In the role of mentor often questions are directed my way. Most of the time these are perhaps more esoteric but they are real in the search of a seeker. Here is the first of what I have dubbed “The Non Dual Conversation”. Enjoy

The Seeker Asks

Whatever has been happening, whatever is happening and whatever will happen can only happen according to His Will.  -Ramesh Balsekar

This quote points to what I was asking you re: Spira’s “activity of the thing” and Nisargatdatta’s later talks re: consciousness being lived rather than being the living.  It seems to be a move away from “consciousness is all there is” into a new kind of territory which is also a distinction Adi Da writes about calling it the difference between “6th and 7th stage awakening.”  Adi Da places the teachings of Nisargadatta and Ramesh in the 6th stage of his teaching.  What is being pointed to is a very subtle distinction.
What does Ramesh mean here by “His Will”?  Consciousness …or (maybe) that which is living consciousness as who we truly are?

The Response

All distinctions are also separations. That said, the only way anything can be transacted between so called communicants (new word use!) is in words and concepts, or units of separation.

I am not a big fan of the concept that some other’s awakening can be sussed out by assessing their words. Why? When consciousness speaks to consciousness, it is simply a happening through conduits as it were. When I see folks like Adi Da and others (Osho played this game as well) talk about the enlightenment of others, it always turns out that theirs is the highest and the others somehow suspect. Hence I usually feel an “ego” trace in the very analysis Adi Da or others are delivering. They should know there is no such thing as a “thing” or “truth” etc. Hence their assumptive state of egoism seems to be showing as why would such a thing even occur to be said?

So here is how I would see your question. In the very essence of “consciousness is all there is” lies “all the rest is interpretation” (Ramesh Balsekar) or “a story” (Alan). The “all the rest” piece is our commonplace market exchange of concepts extracted through an intellectual process we call cognition. It is then rendered into language. So when I call the ego story the “small dream” and the awakened space the “big dream” there has been a rendering into a constructed vehicle of separated parts. Both are delivered as “things”. But really they are only concepts whose only value from a transformational standpoint is their pointing.

We know that Ramesh and Nisargadatta talked extensively about the collapse of the tripod or the elements of intellectual construction in awakening. Often both would comment that there is no reason to speak other than “you all keep asking questions”. My reading of Adi Da yields similar comments. So what’s going on?

When an awakened speaks as a conduit it meets the level of the inquirer in that moment and in that context. It isn’t all that unusual that “God language” is invoked for those who hold the conceptual world in an anthropomorphic model. The pointer is to move the listener into a space where the ego is no longer held “as if” in control. A pointer is simply a move to push one into the soup of consciousness itself. If their subsequent construction of the experience is in terms of “His” will, do we care? If apperceived then a spaghetti western rendering would be fine as well I would suspect.

Often I use the pointer of “living” life versus “being lived”. How can that be? It can’t. It’s simply a pointer into the difference between the felt experience of “egoic” versus “awakened”. In awakening the only thing that can be claimed is “I exist” and the “I” is misleading but necessary to the construction. And “being lived” is simply a cognized, delivered concept pointing to that place with no place.

So when I listen I often try to understand if the speaker really believes that there is such thing as a “thing”. That is the assumptive state of essentially all of humanity or maya if you will. Spira somehow gives off an impression he does so I respond to that. Does he? Possibly. But certainly I don’t know to what he was responding when he made that comment.

Even the comment that consciousness is something living us as we truly are misses the mark by simple rendering. There is no us “as we truly are” other than to create discussion.

All there is, is consciousness and there is no new territory or gradations other than in manifestations that have been cognized. And if we look for awakening in our analysis of our cognized stories then “new territory” will abound for all. However, likely none will awaken. And the need to nest on concepts and language as though they mattered in and of themselves will never deliver awakening. It might, however, deliver a nice chunk of change on some show like Jeopardy. But the question always begs, “Who would be there to receive it?”

L Alan