The Advaitic Nihilism of Ramesh Balsekar

[Guest guest]

---

> ---

> > A good beginning point for some of the concepts I was trying to

> > convey would be the WIE interview of Chris Parish with Ramesh

> > Balsekar, which may be accessed at

http://www.wie.org/j14/balse.asp

> > Also, I'm pasting in a few of the statements for comment:

> >

> > However, on studying Balsekar's writings, we soon realized that

he

> > was teaching an unusual and possibly idiosyncratic form of

Advaita

> > that led to what we felt, quite frankly, were questionable and

even

> > disturbing conclusions. For while Indian thought has long been

> > criticized for its deter ministic inclinations, it appeared that

> > Balsekar had taken this fatalism to an unprecedented extreme. It

> was,

> > in the end, as much a desire to explore these troubling areas as

to

> > pursue our overall interest in the teachings of Advaita that

> > ultimately brought me to Bombay to speak with him. And while I

had

> > come anticipating a challenging meeting, looking back on it now

it

> is

> > clear to me that, as coffee was poured for us and we arranged

> > ourselves comfortably in his living room, there was no way I

could

> > ever have prepared myself for the dialogue that was about to take

> > place.

> > [OK, this preface sets the stage for introducing a particular

> > version of Advaita, which...in the WIE editor's viewpoint, should

> not

> > be swallowed as "the truth", as opposed to a particular person's

> > (Balsekar's) version of reality. This can be called "Advaitic

> > Nihilism"]. More excerpts to follow....:

>

> Excerpt from 2nd page pasted in: In fact there is no psychopath;

> there is only a psychopathic body/mind organism, the destiny of

which

> is to produce evil, perverted acts. And the consequences of those

> actions are also the destiny of that body/ mind organism.

>

> [comment on the above: a. what he's saying can't be proven, b. it's

> useless to even say that things are predetermined, it's "fate",

etc;

> since people (both the enlightened, and unenlightened) "AS IF" they

> were actually doers, individual doers. The WIE editor then asks, if

> it's not us, then who? Balsekar's reply is that it's the Totality

> performing the acts but this is not quite correct in my opinion.

The

> totality is the doer but it's still acting through

> individuals...illusory individuals if you will, so it's not quite

> correct to say there's no doer. The correct statement (in my

opinion)

> is that Brahman is the doer, AS individuals, as waves in the ocean

of

> Being. Realization of the Absolute Continuum doesn't negate

apparent

> individual jivas. It, the Realization, only renders transparent the

> illusory nature of Maya: the rope is not a snake, but the rope is

> not "non-existent". c. Balsekar's statements are circular,

> excessively nihilistic, exert a mismatch with reality, and amount

to

> a declaration of non-existence of individuality and free will. The

> fact that the latter are (from a Buddhist viewpoint) "non-

> substantial" (i.e. inseparable from Consciousness Itself); does not

> render those entities "non-existent"].

--- End forwarded message ---