Transcript of Ramesh Balsekar
Satsang; Bombay, India January 12, 2001
Thy Will Be Done
Questioner: 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.
R: To decide. That's all, isn't it? The power to decide. That's all. Coming
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.
R: Yes, but to listen to me: I talk. I don't give lectures. You see. I don't
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
R: Happiness means you want happiness without the unhappiness. In life, our
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?
R: How do you think you can achieve that ability to accept whatever life brings?
How do you think you can achieve this ability we all want - to be able to accept whatever life brings: sometimes happiness,
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.
R: Now, my concept is that we do have that peace. That peace everybody has.
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,
R: Removing the obstruction which prevents that peace from happening. So what
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
R: I have a friend, a German friend who is very emotional. I often see him.
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?
R: So the arising of emotions has not prevented him from being a good soldier.
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.
R: 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.
So whatever exists in phenomenality, whatever exists in the phenomenal universe
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?
Basically, 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.
R: Essentially, basically what I'm saying is that each one of us is an object.
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."
So, for that person who thinks in terms of "I am in charge of my life" my question
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)
R: In other words, we are either the subject, pure subjectivity, potentiality,
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.
So an object who considers himself a separate entity with volition, has that
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 Source. Therefore,
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 the Source.
And 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 programmed instrument.
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, but something
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 bring about.
You 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)
R: 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.
So what is this programming I'm talking about? The unique programming which
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.
So, Francoise has no choice about the genes in this human object called Francoise.
But for the same reason, Francoise had no choice about the environment in which Francoise was born to particular parents.
In France, 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.
Ever since a baby has been born, this conditioning has been going on. You see?
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 school.
So 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? Therefore, 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?
So, 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 moment.
So you say you make a decision. When you make a decision Francoise, on what
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.
Supposing 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?
R: The conditioning keeps on changing. Now what is happening now, Francoise?
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 conditioning.
So you call it your decision. But is it really your decision, Francoise? When,
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.
So, what does the Source do? It uses every human object, uniquely programmed
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 all?
Q: Yes I do.
R: So when you use your computer, what do you do? You put in an input, then
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.
So what is the input? Mostly it is a thought. You have a thought which leads
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?
R: Therefore, on analysis, what we find is that every decision through a particular
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?
R: 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?
So, 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.
So if you analyze it, investigate it, you come to the conclusion that every
decision, therefore every action and its result are all entirely a matter of the will of the Source. And the intellect says:
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?
If you create a statue, a figure of a human being out of rubber, gold, metal,
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.
Jesus Christ happened, Mohammed happened, Moses happened, Ramana Maharshi happened,
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." then...
So, events happen, deeds happen but there is no individual doer doing anything,
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 Francoise, what
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 happens.
So, 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.
At the other extreme, an action happens through this body mind organism which
is condemned by society for whatever reason. It has been condemned by society. Let us say I have hurt someone's feelings;
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 never arise.
So for the whole range of actions, from honor to condemnation, actions will
arise and the natural reactions in the brain will happen. Sense of pleasure, sense of regret, but not pride and arrogance,
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.
So what is the total result? All actions through this body or any other body,
whatever happens is accepted with a biological reaction: sometime pain, sometimes pleasure, but without that enormous load
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.
So where did we begin: Thy will be done. And where have we ended: nobody is
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 non-vegetarian: genes.
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.
So an action happens through a sage which, as I say, is condemned. The sage
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.
R: But wait. Don't you have a question? I would like to get that plain acceptance,
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).
R: All right. I anticipate that question for you. And the answer is basically,
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.
Therefore, 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 body/mind organism
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
So what is it that I suggest that you do? At the end of the day, sit for twenty,
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?
So when this type of investigation happens for some time (how long again is
a matter of God's will and your destiny), at some point, Francoise will come to the conclusion: I myself have investigated
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.
Q: I can see that we are not the doers of our actions. I can see that, I can
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?
R: Supposing it is a coincidence, what is relevant is that it is not my action
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.
R: Sure. Yes. Therefore, the physicist will, rather than say the Source, will
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 relevant point.
Your name is?
R: Where did you get that name? In Puna? (laughter). OK Teerth.
Q: When I'm in my daily life, I read your books and I feel peace and then life
happens and I get caught up in whatever comes up like envy or dissatisfaction and sometimes I feel I'm very close and then
R: 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.
R: Yes - which is an object. Therefore, if a feeling happens which is acceptable
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.
R: Therefore, what I'm saying is, God's will need not prevent you from doing
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>>