When nothing has a purpose.........everything can be

I would like to ask for some perspective. Balsekar points out that

there is no doer, that the "I" is purely the result of genes (of which

the "I" had no control), and environmental conditioning (which the ego

also has no control over).

The sense of an "I"......as a sense of a separative existence, as a sense of a "me" (for which thus exists a separated sense of a "you")....

...is intrinsic to the coalescing of biological elements in the process of a formation of a biological body, aka a birth of what is  popularly known as the human being.

The sense of "me" is also present in the biological objects of the animal species,
though more diffused and is also present in the plant species as scientists keep discovering.



This  sense of a "me" is not  born with the birth of the  biological object, but develops over time....

...as the biological object develops the quality of sentience..

..whereby another object as a source of food/comfort/sense of security...

..aka the "mother"......is sensed.


As is sensed other objects, some of which would snatch away your favourite toy etc.


All these sensings........start the concretizing of the sense of the "me".


To this sense of a  "me"........gets added over time.........further flavours of the sense of doership, 
sense of claim of ownership of both failure and successes..... thus arrives for this sense of a "me"......

.....issues, goals, conclusions, understandings, frustrations, fears, anxieties, joys......

.....the entire enchilada.



Each sense of "me".........is unique.

And this uniqueness is a result of both the specific genetic legacy coming through billions of year of evolution....

.....AS WELL...

....as the specific environ in which the specific biological object was reared and subjected to the specific
conditionings, both parental as well as societal.

So it is not Nature versus Nurture but Nature and Nurture.

Actually the nurturance itself being a mere nuance of nature.

 He describes the body as an instrument of

"God", and our "ego" - or everyday functioning as our programming

(genes +conditioning. How can there possibly be an independent doer

when the ego, the I, has no control of anything?

Have you picked up this concept.....
...or have you investigated your own life and seen first hand the veracity of this non-doership?

 As the buddha said

"deeds are done but there is no doer". Why should one become

emotionally involved in that which he is passive instrument.

That is why I asked have you apperceived first hand the truth of non-doership.

If non-doership is truly apperceived......... what is really apperceived is not really non-doership....
.....but the non-existent of an individuated self.


For a non-existence of an individuated self.........the question  of choice is moot.


Ergo.......who is to be emotionally involved in that which he is a passive instrument.....

......OR......

....not to get involved  in anything,including in an object held to be "oneself".


In such an apperception..........what is a passive instrument........what is an active instrument?



Are not each.........mere  nuances of a story getting played out......

.....sometimes as frenzy of thought and action.....

.....sometimes as quietude.
 

 There is

beauty in this. From this I feel that there is no individual

responsibility, no need for guilt, shame, envy.

Sure.

As much as there is no sense of anger, resentment, shame or guilt....
.....when society takes such a premise as bullshit .......and punishes the object popularly known as Danny....
...for non-compliance of societal norms/expectations.

You cannot have the cake and eat it too. :-)

 Of course, the

psychosomatic apperatus known as "D" can still get angry, sad,

etc... such is "my" "programming".

Look at these instances of anger, sadness, happiness.

Are they not prevailing thoughts..........with maybe associated sensations in the body-mind complex......

.......such sensations once again cognized as thoughts.

But in reading J. Krishnamurti's "social responsibility" - he writes

about our responsibility

to understand ourselves through passive, choiceless awareness. He

argues that each one of us is directly responsible for the state of

the world, and that we can only bring about revolution through

self-understanding.

Each expressings were/are unique to the context of the moment in which it got expressed.

Mountain peaks, while at the base are the same connected ground of sameness...

... as expressions of lofty dimensions..... they are separated at the peaks.

Why try to pull the peaks together and tie them up.

Enjoy each peak as the beauty it is.



Now........JK.......was very much focused on responsibility etc.

And was much mis-understood of what he had to say.

When he says you are responsible for the state of the world.....and that revolution is through self understanding...

..what he is saying........that since the external is only a reflection of the internal...

....polish the internal for motes of dust.


For it is the mote of dust in the eye which displays a jaundiced world for such an eye, isn't it?



The waking-dream-world of D with all it's beauty and warts.....

.....disappears when "D" disappears......every night....in the state of deep-sleep

....when even the asleep-dream-world with its own beauty and warts........ is no more.



And re-appears with the appearance of "D".

The apparent sameness of each of the re-appearances.......

......gives an illusion of continuity, of constancy......but that is an illusion.




So .......who is to clean the mote of dust.

For whom........is the very question arising............as to " who is to clean the mote of dust"?



That sense of a questioner.......

.....so long prevailing, persisting.....

.....has to clean up the motes.

By seeing that it itself is the only mote.

How can one have a social responsibility, if one is merely an

instrument, a vessel, through which the infinite flows?

The manifest object........known as D.......does it exist outside the society in which it has appeared?

Obviously not.

Hence is subject to the same laws, societal norms, parental expectation, relationship boundaries etc etc etc.

And may get rewarded or punished depending on the compliance track record.

I use the term "may" as many times you would have seen from your own life ....
....the reward and punishment have apparently no relationship to the primary act.

The biological object...........known as D.........is within society............is society.

You, that you truly are.........are witnessing the play of this society, in which one mere nuance is the object of D. getting itself played out.

Witnessing.......of that.........which is not apart or separate from the witnessing.

After 100 pages of Balsekar, I put the book down. Why should I read

these words over and over again if there is no enjoyment?

No enjoyment with the 100 pages of RB?

Then keep the book aside.

Pick it up after 10 years, if so moved to.

 How

ridiculous I've been in reading and "seeking" to become something?

:-)

Was there one to do the reading and seeking?

Was there one who could have done it differently?

 I used to try to remember Osho's, Kirshnamurti's, Balsekar,

Nisargadatta's words. I used to read even when there was no passion to

do so.

Yes.

Anything as a chore.............well.............its a chore.

 That is no better than waiting for the bus. Even my "I used

to's" reflects this conditioning: I used to be this, now I am that" -

I can find no words to explain the futility of trying to change- to

grow- to find truth.

Yes.

The futility in making an absurdity anything else than what it is.

And yet.......the sense of seeking (there is no actual seeking)....

... will continue........if it does continue.......

....in the form it does continue......

......till it does.



And ceases when it ceases.



So seek .....merrily away.

Cease to seek..... merrily away.

Absolved of a sense of personal doership, one is free from the

heaviness that comes with all forms of responsibility: guilt, shame,

pride... I still notice the anger that wells up on occasion, say when

someone cuts in front of a line, or talks when I'm sleeping, but the

impulse that drives me to action is cut. This is my conditioning, and

I accept it.

It is excellent that you have started noticing impulses as they arise.

Which should say to you.........what?

You are not your impulse.

This e-mail doesn't really have a purpose, I neither desire, nor

expect an "answer"- but felt this impulse to write to you while in the

middle of a book. I guess I just enjoy our correspondence :)

That's it.

When nothing has a purpose.........everything can be.