"Robert Saltzman framed it up nicely in other words with this post in response to a seeker. I see the same wisdom in Ramana and Robert Saltzman, expressed with the vocabulary of the time, place and environment they found themselves. I find both the confession of Robert and Ramana equally affirming my own intuition. Robert's take is somewhat better suited for today, especially with English speaking people and Robert has a broad vocabulary. Ramana spoke his last in 1950. He is under a slab of concrete. Robert is still alive and sharing the same insight, today. Here is the response:
'Well, I need to say before I begin that you may not like what I have to say about "enlightenment," gurus, and all that stuff, but since you have been reading my website, you already know that I have made it a practice not to mince words when replying to important questions. In other words, I simply speak or write from my own experience for whatever it is worth, without considering that someone listening or reading might be offended by my words. This is the only way, because if I once started considering whether someone's beliefs might be threatened by my words, and so ended up soft-pedaling my reply to the questions I receive--"respecting someone's faith," as this is often unfortunately put--then I would be left with nothing to say at all about these matters.
I am trying to make this clear at the outset because you have said things in your letters to which seem to indicate a set of beliefs, a kind of faith, which, in my view, is not helpful to really understanding anything. Quite the opposite in fact: blind faith of any kind at all is totally counterproductive to understanding. "Faith" after all is just another word--a better sounding one-- for "credulity," which means believing something simply because someone in authority, or who claims authority (Ma, in your case, for example), has said it. But why should Ma be an authority on something that has occurred, or not occurred, in your experience? What makes her an authority on your experience? And if you believe Ma, then it is you who has found Ma worthy of credence, which has nothing to do with Ma, but only to do with your own discernment, understanding, and awareness. After all, Ann, there are people who see Jerry Falwell as an authority on spiritual experience. They honestly imagine that Falwell can tell them what "God" wants and what they must do next in order to be "saved." Absurd, isn't it? But why is trusting Ma, who for all you know might be scamming, hypnotized, deluded, or just mistaken, any different?
That said, I dislike the word "enlightenment," and wouldn't use it myself at all except to reply to your kind of question. The problem with that word is this, Ann: it refers to some special and exalted "state" held out as ideal, the experience of only a very few "realizers," and to be somehow "attained" in the future by means of effort. But the future cannot be imagined. We know this very well, but continually deny it. So, rather than simply accepting that a state of awareness which they are not experiencing (if they were experiencing it, they certainly would not be asking about or wondering about it) is literally unimaginable, people are tempted to use their imagination anyway, and so they conjure up visions of a special state, totally different from "ordinary life,"with all of its fear, pain, and suffering. When finally I am "enlightened," this fantasy goes, I will be as I am now, except that I will understand everything, and I will be happy. This is really no different at all from the Christian myth of heaven, which may help to explain why so many humans get caught up so childishly (the guru is like mommy or daddy) in seeking "enlightenment." What is being sought is not awareness or understanding at all, but just an end to suffering such as the religious indoctrination of their childhood promised would reward true believers (while the others burned in hell, of course). How foolish. How dreary.
To put this another way, I do not like the way I feel now, so I imagine a state sometime in the future when I have "attained enlightenment." When that happens, the fantasy goes, I will be special. I will be different from everyone else (except the other enlightened people). I will not suffer as others do, and as I do now. I will know the answers to all of my questions. I will know "God," or know if there really is a God or not. Perhaps I will have magical powers. I will be able to manifest whatever I choose. But that is all just a fantasy, a fantasy of future happiness, future power, all that I will have attained when finally I am enlightened. And the future never comes. When tomorrow comes, it comes as the present, not as the future, and it comes not as a fantasy, but as the facts and feelings of this very moment. So fantasies of enlightenment and salvation are a denial of the present, which is an eternal present. Fantasies of enlightenment are nothing more than a denial of this very moment which is the only moment there is or ever was. In other words, as long as someone is thinking about "enlightenment," or any other version of salvation for that matter, that person is in denial of actual being. That person lives in a kind of trance state which seems to be about something "spiritual," but which is really no more than the self-hypnosis of a mind which, being fearful, has become addicted to escapism.
Each of us is caught up emotionally in a very complicated drama called "life." In that drama, "I" am the main character, and other people have supporting roles of greater or lesser importance. Everything I do, everything I say, everything I worry about, everything I desire, everything I avoid, everything I seek (including "enlightenment") only serves to support the existence of that character, to flesh him (or her) out, to solidify his existence, to define him. "I" have a life story which provides the background for that character, and I have relationships which both support but also trouble the character in that drama. And that "I" has a body which can become ill and die. "I" knows this is true because "I" has seen others become ill and die. But the idea that my character, my "I,"--my ego, to use another term--which has struggled for so long just to define itself and to survive, will die (cease to exist at all, that is) is intolerable to me, so I invent an afterlife, or many afterlives one after another. I engage in discussions with others about God, Buddha, karma, enlightenment, etc. And it's all bullshit. It's all fantasy. It's all a claim to know something about the unknowable. It's avoidance. It's denial. It's wishful thinking. And, there is no shortage of people ready, willing, and able to make a profit on that. To sell tickets, to sponsor events, to sell books, be supported by disciples, etc. ad nauseam.
Well, I am not an enlightened person (no matter what Feeny may think), and no one else is either. The very idea of a separate person with a past and a future--a "someone" who could become enlightened --is already a misconception, a kind of contraction or dumbing down.
When I say "contraction" I mean this in the sense in which a hand can be contracted into a fist. The hand is still there, but cannot be seen until the fist is relaxed, then the fist disappears, and the hand appears again "by itself." It was always there, but its contraction into a fist prevented experience of the hand, as a hand. The same is true of awareness. It is always there, and does not belong to any one person in particular. When the contraction called "myself" or my ego relaxes sufficiently then awareness experiences itself for what is is. No one can do this or "attain" this. It just happens. It cannot be done or attained because the very idea of someone doing something just strengthens the contraction all the more. That's what the contraction is, after all, the idea of a separate person who does things, makes choices, has a guru, becomes enlightened. I call it a contraction because it is a squashing down of the universal, always existing awareness into the tiny prison of an individual ego, so that what was open-eyed, nonjudgmental, clear-headed awareness (and still is, but unnoticed, not experienced) now is called "my awareness, my enlightenment, my attainment, my point of view, which is the clenched fist, not the open hand. If you get the flavor of this, then you will understand that no one who claims enlightenment, or claims, like Ma, being able to decide who is enlightened or not, knows the first thing about any of this.
When this total inability of the personality to attain "enlightenment" by any means, any practice, any belief, any" purification," anything whatsoever, is seen, the drama of becoming ends. What is, simply is, and cannot become anything. You cannot become what you already are. The bullshit stops. Each moment is fresh, different from any other, and entirely unspeakable. The future never arrives. "Enlightenment" isn't even an issue or anything to think about. One simply experiences what humans experience from moment to moment, and that's it. And that is sufficient.
I will write about Shawn later. I am kind of pressed for time at the moment, and anyway I will be able to address that situation more usefully after this letter has time to sink in, and after I hear back from you. But before signing off, I just want to say that I understand your suffering--you have been through a lot by now--but that I want to encourage you to stop trying to find refuge. Just allow yourself to be, and stop trying to get answers to questions, which cannot be answered. Stop trying to find refuge in ideas. Stop trying to find refuge in Ma and her opinion of you. Stop looking for refuge in Jesus, in enlightenment, in judging whether your past experiences were special experiences which indicated "enlightenment" or just some of the varied and sometimes intense experiences of the ordinary human mind. Stop believing in things and just be. Stop looking for refuge in in anything. When all of that seeking stops, then see where you are.'"