Why the same dream?

[Greg Goode]

At 09:16 PM 12/2/97 +0100, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

[...]

>understood as contradicting this one fundamental idea. Ever. Sorry if I
>might appear some time to contradict this, maybe my English is far from
>good enough.

I beg to differ -- you English is QUITE good!

>But this does not imply that Consciousness is necessarily at rest. It can
>be active.

As you know, this is only a model, and the only time, according to
Balsekar, that Consciousness-at-rest exists w/o Consciousness-in-motion is
when there are no concious beings in existence.  Otherwise (I am guessing
here) Consciousness-at-rest is the substratum, underneath or behind
whatever consciousness is in motion.  To be sure on that one, I'd have to
check with Ramesh.

   (BTW, Ramesh is going to be in Germany near Munich,
    from June 16 thru June 30. With him will be those
    of his disciples he has authorized to teach:
    Wayne Liquorman, Marc & Margarete (don't know the
    last name), and a newly-authorized teacher,
    first name Elke.)

>The problem starts in the experiencing.

Why is there a problem at all?  Sounds like you're understanding this
teaching pretty well.  Maybe I don't get what the intellectual conflict is.
 Can you boil it down to 2 sentences, like (A) seems to contradict (B) or
something like that...

>Unluckily, Sankara´s dream was not my (Miguel Angel´s) dream. I wish it
>were not like this. I wish there was only one dream, only one universal
>experiencing. Then I would cease to feel any responsibility for this my
>particular dream. But, to my knowledge, there has not ever been a sage who
>has not insisted on the disciples´ responsibility, earnestness, sadhana or
>whatever you call it.

Ramesh, Wayne Liquorman, and another modern teacher named Satyem Nadeen
(also from the Ramesh/Nisargadatta branch of teaching) all say that there
is nothing that can be done.  Maybe you've seen parts where Ramesh says
something else too.  But his highest teaching is that there is in reality
no personal entity that can do anything, so of course there's no
responsibility.  This is not a teaching that he comes right out with; it's
a lot deeper.  Part of the reason is that it can appear morally repugnant
to a lot of seekers.  And I myself have been at talks where people have
been shocked by this teaching!

--Greg