Urban Guru Cafe
Discovering what you truly are
54. Ramesh Balsekar (1917-2009) – extract from a typical meeting.
Posted on 09.29.09 9:12PM under Ramesh Balsekar
On the 27th Sept 2009 – two days ago, Ramesh Balsekar ‘passed away’. The physical body is a transient appearance. For those who feel a heavy weight because of Ramesh’s ‘departure’ – come back to what he was pointing to, in yourself. Your true essence. Joy is in that simplicity of being. The attachment to the guru is a gift – ‘a final teaching’. In that, there is the potential to truly grasp what was being pointed out all along. May all of his followers be delivered quickly and painlessly into their true essence. – Gilbert
“You may think that you are the doer – I assure you that you have never done a thing” – Ramesh – and “According to my concepts” -Ramesh
Ramesh: “What is the significance of the statement ‘No one can get enlightenment’? This is the very root of the teaching. It means that it’s stupid for any so-called master to ask anyone to do anything to achieve or get enlightenment. The core of this simple statement means, according to my concept, that enlightenment is the annihilation of the ‘one’ who ‘wants’ enlightenment. If there is enlightenment – which can only happen because it is the will of God – then it means the ‘one’ who had earlier wanted enlightenment has been annihilated. So no ‘one’ can achieve enlightenment and therefore no ‘one’ can enjoy enlightenment.”
From an interview – Chris Parish to Ramesh – How can we say that we know it is destiny or God’s will? All we know is that certain events take place. Afterward, we can look back on something we did and say, “It just happened,” and if we like, we can call it destiny. But isn’t it more accurate to say that we don’t really know whether it is destiny or not? Saying that we don’t know is different from saying “We know that it is God’s will.” It’s different from saying we know that everything is fixed. You see, it sounds to me like you’re saying that you do know that everything is the will of God.
Ramesh – We don’t know, and that is the bottom line; so if you like, you can drop the concept of destiny and say that nobody can really know anything. Fine!
Thousands visited Ramesh over the many years that he shared his concepts so willingly. Maybe you were there at some point. If so, this recording will refresh your experience of your own visit, as it did for me. – Gilbert
Includes some of the Bhajans from his regular meetings.
Posted by fernando on 09.29.09 9:37 pm
“Where are you seeing from?”
I am seeing from EVERYWHERE and NOWHERE.
ONE sees ONEself.
Posted by gilbert on 09.29.09 11:00 pm
Please keep the comments in line with the program content, if possible. Everyone is THAT. The recognition of one’s true nature can ‘appear’ to ‘happen’ in any moment. The core of recognition is cognition – it is already cognizing. There never was anyone that was bound into concepts. Recognizing that is a concept-less SEEING – wordless and silent.
Posted by Richard on 09.30.09 3:10 am
Thanks for sharing this tape.
Throughout the tape Ramesh tells us we are not the doer. So I wondered who IS the doer? At the end he answered this by telling us, even the investigation could not be done unless it were the will of God.
Another Nisargadatta interpreter, Mr. Mullarpattan, told me Nisargadatta’s dialogs were intended only for the person he was speaking to at the moment and not to take them as my own instructions.
Would Gilbert answer if this is also true of the Ramesh words spoken to Gilbert? Were they customized for Gilbert’s concepts at the moment? Although I know Ramesh’s general theme of non-doership were stated often to many people.
Ramesh speaks here of an entity with no will. Many say, in actuality there is no entity at all. Bob says there is no person and says it’s all Presence-Awareness. How are we to understand these differences?
Posted by WallyD on 09.30.09 3:26 am
I like Rameshs recomended pratice.
Did I decide to do somthing, and than do it?
Ramesh was fond of this quote that I might mess up “actions happen deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof”
Thanks for sharing this with us Gilbert.
I feel this part of the message is important but not the whole story. I was stuck in the nondoership thing for awhile before I heard people talking about what we are Ie: presence awareness etc.. that is to say I was only focusing on what I was not but had no idea what i was. I also felt that the falling away of the sence of personal doership was for the chosen few. I now know there is no becoming, there is nothing to lose or gain, there is just this….. The thoughts that pop into the head dont matter, if somone has the thought that they are doing things and have free will, they are no less THAT than every so called realized being to ever wake up.
Posted by suki on 09.30.09 4:24 am
When the BMO passes away, the observer too also disappears.Logically what remains is the Timeless Impersonal Witness(seeing/knowing).Though this statement sounds logical,it is none the less theoretical.Nothing can be said of the nature of the state prior to the appearance of birth or after the appearance of death.One can only accurately report on what IS at the present moment.And what IS is the appearance of phenomena manifesting or arising in or to the background silence of Impersonal Awareness .
Posted by gilbert on 09.30.09 4:37 am
Not Two.
Every expression is the One Essence (speaking to itself).
You imagine two where there is only One.
It all began at around two and a half years old, when the concept of ‘me’ and ‘other than me’ was ‘taken on board’ and believed to be real.
That ‘sense of separation’ is only supported by the belief.
The moment one ‘becomes’ genuine and has an impulse to ‘investigate’ the energy remains, more so, with the seeing-knowing and the believed in ‘entity’ starts to expand and be transparent.
The same energy ‘appears’ as everything.
The discrimination between what is real and what is not real can only be cognized by what is real.
Once it is seen that the ‘Me’ cannot see or know anything.
Natural compassion ‘appears’ to express as a sharing of the message. The one speaking is the one hearing.
As Bob so eloquently expressed it in one sentence – “One essence expressing and appearing as everything” (The title of his latest book).
One could argue about the ‘god’s will’ concept – but whatever it takes to bring about a recognition of one’s true nature (there is only one) it must be valid – validated by the recognition, instantly.
The messenger is not important. No thing is important.
The Life essence that you are is what needs to be acknowledged.
We ignore our true nature and go in search of what?
A concept? A concept of what I truly am?
Where are you seeing from?
Posted by pishta on 09.30.09 4:38 am
Richard, those things are not to be understood. I suggest you take what resonates at a time and don’t necessarily try to grasp it all… It is just a pointing, after all. Who is there to understand what is pointed to? It is already known anyway.
Posted by fernando on 09.30.09 6:27 am
Seeing has no location.
It’s everywhere and nowhere.
It’s spaceless and timeless.
There’s ONLY seeing ‘happening’.
Posted by Scarfox on 09.30.09 7:00 am
Gilbert sounds like Jeff Foster here, anyway it was enjoyable to listen to, but it was hard to understand Ramesh’s fast talk. Gilbert, is it worth trying to think about the past and see if you did those things in the past?
Posted by fernando on 09.30.09 1:18 pm
“Who is thinking in terms of transformation, changing from one state to another; in terms of self-improvement? Surely, it is nothing other than an appearance in consciousness, a character in a movie, an individual in a dream – a dreamed pseudo-entity considering itself subject to the workings of Karma. How could such a dreamed character ‘perfect’ itself into anything other than its dreamed self? How could a shadow perfect itself into its substance? How could there be any ‘awakening’ from the dream, except for the dreamer to re-solve the true identity of the source of the dream, the manifestation?
And ‘awakening’ consists in apprehending that there is no individual perceiver of the phenomenal world, but that the essential and purpose of all phenomena is merely the perceiveing of phenomena, that is, functioning in this-here-now; apprehending that very sentient being – I – as the potential source of all experience, experiences the apparent universe objectively through a psychosomatic apparatus. The very first step in understanding what this is all about is giving up the concept of an active volitional ‘I’ as a separate entity, and accepting the passive role of perceiving and functioning as a process.”
“Pointers from Nisargadatta Maharaj”, Ramesh Balsekar
Posted by Jackson on 09.30.09 4:07 pm
Gilbert,
When I look to see where I am seeing from. I come up with nowhere & I feel as if there is just “seeing happening” but for the life of me I can’t see where the seeing comes from. Is that the point you are making that I am the seeing so I can’t see where I’m seeing from… kinda like the eye trying to see the eye?
Posted by gilbert on 09.30.09 5:04 pm
Jackson, it is simple. So long as the reference points are dropped as they appear, ‘you’ will ‘come to’ (what I call) ‘the clear space of knowing’, which has a sense of unlimited vastness. It is as though one is suspended in time-less-space-less existence (if one must put a concept on it). Thought ceases to be attached to – so they are KNOWN to be ‘not what I am’- since they are not and I still am.
No description will help because it is the habitual mind activity that TRIES to replicate a description – and it fails consistently.
So, my description here will only ‘mean’ something for the ‘one’ who experiences it and that statement is erroneous because there is no one there to experience it – there is only pure experiencing – ceaseless experiencing. When did it ever cease?
It is your ORIGINAL state and the only ‘thing’ that seemingly obscures it is identification with thought.
Scarfox, try it and see for yourself. I will not affirm it or deny it. Respect for the messenger is necessary – simply because what ‘worked for me’ may not work for someone else and WHO truly KNOWS what will work for another? Spiritual arrogance is not necessary here or anywhere.
Whatever brings about the recognition is VALID. The essence of all recognition is the FACT that cognition is already happening. There is no one in it.
Who wants to know that?
You already ARE THAT.
What is it that seemingly obscures that?
It can only be the belief in a ‘me’.
Posted by gilbert on 10.01.09 8:52 am
“If there is enlightenment – which can only happen because it is the will of God – then it means the ‘one’ who had earlier wanted enlightenment has been annihilated.” – Ramesh.
Logically one may ask why does God create something that can only have fulfillment in its annihilation?
Who cares?
It all reminds me of an old song I heard in childhood…….’Me and my shadow’.
God is just a concept like any other concept. What ‘gives’ meaning to any word is what needs to be understood and even that is not something to be worked out in the mind. LIFE is indestructible and yet it can appears as most fragile, like a flickering candle flame. That flame has the potential to burn down a whole village or forest and more. Where is your potentiality right now? Is it not the indestructible sense of being-presence.
For those who feel a heavy weight because of Ramesh’s ‘departure’ – come back to what he was pointing to, in yourself. Joy is in that simplicity of being. The attachment to the guru is a gift – ‘a final teaching’. In that, there is the potential to truly grasp what was being pointed out all along.
Posted by Scarfox on 10.01.09 11:07 am
Some don’t see the sense of being as indestructible, a punch could bring one to unconsciousness.
Posted by Richard on 10.02.09 4:13 am
Good Ramesh quote above, “…enlightenment is the annihilation of the ‘one’ (in quotes) who ‘wants’ ( in quotes) enlightenment.”
The supposed ‘one’ is a mental construct SEEMINGLY conditioned over the years by parents, teachers, preachers, and so forth. It springs from the manifested “I-Am”. It ‘wants’ the drug of enlightenment added to it. Enlightenment, as well, is on the mental level. It does not effect who you are in Essence.
Who you are in Essence is not needful of anything, as It is everything, stemming from no-thing. Leave yourself alone! And not even that. Who you really are is perfect, whole, complete, without doing or not doing or knowing or not knowing anything at all.
Above are more of ‘my’ concepts not to be taken too seriously. Ramesh said that a pointer is like the proverbial thorn (of knowledge) used to remove another thorn (of ignorance). And then he humorously warned not to accumulate too many pointers or you’ll end up with a head full of thorns.
Posted by linda on 10.02.09 6:47 am
Hey Gilbert, haven’t mentioned it before – the magpie sounds on many of the interviews are wonderful.
Posted by Randall Friend on 10.02.09 9:14 am
Everything in the world is known somehow. It can be described. It has attributes. Even the body has attributes – it’s tall or short, it’s fat or skinny, it’s dark or light-skinned, it’s old or young. Thoughts have attributes – they are incessant or calm, angry or accepting.
Do YOU have attributes? What are the attributes of your Self? Can you describe your Self? In attempting to do so, you inevitably describe the body or thoughts. “I am skinny”. “I am angry”.
These are objects. Are you an object? If so, what is the subject to YOU?
What can you say about your Self that isn’t a description of an object?
All you can say, with certainty, with intimacy, with obviousness, is that you are here and that you are aware. You know that you are always here. You know that you are always aware. That here-ness and that aware-ness are really the same thing, aren’t they? And this always-here-always-aware-ness isn’t objective – it’s self-evident. It doesn’t require description. It doesn’t require objectification or experience. No one has to tell you that.
So the attribute of the Self is presence or always-here-ness and awareness or always-aware-ness. Presence-awareness. Being-knowing. Sat Chit.
Your actual Self is that Being-knowing. And what is meant by Self? Is it some abstract spiritual concept? No. Self is YOU. When you say “my Self” you ARE referring to the Self or “I”, only you’re mistakenly referring to the Self or “I” AS the body, which is NOT always there, and thought, which is not always there. Then “I” becomes an object – it becomes a “thing”, an individual, a separate entity, a person. The abstraction into concepts goes on and on and on.
The behavior of the body, the manifestation of thoughts called “personality” is hung on that “I” mistakenly.
THAT which is being-knowing IS the Self. “I” IS Awareness. Isn’t this blindingly obvious and simple? “I” doesn’t need to be dropped – we don’t have to walk on egg-shells talking about the “I”. We don’t need the “advaita police” to point out our incorrect usage of “I”. We just simply see that “I” is mistakenly identified with objects, with appearances, with this and that.
The true “I” is your true Self, and there is only one “I”. That is YOU. Not in need of a search because it’s the very presence by which all is known, by which all appears. The instant it’s searched for, it’s overlooked.
Posted by Scarfox on 10.02.09 12:21 pm
You know how people always say so and so is SO direct in pointing, Randall is actually that guy…
Posted by gilbert on 10.03.09 7:11 am
The metaphor about the thorn was commonly quoted by Ramesh. He said he was quoting Ramana, as I remember it. “You use a second thorn to remove the first thorn and then you throw away both”
In other words, concepts are useful. We have bound ourselves up in words and concepts – we use words and concepts to free ourselves from them – but caution is implied – throw away both thorns – otherwise one is merely bound to new beliefs, words and concepts.
Seekers are so used to exchanging the concepts that bind them, they miss the significance of such metaphors – or they hear it and take in on board as another ‘good’ concept. This is why it is helpful to sit with a ‘teacher’ who is clear and ask questions – the concepts are expressed and the ‘teacher’ smashes the concepts and exposes their erroneous nature. This can go on until all concepts are exposed. This leaves you naked, present and aware. Our true nature is like that. The irony is that the ‘seeker’ does not want to ‘go there’ – it will go anywhere but ‘there’. The vulnerable nature of the belief in being separate ‘begins’ to ‘wobble, twist and turn’. The automatic reaction is to move away from the ‘direct pointing’. This is why the most direct ‘teachers’ are not popular.
Posted by stephen met on 10.03.09 7:38 am
” The instant it is searched for, it is overlooked.
Thanks R
Posted by Jackson on 10.03.09 12:52 pm
The directive is as follows:
Try this directive from Gilbert’s website:
Witness the disappearance of thought.
and……observe the absence of the ‘witness’
Posted by nondualitynow on 10.08.09 12:02 pm
Bob … what a rare treat … here’s hoping your health remains good … love you, dear friend