Transcript of Ramesh Balsekar
Satsang; Bombay, India January 12, 2001
Thy Will Be Done
We can choose to be here today. It's free will. And we can choose
to listen today with free will or
not to listen today. In that sense I think that we have free will.
Ramesh: But there, you can only decide, right? What happens (from that point
forward) you don't know. Your plane may (be late).
Q: Yea, but it can leave later.
R: Yes, but then you won't be leaving (at) the time your free will (thought
Q: But it's a matter of time.
R: Yes. So what exactly do you mean by 'free will'?
Q: I mean the power to decide.
To decide. That's all, isn't it? The power to decide. That's all.
from your own experience, what is
your experience? You make a decision, but whether it happens or not, you
really can't say
because other forces come into the
picture... What the results will be, that also you're not very sure.
So you're quite right. You have the free will to make a decision. Quite right.
You have a free will to make a decision. Was that your only question? Your name is?
R: Francoise. From France?
Q: From France. I live in New York.
R: What brought you here, Francoise? Do you know what we are talking about?
R: Somebody told you about what we are talking about here?
R: Did you read any of my books?
Q: No. Not yet. A friend sent me here.
R: A friend sent you. I see. Your friend was here?
R: He told you about what we are talking about?
Q: Briefly. Briefly.
R: So briefly, what do you think we're talking about here, Francoise? What
are we talking about?
Q: Yes. I'm here to find out.
R: Well, I can tell you we don't talk about sports, we don't talk about good
food, we don't talk about good wine. (laughter)
Q: I'm sure. I'm sure. (laughs)
R: Would you consider yourself a spiritual seeker, Francoise?
Q: Yea, I think so.
R: Many years?
Q: Not many years. I'm a young spiritual seeker.
R: A young spiritual seeker.
R: What started it, do you know, Francoise?
Q: What started it? It started one day I lost my eyesight for three months.
R: You lost sight for three months?
R: I see. And that made you think of God? (laughter)
Q: Yes. And light and darkness. Darkness and light.
R: Yes. Until then you didn't think of God?
Q: Until then, I didn't really think of God, no.
R: I see. So now. Is that all you wanted to know? Whether you have free will
Q: No, that's not all. There are plenty of things that I wanted to know, that
I try to know...but I'm here mainly to listen to you, not to listen to my voice.
Yes, but to listen to me: I talk. I don't give lectures. You see. I
give a lecture. I talk to people as
when you and I talked this morning. If anyone has any questions, they
are free to ask.
Q: OK. OK
R: You see?
Q: I see.
R: So, in life, what do you think you're looking for? In life, what is it you're
looking for? Now, you said you were blind for three months...
Q: I think I'm looking for happiness and peace.
R: Happiness and peace?
R: By happiness, you mean peace? Is that what you mean?
Q: Peace and happiness.
R: So, supposing you have to choose one. (laughter) What would you choose?
Q: Peace would be the good one.
R: Peace would be better.
Q: Peace means happiness, right? Also you know? If you feel peace, you feel
Happiness means you want happiness without the unhappiness. In life,
experience is we always have
pleasure and pain, happiness, unhappiness, comfort and discomfort.
Q: This is true.
R: You see. So when you mean happiness, you mean one - and not the other.
Q: No, I mean to find the peace in both cases. Acceptance.
R: In other words, what you mean is, you would like to have the ability to
bear whatever life brings.
R: Sometimes happiness, sometimes unhappiness.
R: And that ability to bear whatever life brings is what you call peace.
R: I agree.
Q: In a peaceful way.
R: I agree. So how do you think now? Now? What is your understanding, Francoise
about how to achieve that peace? What is your understanding now?
Q: Through acceptance. Acceptance.
R: Can you explain that word: acceptance?
Q: True acceptance of the events or emotions.
R: To accept whatever happens in life.
R: Are you able to accept it?
How do you think you can achieve that ability to accept whatever life
How do you think you can achieve
this ability we all want - to be able to accept whatever life brings:
sometimes unhappiness. How do you
think that can happen?
Q: I think it can happen if you...
R: What is your understanding now, about how to achieve this peace we are all
Q: I think it's something... Happiness and unhappiness is something that doesn't
R: Yea. So that is what life brings. Sometimes pain, sometimes pleasure, sometimes
happiness and sometimes unhappiness.
Now, my concept is that we do have that peace. That peace everybody
So we don't have to achieve it. But
what happens is, that peace is obstructed by something we think or do.
That peace which
is always there, is obstructed by
something we think we do. So we don't have to achieve the peace. My
concept is, basically,
we don't have to achieve the peace
which is already there. What we are concerned with is removing the
obstacle to that peace,
Removing the obstruction which prevents that peace from happening. So
is the obstruction? In life, what is
your experience, Francoise? What prevents that peace? Now, from my
concept: peace is
there. What do you think prevents
you from reaching that peace during whatever you do in the waking hours?
What is your experience?
Q: Too much attachment. Too much ego. Too much emotion.
R: Now, emotion - you'll find some people with more emotion than others, isn't
I have a friend, a German friend who is very emotional. I often see
Tears come to his eyes. Emotional.
And his family history is: he's been in a soldier family of six
generations. So he's been
a soldier for six generations, but
when I talk to him, if something touches him, tears promptly come to his
eyes. And yet
he has been a soldier. He has been a
good soldier. You see?
So the arising of emotions has not prevented him from being a good
So my point is if emotion arises,
what does it matter? Why are you concerned with emotion not arising?
Have you ever wondered
if it is the arising of emotions
which disturbs you from the peace, which means you don't want the
emotions to arise. Why
do you not like emotions to arise?
Fear of what? What people will think?
Q: No. Fear of suffering.
Yes, but emotion arises and emotion can be anything. Fear itself can be
an emotion. You see? So the arising
of whatever (emotion) does not prevent you from having that peace.
Suppose fear arises.
You don't accept the fear and you
stay around to be a brave woman, and you're unhappy. Therefore, you're
away from the peace.
Anger arises because it is your
nature to be angry - more angry than another person. More afraid than
another person. So arising
of fear, arising of anger and also
arising of compassion, happens because according to my concept, it is
the nature of the
human object. Each object has it own
nature and that nature according to my basic concept, Francoise, is
this: according to
my concept, every human being is
basically... What do you
think a human being
is basically, essentially, in this
manifestation, in life as we know it? Basically, what is a human being?
What do you think?
What is a human being? You see the
manifestation, the universe, the manifestation, what is it made of? What
is the universe
or the manifestation made of,
Francoise? It's made of objects, isn't it? Heavenly objects. Objects in
land. Objects in air.
Objects in water. Planets, stars.
whatever exists in phenomenality, whatever exists in the phenomenal
is an object. Isn't that right? My
basic concept (that I suggest you contemplate is): what is a human
object? Everybody wants
happiness, peace, whatever. But who
is this everybody? Let's first consider that. Who is this everybody? Who
wants this peace?
my point therefore is, Francoise, that a human being can not be
anything other than one type of
object, which along with thousands of other types of objects constitutes
the totality of manifestation.
Isn't that right?
Q: That's right.
Essentially, basically what I'm saying is that each one of us is an
We forget that. We forget that we
are an object because the Source has created that object with such a
design, let us call
it nature, that the object considers
itself a separate entity with volition. "I have free will. I can do
what I like. I'm
responsible for my action. Therefore
I can either do good action or bad action. I can be brave or I can be
timid. I can be
kind or I may be unkind. Everything
is in my control. I'm in charge of my life."
for that person who thinks in terms of "I am in charge of my life" my
is, who is this 'you' that you're
talking about? And my point is that all that you are is basically an
object. One kind of
object. One type of object. One
specially designed and programmed object, but nonetheless an object.
Basically, the human
being cannot be anything more than
an object. That has to be accepted, doesn't it?
Q: Yea. (laughs)
In other words, we are either the subject, pure subjectivity,
energy, God, whatever you choose to
call it - the Source - the one reality from which the entire
manifestation has come. So
there is only pure subjectivity,
pure reality, the one Source which is the subject, the pure subject, and
everybody else is
an object. It's very clear, isn't
it? And yet, this is the basic, simple truth which everybody forgets. "I
want this. I like
you. I don't like (such and such)."
So therefore, my question always begins with: Who is this who wants
something, who does
not want something; who likes
something, who does not like? Who is this? It is basically an object,
you see? So if that object
is able to think that it has
volition, then that ability to think that it has volition and is in
charge of life, that itself
must have come from the Source.
an object who considers himself a separate entity with volition, has
ability to think so only because the
Source has created that ability in that object. That is clear, isn't
it? So what is a
human being? My concept is, a human
being is an object, uniquely programmed by the Source. Now, when I say
the Source, you
can give it any name you like so
long as you remember that all those labels refer to only one thing - the
you can call it the Source. The
Hindu Upanishads call it 'Consciousness', 'the impersonal awareness of
being'. 'I am'. Not
as Francoise or Ramesh, or Krista,
or anyone. The awareness that we have is simply of being alive. I am.
The impersonal awareness
of being is the Source. So the
Source has identified itself with each human object and created this
impersonal awareness and
immediately identified it with an
individual entity. So the Source or consciousness itself has done
(this). So this identification,
'ego' you said, has been created by
what is this programming? Each human being has been created as a unique
individual entity, a unique
individual human object so that Source itself, by whatever name you call
it, may be able to use
each individual, each uniquely
programmed human object to bring about whatever the Source wants. That
is my basic concept.
Each human being is a uniquely
programmed instrument, object, or computer created by the Source so that
the Source can do
whatever it wants, can bring about
whatever it wants through each human object, through each uniquely
Therefore, anything that happens
through any human object is not something done by an object. An object
can do nothing. Therefore
my basic concept is: anything that
happens through any human object is not something done by an individual,
brought about by that Source which
has created that human object in a special way so that whatever happens
to that birth is
exactly what the Source wants to
think this is strange for you? What I've just told you? I repeat, every
human being is a uniquely
programmed, designed human object so that the Source can bring up
through each uniquely programmed
human object whatever the Source
wants to produce. Not what the object wants to produce. You see.
R: It seems strange, doesn't it?
Q: Yes, it is. (laughs)
And yet, what am I saying? What I have said is: 'Thy will be done'. Thy
will be done. Is that strange? It's
been there in the Lord's prayer ever since you were a child. So what I'm
saying is exactly
what those four words say. Thy will
be done. Thy will is the Source's will, you see.
what is this programming I'm talking about? The unique programming
enables the Source to bring out
whatever the Source wants and not what the objects wants. The
programming, according to my
concept, is this: you have no choice
in being born to particular parents, therefore you have no choice about
the genes - the
unique DNA in this particular human
object. This particular human object has a distinct DNA which not even
twins have. Even
twins have different DNA and the DNA
in the body can identify that body as that particular individual body.
Francoise has no choice about the genes in this human object called
But for the same reason, Francoise
had no choice about the environment in which Francoise was born to
in a particular environment, physical, social, the particular
environment in which
this human object Francoise was
born, Francoise has no control. To which human parents, in which
environment, which geographical
environment, which social
environment, (Francoise) had no control. And what Francoise is, what
Francoise really is, the personality,
the persona called Francoise is,
according to my concept, nothing more than this programming. The genes
or DNA plus the environmental
conditioning, which includes social
conditioning, your education, your social upbringing, everything is part
of that conditioning
which is changing every moment.
since a baby has been born, this conditioning has been going on. You
A baby is born, a child, six months,
eight months, the child is not concerned with which other child there
is; but as Francoise
grew up, the environmental
conditioning told her she must associate with these children and not
with those children. She must
go to this school, not to some other
at any moment, Francoise the persona, is an individual entity which had
no control over either its genes or
the environment and social conditioning. What else is Francoise?
is a fiction. There is truly no
Francoise, except this feeling of being an 'independent' entity, and
this feeling of independent
entity which has been imposed on the
personal awareness of being is called the 'ego'. So the ego, according
to my concept,
which makes Francoise think she is
an individual with volition, to be in control of her life, is really
only a fiction created
by what the Hindu's call: Maya. I
call it: divine hypnosis, you see?
when the Source created this human object and the parents gave her the
name Francoise, then, by divine
hypnosis a fiction was also created; a hypnosis that Francoise is an
individual entity. By
creating an identification; a
fictional, conceptual identification with a particular body/mind
organism and a name. So what
is Francoise? Basically a name given
to a human object over the programming of which the so called Francoise
had no control.
You had no control over your genes.
You had no control over your conditioning, and what Francoise is, is
nothing but genes
plus your conditioning right at this
you say you make a decision. When you make a decision Francoise, on
is that decision based? That
decision which you think is your decision, according to my concept is
based essentially on the
genes and the environmental up to
date conditioning. Any decision that you make.
on a particular point you made a decision ten days ago. During these
ten days you have met people, you
have done some reading, and that reading and talking during the ten days
may have changed
your existing conditioning so that
the decision on the same subject, in the same circumstances ten days ago
could have been
different from your decision today.
You see what I'm getting at?
The conditioning keeps on changing. Now what is happening now,
You and I are having a talk. So the
talk that we are having could change the existing conditioning in either
of us. You see
what I'm getting at? So the
conditioning is getting on all the time, and whatever decision you think
you are making is based
on the genes plus the up to date
you call it your decision. But is it really your decision, Francoise?
on analyzing, investigating you'll
find that what you call your decision is based entirely on something
over which you have
no control. So even that decision
which you think you make is based on something over which you have no
control. And the decision
that you think you are making is
exactly what the source wants you to make.
what does the Source do? It uses every human object, uniquely
object, as a computer. It uses each
human object as an individual, uniquely programmed computer. How do you
use your computer?
You put in an input and your
computer has no choice but to bring out an output strictly according to
the programming. Isn't
that right? Do you use a computer at
Q: Yes I do.
So when you use your computer, what do you do? You put in an input,
you press a button and the output
that comes out has nothing to do with the computer's choice. It is
strictly according to
the programming. Isn't that right?
But your computer has no ego to say that it is 'my' action. But this
computer (the body/mind
organism) has an ego. So, the output
is strictly according to the programming. The brain reacts to an input
over which you
have no control, an input being sent
by the Source.
what is the input? Mostly it is a thought. You have a thought which
to an action which Francoise says is
'my' action. Now, that next thought that you're going to get, you have
no control over,
you see? And it has been proved in
the laboratory that the next thought that you get will happen almost
half a second before
Francoise reacts to that thought and
decides to either do something or not; the thought arises half a second
before you can
react to it. That means you have
absolutely no control over the input. As we have just been saying: we
have no control over
the programming. So you have no
control over the input, you have no control over the programming, and
yet you say that the
output is 'my' decision. You see
what I'm getting at?
Therefore, on analysis, what we find is that every decision through a
body/mind object is exactly the
decision that Source wants made. Even the decision is what the Source
wants and the subsequent
happening to that decision is also
God's will or the will of the Source. That is basically why we say: Thy
will be done. Because
He (Source) has done the
programming. He is putting in the input; the output therefore has to be
according to his will. You
see what I'm getting at?
Thy will be done. Why? Because it is according to his will that, first,
the object is born. Two, in that
object the genes and the conditioning have been created by him. He puts
in the input. Therefore,
the output has to be according to
his will. Every single output through every single human computer, every
single moment at
every single place, has to be the
will of the Source. And it is on this very sound reasoning that the
Bible says: Thy will
be done. You see?
if we are able to accept this, then nothing can happen unless it is the
will of God, and when we say God, we
mean the Source. Most times the word God is used mistakenly. The word
god is used as
the chief executive of the
multi-national manifestation. (laughter) And this god has various
vice-presidents called Avatars
(laughter). That is how the word god
is used but that is not the way I use it.
if you analyze it, investigate it, you come to the conclusion that
decision, therefore every action and
its result are all entirely a matter of the will of the Source. And the
how does God's will function? We can
say: according to a cosmic law; according to a natural law or a cosmic
law. Then the
intellect in this human object says:
on what basis does God's will function? On what basis does the cosmic
law function? And
that, the human being can never ever
in a million years understand. The human intellect asks the question:
on what basis does
God's will function? On what basis
does God create a healthy child or a handicapped child? On what basis
does God create a
healthy child in a rich family or a
handicapped child in a poor family? And that, the human being can never
ever know. Do
you know why, Francoise? Because the
one who wants to know is a created object. The one who wants to know
the basis on which
the subject functions is a created
object. How can an object ever know the will of the subject?
you create a statue, a figure of a human being out of rubber, gold,
whatever, you'll create a human
figure. In that case, you are the subject and that is the object. So the
object which this
subject has created can never know
why you created the object at all. The object which you have created -
either in a painting
or in an object, can never know why
you created it. The human figure created by Francoise can never know the
basis on which
Francoise's will works. Similarly,
the human object can never ever know the basis on which the pure
subject, or the Source
or God functions. That is why we
have to accept 'Thy will be done'. Nothing happens unless it is the will
of God. So if something
has happened, we have to accept that
it could not have happened unless it was the will of God.
Christ happened, Mohammed happened, Moses happened, Ramana Maharshi
Ramakrishna happened. Then it can
simply be that they could not have happened unless it was the will of
God. So Jesus Christ
happened because it was the will of
God, but Hitler also happened, Stalin also happened; so they too could
not have happened
unless it was the will of God. So
why the Source or God produces what human beings consider good and bad,
good and evil, beautiful
and ugly, the human being cannot
know. All that the human being can do, as the German mystic Meister
Eckhart said is to: "...wonder
and marvel and the magnificence and
variety of God's creation." We can only accept it; we cannot question
it. So if this is
accepted, that whatever happens is
God's will and is not anybody's doing... In
other words, if we are able by the
grace of God to accept what the Buddha said: "Events happen, deeds are
done, but there
is no individual doer thereof."
events happen, deeds happen but there is no individual doer doing
which means that any action which we
think is mine or yours or his or hers is not really anyone's action.
Nobody has done
anything but it has been created, it
has happened because it is the will of God. And if this is acceptable
is the result? If Francoise is truly
able to accept that no action is her action, no action is Ramesh's
action, no action
is anyone's action, but a happening
which had to happen at that time at that place because it was His
(Source's) will, then
what happens? Then what happens is,
it would be silly for Francoise to blame anybody for any action,
wouldn't it? If I'm truly
able to accept by the grace of God
(even that is God's will)... If
I am able
to accept by God's will that nothing
can happen unless it is God's will, and therefore if anything has
happened which the
human being, the human, society
considers good or evil, if it has happened, it could not have happened
unless it was the will
of God. One. And two, whatever has
happened, if it has not been done by anyone, we cannot blame anybody.
So if we accept 'Thy will be done', what have we come to? We do not and
cannot blame anybody, neither myself, nor you nor he or she. So the
immediate effect of being
able to accept that nothing can
happen unless it is the will of God means immediately I cease to blame
anybody. I cease to
blame my self or anyone for whatever
actions happen through this body/mind organism, actions happen through
every body/mind organism: I can only
see them as God's will. So if an action happens through this body/mind
organism and the
society considers it a good action
and honors Ramesh, then the honoring by the society as seen or heard or
read, becomes an
input in Ramesh's body/mind
organism. The brain reacts to it - strictly according to the programming
and a sense of pleasure
arises; a natural, mechanical,
biological reaction. A sense of pleasure. But having the total
understanding that it is not
my action, that I cannot produce any action, it is therefore not my action that has been appreciated by society. So while there may arise a sense of pleasure, there does not
arise a sense of pride.
the other extreme, an action happens through this body mind organism
is condemned by society for whatever
reason. It has been condemned by society. Let us say I have hurt
then the condemnation of society is
an input in my body/mind computer. The brain reacts to society's
indignation and the biological,
mechanical reaction happens to
produce a sense of regret - a sense of regret
that an action has happened which has hurt somebody's feelings. So in
that case a sense
of regret arises, just as earlier a
sense of pleasure arose. This time a sense of regret arises, but there
is also the absolute
total certainty that it is not my action
which has been condemned by society
because I know I can do no action
nor can anybody do any action. Therefore, that action which
has been condemned by
society, happened because it was God's will and it is not my action.
Therefore, while in this
computer a sense of regret may
arise, a sense of guilt cannot arise. A sense of guilt or shame can
for the whole range of actions, from honor to condemnation, actions
arise and the natural reactions in
the brain will happen. Sense of pleasure, sense of regret, but not pride
guilt and shame. For any action
which arises through this body, with this understanding that nobody does
anything, there will
never be any moment at any time of
pride and arrogance or guilt and shame. And if some action happens
through some other body/mind
organism hurts me, it causes a hurt,
physical, psychological or financial... With an action which has
happened through some
other body mind organism, he or she
may not have that understanding which I have, so he or she may think
that I am his or
her enemy and they may be very happy
that they have succeeded in hurting me because they think they have done it. But
when I know that if I have been hurt it was only because it was God's
will and cosmic
law that I would be hurt at that
time and place... If it were not God's will that I be hurt, no power on
earth can hurt me.
That is the understanding. You see?
So the hurt is accepted as God's will, but knowing no one has hurt me,
that no one can
hurt me, it is not possible for
anyone to hurt me, how can I bear malice or hatred toward anybody? You
see what I mean? Hurt
I have to accept; but I do not bear
malice or hatred toward anyone. Nor jealousy and envy for something
which God has created.
what is the total result? All actions through this body or any other
whatever happens is accepted with a
biological reaction: sometime pain, sometimes pleasure, but without that
which every individual bears: the
load of pride and arrogance, guilt and shame, hatred and malice, and
jealousy and envy.
It is this load which obstructs
peace from happening. The peace is there. It is this load which is the
obstruction which stops
the peace from flowing.
where did we begin: Thy will be done. And where have we ended: nobody
a doer. The Source is the only doer
and the result of that is that the peace which is already there shines
forth when there
is no obstruction. So when this
understanding is there and the peace shines forth, we call who has
attained this understanding
a 'sage'. But basically a sage and
an ordinary person still have to carry a body/mind computer which has
been programmed by
Source. The sage can do nothing
about his genes just as an ordinary man can do nothing about his genes.
Therefore, the genes
in a sage may bring about an action
which sometimes the society condemns. How could he do that? He's
supposed to be a sage.
How could he do that? My point is
that if an action is brought about because of the genes, and science
today, especially in
the last year or two, the amount
that is 'blamed' on the genes is fantastic. You're a vegetarian or
You are a person who is not loyal to
his wife or husband: blame it on the genes. That is what I read. All
kinds of things
these days. The scientists, the
biologists have come out with this research which confirms that no-one
is doing anything;
it is happening.
an action happens through a sage which, as I say, is condemned. The
accepts it with a sense of regret
but it has happened. So the sage accepts the result of that bad action
which may be some
kind of a punishment. So the sage
accepts an action which has happened through his body/mind organism
which has been condemned
by society and law as God's will,
and also accepts the punishment for it as God's will, knowing that it is
truly, as far as
he's concerned, not his action.
So, do you have any question now, Francoise?
Q: I don't think so. I'm going to let my neighbor ask some questions. Thank
you for your answer.
But wait. Don't you have a question? I would like to get that plain
firm conviction that God is the
doer, no one is the doer. I would like to get that total conviction.
(pretending to be Francoise:)
"At the moment, I like your concept,
I like your intellectual concept. It gives me a sense of freedom from
this horrible load
of pride, guilt and hatred and
jealousy, but it is still intellectual."
Q: Yes it is.
R: So how do I get that understanding which is total? Is that not a question?
Q: Yes it is really a question. (laughter).
All right. I anticipate that question for you. And the answer is
if it is to happen, it has to be
God's will. It cannot happen unless it is God's will. But it is God's
will that has brought
you here. It is God's will that you
have heard what I have to say. It is God's will that the concept appeals
to you intellectually,
and this is what Ramana Maharshi
meant when he said to the seeker: a seeker's head is already in the
tiger's mouth - there's
no escape. So, your question: 'Can I do anything
about it?' I say, subject to God's
will, there is something you can do. You being the ego. By ego,
Francoise, I mean identification
with a particular body/mind and a
name with a sense of volition, doer-ship. So in the ego, there are two
aspects: one is mere
identification with a body and a
name. But the core of the ego is a sense of volition or doer-ship.
a sage, when he is called by name, the sage responds. So the fact
that a sage responds to his name
being called obviously means there is identification with a particular
and a particular name as a separate
entity who responds to his or her name being called. So the sage also is identified
with a particular body and name as a separate entity. So a sage responds
to his name being
called. An ordinary man also
responds to his name being called. Then where is the difference? The
difference is this: while
the ordinary man believes everyone
is a doer of his or her action and is therefore responsible for it, the
sage is equally
convinced that no one does anything.
All actions are divine happening. That is the only difference.
Therefore the sage has
that obstruction removed so that
peace flows; and the obstruction remains in the case of an ordinary
person and peace does
what is it that I suggest that you do? At the end of the day, sit for
thirty minutes by yourself (and
incidentally this is the only spiritual effort or sadhana I suggest),
sit for twenty, thirty
minutes. Think of any action during
the day which you are convinced is your action.
Think of one action. Whichever way you look at it, you think it is your action.
Then investigate it thoroughly and
honestly. How did that action begin? Did I, from out of the blue, decide
to do it or did
my doing it depend on happenings
over which I had no control? I saw something, or I heard something, or a
thought came to
me which led to the action. Then, if
what led to that action was something over which you had no control,
how can you call
it your action? And every single
action thereafter that you investigate, you will come to the same
conclusion. Some happening
over which I had no control led to
an action. How can I call it my action?
when this type of investigation happens for some time (how long again
a matter of God's will and your
destiny), at some point, Francoise will come to the conclusion: I myself
from my own experience and I have
come to the conclusion: no action is my action. And therefore, I have to
accept that no
one action is anyone else's action
either. So only from investigation of your personal actions will you
come to the conclusion
that no one does any action; that
all actions are only divine happenings, happenings according to God's
will and therefore,
no one need be blamed for anything.
That is the conclusion you arrive at from your own experience. Then what
was once an intellectual
concept becomes the personal truth
from your investigation.
I can see that we are not the doers of our actions. I can see that, I
understand that. I also see that the
Source creates the computer of the body/mind organism and puts it in
the world. My question
is: how do I know that everything
that happens after that - let's say the computer starts functioning, they live, they do actions in every moment in their lives, but
why is that the will of God and not just coincidence?
R: What you are saying is: is there a basis to the functioning of God's will?
Is it God's will at all? Is that your question?
Supposing it is a coincidence, what is relevant is that it is not my
or your action. Whether it is a
coincidence or somebody's will, who cares? What is the relevant point?
What is the relevant
point? It is not your action or my
action. Whether it is an accident or coincidence or a cosmic law, the
fact remains that
it is not my action or your action.
Q: So when you say it's the will of God, that's just one way of saying it,
that's just your choice of naming it...
R: Yes. Some power is working. Some power is bringing about the coincidence,
Q: That power is the energy, the electricity, that makes the gadget work.
Sure. Yes. Therefore, the physicist will, rather than say the Source,
use the word primal energy. Sure. No
problem. You give it whatever label to the Source. If you prefer to say
energy, say energy.
If you prefer to say God, say God.
Or if you prefer to keep using the Source, that's fine. But the relevant
point is that
the individual is not responsible
for the actions. Actions happen in spite of the individual. That is the
Your name is?
R: Where did you get that name? In Puna? (laughter). OK Teerth.
When I'm in my daily life, I read your books and I feel peace and then
happens and I get caught up in
whatever comes up like envy or dissatisfaction and sometimes I feel I'm
very close and then
Yes. Now, Teerth, tell me: who is this who feels whatever he feels? Who
is it? Is there a Teerth at all
other than a name? All I see is an object to whom the name Teerth is
given. A uniquely programmed
object with a name. So who is it who
likes his feelings and doesn't like his feelings? Who? An object.
Q: A body mind organism.
Yes - which is an object. Therefore, if a feeling happens which is
or not acceptable, if it happens,
you accept it. The problem arises because you say it should not happen,
'I should not have
had that'. But it is there. So
accept whatever happens as something that had to happen according to the
destiny of this object.
But the main point is that it is not
in your control, but if you think that it is in your control, nothing
prevents you, according
to my teaching, from doing whatever
you want to do. You see, the bottom line of the teaching is: at any
moment, in any given
circumstances, do whatever you think
you should do. Can you ever have more freedom than that? At any moment,
in any given
circumstances, do whatever you think
you should do, and doing means merely deciding between the alternatives
that are available
to you. Select any alternative that
you think you should do because your choice is based on the programming
over which you
have no control.
Q: In that it's God's will.
Therefore, what I'm saying is, God's will need not prevent you from
anything you think you should do,
because what you decide to do will be exactly what God wants you to do
because he has done
the programming. Let me repeat:
whatever you decide to do, whatever the results, whatever the
consequences to anyone, is exactly
what God wants you to decide because
that will be according to the programming which God has created. In
other words, the
biggest freedom is: to be able to do
whatever you like, whatever you think you should do with the total
conviction that never
ever will you have to ask God's
forgiveness. The freedom is not only to do what you'd like; the real
freedom is that you can
do whatever you like without the
danger of ever having to beg God's forgiveness. Not now, not in the
future, not on your deathbed.
Whatever you decide to do at any
moment cannot be against God's will, you see? So your decision is God's
will, what happens
to the decision as an action is
God's will. The results and consequences of that action are God's will,
whoever may be affect
by those results or consequences.
That is why I say you'll never ever have to ask for God's forgiveness
for any action, for
it is not your action. What more
freedom can you want?
Thanks to John Greven (www.onenessjustthat.com) for sending this very potent and clear expression to www.theeternalstate.org.
This and other transcripts appear HERE.
Download PDF Version HERE>>