"What is the significance of the statement 'No one can get enlightenment'? This is the very root of the teaching. It means that it's stupid for any so-called master to ask anyone to do anything to achieve or get enlightenment. The core of this simple statement means, according to my concept, that enlightenment is the annihilation of the "one" who "wants" enlightenment. If there is enlightenment - which can only happen because it is the will of God - then it means the "one" who had earlier wanted enlightenment has been annihilated. So no "one" can achieve enlightenment and therefore no "one" can enjoy enlightenment."

"The joke is even the surrendering is not in your control. Why? Because so long as there is an individual who says "I surrender" there is a surrenderer, an individual ego... What I'm saying is that even the surrendering is not in [your] hands."

("Who cares?", pp. 6 - 22)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Balsekar

AIM_FREEMAN: dobre, zkoncime debatu dnes vecer. stejne nas ta debata tady cekala. to co pises jenom potvrzuje moji dhyanovou teorii a teorii cisteni hlavove cakry, a tvoji teorii pripoutanosti, hh. 10 let a jsme stale tady. za sebe rikam ze mam 100 % jasno, pokud mas jasno i ty, dobre pro tebe. pokud by ti nebylo neco jasneho, vysvetleni je v textech, zbytek je praxe ktera to vyjasnuje, realizuje. Kez bych mel tak jasno pred 10 lety, mohl jsem se vyvarovat spousty zbytecnosti, ale ty zkusenosti maji vahu toho co vim ze je podstatne dnes. pokud se tyka (tvoji) praxe jogy, tak plati, ze gram praxe je vic nez deset tun teorie. a ja ti preji hodne praxe :) sobe taky, nebot praxe je odmena za to ze rozumis, jinak se neda praktikovat.

GILRAEN: pokud se to stalo, musis si proste zacit verit. tak se to resi a vyresi. krome lasky je to jediny zpusob jak z toho vyjit.