Consciousness Speaks - by Sri Ramesh Balsekar

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram wrote:

> Hari Om !!
>
> Recently, I read the book, “Consciousness Speaks”, edited talks of Sri
> Ramesh Balsekar. As it is acknowledged, Sri Ramesh is Self-Realised J~nani.

Others have already addressed the issue of whether one can just declare
oneself a jnani.  Let me address some of the philosophical points.

> The book made a good reading. A few salient points, I learnt are as follws:
>
> 1. Sri Ramesh greatly emphasizes “Impersonal Consciousness”, meaning
> whatever is happening is happening in and due to the One-and-Only
> Consciousness and there is no sense of separate, or individual doer  in it.

I thought I was writing this email.  Do you mean to say that actually you
are writing it?

Obviously at some level there is seperate, individual doers.  Perhaps what
is meant is that you and I and everything else is in essence Brahman.  But
from that perspective how can you say anything is being "done" at all?

> He has brought out this point very very effectively in every sentence he
> spoke.
>
> To me this meant, complete non-acknowledgement of EGO and role of EGO;. Sri
> Ramesh also advocates that there is “ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we have to do or we
> can do” to reach the state of Realisation. God will take care of it.

Who is this God?  If He is some seperate entity then what assurance do you
have that He is going to take care of it?  If He is ultimately your own
Self than "you" do have to do the work of realization.

> Whatever is happening or whatever will happen is within the scheme of
> TOTALITY. To me this means “Absolute surrender or Bhakti or Devotion”. Can
> Sri Ramesh’s teaching  be called Advaita Vedanta and J~nana marga ???
>

No apart from the reasons given above, jnana is knowledge.  Certainly
effacement of the ego is an important contributor to jnana but it is not
jnana itself.

> I am reading now “mAnasOllasa”. As it is expounded there, “EGO” itself is
> the Atman with Body/Mind identification. So, keeping this principle in
> mind, can we accept Sri Ramesh’s teaching as appropriate means to “Self-
> Knowledge” ??,

We can't.

> as it does not acknowledge EGO or role of EGO. Ofcourse,
> here I am not denying the power of his message of “Absolute Surrender” and
> futility of any notion of “Doership” (as per my understanding).
>

It is one thing to talk about the futility of doership and another to
actually not do.  In my opinion these new age types are more interested in
evading reponsibility than actual renunciation.

> 2. Sri Ramesh presents that there is no individual in the scheme of
> TOTALITY. So, there is no “INDIVIDUAL KARMA” and hence NO individual
> reborn. It is only that another organism is created in Totality, as effects
> of previous Karmas.

Then why is there creation or destruction at all?

> What is very peculiar about his teaching is that he
> says there is no “Individual Bundle of Karma”, meaning all the Karmas of
> all the Beings are part of the Totality and when new Organisms are born,
> there is no particular BUNDLE to be reborn, meaning these Karmas get mixed
> up and re-distributed and the new Organism born has no traceable one to one
> identity with past lives. Is this not denial of rebirth which is the basis
> of Vedanta ??
>

Yes and it also makes no sense.  If these random karmas are evenly
distributed, why do we see differences in creation of different organisms?
If they are uneven, then on what principle?

> To me this looks quite different from the Karma theory I have learnt so
> far. Is there any Scriptural authority or references that you have come
> across which might support Sri Ramesh’s interpretation of Karma theory and
> Totality ???
>
> As such the book made a good teaching/reading and I would encourage anyone
> to read it.
>

Judging by this and other information you have provided, it is just a
hodge-podge of half-baked and half-understood ideas designed to give a
mystique of "oriental mysticism" to the gullible and uninformed.  It is
the spiritual equivalent of junk food.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/