26th May 2003

Why these sages who are considered to be enlightened, contradict themselves the every essence of their preaching?

A very valid observation.

That is why when the followers want to compile a gospel after the Master has moved on, get into a problem and hence what finally emerges is a politically edited version which is consistent, hence dead.

Whether it is Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity or Islam.

A sage, a Master has to be contradictory.

In, the moment, when a seeker in front beseeches for a life-line to cop-out of his/her misery, in that moment a concept may arise, if it is meant to be.

That concept which serves as a life-line, is specific to that moment, specific to that seeker's state of seeking.

It has no validity outside that moment.

To a seeker just ready to explode, Ramana prattled "there is no creation there is no destruction".

To a novice seeker, the same guy in the diaper prattled "seek to know who am I".

Now if there is no creation, there is no destruction, who is to seek whom?

But each concept, were specific to the moment and specific to the seeker.

And both were concepts, functional tools, relevant in that moment.

Buddha, during a course of the day, to the same question by one seeker, stated "there is no God", to another seeker in the same day, prattled "there is God" and to the third who stood in silence, remained silent.

Anything, ever said or conveyed by anybody to somebody, at any place, at any time, ever, is a concept.

Within phenomenality, all that can happen, which includes the event of a concept being "born", can only be conceptual.

For example, Nisargadata emphasized that he followed his Guru's instruction to be with sense of 'I am' and after 3 years of practice he got realized. He said earnestness in seeking is the key thing, but in the very next paragraph would say all efforts are useless and nothing ever happened! Ramana did the same thing. He said you are already realized and insisted on self-inquiry as a means to clear the obstructions. So did so many others. They all supported 'earnest seeking' or 'selfless service' but at the same time said these are all helpful only in harnessing the mind, but for the ultimate, everything has to be discarded.

Indeed.

Effort is suggested for the novice, for such a seeker knows only seeking as the way forward in his/her mundane life.

To get a Million bucks or a BMW, or to rise in the social structure, effort towards a focused goal, has been the only framework, that the seeker has known.

And this conditioning is what he/she brings into the realm of spiritual seeking.

The sage knows that the seeker is nothing but the conditioning and hence the seeker can only play out what the conditioning-in-the-moment, fashions.

The sages says that without human effort nothing can be achieved. But at the same time they tell that what is destined to happen will happen. Thus is there any use in prayer or effort? Should we just remain idle?

What is actually meant by those apparently contradictory statements by the sages is that it is the feeling "I do" that is the hindrance. If you are destined to do, you will not be able to avoid it - somehow you will be forced to do. It is really not your choice whether to do or not, because the individual as such does not have the independence or autonomy to have volition.

What constitutes bondage or hindrance to enlightenment is not effort but the sense of doership.

This is the point behind the apparent contradiction that the Masters seem to teach predestination in theory, but free will in practice. This also explains the affirmation by Christ that not even a sparrow can fall without the will of God, and that the very hairs on one's head are numbered.

The Koran affirms that all power, all knowledge, all Grace, are with God, and that "He leads aright whom He will and leads astray whom He will." And yet both Christ and the Koran exhort men to right effort.

Perhaps this puzzle would resolve itself when it is seen in the perspective of the totality of functioning proceeding to unfold the play of the Grand Design.

Every event - including the happening of what is known as "enlightenment" through a particular human
apparatus - must fit in with the script of this drama that life is.

I see this contradiction, but feels they are right in their own way because they had lived it and are the best proofs. I think there is no need to condemn efforts. The doer thinks he is making the efforts, a jnani understands everything just happens. Whoever knew it intuitively had made a big-bang ( or no bang at all) and whoever knew it intellectually only had made a lot of prattles.

As soon as the understanding has been conceptualized, it is a prattling.

Whether it is a Ramana, or Nisargadatta or Buddha or any of the psuedo-Gurus floating around.

Once again, the conceptualization, if it occurs, is also appropriate.

This is what I meant by bringing JK into our conversation. People who went to JK came back intellectually moved and people who went to Ramana came back with a movement within their heart. And some like Poonjaji, Lakshmana Swami, Annamla Swami, Swami Ramdas - came back almost emptied. And they all agreed that Ramana's grace had helped.

It was not Ramana's grace.

It was Grace working THROUGH Ramana, on these entities, because it was in the destiny of these entities to appear before a body-mind complex named Ramana and be bathed in that Grace.

I very well understand the non-volitional concept. At the same time the effort-effortless-realization concept seems to appeal me more

Once again, I repeat Mu, do whatsoever you wish to do.

Apperceive the fact that it is not "Mu" who does that doing.

Yaba Daba Dobeeee Dooooo.