Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔 If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
Thank You so much for these so simple and trurhfull talks , I only read one of Ramesh Balsekar's book before hearing these beautifull and so clearly spoken thoughts , gratefully yours , Shanti
Such words cannot come without the backing of a guru! Every word feels like a nectar for which, ramesh was so programmed to be in greatest gratitude and total surrender towards his guru! If its a god's will, this only talk can lead to the ultimate!
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔 If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
A fundamental question is, will we ever have a mind body organism like Ramesh, someone who's concept is so simple and explained in such a manner that it goes straight to the heart. A sense of gratification and pleasure arises so powerful that it means nothing. This ego would love to meet someone like him/her 😅 Joke aside. Thank you Ramesh.
Thank you so much for going to the trouble to post this one. So excellent!!! Look very much forward to any new, for me, of Ramesh's talks like this one. TY TY TY
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔 If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔 If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
@@devotionalsuja: 🐟 20. THE PRIESTHOOD: A PRIEST (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit) is defined as a man who promulgates teachings and performs rituals on behalf of a particular religious or metaphysical tradition. He should possess all saintly qualities, such as cleanliness (which, as they say, is “next to godliness”), peacefulness, austerity, intelligence, wisdom, renunciation, tolerance, patience, humility, and of course, moral uprightness and religiosity. This does not imply that a priest must possess those virtues to a perfect extent, but he ought to have each quality to at least a reasonably-high degree. Even if a man seems to be a genuine priest superficially, if he is severely lacking in even one of the clerical qualities, he cannot rightly be called a “priest”. Therefore, a dumb cleric or a dirty cleric does not, by definition, exist. As explained in the previous chapter, priests (in particular, the World Teacher) are the authoritative heads of society, thus virtue is paramount, so be wary of the multitude of PHONEY “priests” in the world! There are literally hundreds of thousands of individuals in this world who claim to be religious leaders/teachers (“guru”, in Sanskrit). Most of them are either working-class guys, businessmen, or women, acting under pretence. However, as mentioned in the chapter distinguishing enlightenment from liberation and awakening (Chapter 17), a genuinely-enlightened spiritual preceptor is VERY rare indeed. Even some of the teachings of universally-recognized Avatars (men enlightened from a very young age) were far from accurate, what to speak of the teachings of lesser authorities! This lack of authentic spiritual guidance is the major reason for the decadent state of present-day society (and previous decadent societies), apart, perhaps, from the paucity of legitimate government leadership (see Chapter 22 regarding illegitimate governances). It is crucial to note that a priest is not required to teach just anyone and everyone in his community. Traditionally, priests (at least those who are worthy of the title) were commissioned to teach two groups of MALES: the rulers of society (see the following chapter regarding the monarchy), and monastics (normally boys and adolescents) in his school (“gurukula”, in Sanskrit). Furthermore, it is imperative that priests assess the qualifications of each prospective disciple, such as the man's level of intelligence, sincerity, and humility, to ascertain his suitability as a student. As Lord Jesus so rightly suggested, one should desist giving what is holy to dogs (i.e. those who are hostile to righteous precepts). A PERFECT analogy of why a priest should teach only the two aforementioned groups of males, is with any world-class musician. Arguably the greatest pianist in history was Franz Liszt Ferenc, an Hungarian virtuoso who lived in the nineteenth century. Not only did he tutor other concert pianists, but, just like priests, he did so at no monetary charge whatsoever. If he had taught novice musicians, he would have misused his valuable time, because his advanced students could have easily taught beginners (or at least have taught the teachers of those novices). Contrary to popular understanding, the clergy not only teach religious studies, but all things necessary for living a healthy and happy life, such as languages, history, basic mathematics, hygiene, diet, and most especially, ethics/morality. If a particular student shows himself to NOT be inclined towards the life of a monastic, the guru will send him to another master, in order to be apprenticed in a different occupation, such as the military, business, engineering, medicine, accounting, labouring, etcetera. The modern system of schooling, in which every child is taught the same curriculum (and, invariably, indoctrinated into being a servile minion of the state) has been the source of much misery for society. As explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the priest's disciples instruct, in turn, their OWN subordinates, including their wives and children. It is not practical, or even possible, for a clergyman to effectively teach every single individual in his community on a personal level. Fortunately, there is a system in place where all citizens may benefit of the teaching of a true priest (see Chapters 19 and 27). On occasion, “God” (or to be more precise, The Impersonal Self, acting via the preordained narrative of this universe) gives specific messages via chosen individuals, whether they be priests or not. However, such messages are usually intended to be spoken to an individual, or group of individuals, with specific (and invariably, temporal) repercussions for those individuals in question. This is akin to the ancient lineage of prophetic figures found in monotheistic traditions. Such “prophets” can NEVER replace a man who has evolved (over millions of lifetimes?) to be a fully-enlightened saintly prophet, appointed to teach “truth” to humanity. Unfortunately, such World Teachers incarnate very rarely on earth, and when they do appear, are often assassinated by the illegitimate rulers of their nations, or by other demonic elements of society. Even the most vile political leaders have a certain proportion of the populace which adores them. However, virtually everyone despises the gentle, humble, holy men who dare speak the truth about the state of contemporary society, and point-out the multitude of sins extant. The most HEINOUS action possible is to persecute a Prophet or World Teacher (“jagadguru”, in Sanskrit). Thus, exterminating thousands of workers is less sinful than murdering a World Teacher, because when a Prophet's mission is ended, or merely hampered by persecution, the whole of society suffers from lack of knowledge and direction. Only a wise person can find the logic in such a seemingly-audacious statement. When the life of a World Teacher is constantly threatened, or he is assassinated (as in the case of so many great Prophets of the past, such as Lord Jesus Christ), society is likened to a chicken which runs directionless around the coop, just after its head has been severed. Unfortunately, the more we progress into this current dark epoch (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit), the more society's head (priests/prophets) are being persecuted, and soon there will be hardly any ACTUAL spiritual guides remaining on the planet. At that point in time, the end of humanity is assured. So, to put it succinctly, there may be hundreds of thousands of “priests” on earth at a given time, yet there are only an EXTREMELY small number of true sages, who understand life definitively, and are both willing and able to lead others to self-realization (“adhyātma-vidyā", "ātma-jñana", or “brahma-jñana”, in Sanskrit). As a general rule, the greater number of disciples following a particular teacher, the more perverse and corrupt are his teachings, because the truth is very difficult to accept. Unfortunately, the typical person wants to hear predominately sentimental tenets, which gives him or her merely emotional solace. The current World Teacher has never had a true disciple, sad to say. Many spiritual seekers, especially in the more esoteric paths, mistakenly believe that they have need of a guru ONLY until they’ve reached a certain level of enlightenment, or even that they have no need of a spiritual master at all. The main reason why every serious (male) religious practitioner (“yogi”, in Sanskrit) requires a teacher, is not so much to learn concepts, dogmas and rituals from his guru. The primary reason one needs a spiritual master, is so that he has a superior to serve, lest he devotes his life to self-serving pursuits. When a man is bereft of regular guidance from a master, he is most likely to stray from the path of righteousness (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). That explains why even Divine Incarnations (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) acknowledge their own masters with great reverence, and rarely, if ever, contradict or disobey them. Cont…
It is perfectly permissible for a man to abandon his spiritual master in favour of a NEW guru, for any reason he chooses, but preferably because he has outgrown the dogmas and/or rituals taught by his former teacher. No genuine spiritual master will feel resentment towards another person for any reason whatsoever, including towards a former disciple who has forsaken him for a new priest. A clergyman subsists ENTIRELY Providentially, that is, he must depend solely on contributions from his followers/congregation/disciples, unless, of course, he is able to support himself independently by growing his own food and making his own clothing, both of which may consume an inordinate amount of time. Unfortunately, however, this arrangement holds the distinct possibility of corrupting the teachings of the priest, since he may be reluctant to proclaim the bitter truth to his congregation, out of fear of them withholding their financial support from him. Ideally, priests (that is, genuine spiritual teachers) ought to devote every available moment of their precious time to ministering to their communities. There is no such thing as a part-time priest, or even more ridiculously, working-class men who call themselves “priests” simply because one of their ancestors may have been a priest - something of a common occurrence in Bhārata (India). “The BEST thing a person can do is be in the presence of a spiritual master. The WORST thing one can do is consider the master to be an ordinary person”. Franklin Jones (AKA Avatar Adi Da Samraj), American Spiritual Master. “There is no God and I am His Prophet.” ************* “Gurus are very clever at putting you down, but they're just trying to see how strong you are. They're testing you out to see if they can hoodwink you. So long as they can, they're going to go on doing it till they get you to the point where they can't do it to you anymore. Then you'll graduate.” Professor Alan W. Watts, British-American Philosopher.
My brother passed away in 1985, and a few days later I asked him if he still exist and I just can't see him... Lo and behold, The Bed Shook. I was very happy that he made a connection with me!!!
Thanks for this video. This discourse is very intriguing. But, I am confused and have a question: If a thought is dropped by source/god into the Human Mind and when Human Mind attends to that thought and spins it's own thought which he considers his novel thought then should we forgive all those brutal Humans over the centuries who have done un-imaginable atrocities to fellow humans. If it's not his/her thoughts & actions rather triggered by a thought 'dropped' in just before he assumes it's thoughts, then how is that Human Mind/being responsible for that. I don't get this. I wish Mr. Balsekar was still around and could have asked this question.
Hi Ashwin, that is a very good question that I have stumbled upon several times myself. The answer to that question is; Good and bad exists only in the level of ego. Hence, as Ramesh Balsekar puts himself; Ego creates a power entity in it's imagination which only does good and justice and names it 'GOD'. When crime does not fall in the definition of good, it contradicts the idea that GOD did it because God only does good deed. Therefore making it difficult to accept that every happening is according to the will of God. But a tiger eating a dog, a lion eating a deer, a chicken eating an insect, a car hitting and killing a baby and, a human being committing a crime cannot be possible without the will of God. 'Will' not in the same meaning we use it. You can check out www.hellomadman.com to talk about more of these things
@@arjunprabhu6742 thank you for taking time to read my reply. There is the basic energy which we can call life, consciousness, GOD, supreme or whatever we name it that is functioning through each and every one of us. The same energy made you write the question and the same energy made me write the answers. So, to answer your question 'YES' there is god. However, it is not the same as how we think he is because whatever we think is based off of things we have seen, read, heard, or experienced all of which are past. And you cannot create an image of something that you do not know with help of something you know. So in conclusion, yes GOD exists but not in the same form as our imagination.
@@arjunprabhu6742 My understanding is that this body does not have any control over the two most important things that determine the entire course of your life; Genes from your parents and kind of environment that you were brought up in. Both of these are different from individual to individual resulting in all individual having their own concepts of what is wrong and what is right. So, it is the GOD through which the decision gets made as to what kind of Genes and environment that this body is provided or in other words 'according to the Karma of that body'. According to that the life gets lived. The bigger your Karma, the bigger your ego or the sense of personal doership, the bigger your suffering and the farther away one is from the realization or enlightenment. Basically I look at this this way, let's imagine that the electricity is God and your body is a microwave. The bigger the Karma or ego or sense of personal doership, the more you think that you are the one responsible for all the actions that happens through your body that is; Microwave. When all the Karmas is played out, which is again not in your hands, the realization happens that you were never responsible for the actions that happened through the Microwave, it was always the electricity that was responsible for all the actions. And you were never the entity that you thought you were, you were always the electricity (GOD) that is not only responsible for the actions in one body but all the bodies.
Interesting. People like Tony Parsons, Bernadette Roberts, Jim Newman, and many, many youngsters now here on UA-cam, say that the "I AM" is still division, and that that self which is conscious of itself, is what falls away. In other words, the "I AM" may be an improvement, but it's also rooted in identification with a presumption ... I am here. I exist etc.
Alħamdu lillāhi rabbil Ꜥālamīna, All the praises and thanks be to God who is the Lord of the universe" . lā ḥawla wa lā quwwata illā billāh (In Arabic written as "لا حول ولاقوة إلا بالله") which is usually translated as "There is no might nor power except in Allah." All names belong to GOD
sudhir j There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity.🤓 It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
जब मैं था तब हरि नहीं अब हरि है मैं नाहीं । प्रेम गली अति सांकरी जामें दो न समाहीं ॥ Aham Brahmasmi ! I am God But the best part is i have never ever seen my own face. Of course i have seen the mirror images and photos. But some how i am unable to see my self. Can that be why i cannot see God? Of course there is no personal God. God does not belong to us we belong to God. To be able to see God we have to see our own face i.e. recognise who we are!!! As Kabir say i have to lose myself to realise God. There is only ONE GOD and to see him i have to see my own face first. The face i had before i was born. Hope i am making sense at least to some people!
@@TheWorldTeacher That is your perception. Since you were not clear about Ego you sought my help. I know what I know. Your disagreement makes no difference to me.
Yes, that was a great elucidation on the word Dukkha. Previously i thought it meant the inability to find satisfaction in phenomenal things.. desires and so on.. I like the meaning of horrors much better. More of a visceral strength to it, more true to the existential situation. Emphasizes the terror end of the spectrum.
Jordi Falco 🐟 02. UNA BREVE EXPLICACIÓN DE LA “VIDA”: Todo, tanto visible como invisible, es lo que la mayoría de las personas llaman "Dios". Dios REAL es la Nada Absoluta Impersonal (también llamada "Tao", "El Gran Espíritu", "Brahman", "Conciencia Pura", "Conciencia Eterna", "Existencia Independiente", "La Base del Ser", etcétera). "Dios" es una realidad, pero así como un cuchillo no puede cortarse solo, o el fuego no puede quemarse, "Dios" no puede conocerse a sí mismo (o al menos EXPERIMENTAR a sí mismo), y así, ha manifestado este universo fenomenal dentro de sí mismo. Por lo tanto, este mundo de dualidad es realmente solo un juego de conciencia dentro de la Conciencia. Aparentemente, este universo fenomenal fue "creado" (dentro de la Conciencia) con el acto inicial (el llamado "Big Bang"), y desde ese primer hecho, cada acción que ha ocurrido ha sido un resultado directo o indirecto. Así como cada partícula de materia en el universo estuvo alguna vez contenida en la "singularidad", la Conciencia Infinita estaba NECESARIAMENTE presente en el Big Bang, y de ninguna manera es un epifenómeno de una red neuronal. "Sarvam khalvidam brahma" ("todo esto es de hecho Brahman"). ¡Hay UNO SINO pero Eterno, Consciencia, Paz! Por lo tanto, los humanos son el resultado de esa manifestación inicial. Esa es la verdadera explicación del "karma": todo estaba predeterminado de la chispa inicial (o, para ser más precisos, predeterminado en la ETERNIDAD). Cualquier estado en el que nos encontremos actualmente es el resultado de dos factores: nuestra composición genética en la concepción y nuestro condicionamiento de la vida presente. Cada elección hecha por cada humano (y animal no humano) fue determinada solo por esos dos factores, por lo que el libre albedrío es puramente ilusorio, a pesar de lo que la mayoría cree. Debido a que estamos residiendo temporalmente en este universo dualista, experimentamos tanto placer como dolor. Sufrimiento y dolor NO son sinónimos. El sufrimiento se debe a un falso sentido de conducta personal: la creencia de que uno es un autor separado e independiente de sus pensamientos y acciones. Hay cinco manifestaciones de sufrimiento: 1. culpa 2. Culpa 3. Orgullo 4. Preocupación / Ansiedad 5. Lamenta el pasado y las expectativas para el futuro / Adjunto a los resultados Estos tipos de sufrimiento son el resultado de no comprender adecuadamente lo que se explicó anteriormente: que la vida es una serie de acontecimientos y NO causada por los seres vivos individuales. Ninguna criatura viviente, incluidos nosotros los humanos, tiene libre albedrío personal. Solo está en juego la Voluntad Divina Universal, actuando a través de cada cuerpo, a la que William Shakespeare aludió cuando escribió "Todo el mundo es un escenario, y todos los hombres y mujeres son meramente jugadores". El organismo humano es simplemente una máquina biológica, compuesta por los cinco elementos materiales brutos y los tres elementos materiales sutiles. Entonces, ahora que entiendes la vida y la razón por la que estamos sufriendo aquí en este universo (supuestamente) material, ahora puedes liberarte de todas las formas de sufrimiento, ¿verdad? ¡INCORRECTO! Es imperativo encontrar un maestro espiritual auténtico que lo ayude a llegar a la realización anterior, deshaciendo lentamente su condicionamiento pasado. Incluso si sigues a un maestro competente, es posible que aún no llegues a una comprensión completa de la vida, pero si eres sincero, humilde y dedicado, definitivamente encontrarás más paz en tu vida diaria (todo lo cual fue DESTINO que ocurrió, por ejemplo). curso). Además, si fue ordenado, puede tener la suerte de aceptar la disciplina de un maestro verdaderamente iluminado, y posteriormente darse cuenta de los conceptos fundamentales antes mencionados mediante la práctica de al menos uno de los cuatro sistemas de yoga (religión) descritos en la Sagrada Escritura, "A Hoja final de instrucciones para la humanidad ". "El significado de la vida es la vida misma". ************* "Los gurús son muy inteligentes para despreciarte, pero solo intentan ver qué tan fuerte eres". Te están probando para ver si pueden engañarte. Mientras puedan, seguirán haciéndolo hasta que lo lleven al punto en que ya no puedan hacerlo. Entonces te graduarás ". Profesor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts, Filósofo inglés (06/01/1915 - 16/11/1973). "Lo que buscas te está buscando." Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī Poeta musulmán persa sunita, jurista, erudito islámico, teólogo y místico sufí, (30/09/1207 - 17/12/1273).
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔 If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
swingtrade2 No. 🐟 10. EGO (THE “I” THOUGHT): The Latin pronoun "EGO" is one of the most misused words in the English language, especially in spiritual circles, where it is used as a noun, although it is a poor translation of the Sanskrit "ahaṃkāra", which is more accurately a verb. "Ahaṃ" simply means "I/Ego", and "ahaṃkāra" means "Creating the I/self" or "Activating the sense of self". As an aside, some Sanskrit scholars have noticed that the word "ahaṃ" is formed of a+ha+ṃ, a triad of Śiva (a), Śakti (ha) and bindu (ṃ). The whole Sanskrit alphabet is enclosed by those two syllables, just as the Greek tongue begins and ends with "alpha" and "omega", respectively. "I am the Alpha and the Omega!", said God in the book of Revelations. The palindrome of "ahaṃ" is "mahā", meaning "GREAT". False egoity (ahaṃkāra) is an errant conception of oneself. In other words, it is the idea that “I am an independent agent, with the volition to freely think, feel and behave as I choose”, instead of simply an unqualified “I AM” (”ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit) or at the very least, “I am all-encompassing existence” (”ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit). The most accurate definition of "Ego/I" is: "the self, which is a conscious PERSON". A human person is the Stainless Consciousness of Source acting through a particular body-mind complex (which in turn is an ever-morphing biological organism). Therefore, whenever the word "ego" is heard in practically any spiritual/religious context, it is not to be taken literally ("I") but in the sense of "ahaṃkāra" (an exaggerated sense of self-importance). So, when the true self (which is Brahman, the TOTALITY of existence) misidentifies itself with the temporal body-mind, it is "false ego" (ahaṃkāra) but when the self/Self identifies with Conscious Awareness (Brahman), acting through the body-mind organism, it is the "real ego" (”ātmana/Paramātmana”, in Sanskrit). Humans usually believe that they are the body-mind organism. Those who have awakened (or at least spiritually aware) consider themselves to NOT be their body-mind. One who is truly enlightened knows for certain that he is both a human being on the relative level, but quintessentially the very ground of being in the Absolute sense. When properly analysed, the phrase "I am Spirit" or "I am All" (”ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit) means "I, the ego (the relative persona) am Nothing/Everything/All/Brahman/Tao/Spirit (the Absolute Ground of Being)”. Finally, it could be argued, with some degree of merit, that since the English language already has a word for oneself ("I"), that we ought to keep using the ENGLISH dictionary definition of "ego" (as the false sense of oneself). However, because the great majority of advanced religionists and spiritual practitioners outside Bhārata (India) who speak of these concepts, base their language on Sanskrit and/or Pali, it is far more accurate to separate "ego" (ahaṃ) from "false egoity" (ahaṃkāra). The literal translation should be paramount, to avoid ambiguity. “The first and foremost of all thoughts, the primeval thought in the mind of every man, is the thought ‘I’. It is only after the birth of this thought that any other thoughts can arise at all. It is only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen in the mind that the second personal pronoun, ‘you’, can make its appearance. If you could mentally follow the ‘I’ thread until it led you back to its source you would discover that, just as it is the first thought to appear, so it is the last to disappear. This is a matter which can be experienced.” Venkataraman Iyer, (AKA Śri Ramana Maharshi), South Indian Sage. “If we are not humble, if we arrogantly think we already know everything, and we think we are God (because the ego believes that it is God…) - that has to be humbled in order for us to realize that we really ARE God. But what we are is God who forgot it was God, and then creates an ego that pretends it is God. And so the ego of the false pretence that it’s already God must be ‘popped’, so that the Real God emerges.” Robert “Shunyamurti” Shubow, Sat Yoga Institute, Costa Rica.
Barbara Hemming Is Roger a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔 If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
Can't Thank you enough for sharing these videos in their entirety.🙏💕
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔
If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
Thank You so much for these so simple and trurhfull talks , I only read one of Ramesh Balsekar's book before hearing these beautifull and so clearly spoken thoughts , gratefully yours , Shanti
Such words cannot come without the backing of a guru! Every word feels like a nectar for which, ramesh was so programmed to be in greatest gratitude and total surrender towards his guru! If its a god's will, this only talk can lead to the ultimate!
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔
If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
A fundamental question is, will we ever have a mind body organism like Ramesh, someone who's concept is so simple and explained in such a manner that it goes straight to the heart. A sense of gratification and pleasure arises so powerful that it means nothing. This ego would love to meet someone like him/her 😅
Joke aside. Thank you Ramesh.
Thank you so much for going to the trouble to post this one. So excellent!!! Look very much forward to any new, for me, of Ramesh's talks like this one. TY TY TY
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔
If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
Audio improves at 3:01
Wonderful! Thanks a lot!
Bold, simple and amazingly clear!
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔
If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
Not sure it matters to me but nevertheless, always willing to be enlightened
@@devotionalsuja:
🐟 20. THE PRIESTHOOD:
A PRIEST (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit) is defined as a man who promulgates teachings and performs rituals on behalf of a particular religious or metaphysical tradition. He should possess all saintly qualities, such as cleanliness (which, as they say, is “next to godliness”), peacefulness, austerity, intelligence, wisdom, renunciation, tolerance, patience, humility, and of course, moral uprightness and religiosity. This does not imply that a priest must possess those virtues to a perfect extent, but he ought to have each quality to at least a reasonably-high degree.
Even if a man seems to be a genuine priest superficially, if he is severely lacking in even one of the clerical qualities, he cannot rightly be called a “priest”. Therefore, a dumb cleric or a dirty cleric does not, by definition, exist. As explained in the previous chapter, priests (in particular, the World Teacher) are the authoritative heads of society, thus virtue is paramount, so be wary of the multitude of PHONEY “priests” in the world!
There are literally hundreds of thousands of individuals in this world who claim to be religious leaders/teachers (“guru”, in Sanskrit). Most of them are either working-class guys, businessmen, or women, acting under pretence. However, as mentioned in the chapter distinguishing enlightenment from liberation and awakening (Chapter 17), a genuinely-enlightened spiritual preceptor is VERY rare indeed. Even some of the teachings of universally-recognized Avatars (men enlightened from a very young age) were far from accurate, what to speak of the teachings of lesser authorities! This lack of authentic spiritual guidance is the major reason for the decadent state of present-day society (and previous decadent societies), apart, perhaps, from the paucity of legitimate government leadership (see Chapter 22 regarding illegitimate governances).
It is crucial to note that a priest is not required to teach just anyone and everyone in his community. Traditionally, priests (at least those who are worthy of the title) were commissioned to teach two groups of MALES: the rulers of society (see the following chapter regarding the monarchy), and monastics (normally boys and adolescents) in his school (“gurukula”, in Sanskrit). Furthermore, it is imperative that priests assess the qualifications of each prospective disciple, such as the man's level of intelligence, sincerity, and humility, to ascertain his suitability as a student. As Lord Jesus so rightly suggested, one should desist giving what is holy to dogs (i.e. those who are hostile to righteous precepts).
A PERFECT analogy of why a priest should teach only the two aforementioned groups of males, is with any world-class musician. Arguably the greatest pianist in history was Franz Liszt Ferenc, an Hungarian virtuoso who lived in the nineteenth century. Not only did he tutor other concert pianists, but, just like priests, he did so at no monetary charge whatsoever. If he had taught novice musicians, he would have misused his valuable time, because his advanced students could have easily taught beginners (or at least have taught the teachers of those novices).
Contrary to popular understanding, the clergy not only teach religious studies, but all things necessary for living a healthy and happy life, such as languages, history, basic mathematics, hygiene, diet, and most especially, ethics/morality. If a particular student shows himself to NOT be inclined towards the life of a monastic, the guru will send him to another master, in order to be apprenticed in a different occupation, such as the military, business, engineering, medicine, accounting, labouring, etcetera. The modern system of schooling, in which every child is taught the same curriculum (and, invariably, indoctrinated into being a servile minion of the state) has been the source of much misery for society.
As explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the priest's disciples instruct, in turn, their OWN subordinates, including their wives and children. It is not practical, or even possible, for a clergyman to effectively teach every single individual in his community on a personal level. Fortunately, there is a system in place where all citizens may benefit of the teaching of a true priest (see Chapters 19 and 27).
On occasion, “God” (or to be more precise, The Impersonal Self, acting via the preordained narrative of this universe) gives specific messages via chosen individuals, whether they be priests or not. However, such messages are usually intended to be spoken to an individual, or group of individuals, with specific (and invariably, temporal) repercussions for those individuals in question. This is akin to the ancient lineage of prophetic figures found in monotheistic traditions. Such “prophets” can NEVER replace a man who has evolved (over millions of lifetimes?) to be a fully-enlightened saintly prophet, appointed to teach “truth” to humanity. Unfortunately, such World Teachers incarnate very rarely on earth, and when they do appear, are often assassinated by the illegitimate rulers of their nations, or by other demonic elements of society. Even the most vile political leaders have a certain proportion of the populace which adores them. However, virtually everyone despises the gentle, humble, holy men who dare speak the truth about the state of contemporary society, and point-out the multitude of sins extant.
The most HEINOUS action possible is to persecute a Prophet or World Teacher (“jagadguru”, in Sanskrit). Thus, exterminating thousands of workers is less sinful than murdering a World Teacher, because when a Prophet's mission is ended, or merely hampered by persecution, the whole of society suffers from lack of knowledge and direction. Only a wise person can find the logic in such a seemingly-audacious statement.
When the life of a World Teacher is constantly threatened, or he is assassinated (as in the case of so many great Prophets of the past, such as Lord Jesus Christ), society is likened to a chicken which runs directionless around the coop, just after its head has been severed. Unfortunately, the more we progress into this current dark epoch (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit), the more society's head (priests/prophets) are being persecuted, and soon there will be hardly any ACTUAL spiritual guides remaining on the planet. At that point in time, the end of humanity is assured.
So, to put it succinctly, there may be hundreds of thousands of “priests” on earth at a given time, yet there are only an EXTREMELY small number of true sages, who understand life definitively, and are both willing and able to lead others to self-realization (“adhyātma-vidyā", "ātma-jñana", or “brahma-jñana”, in Sanskrit). As a general rule, the greater number of disciples following a particular teacher, the more perverse and corrupt are his teachings, because the truth is very difficult to accept. Unfortunately, the typical person wants to hear predominately sentimental tenets, which gives him or her merely emotional solace. The current World Teacher has never had a true disciple, sad to say.
Many spiritual seekers, especially in the more esoteric paths, mistakenly believe that they have need of a guru ONLY until they’ve reached a certain level of enlightenment, or even that they have no need of a spiritual master at all. The main reason why every serious (male) religious practitioner (“yogi”, in Sanskrit) requires a teacher, is not so much to learn concepts, dogmas and rituals from his guru. The primary reason one needs a spiritual master, is so that he has a superior to serve, lest he devotes his life to self-serving pursuits. When a man is bereft of regular guidance from a master, he is most likely to stray from the path of righteousness (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). That explains why even Divine Incarnations (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) acknowledge their own masters with great reverence, and rarely, if ever, contradict or disobey them.
Cont…
It is perfectly permissible for a man to abandon his spiritual master in favour of a NEW guru, for any reason he chooses, but preferably because he has outgrown the dogmas and/or rituals taught by his former teacher. No genuine spiritual master will feel resentment towards another person for any reason whatsoever, including towards a former disciple who has forsaken him for a new priest.
A clergyman subsists ENTIRELY Providentially, that is, he must depend solely on contributions from his followers/congregation/disciples, unless, of course, he is able to support himself independently by growing his own food and making his own clothing, both of which may consume an inordinate amount of time. Unfortunately, however, this arrangement holds the distinct possibility of corrupting the teachings of the priest, since he may be reluctant to proclaim the bitter truth to his congregation, out of fear of them withholding their financial support from him.
Ideally, priests (that is, genuine spiritual teachers) ought to devote every available moment of their precious time to ministering to their communities. There is no such thing as a part-time priest, or even more ridiculously, working-class men who call themselves “priests” simply because one of their ancestors may have been a priest - something of a common occurrence in Bhārata (India).
“The BEST thing a person can do is be in the presence of a spiritual master.
The WORST thing one can do is consider the master to be an ordinary person”.
Franklin Jones (AKA Avatar Adi Da Samraj),
American Spiritual Master.
“There is no God and I am His Prophet.”
*************
“Gurus are very clever at putting you down, but they're just trying to see how strong you are.
They're testing you out to see if they can hoodwink you.
So long as they can, they're going to go on doing it till they get you to the point where they can't do it to you anymore.
Then you'll graduate.”
Professor Alan W. Watts,
British-American Philosopher.
@@TheWorldTeacherEnlighten me as well please.
thank you
My brother passed away in 1985, and a few days later I asked him if he still exist and I just can't see him... Lo and behold, The Bed Shook. I was very happy that he made a connection with me!!!
That's ridiculous
@@Tangentbordsblues 😂Thatst👌
Don’t believe everything you THINK. 😝
Have you consulted any psychiatrist there after?
He had perfectly perfect speaking.
"Marijuana is shanti" - I felt that xD
Lastimosamente no hablo ingles.
Espero puedan poner subtítulos para poder escuchar estas joyas.
❤️
🙏🏻🧡
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Здравия всем! Можно ли сделать перевод на русский?
19:00 nirvana in samsara.
Thanks for this video. This discourse is very intriguing. But, I am confused and have a question: If a thought is dropped by source/god into the Human Mind and when Human Mind attends to that thought and spins it's own thought which he considers his novel thought then should we forgive all those brutal Humans over the centuries who have done un-imaginable atrocities to fellow humans. If it's not his/her thoughts & actions rather triggered by a thought 'dropped' in just before he assumes it's thoughts, then how is that Human Mind/being responsible for that. I don't get this. I wish Mr. Balsekar was still around and could have asked this question.
Hi Ashwin, that is a very good question that I have stumbled upon several times myself. The answer to that question is;
Good and bad exists only in the level of ego. Hence, as Ramesh Balsekar puts himself; Ego creates a power entity in it's imagination which only does good and justice and names it 'GOD'. When crime does not fall in the definition of good, it contradicts the idea that GOD did it because God only does good deed. Therefore making it difficult to accept that every happening is according to the will of God. But a tiger eating a dog, a lion eating a deer, a chicken eating an insect, a car hitting and killing a baby and, a human being committing a crime cannot be possible without the will of God. 'Will' not in the same meaning we use it.
You can check out www.hellomadman.com
to talk about more of these things
@@RoohSafa Is God only an entity created by the ego or is there an actual God or supreme being
@@arjunprabhu6742 thank you for taking time to read my reply. There is the basic energy which we can call life, consciousness, GOD, supreme or whatever we name it that is functioning through each and every one of us. The same energy made you write the question and the same energy made me write the answers. So, to answer your question 'YES' there is god. However, it is not the same as how we think he is because whatever we think is based off of things we have seen, read, heard, or experienced all of which are past. And you cannot create an image of something that you do not know with help of something you know. So in conclusion, yes GOD exists but not in the same form as our imagination.
@@RoohSafa if the energy is making us do everything then how does the law of karma come into the picture ?
@@arjunprabhu6742 My understanding is that this body does not have any control over the two most important things that determine the entire course of your life; Genes from your parents and kind of environment that you were brought up in. Both of these are different from individual to individual resulting in all individual having their own concepts of what is wrong and what is right. So, it is the GOD through which the decision gets made as to what kind of Genes and environment that this body is provided or in other words 'according to the Karma of that body'. According to that the life gets lived. The bigger your Karma, the bigger your ego or the sense of personal doership, the bigger your suffering and the farther away one is from the realization or enlightenment.
Basically I look at this this way, let's imagine that the electricity is God and your body is a microwave. The bigger the Karma or ego or sense of personal doership, the more you think that you are the one responsible for all the actions that happens through your body that is; Microwave. When all the Karmas is played out, which is again not in your hands, the realization happens that you were never responsible for the actions that happened through the Microwave, it was always the electricity that was responsible for all the actions. And you were never the entity that you thought you were, you were always the electricity (GOD) that is not only responsible for the actions in one body but all the bodies.
Thank you
Splendid
Большое спасибо за русский перевод 🙏😘
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Interesting. People like Tony Parsons, Bernadette Roberts, Jim Newman, and many, many youngsters now here on UA-cam, say that the "I AM" is still division, and that that self which is conscious of itself, is what falls away. In other words, the "I AM" may be an improvement, but it's also rooted in identification with a presumption ... I am here. I exist etc.
47:50 , 1:20:45
Alħamdu lillāhi rabbil Ꜥālamīna, All the praises and thanks be to God who is the Lord of the universe" . lā ḥawla wa lā quwwata illā billāh (In Arabic written as "لا حول ولاقوة إلا بالله") which is usually translated as "There is no might nor power except in Allah." All names belong to GOD
sudhir j
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity.🤓
It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
Maharaj said god serves him , god serves parambrahma which is the absolute .
जब मैं था तब हरि नहीं अब हरि है मैं नाहीं ।
प्रेम गली अति सांकरी जामें दो न समाहीं ॥
Aham Brahmasmi ! I am God But the best part is i have never ever seen my own face. Of course i have seen the mirror images and photos. But some how i am unable to see my self. Can that be why i cannot see God? Of course there is no personal God. God does not belong to us we belong to God. To be able to see God we have to see our own face i.e. recognise who we are!!! As Kabir say i have to lose myself to realise God. There is only ONE GOD and to see him i have to see my own face first. The face i had before i was born. Hope i am making sense at least to some people!
Thank you 🙏
Yes.
if human is consciousness,then what is life force ,mind and ego ?
Vishnu, what is this “EGO” of which you speak? 🤔
@@TheWorldTeacher ego means I am everything, I achieve everything.
@@vishnuvidyarthi6961 that’s a VERY bizarre “definition” of the word. 🙄☝️🙄
@@TheWorldTeacher That is your perception. Since you were not clear about Ego you sought my help. I know what I know. Your disagreement makes no difference to me.
Bhuddist term for horrors . dukkha-a Pali word commonly translated as “suffering”
Yes, that was a great elucidation on the word Dukkha. Previously i thought it meant the inability to find satisfaction in phenomenal things.. desires and so on..
I like the meaning of horrors much better. More of a visceral strength to it, more true to the existential situation. Emphasizes the terror end of the spectrum.
17:51 Marijuana is shanti😁
Please translate in spanish, please, translate al teachings of master ramesh, please, please
Jordi Falco
🐟 02. UNA BREVE EXPLICACIÓN DE LA “VIDA”:
Todo, tanto visible como invisible, es lo que la mayoría de las personas llaman "Dios".
Dios REAL es la Nada Absoluta Impersonal (también llamada "Tao", "El Gran Espíritu", "Brahman", "Conciencia Pura", "Conciencia Eterna", "Existencia Independiente", "La Base del Ser", etcétera).
"Dios" es una realidad, pero así como un cuchillo no puede cortarse solo, o el fuego no puede quemarse, "Dios" no puede conocerse a sí mismo (o al menos EXPERIMENTAR a sí mismo), y así, ha manifestado este universo fenomenal dentro de sí mismo. Por lo tanto, este mundo de dualidad es realmente solo un juego de conciencia dentro de la Conciencia.
Aparentemente, este universo fenomenal fue "creado" (dentro de la Conciencia) con el acto inicial (el llamado "Big Bang"), y desde ese primer hecho, cada acción que ha ocurrido ha sido un resultado directo o indirecto. Así como cada partícula de materia en el universo estuvo alguna vez contenida en la "singularidad", la Conciencia Infinita estaba NECESARIAMENTE presente en el Big Bang, y de ninguna manera es un epifenómeno de una red neuronal.
"Sarvam khalvidam brahma" ("todo esto es de hecho Brahman"). ¡Hay UNO SINO pero Eterno, Consciencia, Paz!
Por lo tanto, los humanos son el resultado de esa manifestación inicial. Esa es la verdadera explicación del "karma": todo estaba predeterminado de la chispa inicial (o, para ser más precisos, predeterminado en la ETERNIDAD).
Cualquier estado en el que nos encontremos actualmente es el resultado de dos factores: nuestra composición genética en la concepción y nuestro condicionamiento de la vida presente. Cada elección hecha por cada humano (y animal no humano) fue determinada solo por esos dos factores, por lo que el libre albedrío es puramente ilusorio, a pesar de lo que la mayoría cree.
Debido a que estamos residiendo temporalmente en este universo dualista, experimentamos tanto placer como dolor.
Sufrimiento y dolor NO son sinónimos.
El sufrimiento se debe a un falso sentido de conducta personal: la creencia de que uno es un autor separado e independiente de sus pensamientos y acciones.
Hay cinco manifestaciones de sufrimiento:
1. culpa
2. Culpa
3. Orgullo
4. Preocupación / Ansiedad
5. Lamenta el pasado y las expectativas para el futuro / Adjunto a los resultados
Estos tipos de sufrimiento son el resultado de no comprender adecuadamente lo que se explicó anteriormente: que la vida es una serie de acontecimientos y NO causada por los seres vivos individuales. Ninguna criatura viviente, incluidos nosotros los humanos, tiene libre albedrío personal. Solo está en juego la Voluntad Divina Universal, actuando a través de cada cuerpo, a la que William Shakespeare aludió cuando escribió "Todo el mundo es un escenario, y todos los hombres y mujeres son meramente jugadores".
El organismo humano es simplemente una máquina biológica, compuesta por los cinco elementos materiales brutos y los tres elementos materiales sutiles.
Entonces, ahora que entiendes la vida y la razón por la que estamos sufriendo aquí en este universo (supuestamente) material, ahora puedes liberarte de todas las formas de sufrimiento, ¿verdad?
¡INCORRECTO! Es imperativo encontrar un maestro espiritual auténtico que lo ayude a llegar a la realización anterior, deshaciendo lentamente su condicionamiento pasado.
Incluso si sigues a un maestro competente, es posible que aún no llegues a una comprensión completa de la vida, pero si eres sincero, humilde y dedicado, definitivamente encontrarás más paz en tu vida diaria (todo lo cual fue DESTINO que ocurrió, por ejemplo). curso). Además, si fue ordenado, puede tener la suerte de aceptar la disciplina de un maestro verdaderamente iluminado, y posteriormente darse cuenta de los conceptos fundamentales antes mencionados mediante la práctica de al menos uno de los cuatro sistemas de yoga (religión) descritos en la Sagrada Escritura, "A Hoja final de instrucciones para la humanidad ".
"El significado de la vida es la vida misma".
*************
"Los gurús son muy inteligentes para despreciarte, pero solo intentan ver qué tan fuerte eres".
Te están probando para ver si pueden engañarte.
Mientras puedan, seguirán haciéndolo hasta que lo lleven al punto en que ya no puedan hacerlo.
Entonces te graduarás ".
Profesor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts,
Filósofo inglés
(06/01/1915 - 16/11/1973).
"Lo que buscas te está buscando."
Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī
Poeta musulmán persa sunita, jurista, erudito islámico, teólogo y místico sufí,
(30/09/1207 - 17/12/1273).
But saint Gyaneshwar has a different view of enlightenment.
Was Ramesh a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔
If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
The man! (but man is an idea?)
swingtrade2
No.
🐟 10. EGO (THE “I” THOUGHT):
The Latin pronoun "EGO" is one of the most misused words in the English language, especially in spiritual circles, where it is used as a noun, although it is a poor translation of the Sanskrit "ahaṃkāra", which is more accurately a verb.
"Ahaṃ" simply means "I/Ego", and "ahaṃkāra" means "Creating the I/self" or "Activating the sense of self".
As an aside, some Sanskrit scholars have noticed that the word "ahaṃ" is formed of a+ha+ṃ, a triad of Śiva (a), Śakti (ha) and bindu (ṃ). The whole Sanskrit alphabet is enclosed by those two syllables, just as the Greek tongue begins and ends with "alpha" and "omega", respectively. "I am the Alpha and the Omega!", said God in the book of Revelations. The palindrome of "ahaṃ" is "mahā", meaning "GREAT".
False egoity (ahaṃkāra) is an errant conception of oneself. In other words, it is the idea that “I am an independent agent, with the volition to freely think, feel and behave as I choose”, instead of simply an unqualified “I AM” (”ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit) or at the very least, “I am all-encompassing existence” (”ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit).
The most accurate definition of "Ego/I" is: "the self, which is a conscious PERSON". A human person is the Stainless Consciousness of Source acting through a particular body-mind complex (which in turn is an ever-morphing biological organism).
Therefore, whenever the word "ego" is heard in practically any spiritual/religious context, it is not to be taken literally ("I") but in the sense of "ahaṃkāra" (an exaggerated sense of self-importance).
So, when the true self (which is Brahman, the TOTALITY of existence) misidentifies itself with the temporal body-mind, it is "false ego" (ahaṃkāra) but when the self/Self identifies with Conscious Awareness (Brahman), acting through the body-mind organism, it is the "real ego" (”ātmana/Paramātmana”, in Sanskrit).
Humans usually believe that they are the body-mind organism. Those who have awakened (or at least spiritually aware) consider themselves to NOT be their body-mind. One who is truly enlightened knows for certain that he is both a human being on the relative level, but quintessentially the very ground of being in the Absolute sense. When properly analysed, the phrase "I am Spirit" or "I am All" (”ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit) means "I, the ego (the relative persona) am Nothing/Everything/All/Brahman/Tao/Spirit (the Absolute Ground of Being)”.
Finally, it could be argued, with some degree of merit, that since the English language already has a word for oneself ("I"), that we ought to keep using the ENGLISH dictionary definition of "ego" (as the false sense of oneself). However, because the great majority of advanced religionists and spiritual practitioners outside Bhārata (India) who speak of these concepts, base their language on Sanskrit and/or Pali, it is far more accurate to separate "ego" (ahaṃ) from "false egoity" (ahaṃkāra). The literal translation should be paramount, to avoid ambiguity.
“The first and foremost of all thoughts, the primeval thought in the mind of every man, is the thought ‘I’. It is only after the birth of this thought that any other thoughts can arise at all. It is only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen in the mind that the second personal pronoun, ‘you’, can make its appearance. If you could mentally follow the ‘I’ thread until it led you back to its source you would discover that, just as it is the first thought to appear, so it is the last to disappear. This is a matter which can be experienced.”
Venkataraman Iyer,
(AKA Śri Ramana Maharshi),
South Indian Sage.
“If we are not humble, if we arrogantly think we already know everything, and we think we are God (because the ego believes that it is God…) - that has to be humbled in order for us to realize that we really ARE God.
But what we are is God who forgot it was God, and then creates an ego that pretends it is God. And so the ego of the false pretence that it’s already God must be ‘popped’, so that the Real God emerges.”
Robert “Shunyamurti” Shubow,
Sat Yoga Institute, Costa Rica.
@@TheWorldTeacher come join us on Roger Castillo Unofficial Discord
Barbara Hemming
Is Roger a spiritual teacher or a spiritual MASTER? 🤔
If you are uncertain of the distinction between the two, I shall be MORE than happy to enlighten you. 😇
The words under the video don't have the proper correspondence with the spoken words.
From to 4:30 minutes, captions are matching
Thank you.
Bad sound.
You didn't stick around long enough 😉