The Oasiswithin Article Center
SAMSARA & NIRVANA ARE ONE
This article is from one of the talks given by Ramesh Balsekar during a Seminar, which he gave in Schermau, Germany, last year.Yesterday evening there was a mention of samsara and nirvana and Buddha's words that "nirvana and samsara are not two, they are one." I am not a student of the Buddhist religion. I don't know if the Buddha explained any more about this beautiful sentence. Nor do I know whether any subsequent interpretations have been made. The way I interpret that sentence "nirvana and samsara are one" relates to the seeker who seeks nirvana as a place to escape into from the difficulty of samsara. The seeker seeks nirvana as a place to escape into from the unhappiness of samsara. And the Buddha tells him, " You can't do it. They are not two. " You can't go from the seaside to the mountains. So, if you have to enjoy nirvana it can only be done in samsara. That is my interpretation of it. You cannot escape from life into enlightenment. You cannot escape from life into self-realisation.
A friend of mine told me once he, his father and his father before him used to go in Bangalore to a well-known Rama Krishna Ashram and see the swami regularly and talk to him. This friend of mine, a young man, somehow didn't feel inclined to go as regularly as he was supposed to. So the swami of that particular ashram mentioned to my friend's father " I haven't seen your son for quite some time." So the father mentioned it to the son and said:" Why don't you go and see him?" So the son next time did go and see him. And then they talked for a while. And then my friend asked this swami: "Swamiji, may I ask you a question? I hesitate to ask it. It is asked in all sincerity - it may sound like an impertinent question, but it is not. So, if you promise not to get angry with me or to tell my father, I shall ask you this question - You have been in this ashram for 25-30 years and you are supposed to advise the ordinary man about his problems in life. So, my question to you is this: You have been in this place, safe and secure for 30 years, if you had to go out into life without the protection of the ashram, for 6 months, could you do it? The swami was startled. He thought for a moment and said: " No, I don't think I could do it" So very often, the spiritual counsellors have really no idea of what they're talking about! They have no experience of life and they tell you how to live your life!
Therefore, my point is that you have to live your life in samsara, and still find nirvana. What has been happening is this. I find that my speaking, my teaching, over the last 10-12 years has been getting more and more focussed. And the reason is this. For the last several years people who have been coming to see me - mainly to be able to help the man with whom I'm dealing - I ask him his details - what he is; what his profession is, whether he's reasonably comfortable in life. The reason I ask whether he's comfortable in life is that I do not discount the value of money. I have been a banker for 35 years and it would be adding insult to injury to speak to a hungry man about Advaita. So, if I know that the man is in a reasonably comfortable position financially, then he's entitled to speak about Advaita. The next think I ask him is how long has he been seeking. Sometimes 25 years, sometimes 30 years. Very often, the answer is: " Ever since I can remember. Probably in my teens" And he names the gurus he has been to, the books he has read. So I ask him "So with all the reading and meeting gurus, what is your understanding now of what you are seeking?" And believe me I have never ever had one answer " This is what I'm seeking. "Not once.
So, when I kept getting this situation, I said to myself "The one thing I should be able to tell my visitors, who have come from long distances after spending a lot of money, is something they should be able to repeat to their friend. When you go back to France or Germany or the States and then someone asks you what did Ramesh have to say, you should be able to say " Ramesh says one, two three, four and I do not agree with any one of them." That is different. All I want is that you should have a clear idea of what I'm saying of what the teaching is. So the teaching has become over the years more and more focussed.
So now, as I say, the seeker begins seeking nirvana as a way of escape from the samsara into the nirvana. And the seeker reaches some stage of understanding when he realises that there is no place as nirvana to escape to. Assume that nirvana is peace. And if he wants peace he has to find it in samsara, in life. He cannot escape from life to seek peace. Then it cannot be the peace that he wants. And the peace the seeker is trying to find, he knows it. He is not aware of it individually, personally, but he knows it. So I tell him "What are you seeking, you know what you're seeking " And he says " But I don't. That is the whole point. For 30 years I've been seeking. I don't know what it is" Then I say "You do. You do know, but you are not aware of it" Big difference.
And that peace which I tell the visitor he knows but is not aware of, is that state which prevails in deep sleep. In other words, what he is seeking in life, in his daily working life, during the waking state - what he is seeking is that peace which prevails in deep sleep. Individually he is not aware of it. And the peace that he can find in the waking state, if by the grace of God, if it is God's Will and the destiny of that body-mind - organism, he can find that peace if the basic condition, which prevails in deep sleep, bringing about that peace, also prevails in his waking state, in his daily life. If that condition which prevails, and therefore brings about the peace in deep sleep, exists in your waking state, in your daily life, only then can that peace of deep sleep prevail in the daily life and waking state. It's as simple as that.
And that is why, I repeat, Ramana Maharshi said: "Self-realisation is the simplest thing" I do not take Ramana Maharshi's words lightly ever. So, if he's saying 'Self-realisation is the simplest thing,' it is the simplest. For this reason, if I am able to find that condition which prevails in deep sleep to prevail in the waking state, then the peace of deep sleep must prevail in the waking state. The only difference then, being in deep sleep there is no manifestation. Therefore there is no witnessing manifestation. In waking state there is manifestation. Therefore there is witnessing of manifestation. In the waking state witnessing of manifestation; in deep sleep no witnessing of manifestation, because manifestation doesn't exist. That is the only difference.
So what is that condition which prevails in deep sleep, which brings about the peace you are seeking in the waking state? That condition is the absence of the individual doer, generally known as the ego. The ego does not prevails during deep sleep therefore peace prevails. So, if during your waking state and your daily life the ego, the sense of personal doership, should disappear, then the same peace must prevail.
So how does the sense of personal doership disappear? I ask people: "Surely this kind of thing must have been discussed at the various places you've been to?" They say: " No! I was only told what I should do and what I should not do to get what I wanted, which is the peace" So I say: I'm afraid, I have to tell you the exact opposite. You can do bloody well nothing to get that peace!"
That is the whole point, to understand that I can do nothing. I can do nothing. I'm not capable of doing anything. That is the only understanding. Again, that is why Ramana Maharshi said: "Self-realisation is the simplest thing." The only thing that Ramana Maharshi did not add was that it is not in your control, but that is what is understood. That is not in your control. Therefore I ask the visitor: " You have been seeking for 30 years, do you remember when it started?" " No!" He doesn't remember. So I say: " Have you ever thought that you never did start the seeking? The seeking happened. Why did the seeking happen? Because it was God's Will and the destiny of this body-mind organism for the spiritual seeking - seeking of that peace in deep sleep state - that seeking began. You had no control over it."
So, how can this 'me' disappear in the waking state? First, to find out who is this 'me'. The 'me' is a sense of personal doership. So only when the sense of personal doership disappears, does that peace in the deep sleep state prevail here? So my teaching focuses down into just one thing. Find out if you are the doer of any action, which you think is your action, which is the same as Ramana Maharshi's question, "Who is 'me'? Who am I?" And he used the word 'I' because he didn't speak English. I think it's only one of the very few languages in which, I am told, there is a difference between 'I' and 'me'. So Ramana Maharshi had to use the expedient of saying 'I' is the 'me' the ego. And the Source from which the 'I' has come he used to say 'I - I'. In the English language it is not necessary. So, it used to confuse some people - what is this 'I-I' Ramana Maharshi is referring to? So, the 'I'I' is the Source, 'I' and the 'I', which is usually the 'me'.
So, the question: " Who am I?" really boils down to, "Who is this 'me'?" This 'me' who thinks he is the thinker, he is the doer, he is the experiencer. Whereas, what is really happening is: thinking is happening; doing is happening and there has never been a thinker, a doer, a seeker or an experiencer.
So the individual has to find out for himself from personal experience. Therefore I tell my visitor: I don't much care for the word 'sadhana' ( spiritual practice) but it is useful. "So if you think - and the thing has been ingrained so much - that you have to do some sadhana, my basic point is: if sadhana is necessary it will happen, only if it is God's Will and the destiny of this body-mind organism seeking God or peace. It is not the privilege of any individual ego to demand nirvana or peace. So, that you have been seeking makes it clear that God's Grace is already upon you. It is because of God's Will that the seeking has started. The seeking will lead ultimately to the annihilation of the 'me' as the doer.
So, if there is any sadhana that you think you should do, according to my understanding, there is just one sadhana. Any other sadhana that you like to do, you're free to do, because you've free will. Do whatever you want. So if you like to meditate, meditate. If you don't like to meditate, don't drive yourself to meditate. If you like to sing bhajans, sing bhajans. If you don't like to sing bhajans, when bhajans start here you walk out.
You know, in Maharaj's place in the evening bhajans used to be sung, but they were not like this. They were the traditional Hindu bhajans with the banging, cymbals knocking- enormous noise!. And the very first time I was there Maharaj noticed I couldn't bear it!. You see, I normally didn't go in the evenings. Maharaj once asked, " You don't come in the evenings?" " Maharaj," I said, " morning session is enough for me for the 245 hours. I wouldn't be able to digest another session in the evening!" which is true. So once what happened was Maharaj said " The translator in the evening is not able to come, would I come?" I said "Certainly, with pleasure". So I went there. But it so happened that the evening translator was there, so I didn't have to do anything. When the talk was over and the bhajans started, Maharaj looked at me and he said: "Go!"
So the sadhana I suggest is only one. Find out from your own personal experience whether there is any action you're entitled to call your action. My theory is that any action that you call your action is a mere reaction of the brain to an input into this mechanical human body. The brain responds to that input, put in by the Source or God and out comes an output strictly according to the programming. And the programming is unique genes or DNA plus environmental conditioning. And you will come to the conclusion that no action can you really call your action. How long this will take? Again, God's Will.
There was one particular gentleman. He was so ready and ripe. He was living in a Zen monastery for some years. When he came here he came for 10 days - stayed on for 3 months. He never asked any questions. So a day or two before he left he said: "I would like to say something" Everybody was astonished! And he said: I can't tell you how much your sadhana has done for me. In 30 years I was not able to come to this point. " Here you asked, 'at the end of the day to find out if any action is your action' " He was ready as I told you, very, very ready, very ripe. And he said: " I did that one evening and really 10-15 actions I could investigate and come to the conclusion that none of it was my action. " And then he said: "The next day I didn't have to wait till the end of the day to make an investigation. As the action happened the conviction came, ' This is not my action! This is not my action!"
So, the sadhana is to find out whether any action is your action and when you come to the conclusion that no action is your action then, instead of the mind or ego asking the question, " Who am I?" the question "If no action is my action, who is this 'me' comes out from the very depths of your being. The intellect does not ask it. The question, " Who is this 'me' who thinks he is the doer - and I don't do anything." that question comes from the very depths of your being and the depth of your being is the Source.
So the question comes from the Source and the answer also comes from the Source. "There never has been a 'me' all there is, is 'I' functioning through all the me's and you's and he's and her's. So the question comes from the Source - from the depths of your being. Answer too, comes, and that is the end of the ego. That is the annihilation of the ego. So, with the annihilation of the ego, how does life function? In other words, how does the sage live? From my own personal experience I Find what happens is that life goes on as before. That means the only difference is this: the extinction or the annihilation of the ego. What does it mean in practice? What it means in practice is no doubts, no expectations, and no frustrations. That is the only difference.
In other words, I would say the sage lives in duality; the ordinary man lives in dualism and therefore becomes happy or unhappy. What do I mean by duality? Duality means the basis of life itself - the total unconditional acceptance that there have always been the Mother Teresa's on the one hand and the psychopaths on the other. That life is based on inter-connected opposites over which no human being can possibly have any control. Therefore the opposites must exist - happiness and unhappiness - beginning with Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve remind me of a joke. When the Lord created Eve for Adam, Adam was delighted, so he thanked God for creating Eve for him and he said: "I want to know why did you make Eve so beautiful and so attractive?" The Lord said: "So, my son, you may love her" " And why did you make her so considerate and looking after my welfare?" " So that my son, you may love her." And then he said: " But Lord, why have you made her so stupid?" " So my son, that she may love you". Otherwise who would love a male chauvinist?
So the sage lives in duality, accepting the opposites, also knowing that one or the other must prevail. So, what happens to the sage is, sometimes he knows happiness will happen, sometime unhappiness. The sage also knows - again, words can create havoc - separateness and oneness. What does it mean? Does it mean the separateness givers way to oneness? That means that once there is enlightenment or self-realisation or the absence of the ego, do all separation disappear? You see, all these points are not clear. That is exactly what I did not want to happen as far as I'm concerned. So, separateness and oneness - are both part of duality. Separateness and oneness do constitute duality.
So for the sage the separateness exists - of course it exists. The moment the sage answers to his name being called it means there is identification with a name and form, separate from everybody else. If Jesus were called by name or Ramana Maharshi was called, he responded. So the fact that the sage responds to his name being called means there is identification with a name and form as a separate identity. Separateness does not disappear.
Oneness: the sage doesn't see everybody as clones - perhaps of himself. The sage notices the difference. And, according to his programming, sight of something or the thought of something could bring about a reaction one or the other - like or dislike. Then, where is the oneness? If separateness continues to exist, where is the oneness? The oneness lies in the total unconditional acceptance that all these differences are only in appearances - that underneath there is a total acceptance that it is the same Consciousness, or Source, or God, functioning through every body-mind organism. There is total unconditional acceptance that no one can do anything - no one is capable of doing anything. That is the oneness. Oneness lies in the total acceptance that it is God or Consciousness or the Source or the Primal Energy, whatever you call it, functioning through every human being.
Therefore, no human being is truly responsible of anything. Since somebody's action - really action happening though some other body-mind organism, hurts me, then it is God's Will and the destiny of this body-mind organism to be hurt. The acceptance of this is the oneness that is talked about, as distinct from separateness. So, what I'm saying is, as far as the sage is concerned, both separateness and oneness exist as part of the duality, which is the basis of life.
So, how can the ordinary man find nirvana in samsara? When he accepts that samsara are the waves in the ocean and the depth of the ocean is nirvana. The waves - when you get tossed about by the waves - it is the 'me' the ego. So all you have to do, if you are able to do it, by the Grace of God, is to go slightly deeper into the ocean, which is what happens in deep sleep and which can happen even in your waking state, when it is found that no one is the doer of any action.; I'm not saying it is easy to accept the fact that I am not the doer of my action, but more difficult than the acceptance that I am not the doer - more difficult is the acceptance that you are not the doer! I may be able to accept that I am not the doer, but accepting that you are not the doer is not so easy. So the real acceptance is not that I am not the doer, but that you are not the doer. Therefore I can never hate you!
So what happens to the sage is that he lives in duality; accepts the happiness and unhappiness. Now, how has that affected me? My own experience is this. As I said earlier " No expectations, no wants" but needs may arise. And the need could be physical, mental, whatever. And my own experience has been that when the need is real it has been satisfied. And when I say need, I'm not talking about big need. It could be the smallest need.
I'll tell you what happened once. In Hollywood, my second series of seminars I remember because my wife was present. First time, I was not allowed to take my wife. Second time, I think- I don't know - either I insisted or the offer was made. Probably the offer was made because the organisation was done by someone else, it was done by Wayne. Anyway, my wife and I were there and when I travelled I used to take a small photograph, little bigger than a passport photograph of Ramana Maharshi. I'd always done that. I would take it out and put it somewhere. So one morning, as I was getting ready for the talk, I said to my wife: " When we go back, I must get a reasonably big portrait of Ramana Maharshi and fix it on the wall opposite my desk " Literally before the talk began, 15 minutes after the need arose, someone walks in and they say "Ramesh, I don't know why, but I thought you'd like this" And he brings a framed photograph, just about the size I had in mind of Ramana Maharshi. "I don't know why but I thought you'd like this" And that photograph - I call it Hollywood Ramana - sits before my desk now and it's been 12 years. So my wife once teased me, "in a burst of generosity you may give anything that you have except Hollywood Ramana".
So needs arise, needs get fulfilled and each time it happens a tremendous sense of gratitude arises. Gratitude by whom to whom? The question doesn't arise. A tremendous sense of gratitude arises. But that does not mean that pain and grief don't arise. They do, too. That is exactly what I mean by the sage living in duality. Of course grief arises. As I mentioned, my son died in Bombay when I was in Seattle. My wife and I were in Seattle. Grief arose. Of course it arose. And I often mention the case of Ramana Maharshi, when they got the news that an old attendant of his, close friend for many years, close association died. And there were tears in Ramana Maharshi's eyes. So, grief arose. Then I still bite my tongue and get seriously hurt. I still stumble over stools in the dark and get myself hurt. I still have backaches, which puzzle the specialist. But what comes with the pain is the amazing ability to accept it. The amazing ability to accept it to such an extent that the depth of the hurt, the intensity of the hurt, does not remain in memory. It does not remain in memory.
So, this way, happiness happens. Say, for instance, I get a report that my grandson is at the top of the class, whatever it is. Of course a sense of pleasure arises. So, I don't know whether I've made it clear, but I've tried to - what I mean when I say that the sage lives in duality.
What do I mean when I say that the ordinary man lives in dualism? Dualism means not accepting duality. Accepting duality you accept opposites. Living in dualism you do not accept the opposites, you always want one against the other. That makes for unhappiness. What is the cause of unhappiness? Not accepting the basic duality of life. That is dualism. And that is the basis of unhappiness.
RAMESH BASEKAR.
This document maintained by
multifaith@aol.com.
Material
Copyright © 2000 Oasiswithin