Entretien de Roland avec Swamiji 2-11-1966

Entretien complet enregistré en anglais de Roland avec Swamiji à Bourg la reine le 2 novembre 1966
Emotion de Roland au sujet d’une dédicace de Arnaud avec la transcription faite par Daniel
Dédicace d’Arnaud qui se trouve à la fin du message des Tibétains dans la premier édition de 1966
Entretien de Roland avec Swamiji à Bourg la reine le 2 novembre 1966
Emotion de Roland au sujet d’une dédicace de Arnaud
ROLAND’S EMOTION ON ARNAUD’BOOK

Bourg-La-Reine November 2 1966
R. Thinking of our previous sitting, when we take a day-to-day emotion, we can try to find out the cause of this effect, but the body is refusing very often to find out the cause. When I am in emotion, I have a lot of work to do, to go through it and often the answer I get is still in defence of my body. It is not necessarily the good reason and the root of it.

And at the same time, I think that when we try to convince ourselves of the law of Truth, this is another process of changing the root, if I may say so, of the tree. If we go directly to the root of ourselves, that is to say, to this root of truth, and if we can recognize it and see it, then the effect on the tree itself, on ourselves is much stronger or more effective in time. It is badly expressed…

S. Not very clear… not very clear.

R. No. In other words, when we try to change, often it seems to me that it is on the small manifestation of day-to-day that we are trying to act, whereas the awareness has more effect on the root of the tree itself.

I come to this, because Svâmiji took the example of Pierre, trying to know why he is smoking or not. I am always afraid that if I take a problem like this, tomorrow another one will come, and that will never end. Because like in the tree, leaves will grow again, new ones will come, and so on and so forth. While in the root itself… the consciousness of the very root of life will change something.

And now to come to an example, I have not taken very often with Svâmiji, on myself: I noticed for example that, it is a small detail, but it is something I can’t understand in myself, if I may say so. When I read the book of Arnaud, I was very surprised of the very last paragraph, which is a letter from Arnaud. He wrote: «I have a guru and that is more than anything to me. » And I noticed a very deep, I could say, emotion in myself. I couldn’t explain why. And I noticed… really, I couldn’t find out the reason for that. I feel the same way as Arnaud, no doubt, but this is the tendency I have, to be surprised by the event and then to feel a very deep feeling. I some other cases for example, if I go to a lecture, and the lecturer is speaking very well, I come into emotion at a certain moment and I can’t explain why. So, I try to relate this sort of emotion to something, which is difficult to understand, and which is only a small manifestation of myself, like the leaf of the tree. And, well, it is just an example to see if it is possible to go through an emotion like this and to see what is the cause of it or is it not?

S. Yes. Now, quite all right. About the second point, as you said, the thing is that Arnaud after finishing the book came to Svâmiji, and he said:

– I want to dedicate the book.

–  Why?

–  Because whatever I got from the Tibetans and so on…

And also, before that, he discussed so many points, which he got from them. And these were not clear to him. And he had all those things cleared by Svâmiji. Sometimes some portion… practically, he wrote which he got from Svâmiji. Something like that. And so he says that:

–  Intellectually I try to understand whatever the lamas said.

 But intellectually grasps no doubt. But… as Mahâyanas, Hinâyanas and so on and so forth, as the nature of guru and saints and these things and so on. He asked so many questions, about mandalas and so… about tantras and…

–  I don’t understand all those points… Though I got them, but I had understood from Svâmiji. And I have got the insight from Svâmiji, so I want to dedicate the book.

–  Oh! What is there? What is the use for it? Whatever you got from Svâmiji is used. All right. But you have got that from them. You can dedicate to them. Otherwise…

–  No, I cannot but… I cannot rest.

 So, after so much talk Svâmiji felt… Svâmiji tried to dissuade him. But he was so very in feeling and after that:

– Quite all right, then. You can do it.

And Sonam was the interpreter. He came here also for a month. He lived with Arnaud. He was the interpreter of the Indian government. And he was the personal assistant of Dalai Lama. And he was deputed to Arnaud, to accompany to the Tibetans. And he was the interpreter between lamas and Arnaud. So, he was so close, so he did…

R. Yes, that was very nice. And, well, I have nothing to say against it. On the contrary, I feel that book is very, very good. I could recognize Svâmiji ‘s teaching in many parts, if I may say so, and then this was a real pleasure to me, to see the dedication. The words are just beautiful. The reason why I took this example is because the emotion I got is a pleasure emotion, but still, it is an emotion.

S. Practically, word by word, he told Svâmiji that he wants to write this

– Quite all right.

– And so, I am satisfied. I am happy.

– Quite all right. Do it.

Now the point is… one formula you may say: as above so below. There is nothing separate anywhere. And what is in a particle is in the whole. What is in the whole is in the particle. There is no difference. So, if you can study a leaf, you can know the tree. But if you want to know the tree and uproot the tree or destroy the tree, you go on cutting leaves and go on cutting and other leaves will come! So, in order to do that, you are to know where this tree stands. And remove that. So, the tree is removed.

Similarly, in the case of emotions. One emotion you can take. And if you can find out the nature of one emotion, then you can know the nature of all emotions. Because the law that acts, in emotion as such, is applicable to all emotions.

As for example, sample as you take. You examine a sample of anything, and you say: «Oh! This thing is like that. » As for example, you are preparing macaroni or rice. It is boiling and: «Oh! » You take one or two, you say: «Oh! Yes! Finished. » How can you say? You examine only one, or two and how can you say of the whole?

R. By analogy, because you know the rule which applies to all that.

S. Because you see the whole thing is under water… in water. And that water is under certain temperature. And that temperature is working throughout the water. And whatever is in the water must be in that temperature. So, one portion is the result of that temperature, another portion is the result of that particular temperature and another of that particular… So, the whole thing is the result of that temperature. So, if you take one, you… finished.

Similarly, take another example, the chemical examination of seawater. Quite all right. What the chemist will do? Seawater…

R. Just take a sample.

S. Where from he will get the water?

R. Well, an average sample from various parts to make sure that…

S. Any seawater he will take. Anywhere he takes seawater. You can say: «How can it be? You take the seawater just now, here, and sea is so vast! You are not taking samples from so many points! How can that be? » Scientists say: «Yes, I have analysed this water and the analysis… the result of the analysis shows any water for any portion of the sea. Why? Because that water is everywhere. It is only a sample. »

R. Yes. I agree. But what I wanted to say is that the root takes its food from something. And this food, if it is truth, then it will change something in the tree.

S. So, a tree has got several leaves, flowers, fruits and the branches and so on and so forth. So many manifestations! But what is that? What are these manifestations for? What these manifestations represent? Everything the tree takes, the sap from the water, from the ground… That sap comes in. And that sap transforms into so many things! So, wherever you see, you see that sap only. In the leaf is that sap only, in the root is that sap only. Only that sap! Nothing else. So, if you analyse this sap, and if you analyse the character of anything of the tree, that will be the same. So, if you come to that, you can find out right.

Similarly, emotion. You say: «Oh! One emotion, I see! Oh! Another emotion will come. Oh! Another emotion will come! Oh! Another emotion will come! So, there is no end. » This is your question. «There is no end? » No, there is an end. Why? Take any emotion.

Similarly, in the case of emotions.  One emotion you can take.   Why? Take any emotion.

And as you say, if you try to judge, try to know the nature of emotion, you get struggle. No. When the emotion is there, how to…? You are in emotion. You cannot reason then. If you go to reason, there will be struggle. No. When the emotion is there, allow the emotion to work. Let it work itself out. And when you become peaceful, without emotion, then you ask: «Now, what is this emotion? » If you want to see and examine anything, you and that thing must be separate. Otherwise, you cannot examine… If you want to examine emotions, you must be separate from emotions. Within emotions you cannot examine emotions.

As for example, drama is taking place, those who are acting in the drama; do they know how the drama is taking place? Do they know?

R. They are in it, yes. The emotions are for the people who are looking

S. Ah! The emotion, audience will say. They are separate from the drama. So, one can examine and talk of and do anything, about anything, when one is separate from it. When one is in it, he cannot do. So, when you are in emotion, you cannot judge emotion, you cannot do anything about emotion. You are in emotion. So, let emotion go… function! Let it vanish! And then you see: «Oh! What was the emotion for? I got that emotion. Yes. You can very easily see the emotion now: «How was that? Now what is emotion? What is the nature of emotion? What is the nature, not emotion, of this emotion? »

 R. Yes, I agree, but that is why, that is where I just can’t go further. It may be childish in a way…

 S. No. Come. You can very easily do it. Svâmiji told you so many times. Emotion is nothing but the feeling aspect of thought. And so, if you want to know emotion, you must know thought. If you want to know the nature of emotion, you must know the nature of thought. Because emotion is nothing but the feeling aspect of thought. So, if you can know the nature of thought, you can very easily see the nature of emotion. So, what is the nature of thought? What is thinking? Thinking is nothing but going away from what is.

R. Yes. And this I try to apply in this case…

S. Apply that. You are in anger. Some emotion: Oh! Anger! Yes. Now while you are in anger, try to see what is this anger! You can’t do that. So, you cry aloud, you strike, you do anything. Express anger. Now anger subsides. You say: «Oh! Now, what is this anger for? What is the content of anger? Oh! Something happened, which I did not like! »

R. Or it could be that something happened that I like very much.

S. You cannot be angry. You can have another emotion.

R. Yes, I can have emotion. In the example I took… When I read this, I was very much surprised. And then I feel, well, like Arnaud, very thankful to Svâmiji. And then, emotion came. Well, why this emotion? Only words will lead to emotion.

S. Yes. What is this emotion? Come on. What is this emotion?

R. Well, Svâmiji just said that this emotion comes from a thought, which is…

S. Arnaud wrote some words. And by reading that, you have got emotion. Why this emotion? See why this emotion? Arnaud wrote something. There is something written in the book. That’s all. And nothing else. As for example, you have got that emotion. Take another man, and another man: «Nonsense he has written. What is it? Nothing. »

R. Oh! I know that the problem is in myself. No doubt.

S. So, it is a problem with yourself. Emotion comes as you take it. Book is the book. Do you see then? You don’t see what is written.  But you take it in your own light. You take it in your own light. Not the words only…

R. No, I agree. But what is the own light, so that I just can’t control? Even if I did, that wouldn’t stop me from being in that emotion.

S. Yes. So, what is the source of emotion? You get the emotion. This is positive emotion, you have got. Positive emotion means, that you saw that and actually it agreed… it coincided with your liking, with your attitude and you get the emotion.

R. So, this coincidence is… How is it that it makes a sort of emotion?

S. Because it touches you somewhere. You don’t see the writing only, as soon as you see the writing, something in you is fired or excited. And you see that… So, you don’t see the writing only…

R. No, I know. But this example may be considered as a small one, but it’s indicative of something in me.

S. Yes, exactly. Take it. Why the emotion? Because the words written in the book… Words are written, words are words. The meaning is this… the meaning is this. Yes. If you say: «Oh! Yes, this man. Yes. He is writing like that. Oh! Yes. He got everything from… he got something from my teacher or guru, Svâmiji and he writes that. Oh! Yes…He has got this connection. So, he didn’t dedicate to the lamas, he dedicated to his guru. Yes. Any emotion?

R. No. I agree…

S. No emotion. Now when emotion comes? You read… As soon as you read it, something in you is stirred. And you see those things in that light. And so, emotion came.

R. But that sort of projection of myself…

S. Exactly. Projection of yourself there.

R…. has roots somewhere.

S. Always…

R. And this root… the interest of the analysis, that is to say, to find out the root of it, will help me to know a bit more about my…

S. So, what is this? What is this there? What is the emotion? What is the nature of emotion? «I projected something in me there. I took the meaning in my own light. »

R. That is to say, that it is something in analogy, in what I’ve read and what I feel…

S…. feel within.  So, what you have read, you have not read that. You have read that, but you took it to be something which is your own… that is not that.

R. I agree, but I can say reading the book: “Yes, I am so happy that he has expressed it so nicely.” Yes, I can say so. But what I try to understand is why this expression of feeling so deeply, which is in some cases difficult to control. And I say: «Well, it is abnormal. »

S. Because the identification is so strong, that is why. Your identification with all those words is so intimate, so…

R. Yes, but that may be also that I have too much consideration for my own point of view. Maybe…

S. Yes. That is so.

R. Because I remember…

S. And you get it there. And so: “Oh! It is mine!”

R. Because I remember the same feeling when I left Channa. I was very merged in emotion. I couldn’t even speak, and I will remember that Mamie came to say good-bye to me and I walked for a long time. Svâmiji sees Channa, the long distance you can see the ashram, I saw Mamie… well, I couldn’t speak for a while.

S. Now again. Take it. Channa ashram is ashram! That’s all. Because you didn’t take the ashram, the cottages… and Svâmiji there only objectively, as it is called. But you took it subjectively. Subjective meaning: in your own colour, attitude… That’s all. And that produces emotion.

R. Yes, but why do I take it as my own colour? To such a point, which brings me to emotion and stops me to see things as they are?

S. Oh! Because you are coloured in such a way. You are now in that colour. So, whenever you get that colour, you get excited, you get emotions. You are in that colour now, so, you cannot but do it…

R. Yes, I know, that is a fact. But that is a fact just now and if I want to be balanced and to be unified in myself, I have to try to find out the causes of these emotions so that a change will take place in me.

S. Cause is this… What is the cause?

R. That’s what I’m looking for.

S. What is the cause? Cause is this, that you didn’t see the thing as it is, but you took it in some other way. That is the cause.

R. Well, in other words, it’s related to the sitting we had the other day, that is to say, I just can’t believe the good luck I have to be just one of the very few who knows Svâmiji. And that is something, which make me compare to others, no doubt.

S. Yes. Do it. So, ultimately it comes where?

R. The fact that I am putting sense of value on myself…

S. Yes. There you are. And this thought produces emotion. And another sense of value will produce another emotion. So, emotion as such is this, that it comes out of some thought, which takes you from the object… takes you elsewhere or somewhere else, from where you are. This is the root cause. The principle is that emotion comes from your thinking about something. That is to say,emotion comes about your taking a thing not as it is, but to be something else. And that something else depends upon your attitude. That’s all. Anywhere, positive, negative. That is so.

R. In other words, it is sort of a judgement on myself.

S. Yes. Ah! So, you are judging anything according to yourself, not according to that thing itself. There you are. Take it negatively… so long as you cannot see a thing as it is, you will get emotions. And if you want to be free from emotions, try to see a thing as it is, and you will be free from emotions. How to see? You see the emotion and see the nature of emotion and you at once say: «Oh! Now, emotion is there. That is to say, I didn’t take the thing as it is. But I have taken it something else. What is this? What is the thing? And what I take? Let me see. » So, as soon as you see: «Oh! That’s all right. »Take other examples, the same. This one: what is this? A watch. «Oh! Very beautiful watch! Oh! This is exactly as my grandfather’s watch. Oh! Very nice! » Why this emotion? A watch is a watch. Why this: «Oh! Very nice! » Because he doesn’t see this watch. As soon as his eyes fall on this watch, at once he goes to his grandfather’s watch. And he sees his grandfather’s watch. «Oh! » What is this emotion?

R. Yes. It’s his own emotion, his own colouring.

S. Own colouring. “This is my grandfather’s watch.” At once, he takes not this watch. And it becomes emotion. Similarly, about that writing this, you have got that emotion. Another man will write: «How sentimental the man is! » Another emotion!

R. Yes, I agree on that, but I try, and I found very difficult to find out the reason why … because maybe I am sentimental?

S. Now you try to find out the reason. You have got the clue. «So, I must have been moved because I was… I saw rather, exactly my feelings there. So, I moved. Why this emotion? Because I saw my feelings there. So, I didn’t see these things only. As soon as I saw that, I saw in them my feelings, my attitudes, my love. So, it comes. » So, try to see it… judge it and feel for it. So, the feeling and emotion: the difference. Feeling comes when you see and recognize and understand a thing as it is.

R. And that is of course the thing, which has to be done. That is to say, go very deeply but seeing things as they are. The emotion is related no doubt, to what I said to Svâmiji just now: a sort of judgement…, which is the same sense of value, which must be just checked by the law of comparison.

S. Yes. So, again, because you are in the comparison, so the emotion came. And comparison is useless, as you don’t see things as they are.  Again, anyway you come, and you shall find here, so you can say: «Oh! Now emotion is nothing but a warning! »

R. Yes, all that I quite understand. The fact is that why this comparison in fact? We could still go deeper maybe to find out the reason why?

S. Why? Why this comparison? There your comparison comes because you don’t take yourself as you are. You feel inferior, superior, and so on and so forth. So, comparison comes, and emotion comes. Yes. Emotion comes. Because you are what you are. But in comparison with another: «Oh! He has done that! I have not! Oh! » You feel inferior! Oh! Emotion! What do you do here? You take yourself not as you are. But you wanted to take yourself to be something else, which you do not find. So, you get emotion. So, if you take yourself as you are: no emotion.

As for example, you have done something: «Oh! Nonsense! I should have not done that! Oh! Everything has been destroyed… I shouldn’t have done that! Oh! Oh! » Depressed… depression. Why this depression? «I should not have done such a thing! »

R. Yes, well, that is clear to me. I don’t refuse that, that I, at that moment, had this emotion. I don’t…

S. See the nature of emotion you had!

R. In that case it is not because I have not written that myself. It’s only that I was, first of all, surprised by this final, which I didn’t expect. But I felt very deeply in emotion, reading that.

S. What is the nature of emotion? Just see.

R. Yes, well, I think that I have found out that it was related to what I said to Svâmiji yesterday, how is it that Svâmiji came for just a few of us and I am with them, proud to be with them and so on and so for. Well, this is judgement of myself, better or not better. But at the same time, what is my state at that moment, I mean, I am not better or worse…?

S. Quite all right. What is the nature of emotion, just now? How do you feel?

R. I feel very… in excessive, not controlled expression of my feeling.

S. Yes. What is the content of that?

R. A sort of sense of value on myself, no doubt.

S. Yes. Now, what is that? What sense of value you got?

R. Well, I don’t know if it is that I felt…

S. Just you have got the emotion. Why don’t you…? You know it.

R. I should.

S. Oh! Yes! Come one. You feel the emotion. Now how do you feel? Now what was the thought behind it? Come on. What was the thought behind that emotion?

R. May be that…

S. Not may be. But what is, what was…

R. I felt that he expressed to everyone the feeling he had about Svâmiji. And that I was with him in this boat if I may say so.

S. Then he expressed, no doubt. But what is that to you? You have got same feeling, quite all right. Then? Come on.

R. Then I fully agreed with that, but it’s not enough to be in emotion.

S. Why not?

R. Because this emotion is very…

S. Because you were surprised in a way. Ah! That is to say, what is the meaning of surprise? He expressed…

R…. not prepared…

S. Ah! Not prepared to see your feeling there.  Ah! Again, you come here. He expressed. Quite all right. He expressed his feeling. But you saw your feeling there. And you were surprised: «How? How can it be? » As if something impossible, something miraculous has happened. Because he expressed, but you found your expression. «And so, how can it be? How can he express my feeling? Oh! » Surprised. So, you see, you took not his feeling, but you took your feeling there. And you felt that: «My feeling cannot be expressed there. But it was expressed there!  Oh! Then? That is a strange thing! » That is emotion! Because there you didn’t see his expression, but you feel your expression. And because it is expressed there and you have not expressed, it was expressed by another, so you are surprised. «Oh! How can it be that my feelings are expressed over there? » So, what is here? Some expression is expressed there. Some feeling is expressed there. That is a fact.  You don’t see that fact. You see your own expression and you felt: «Oh! How can my impression be there? » So, emotion came.

R. Yes. But not knowing me, but knowing the reaction I have, we could call a sort of sentimental expression. I noticed that I had a sort of deep manifestation of this emotion for myself and, when you live in society, you find that it is all childish…

S. Yes. But you don’t disown it.

R. What is disown?

S. Disown meaning: don’t say «it is not mine».

R. Oh! Yes. “It’s not mine… “

S. «It is mine, yes. It is there. I know. Yes. »

R. Yes. So, in order that this expression will not come again, I have to find out the root of it.

S. What is the root? Come on. Here?

R. The root is sense of value.

S. Sense of value. That is to say, again you don’t take a thing as it is. You take something else.

R. Because I take me as an entity. Yes, it must be that…

S. Arnaud expressed. You don’t say: «Arnaud expressed». You take it to be your expression. So, you are surprised. Emotion. It is that which is being expressed by Arnaud. That’s all right. Arnaud has expressed so beautifully his emotion! Yes. If you say like that: «Oh! How beautifully he has expressed himself! Very nice. » You are feeling identification, oneness with him. But when you are feeling it, you don’t see: «Arnaud has expressed». You see as if: «I have expressed it. It is my language, as it is. It is my emotion as it is. » So, you are in emotion. Is it clear now?

R. Yes, I understand it. I think it is clear. But how is it that this deep feeling comes with my character so, not so easily because this is…

S. So, that is to be found out. But that is so. Why? Then again you are to go deeper. Yes.

R. I will try…

S. And try to take things as they are. Ultimate thing is here. Ultimately you will come here. Try to take yourself as you are. Don’t take anything else. If you try to take anything else, there will be emotion. Emotion of weakness, you will say: «Oh! This is my weakness, what can I do? » Oh! How can you say that?

R. But the difficulty I found – to come back on the example of the beginning – this example could be taken as the leaf of the tree. A sort of manifestation…

S. Exactly. Any emotion you take and if you find out the root of any emotion… nature of any emotion… you will know all emotions.

R. Yes. But that’s why l had like to go, for example, through this one up to the end. But, in fact, the only solution I found to go through, is I am not taking the problem like this, I say: «Oh! Yes. Here emotion is coming from there and from there. » And at the end, I say: «Well, I put sense of value on this, and everything is different. But it is not finished, because why do I put any sense of value on myself? That’s a deep thing in myself?

S. «So, because the sense of value is right», you are thinking. That sense of value is wrong, you have not understood. You are taking that. The sense of value that you apply here is solid, true, and real for you! So, you are to see if the sense of value is real or not. And apply that: The sense of value is nowhere. Comparison cannot be anywhere. Sense of value is wrong. It is an illusion; it is a lie. » You are to be definite about that.

R. And to see in this particular case, that it is a lie.

S. And so at once: Oh! This sense of value came here. But how can it be it is he. It is I. It is I. He has expressed his feelings.  But I feel like that. Oh! Yes, I feel.  So, I see as if I am expressing!  But you have not expressed. It is his expression. Just try to see.

R. I’ll do that.

S. So, emotion is nothing but a warning that you are not in truth.

R. No doubt. That’s why I took this example. Yes, but I must go through.

S. And only this solution: to see things as they are. When you have got emotions, you must know that you don’t see as you are.  You have taken yourself to be something else. So, there is emotion. If you take yourself as you are, quite all right. No emotion.

R. But feeling…

S. That you can very easily see in that way «Oh! I could have done… » For the past you will lament: emotion. Now that emotion: «I could have done better! » How? «Had I done better! » What is the meaning? «Had I done better! » Why didn’t you do? Why didn’t you do? » –  «Because I couldn’t do. » – Oh! So, what you could, you did. That’s all… that’s all. So, accept. Finished.

R. Yes. That’s clear. But what is not exactly clear is the deep root of this sense of value in the case of… well, the example I took…

S. Yes, very nice. Take your example and see…

R. Yes. I’ll go through this one…

S. By reading you actually felt: «Oh! As if Arnaud has expressed my feelings. » Oh! Emotion is there. You don’t see Arnaud’s expression. You see your expression. And so, emotion came. And that emotion gives you that sense of surprise: «Oh! How can it be? That he could express my feelings? Oh! Impossible. » So, surprise and so on came.

R. All right, I’ll try to find out. Thank you.

Leave a Comment