has the experience of deep sleep. So the question, " What is

it like? " can only happen to a person who has never slept in his life.

Only he can ask, " What is that state of deep sleep like? "

>

> It would be impossible to describe it to him.

>

> Exactly. A more mundane example would be: how will you describe

colour to a man blind from birth? He can only know by touching or

hearing or tasting or smelling.

 

 

 

impersonally speaking here is total agreement.

 

..b b.b.