Ramesh Balsekar

[Renoir]

Ramesh Balsekar komt niet voor in dit rijtje, hoewel hij toonaangevend heet te zijn in de Advaita scene.

In mijn stukje van vandaag over Jan van Rossum gaf ik voorbeelden over wie er zoal als toonaangevend bekend staat en het niettemin wel eens niet begrepen (konden) hebben en zocht op internet of ik er niet een lezenswaardige tekst bij kon toevoegen.

Wie schetst mijn verbazing toen ik deze site tegenkwam ?
Niemand ?

Dan zal ik het zelf maar even schetsen.

Het is in het Engels en het heeft mijn voorkeur niet stukjes die niet voor iedereen leesbaar zijn te plaatsen. Maar mijn bek viel open van verbazing want het geeft zo'n beetje mijn tegenwerpingen ten opzichte van het gedachtegoed van Keen en Ogenbliksem weer.

Het heeft een naam neo- of pseudoadvaita, want het heeft niets uitstaande met Advaita Vedanta. Van dat neo, laat het vooral nieuw zijn, lijkt het tegenwoordig vergeven.

Helaas is het erg verleidelijk om je daar mee in te laten, je hoeft namelijk niks te doen.

Ramesh's flawed teachings compared with the teachings of our teacher, authentic sage Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

By 1989 it was only too evident that, while Ramesh was a very good spokesman for certain aspects of authentic Advaita wisdom, there were important discrepancies in Ramesh's teachings compared to those of our great mentor Sri Nisargadatta (e.g., a laissez-faire indifference, fatalist determinism and almost nihilist absurdism had crept into the teachings, despite protests to the contrary).

It seems that Ramesh's teachings were being influenced far more by Wei Wu Wei (the Irishman Terence Gray, 1895-1986, one of Ramesh's favorite authors) than by Nisargadatta. I was also concerned to hear about the charging of hefty fees at some of Ramesh's retreats for spiritual aspirants, when Sri Nisargadatta never asked for a paisa/penny from anyone.

And so I left off any further contact with Ramesh (noot redactie zoals ik ook adviseerde te doen), inwardly wishing him all the very best. It would not be until early 2005 that I would hear of the charges of serial adultery by Ramesh with some of his female students.

Much more can be said on how Ramesh's teachings have significantly diverged from those of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, and the latter's own Guru, Sri Siddharameshvar Maharaj (1888-1936).

Ramesh essentially teaches what has come to be called "neo-advaita" or "pseudo-advaita"?namely, that a cognitive realization of "the Truth" (that there is only Consciousness) utterly suffices, and so there is nothing to aspire toward, nothing to do, nothing to achieve. "Understanding is all," as Ramesh and other neo-advaitins have so often declared. Whatever happens in the dream of life is "God's will," beyond our responsibility. There are really no individuals or persons who could have "free will" or function as a "doer," and therefore no freedom from conditioning or bodily identification need be striven for or can ever be achieved through effort?unless it is God's will for this to happen!

In the view of Ramesh and other neo-advaitins, the world is but a Divinely predetermined mechanism playing out mechanistically, and "you" the personality are just a part of the functioning of this mechanism. "You" have no choice or free will about any of this. Que sera, sera. What will be, will be.

By contrast, both Nisargadatta and Siddharameshvar along with Ramana Maharshi and other "real Advaitin sages" taught a subtler, more nuanced view that involves the PARADOX of effort and Grace. They were not constrained by an "either-or" logic but easily and freely utilized an inclusive "both-and" logic of mystical reality.

So these eminent sages affirmed that, yes, on the Absolute-truth level, there is only unmanifest Absolute Awareness, and this phenomenal play of consciousness?the manifest beings, bodies, experiences?is ultimately insubstantial because it is fleeting and not solid, "a dream," and that, Absolutely-speaking, there are no individual persons or souls, free will or choice, and that whatever happens is Divine Will or the l?l? (play, sport) of consciousness.

But these authentic spiritual masters also taught, on the more "conventional-pragmatic level", that great earnestness, persistence and "effortless effort" are needed, that "you," Consciousness manifesting as the apparent individual person, can and must dis-identify from narrow identification with the bodymind personality.

Through radical self-inquiry ("Who am I, really?" "What is prior to the 'I Am' sense?") and receding-returning-relaxing into/as the Source, there is consequent awakening, by Divine Grace, out of the conditioned "me"-dream into real freedom from binding likes-dislikes (the samskaras or vasanas, that is, the egoic tendencies of selfishness and limited individuality).

In other words, there is a transcending of apathy, ego-attachments, and mere theoretical understanding to actually living and fully being the Liberated Truth of "only God," only Absolute Awareness.

Yes, it is quite true that Nisargadatta Maharaj (and Ramana Maharshi, et al.) often succinctly said, for the sake of balance and to undermine egoic identifications, "there's nothing to do" and "no efforts are to be made," so "just be."

But Nisargadatta also many times spoke of a developmental process of stages (from individuality to universal consciousness to Absolute Awareness) and he paradoxically urged that we be tremendously earnest about meditating and abiding in our real Nature as the Absolute beyond false identifications, body-based desires, pride, hypocrisy, fears and selfishness.

He often said, "You must enquire and meditate on the root 'I Am-ness' sense and get free of it."

The Maharaj accused certain people of being "pseudo-sages" (pseudo-jnanis) because they had not (yet) genuinely awakened to the Absolute but were still "indulging their beingness" on the level of the bodymind ego-personality.

Over the decades Nisargadatta certainly echoed in different ways the message frequently uttered by his guru Sri Siddharameshvar, "Realize the Self and behave accordingly!"

Het is een erg lang verhaal maar ik licht alleen maar even dit stukje uit omdat dit stukje zo treffend dat breekpunt weergeeft met wat ik er, in tegenstelling tot wat soms de heersende opvatting lijkt te zijn, over te zeggen heb.

Een ander verhaal, datgene wat neoadvaitisten propageren c.q. aanhangen, ondermijnt ook hier in belangrijke mate de doelstelling van het forum.