Back away from the enlightened guy… nothing to see here
In January of ‘06, my wife and and were in Mumbai, India (as if there’s another Mumbai you would confuse it with. “Does he mean Mumbai, Kentucky?”) for a friend’s wedding. And, btw, if you ever hava a chance to go to India I can’t recommend enough going for a wedding put on by a well-to-do Indian family. But that’s another story.
Knowing that we’d be in Mumbai, a couple of big-time spiritual seeker friends (that is, they’re searching big-time and they’re well-known for doing it) said, “Oh, you must meet Ramesh Balsekar when you’re there… here’s his phone number.”
Ramesh is a former president of the Bank of India who, for the last 20+ (maybe 30+) years has camped out in a chair in a corner of a room in his million-dollar flat and, at 9:00 am sharp (the only thing that started on time in India) taught/lectured to the mostly-Western seekers who squeeze into the tiny room.
What does he teach? Well, he’s in the lineage of the Advaita (”not-two”) Vedanta teachers, Ramana Maharshi and Nisagardatta Maharaj, if that means anything to you. If not, perhaps what happened at the very end of the 3-hour meeting will ’splain it.
But before I get to that part, I want to tell you how weird it was to be crammed into a tiny room in downtown Mumbai with 30 people — some 1st timers and some who’ve been in the same room every day for months or years — who really wanted something that, they thought would make them happy finally. The weird part wasn’t all the wanting, it was that I’ve been in the exact same room in Boulder, in Santa Fe, in Marin in Boston, in… EVERYWHERE.
I don’t know why I imagined that with a bona-fide “Indian spiritual teacher” in India would be different than what I’ve seen (and grown weary of) everywhere else I’ve travelled but, oh well, here it was again.
So check this out. Ramesh starts out by saying, “If you believe that by becoming ‘enlightened’ you will become free of unpleasant experiences or emotions, you’re mistaken. You will not get special powers, your personality will not change to that of a saint, you will not become well-liked or loved, you will not live in some imagined state of bliss. You will get nothing. Nothing.”
I laughed, thinking of all the times I nodded my head at the idea that spiritual growth or it’s goal, awakening, would give me ALL of what he just described (and how, after no longer nodding at that idea, I was happier than I ever was when I was on “the path” to get, well, happy). But nobody else was laughing. They were all deadly serious, as if they were waiting for Ramesh to become a California teenager and reveal that he was kidding with a big, “NOT!”
But Ramesh wasn’t kidding.
Why didn’t everyone stand up and leave, I wondered. The only reason I stayed was I was curious to see how he followed this great take-away… and that I had come with someone who I saw was now ready for the teaching about how to get everything Ramesh said you wouldn’t get!
Okay, so at the one hour mark, someone asked, “How did you come to this realization you have?” Ramesh replied, “Oh, I was born with the understanding of determinism in my blood.”
I looked around the room again, to see if anyone really heard what he just said. The guy — the “teacher” — just said that he didn’t do anything to become whatever or whoever he is, that he was just born this way. It was his natural tendency, his innate something-or-other. Something that was completely out of his control. Again, I couldn’t for the life of my figure out why half the room didn’t stand up and leave — after all, if he did NOTHING to get what you think you want, why do you think you can do something to get it?
Well, Ramesh is a pretty funny guy (though I seemed to be the only one laughing at the jokes), so I stuck with it.
Finally, as things are about to wrap up, I said, “Can I try to sum up what you’ve been saying for the last few hours?” “Certainly,” Ramesh replied staring me down.”
“Okay, there’s a thing you’re calling ‘enlightenment’ which you describe as the 100% complete conviction and understanding that there is no inherent ‘do-er’ in our life. That we are not the instigators of our thoughts and actions but, instead, we and everything about us is merely an expression of some un-name-able something which is all of existence.”
He nods. I continue.
“So, if there is no ‘person’ who is doing any thing, if we are not the causes but, instead, the effects… then there’s nothing we can do to make this understanding/awakening thing happen. No amount of meditating, no amount of spiritual practice, no amount of sitting here with Ramesh Balsekar will guarantee it happening, or accelerate when it happens. And no amount of not practicing or acting ‘non-spiritually’ will keep it away. If it’s going to happen, it’ll happen and if not, then not. And there’s nothing to do be done about it either way.”
“YES! That’s it,” he laughed… and I laughed with him… but I looked around the room and nobody else was laughing. In fact, they all looked like they were thinking “If I could really understand that point, then that would lead to my enlightenment!”
Oh, well.
“If you want something to do while you’re waiting to see if it happens or not, I have something for you,” Ramesh offered to the group. “At the end of the day, sit down and relax — if you need a beer or two to relax, do that. Then think of something you did that day, something you know that you did, something where you know you had control over it… and then examine that carefully.”
This is very similar to something I teach people to do (something I picked up from my friend Byron Katie). Take a look at all the things you do without any awareness at all? Did you consciously decide to put your arms or legs in that position? And if so, take a look at the thought that preceded your action? Did you make that thought happen? Were you sitting around doing nothing, and think, “Okay, I’ll have the thought about going to get some ice cream in … 5… 4… 3… 2… and NOW!” or did you just notice that you had the thought? Or notice that you must have had the thought because you now find yourself on the way to get some Chunky Monkey?
If you force yourself to think about an elephant, did you consciously make it exactly that size, that color? Did you plan to put those rough hairs on the elephant’s feet (or had you not even thought about it until I said it, at which point it showed up, fully formed without any effort)?
“Do this for about 30 minutes each night,” Ramesh suggested. And one day, you’ll be blinded by the total, complete understanding… and it’ll all be done.
Oh, crap. When push comes to shove, even the guy who spent 3 hours (and 30+ years) saying there’s nothing to do that will get you where you think you want to go, gives something to do to get you there! Hmmm…
As I was leaving, some of the “regulars” stopped me to say hello. “It was so nice to have you here. To hear someone laughing and bringing your energy; we’re glad you made it.” “Thanks,” I said, “it was fun.”
“Are you coming back?” they asked.
I was a bit shocked by the question.
“Why? Didn’t you hear what he said? It’s all taken care of. No reason to come back or not come back. He’s a nice, smart, funny old guy, but I’m here for a wedding. I’ve got shopping and eating to do.”
They looked like they kinda got what I was saying but couldn’t quite believe I’d pass up the oppurtunity to hang out with a guy who admits there’s no reason or benefit for hanging out with him.
In fact, I noticed that while all the seekers where hanging out in the foyer, Ramesh was just wandering around the flat. So, I walked back to say hello and thank him for an entertaining morning. He gave me a big hug, showed me around the place, and we had a picture taken of the two of us. Cute old guy.
BTW, did you notice the little bombshell Ramesh dropped (and I mentioned) about determinism? That’s his big thing. Not only is there nobody doing anything, but it’s all pre-determined. If you were supposed to become enlightened (or a good golfer, or the one who should be fighting with his spouse over money), then it will happen to you. It’s pre-determined so there’s nothing you can do about it. Once you understand that, he says, there’s on need for guilt or blame or shame because you’re all merely doing what God set you up to do.
I won’t get into all the problems with this line of thinking, but I will point out 2 simple ones:
First, if you’re not the one running your life, you don’t need some mega-being who is. Life can unfold with probabilities and chance and randomness just fine. It doesn’t need a universal map that accounts for the position of every particle over all time.
Related to that is #2: If your life is merely the play of some pre-determined plan, then so are the lives of your parents, and their’s and so on and so on… follow that back long enough and you will either never find an initial cause, a moment that set everything else in motion… or you will conclude that there was one moment, BILLIONS of years ago, when the great Planner in the Sky decided what time this morning you would go to the toilet.
While I find determinism a bit more close to my actual experience (especially when I notice that I did nothing to have the thought “Time to write about Ramesh now”), it’s also yet another belief I can nod my head at as a way to add some “meaning” to a life that is much more rich, fun, and full of possibilities without this theory.
September 10th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Mmm. Interesting account Steven. The ‘No-Doer’ thing is a bit of a mind blower. I think Katie summed it up well on one of her recordings ‘Non-Creation - Your Natural State’. Hearing this was the ‘clincher’ for me.
September 10th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Thank you, Steven. Good reminders and timely. I still forget sometimes. . . a lot.
Also, I almost never admit to the web site about that book any more, but the one good thing about it is that for the most part, what it says is “you already are and here are some fun things you can do,” at least where I chimed in on that. There were 2 authors, of course.
Love you thank you love me thank me.
Stacy
September 10th, 2006 at 2:12 am
Hi Stacy,
What’s the title of ‘that book’? If you don’t want to say so on this website, would you mind e-mailing me at timothyrowe at gmail dot com ?
Thanks,
Tim
September 11th, 2006 at 6:03 am
Hi Tim,
*sigh* Either way or both.
“The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Being a Sex Goddess.”
Stacy
September 14th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I love this post…As I was telling you b4, I see this “process” of being “de-programmed” very analagous to (and not a bit more or less profound) the eventual deprogramming that Evangelicals or other religious “believers” experience…Cest La Vie…
October 31st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Okay, so a couple of close friends have taken Brahmacharya vows with Swami Vishwananda. I saw them yesterday. It was a pretty good contact high around them. Swami was one of the deepest “contact highs” I’ve ever had. Call it darshan, if you want.
So, when I’m around others who seemingly, as I understand it have access to Briatic, non-dual consciousness, especially those whose access is hmm… more steady than my own seems to be, well, mine deepens. Isn’t that one of the functions of a teacher?
Or… what might be the function of a teacher?
I find it impossible in a certain sense to say we don’t need teachers/gurus/rabbis, whatever we’re calling them in this culture, and at the same time I see that they are another err… drug is the word I used when talking to my roommate this morning. Drug, as in something seemingly outside ourselves that seemingly points us back into ourselves … until we know we are reliably already there?
Something like that.
How do I use a teacher without losing myself and thinking “they” “did” “it?”
I’d love to see a post in answer to this … sort of query. I’m asking and I’m not. I kinda know the answer.
So, hey teach!
What is the proper function of a teacher?
I think there is one. Don’t you? You sit in front of a classroom and teach. Can you tell me more about that?
Love,
Stacy Clark
Boulder, CO
October 31st, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Here’s the quickest antidote I know to “the teacher did it” : Take a look around the room and see the number of people for whom the teacher didn’t “do it.”
I have an upcoming post about the success rate of one of the most accomplished teachers in history (let’s just say it’s not good).
What if it was your presence that brought out in the teacher whatever it was that *seemed* to do it to you? (not saying it’s true, just asking “what if?”).
What if it the teacher’s “presense” merely gave you the ability to access something that was already available, but you simply hadn’t noticed?
What if *your story* about the teacher and his/her presence allowed you to find this aspect of yourself?
Proper function of a teacher? No clue. And, no doubt every seeming teacher (or seeming student) has an answer based on their own agenda.
For me, since don’t have idea that “my teachings” lead to some imagined future goal, and the only reason I talk to groups of people is that it’s really fun for me to do it and people keep asking me to continue. (If it weren’t fun, or if not-talking were more fun, or if people didn’t ask, it would all be over and I’d get a job at Quizno’s).
So, when the opportunity to talk to others presents itself, what’s interesting to me is to: a) find the clearest way to communicate a point, or; b) create the highest probability that the other(s) might experience what I’m describing.
Here’s the real twist: I can’t rely on the feedback of others to let me know if I’ve done it “correctly.” If I’ve done the best I can, the rest is none of my business. And using the feedback from others to determine if I’ve done the best I can is, at best, tricky.
So, when I’m teaching the Instant Advanced Meditations, I present the instruction in the most lucid manner I can think of at that moment. Some people will be affected, and others not-so-much. Either way, my job the next time is the same: given my understanding in that moment, communicate as clearly and accurately as I can.
… and then go out for Thai food.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Thank you, Steven. That was fun.
You mention your Instant Advanced Meditations. When are you going to be teaching that class again?
Love,
Stacy
January 9th, 2007 at 2:24 am
I do not claim that this settles the determinism debate, but it needs to be pointed out that the “free will” dillema depends upon a preposterous distinction between oneself and the universe. I’m not talking about the sense of separateness or experience of oneness, although those experiences may revolve around the same distinction as it operates unconsciously. No, in plain old ordinary conscous deliberate thinking about the issue, it is absurd to make a distinction between oneself and the universe or reality or even the environment. To do so is to propose that one’s existence depends upon not existing, being distinct from reality. Without that irrational belief, the thought that ones activities are the product of the sum total of the forces and laws of the universe presents no problem whatsoever. You are the universe and the universe is you. There is not a hint of conflict between the doctrine of determinism and your geuine agency. So you can continue making all of your little decisions, and even some big ones, and doing your best to satisfy your desires and observe that it is all the dance of what’s-her-name simultaneously. No problem here folks. Keep it moving.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Dear Friend,
Ramesh Balsekar is quite confused….Self-effort is required for realization/nirvana thing—without self-effort one could waste his/her time or go off tangent in life….Self-will is part of any spiritual practice….But since the path is difficult and the methods complex, one cannot say ‘when’ one would reasonably reach the goal…For some ,some critical experience may trigger a thought and the goal may be reached in a few days…for many it may take years—-no guru or saint can fix a time-limit or foresee when a person,his disciple, will attain the goal….much depends on the sincerity of the seeker after Truth or SAT in Indian terminology……In that respect, the end result or the time it takes depends on several factors and is largely unknown[previous latent impressions or samskaras]…”Make your effort—-if you are sincere, the right Guru will be sent to you and in good time you will reach the goal”–this is the Hindu position on this matter…..
Ramesh, I believe, wants to make it sound simple and easy and effortless, to attract people….If the formal Guru says :”It will normally take 12 years to reach the state of enlightenment’, how many will follow him? The other extreme of some guru’s saying that they take the responsibility for your realization is also equally wrong…Lord Buddha told as final words before leaving the earth: Be a lamp unto yourself” —- no truer words were spoken than this.
Regards
Srinivasan Nenmeli K [ Ph D Columbia 1972]
February 1st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Hi N K,
I’m not going to suggest that Ramesh is correct, but you may notice that your theory can only be proven by hindsight.
Without a way to measure the seeming obstacles (e.g. samskaras) or the application of the techniques (how can we measure effort, or the depth of one’s meditation?), we have no way to empirically demonstrate whether effort is or isn’t required for any particular attainment.
AFTER someone lays claim to some attainment, they may say, ”Ah, it was only after X amount of time, or Y amount of effort, or Z amount of clearing karmic effects that I finally got *here*.” But, humans are notoriously bad at identifying causes for complex effects. Perhaps there was some other, overlooked, cause. Perhaps there were non-linear, or random, factors involved.
Perhaps there were non-reproduceable external conditions involved, so that even had the person relived his/her entire life identically, the same results would not have occurred.
I’ve never heard anyone say, ”Oh, I’m 1 gram of effort, 2 samskaras, and 3 cheeseburgers away from Nirvana”… and then demonstrated they were correct.
I agree with the Buddha’s admonition. Often the light from our own lamps reveals gaping logical holes in well-accepted theories.
-SS
February 1st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Hi Sashen,
I agree with you that most of the spiritual literature is built on hind-sight only—by studying the lives [hagiography] with all facts and fiction mixed up—be it the spirtual attainments of Sri Ramakrishna, Bhagwan Ramana, St theresa of Lisieux, Brother Lawrence or St John of the Cross, Jallauddin Rumi and so on…No one can say ,at the outset, that such a person would become a saint in future or in the next few years….the same is true of so-called self-realized masters in current circulation….It is easy to get self-illusioned and cause illusion among the followers…..
February 1st, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Agreed…
The small number of peoeple you can put on the “attained” list, compared with the vast number of “attempt-ers”, seems like meaningful data in itself
-S
February 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Steven, I just came upon your writing and it made me laugh out loud. I gave up on “getting somewhere”. I do enjoy reading the “advaita” stuff. I have a particular love for Nathan Gill, Jan Kersschot, Tony Parsons and Jeff Foster, who all emphasize that it’s not about predestination or no predestination, free will or no free will, and choice or no choice, but there, actually, being “nobody there” to have or not have free will or choice, etc. Something in this apparent “me” whom I still have quite an identified experience of, just loves, loves, and loves not being a solid entity. I no longer believe in spiritualy as “special states”. To me, my fellow office clerks are just as much the “ONE” as myself or Nathan Gill or Jesus or whomever. That’s another aspect of non-duality I love: there is no “holier than thou” and that appearances (hamburgers, noise and cow poo) are none other than the ONE (the silence, vegen food and Ram Dass (no offence to Ram Dass). I also have the crazy idea that everything and everyone as is is “God” incarnate, the “ONE” expressing as Gandhi or Hitler or a toothache and root canal treatment (and I’ve had quite a few root canals, even recently, though I never personally met Gandhi or Hitler–not that I would really would have wanted to). So it all is a farce really, though ingeniously inspired it seems to this non-entity with the name of Norman. To me, the loggers and the “tree-huggers” are both the “ONE”, though I certainly more identify with the “tree-huggers” by far. Liberation is because what is, simply is. So as no-one appearing as someone writing this response to no-one appearing as a number of others reading this response, I bid you all a fond goodbye for now. Blessings!
May 6th, 2007 at 6:30 am
When the action of seeking ceases to arise there is Oneness.
No one reamins but the One, the All.
Nothing that an imagined separate objective figure does is being done by what is believed to be a doer and as such cannot bring about the absence of the concept that it has of itself of its own volition.
When this that has been worded enlightenment happens the concept of being someone is no more.
This is and was always, already the case.
There is nothing to do and no one to not do anything.
Love Avasa
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“Oneness” is just a concept.
“All” is just a concept.
“Enlightenment” is just a concept.
“Someone” (whether that someone “is” or “is no more”) is just a concept.
“Doing” is just a concept.
Other than that, I TOTALLY agree with you!
-S
(Oh, and “Concept” is just a concept.)
June 15th, 2007 at 5:09 am
yup, sashen! it is all a concept what one writes, but i guess if attention does not remain on the verbal level it is possible to see what is pointed by the words isn’it? :-))
love
shakti
July 5th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Hi S,
I read ur account and views about Ramesh and his teachings during your visit to India. And I agree to a certain extent with you, as you are always left with a question in your mind…If the day of my mmmmm, Enlightment or Realization or Whatever u call it, is predetermined, what to do now and don’t I have any contribution to do today and meanwhile??? Yes, I asked the same to Ramesh last Tuesday (3rd July 2007) and he replied, “Yes”, and further explained me…
So the Concept of “Cosmic Plan” with the Concept of “Non-doership” without ignoring the Management Gurus of “Giving The Best We Can”…the Understanding lies in getting fine tuned to this Pyramid of Wisdom…How??? Its a matter of personal choice and exploration !!!
Regards,
A
July 5th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Hi A,
LOL … So, it’s all planned and non-personal and determined EXCEPT our choice to get on the ride or not?
hmmmm….
September 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
[bold]to avasa:[bold]
September 21st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
To Avasa:
i particularly got caught up with the following words in what you said -
“When the action of seeking ceases to arise there is Oneness.”
what i notice is, you say ’seeking ceases to arise’… which to me, means that it will cease when it will… not by MY will.
so… enlightenement will happen when it will… not by my WILL…
in that case, un-enlightenment is as much an experience i am supposed to enjoy, as enlightenment - just as sashen says (am i right, there, ss?)
and so… then why all this clamour for enlightenment?
and personally, i love to see the birds and ocean and mountains.
and if enlightenment will make me and the bird and the mountain a common, same, blob of some non-matter matter… what is left to experience?
to shakti:
but if everything IS one… words and there meaning and the roads they point to are all one. so its the same to look at the words or to the moon they point to.
and if this seeming duality is of this ‘plane’ - the difference in words and the moon they point to… then it tells me that ‘enlightenment’ / oneness is a helpless thing, banking on the power of duality, where it needs words to point at itself.
no words to point… no moon… no enlightenment.
yes… i AM using and twisting words…
to show that with words, we have stories… and only stories.
they loop back into the loop.
talk about anything and it is lost - because everything is experience.
words can generate an experience, yes. but when they talk ‘about’ that experience… words in; experience out.
don’t you think so?
September 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
sorry!
i thought, i seem convoluted above, and so talking gibberish…
so this thought came up…
words, and every tool we have to look ‘outside’ is focus oriented… definitive… like a convex lens.
have you looked at a long road… it tapers into a point - thats what sight is.
we have the ability to ‘not hear’ disturbing or background sound…
words… they define. thtas their work…
but inside, the feeling sensations are expansive. like a concave lens. look inside and things axpand.
life is also about expansion. life started as single celled bacteria… expanding into the ever increasing complexity of us humans.
so. simple theorem of life.
looking ‘outside’ restricts life… or life-flow, if you will…
inside… expansion.
and understanding of life and flow of life.
i would rather flow with my life where it wants to go, rather than look outside, ‘think’ on my own based on the ‘restrictive’ data… and fight life.
life wins. everytime.
its like life is cycling away. i can either sit back and ip a coke and enjoy the ride.
or i can see where it is flowing/ going, and padle with it.
but i would not want to look outside, ’see’ something better and paddle in another direction opposite to where life wants to go.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
enlightenment/un-enlightenment … same thing. no thing.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:11 am
I was in mumbai for 2 years…..working with some company…
There i came to know about Ramesh Balsekar….
In the month of Jan 07 I happend to be at Ramesh’s Home.
Ever morning at 9 Am Ramesh use to talk to people….
I had been there at his home for many times….almost on every weekend…
It was a Great to listen him…he is now 90 year old…but so kind,humble,funny
It was a Great Learning….!!!!
Now i had left Mumbai…
I am Missing him…
Missing u Ramesh!!!!
Ashish Chole
+91 9923 2627 95
November 10th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“Nothing to do”, action without action, wei wu wei…
From “Consciousness Speaks”
Disciple: Isn’t there a paradox in the realization that we have no volition? You see that you don’t have any freedom, yet you feel very free.
Ramesh Balsekar: “Yes! That is the point! Precisely. It is a paradox, but when the sense of freedom arises with a truly deep conviction, it is enormous, it is fantastic, truly enormous! It doesn’t prevent you from doing anything, it doesn’t prevent you from not doing anything. Actually it is the other way around. You neither do anything nor do you not do anything. What happens is not inaction. It is neither action nor inaction. What happens with that sense of “I am not the doer” is non-volitional non-doing, spontaneous action which is merely witnessed.”
“As there is no self, there is no transmigration of self, but there are deeds and continued effects of deeds. There are deeds being done, but there is no doer. There is no entity that migrates, no self is transferred from one place to another, but there is a voice attuned there, and the echo of it comes back.”
Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha
Or in the words of another great master:
There is neither creation nor destruction
Neither destiny nor free will
Neither path nor achievement
This is the final truth. – Ramana Maharshi
And this is all that Balsekar is saying.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Ramesh talks to people for about 3 hours every day, and has done so for many, many years.
He says more than just that
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
actually, to his credit, Ramesh says a whole lot Less than what you obviously think. and he would be the first to agree that life would be a lot more “rich, fun, and full of possibilities” for you, if you just didn’t have any concepts at all. so go ahead, clever one. just for this one day…drop all your concepts. go ahead. just do it…
hmmm? i wonder what you did wrong…
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 am
Hi David,
Since any concept that arises did not happen as a result of some self-generated action, any concept that doesn’t arise, similarly, does not not-arise by self-generated action. So, there’s no one to drop or hold a concept and, therefore, no problem with the seeming arising or seeming lack of arising (which is actually the arising of a thought about a non-arising concept).
Given all that, I’m not sure who the “you” is that you refer to who could do anything wrong (or right).
December 29th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (90%), the courage to change the things I can (10%), and the wisdom to know the difference.”
~ Reinhold Niebuhr
I don’t think we are all robots. We do have a say, even if it’s only 10%.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Grant me the psychic powers to know, in advance, which is the 10%
January 27th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Hey Steven, thanks for your response. I like your website, by the way. I was having fun with you, is all. I’ve had so much joy with Ramesh over the years. He’s really tried to simply it. There is always and inevitably much contradiction when it comes to language, and our attempts at using it, to point to what is ultimately indescribable. Ramesh does a pretty good job. The agency of doership is dissolved, or seen through, with Understanding. That’s pretty simple. But it’s terribly difficult to really grasp it until it is made, somehow, obvious. The Gita, the Upanishads, Ramana, Buddha, Nisargadatta, they all point to it, but still it gets so confused. Whether it takes effort, or not, or whatever, this idea of nondoership is none-the-less a very tough sell for the mind. Thanks so much for your heart.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Hey David,
Happy to be had fun with
The non-doer concept is one that people have a tricky time with (I’m not saying it’s true or not; just exploring this aspect).
In fact, cognitive psych researchers for decades have been doing experiments that lead them to suggest that all our “doing” is happening non-consciously and that conscious thought is merely a reporting (a made up story, often) of what has already happened. They then usually say, “But that suggests we have no free will… and that can’t be true!” (e.g. in “A Mind of It’s Own”)
One book that does “go all the way,” as it were is “The User Illusion.” The very title suggests that Tor Norretranders, the author, leans in the direction of “there ain’t nobody running this ship, even though it seems like it.”
All that said, I don’t think the language is that difficult. I think it’s VERY do-able to point to something for which we don’t have a good word or is difficult to pin down with familiar language. The trick is this:
Don’t take shortcuts. Use a sentence that clearly indicates it’s metaphoric or a pointer rather than resorting to using words that are already loaded with meaning and trying to redefine them.
For example, Ramesh uses “Consciousness” for “the underlying non-thing that permeates, animates and manifests as all things.”
Giving it ANY name means you’ll have to correct yourself later and say, “Well, it’s not really a THING.”
And “consciousness” comes full of connotation that people can’t shake, including their own experience of being self-aware, having moments that are “more” conscious than others, having times we’re un-conscious, feeling that it’s something personal, etc.
There’s a reason that in Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism there are teachings about referring to the ultimate as “neti, neti, neti” (not this, not this, not this) rather than as any thing.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Hey Steven, I hear you about concepts. Some work better than others.
Consciousness is definitely one of those terms that can be defined in so many different ways. However, i think i get his logic. Ramesh uses “consciousness” as a way of pointing to the one primary source of everything, with the intent of helping us collapse our notions of duality, and thus our judgments. As you know so well, our minds tend to see everything in terms of this or that. Good or bad etc. The idea that everything is consciousness suddenly opens everything up, and a great deal of inner conflict subsides in the seeing, if we can see. But, of course, as a concept, it can’t say everything.
I think, perhaps, Ramesh steers away from the neti neti concept as his primary tool because it’s so stark. i’ve noticed over the years that he’s certainly willing to drop certain concepts in favor of others that might be more effective. He used to describe the individual as basically nothing more than a computer, or robot. You can imagine how people responded to this! They fought it tooth and nail. And, in a way, it is problematic. Because at least in terms of our experience, we do make creative and novel choices, different in this regard from say, a plant, or an animal. But again, he was pointing to a more basic level. At any rate, he doesn’t use those terms very much anymore. Yet he’s always pointing to the idea that there is nobody to actually do anything. And he tries constantly to get people to really see this for themselves. Buddhism, also, i don’t believe uses neti neti as a pointer. The Buddha does, however, point to the insubstantial nature of the “I”, which is another way of saying “no doer”, or “not this. not that”.
So, here’s the jist: I think the mind will eventually fight with any idea that threatens its sovereignty. and neti neti, and non doership, both these concepts if seriously addressed, go right into the heart of the matter. Either one can cause us to question the whole issue of just who or what is in charge here. I came upon Ramesh’s teachings after decades of inner work. It was not a big leap in this case to see the insubstantial nature of the “I”. So, you know, one tends to feel gratitude for the instrument that delivers the final blow. Through meditation, and life in general, i was already questioning the whole show. I had, mainly out of curiosity, sat with other Advaita teachers as well. But for the most part, I didn’t find what I would call real clarity. Always, with other teachings, there was the idea that one could actually “do” something to Realize. This simply didn’t jive with my experience. I had done. and done. and done. And I was tired. And I was sensing the futility, at least at this point in the game, of personal effort. After I met Ramesh, and heard what he was saying, I realized that virtually every concept he used, was really not new. It was at the ground of all the great teachings. I had read the Gita for years. And Ashtavakra, which is a beautiful teaching on nonduality. And the Bible. It just so happens that it took sitting with Ramesh to drive the essence of these teachings home.
By the way, it might have been seeing the “anti-guru blog” that got me to respond here in the first place. And, of course, the fact that you had met Ramesh. I felt like speaking up, and it sounded from the feel of your conversations that we could actually have an interesting dialogue. I also noticed on your site that you’re close to Katie. My wife and I met her once at a bookstore some years back. She also, with just a few pointed sentences to me, caused a great relaxation. It was amazing.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:28 am
When I met Ramesh he was using the robot metaphor… nobody seemed to have a problem with it. And, the point of that metaphor, an his suggested practice, is that our experience is misleading. Yes, we SEEM to make choices, but if we look carefully, the initial thought/impulse leading to those choices is not a conscious event.
I’m not sure about “the mind will eventually fight with any idea…” Buddhism, both Theravada and Tibetan, lay out very simple, logical arguments for the lack of an existing “I,” or a thing called “mind.” And one can get to the end of, and see the validity of those arguments quite easily and without a fight.
I do agree that anyone who points out the non-causal nature of something like a new realization or discovery is doing a great service, if for nothing else than to counter our familiar notion that we can volitionally control and create anything and everything we want.
And, you’re probably right, we *would* have an interesting chat… my number is all over my website
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 am
I came up on your site by accident and smiled as I read through it . I have read Maharaj & Balsekar’s works and find them quite interesting and revealing. However I enjoy your response to them .Keep going , you never the light might shine through you……..
February 28th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Hello there
i have read his books . And i am a kind of agree with you. i dont think ramesh balsekar has quite got it, this thing with enlightenment. he says a lot of things that does not make any sens.
I know people that really knows what God is. But not Ramesh.
Thanks
April 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
steven, interesting website. i see you endorse The Work. don’t you think BK shows some guru-like and cultish behaviour?
April 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Hola Spider,
a) To answer your question accurately (especially with the Yes/No that your question asks for), you’ll have to tell me how you define “guru-like” and “cultish” for me. Lots of different people have lots of different definitions for those concepts… some are so different that the same question could elicit a Yes for one connotation and a No for another.
b) Self-inquiry in the style of The Work doesn’t require BK, so whatever she or her organization may do is separate from the process of investigating one’s thinking.
-S
April 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
interesting. I’m not sure how i landed on this site but decided to write my little blurb. For me the idea of determinism is as about confusing as the idea of it’s multi-layered alternatives. The mind always wants to seek to know and understand it seems. Programs that are set in genetically are pretty determisitic (not sure if that’s a proper word) other than that i have spent/wasted so many years in pursuit of this ellusive enlightenment and understanding. Just when i get a tidbit of enlightenment i discover that there’s even more blanks. Searching is one of the biggest distractions i’ve known. When i finally discovered to just sit back inside myself and appreciate and be thankful for what i have and feel that thankfulness of spirit within me that’s turned out to be the greatest bliss i’ve known. And i chased the dogs tail all the way around india and elsewhere trying to realize that until i gave up and went inside to feel what i was inside, like Dorothy of the wizard of oz said, I was home all along. No one could teach me to do that. I had spent my life feeling the persuit and feeling the drive of needing something, some answers,,,, needing to maybe walk on water as a goal to enlightenment, or at least turning water into money would have been a good enlightenment indication for me. It all seems so funny now when i look back at it.
One of the big problems i’ve seen, in hindsight, is that the non-advaita teachers are like any others who offer large amounts of truths peppered with just enough tail chasing tidbits (and in some cases some downright contradictions to their previous statements) that ensure that the seeker will be ever seeking and sufficiently distracted and confused. The idea of being *one* has some truths in it,,, and at the same time there is quite obviously dualism all around. Trying to deny that has often set a person into quite an amount of denial of ‘what is.’ Trying to find the truths behind it all has really only come for me after i stopped searching and started feeling within — feeling a thankful spirit, a joyful appreciative heart and stopping my whining and wishing for things to be other than what they are — or for me to be other than what i am. etc. Now i don’t care if i’m enlightened or not and in doing so i’m more free to actually feel some joy. Isn’t that bliss pursuit supposed to be one of the big goals afterall? It’s a much easier life now.
Pre-determined versus non-determined? It’s a time wasting irrelevent argument for me, and only relevent in that it has taught me not to waste time over something so irrelevent. These kinds of questions take me out of myself, so to speak, and that is exactly what their designed to do… to keep a person in the dark, out of their own inner spirit of feelings and truths and ever seeking, seeking, seeking.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hi Donna,
Well, welcome home, Dorothy
April 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hi all,
The problem is that Ramesh is really not telling anything other than his own concept of creation enlightenment etc. He says there is no individual doer, only spontaneous action accompanied by a false sense of doership. This gives rise to a sense of reponsibility, guilt etc. for the action performed. Once we realize there is no doer, the sense of guilt vanishes (or is supposed to vanish) accompanioed by a feeling of great relief. He further transfers any residual burden of responsibility on to a hypothetical God who programmed the universe at the start, without proving the existance of such a being.. His notion of Realization thus restricts itself to relief from the complexes people suffer and not from pure physical suffering, sickness and the like.
This is in conflict with the classical concept of enlightenment (even according to the Buddha), as being freedom from pain and suffering. Anyone who is sincerely seeking enlightenment from the classical standpoint will suddenly feel a sense of relief when told that what s/he is searching for so frantically does not exist and enlightenment consists in knowing there is no one to be enlightened. This sudden sense of relief is itself taken to be realization. In reality therefore, what Ramesh is offering and what the seeker is seeking are different. There is a difference between those who believe they are realized and those who are genuinely realized. These are time tested experiences borne out by several enlightened sages. Any one who is claiming to have a new theory or concept heretofore not discovered is likely to be fallible. I apologize if I ahve hurt the feelings of any genuine seekers or others who might have felt they “Got it”. If you are sincere to yourself and impartially analyze within yourself whether what you have got is the “real thing” and continue to feel so after the analysis, then you could be genuinely enlightened otherwise not.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:54 am
This is Mankind’s problem. We talk a lot about what needs to be felt and experienced. Its immaterial if Ramesh is right or wrong, but can we for a change allow the senses to open up and feel it.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Steven: You obviously don’t “get it”; but the cosmic law probably never intended that you’d be able to understand it, anyway! Nevertheless, it’s too bad that just because you don’t grasp the essence of his message that you find joy in slamming this old “enlightened guy”. Oh well, you probably may even believe that it makes you happy to do so. Good luck! Jeff
June 26th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Hi Jeff,
I’m fascinated by comments suggesting that I’m “slamming” someone… I’m sure you realize that you would only perceive it that way if you had a differing opinion of Ramesh than the one you think I have. If, for example, you thought Ramesh was a total phony, you would say I was doing something “positive” by “criticizing” him.
That said, “joy” or “happiness” aren’t experiences I had when I wrote this story, nor when I think about it now. In fact, I find it a bit disappointing, mostly because I was expecting something more than such a simple inconsistency: Nothing to do to get there… now go do this and you’ll get there.
Not sure what I need luck for, but thanks for your good wishes.