Two Teachers same Guru.

[Joe Mc]

Two advaita teachers with the same root Guru who is Nisagardatta, give two
Teachings which seem out of synch with each other hence grabbing my attention.
Here is the dilemma. Ramesh Balsekar says that we have no free will, we may have
an apparent free will and that is fine but ultimately all is the Cosmic Will. On the other hand,
I heard Sailor Bob Adamson suggesting that if we knew that we were undifferentiated loving
consciousness, then lots of ‘ignorance’ therefore greed, hatred and delusion would end.
Do these two positions seem contradictory to you? Isn’t there a hint of volitional becoming in
Sailor Bob’s teaching, in other words if I had this awareness then this would happen and the world
would be more loving and less hateful ? Where as in Ramesh’s teachings all is acceptable,
the good and the bad ? All is Cosmic Will. Any views on this folks?

************************************************** **********

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

All is Cosmic Will. Any views on this folks?

I dont know either of them and my response is purely based on your writing here . All is cosmic will but Cosmic thinks and acts through us . So our will and energy too is part of cosmic . So we have a free will but that is limited just like a sportsman in a game . Sports person is free to do anything to excel in his/her sports but is limited by the rules of the game . So we can say we have free will subject reasonable restrictions .

In spirituality lessons are for us and NOT for others . So Bob's teaching is morevalid that we becoming more aware will lead to loving ambience around us .So there is definite orientation towards good with this approach. On the other hand Ramesh teaching is also valid in a limited sense if we are to talk about good and bad outside the peripheries of our own control . We may not only have to tolerate bad but at times love it also (to be precise loving people even if they may have bad traits) in order that bad changes to good in long run through our positive action/approach/love.

As I said spirituality is 'First me' in approach . So I find Bob's advice more relevant for me. For us we definitely have to have orientation towards good.

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Ramesh Balsekar says that we have no free will, we may have an apparent free will and that is fine but ultimately all is the Cosmic Will. On the other hand, I heard Sailor Bob Adamson suggesting that if we knew that we were undifferentiated loving consciousness,

They're both right and there is no conflict, what they're talking about are two very different things. In a broader perspective they're talking about the same thing - aspects of the self.

'We' don't have free will, what most people think of as free will is the superimposition of an individual ego - and it's important to stress the word 'individual'. The ego is differentiated consciousness and the source of duality. We don't actually have free will and that's a long discussion in itself. Hatred and greed are a response to perceptual reality relative to how one perceives themselves, and in many ways so is Spiritual development.

'Good' and 'bad' is the judgement of differentiated consciousness.

Are hatred, greed greed and delusion not 'Cosmic Will' if we don't have free will?

The self is undifferentiated consciousness and perceives less 'distance' between oneself and others, and it also creates less conflict internally because we're not differentiating between what we perceive ourselves to be and what we want to think ourselves to be. And because there is less conflict you accept/love yourself more and by extension others - if you love yourself you can love others more readily.

[Halloween Jack]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Two advaita teachers with the same root Guru who is Nisagardatta, give two
Teachings which seem out of synch with each other hence grabbing my attention.

I know of both these teachers and I would say that they pretty much say the same thing. Balsekar has a greater emphasis on the no-doership angle - he is very fond of the maxim, ‘events happen, deeds are done but there is no doer thereof’. In his early work Bob Adamson uses the phrase ‘intelligent energy’ to indicate the same primordial mover as Balsekar’s Cosmic will. So it’s my understanding that they both would say that ultimately ONLY Source acts.

Adamson seems slightly more prescriptive than Balsekar because he acknowledges the relative condition. Relatively speaking, everyone has an apparent will - and everyone's will is unique, complex and endlessly emergent - it is constantly being amended by the billions of conditions that it encounters. If a person - perhaps through the experience of suffering - embarks on a path of spirituality or self improvement, they will be gravitationally pulled towards greater awareness and sensitivity.

Adamson is pointing out that if we knew our true nature then a load of accumulated neuroticism (based on our narcissism) would fall away. So the suggestion is to wake up!!

The question then becomes, is waking up a wilful act? Balsekar would point out that since there’s no doer then seeking and waking up are also simply expressions of Source ‘..with no doer thereof’.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Halloween Jack

Adamson is pointing out that if we knew our true nature then a load of accumulated neuroticism (based on our narcissism) would fall away. So the suggestion is to wake up!!

Thanks for your reply, not quoting all of your reply as to restriction rules. Yes I've heard Ramesh say that,
"Events happen deeds are done but there is no doer thereof " many times. I think the problem for me was
I thought Sailor Bob implied going after the awakened state to bring about a better world but it could be
just how i heard that part of his spiel and I myself inferred it tbh. But as some have said you already are awake
and you can't use the Buddha to seek the Buddha.I suppose i picked up some kind of trying to become good which
i have tried to become lots of times lol and the next pointer which is 'You are what you are looking for'.

I will tell you a story that might throw a different angle on it. About 20 years ago me and a spiritual friend of mine were browsing
in the world famous Watkins Book Store Charing Cross London. My friend had introduced me to Ramana Maharshi, Nisagardatta
and now Ramesh Balsekar. To cut a long story short I tried to steal Ramesh Balsekar's book by stuffing it inside my jacket or something,
my friend freaked out In hindsight I understood his reaction to some extent but I always wondered if his reaction was to things like jail,
police hassle etc. etc.ect or was he angry that I had offended a Cosmic Power by trying to steal the Book ?

He considered himself to be vastly wiser than me and he was a very enlightened soul of course but was it not my destiny to behave like that. Ramesh might say it was,it was my Genes and my Conditioning that caused me to try and Steal the Book. The book turned out to be a bit bulky so my efforts were thwarted

************************************************** **********

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

'Good' and 'bad' is the judgement of differentiated consciousness.

And yet there are vast swathes of highly sophisticated studies and
manuscripts devoted to the subject of Ethics Kant, Aristotle
and the rest and the Church Fathers to name but a couple within the
Western side. Isn't that in itself something amazing do you find that
such efforts have been in vain ?

************************************************** *********

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Viswa

My View is, "I don't know".

Sorry.

Bye.

No problem thanks !

************************************************** *****

[Halloween Jack]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

In hindsight I understood his reaction to some extent but I always wondered if his reaction was to things like jail,
police hassle etc. etc.ect or was he angry that I had offended a Cosmic Power by trying to steal the Book ?

He considered himself to be vastly wiser than me and he was a very enlightened soul of course but was it not my destiny to behave like that. Ramesh might say it was,it was my Genes and my Conditioning that caused me to try and Steal the Book.

Well, the moral of this story is obvious. If you’re going to steal a Balsekar book go for a slim volume such as ‘Who Cares?’ :)

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Halloween Jack

Well, the moral of this story is obvious. If you’re going to steal a Balsekar book go for a slim volume such as ‘Who Cares?’ :)

hahaha ! Yes ! Anyway thanks for your imput, let me ponder some more and see if anything resolves itself Hark I hear a Siren from afar and the barking of dogs, this could end badly for this imagined self of mine ! Anyway thanks once again.

************************************************** ********

[winter light]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Two advaita teachers with the same root Guru who is Nisagardatta, give two Teachings which seem out of synch with each other hence grabbing my attention... Any views on this folks?

Hi Joe I find both of these teachings to be distracting from Nisagardatta's intention. The short answer is the difference is between means and method. Nisagardatta offered his complete presence as the means to teach. Not ideas about presence but presence itself. Non-duality as a means to teach about non-dual perspective. Which leads others to the same.

Whereas in comparison both of those other teachers are pointing to ideas that lead to methods which eventually lead to more perspective of duality. That they are grabbing your attention without resolution is actually the side effect of teachers who have not yet realized their own presence. Not bad just incomplete. A call for your own presence to complete the process.

Some could argue that Nisagardatta also did not complete the process in many of his interactions. But to me, in reading about it, it looks like in every instance he was present and lit the spark so that nature could take it's course from there. In the moment and in a very personal way.