interview

WIE: You are becoming increasingly well known as a teacher of Advaita Vedanta both in India and in the West. Could you describe for us what it is that you teach?

RAMESH BALSEKAR: I can put that in one sentence, really. The one sentence on which my entire teaching is based is: "Thy will be done." Or as the Muslims say, Inshallah—"God willing." Or to put it in Buddha's words: "Events happen, deeds are done, there is no individual doer thereof." You see, the basic conflict in life is: "I always do everything right so I want my reward; he or she always does something wrong and should be punished." That's what life is all about, isn't it?

WIE: Well, it certainly happens a lot.

RB: That is the basis of what I have observed. The whole problem arises because someone says, "I did something and I deserve a reward, or he did something and therefore I want to punish him for what he did."

WIE: How do you get people to this—that "there is no individual doer"?

RB: That's very simple. If you analyze any action that you consider to be your action, you will find that it is the reaction of the brain to an outside event over which you have no control. A thought comes—you have no control over what thought is going to come. Something is seen or heard—you have no control over what you are going to see or hear next. All of these events happen over which you have no control. And then what happens? The brain reacts to the thought or to the thing that is seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched. The reaction of the brain is what you call "your action." But, in fact, this is merely a concept.

WIE: What is the difference, then, between the thoughts, feelings, and actions of an enlightened person and those of a person who is not enlightened?

RB: The same thing happens. The only difference is that in the case of the sage, he understands that this is what is happening. So therefore, he knows that there is nothing he does—everything just happens. The sage knows that "I am not doing anything." But the ordinary man says, "I do things and he or she does things. Therefore I want my reward and I want him or her to be punished." The reward or punishment depends on the idea that he or she or I do things.

WIE: I can understand from my own experience that we don't have any control over which thoughts or feelings arise. But sometimes an action ensues and sometimes it doesn't, and it seems to me that there is a big difference between when a thought merely arises and when an action takes place that affects another person.

RB: The action happening is the result of the brain reacting to the thought. If it so happens that the thought is merely witnessed and the brain does not react to that thought, then there is no action.

WIE: But if, as you say, there is no person who decides how to respond, then what is it that causes an action to take place or not?

RB: An action happens if it is God's will for that action to happen. If it is not God's will, the action does not happen.

WIE: Are you saying that every action that takes place is God's will?

RB: Yes—is God's will.

WIE: Acting through a person?

RB: Through a person, yes.

WIE: Whether they're enlightened or not? Through everyone, in other words?

RB: That's right. The only difference, as I said, is that the ordinary man thinks, "It's my action," whereas the sage knows it is nobody's action. The sage knows that "Deeds are done, events happen, but there is no individual doer." That is the only difference as far as I'm concerned. The only difference between a sage and an ordinary person is that the ordinary person thinks that each individual does what happens through that body/mind organism. So since the sage knows that there is no action that he does, if an action happens to hurt someone, then he will do all he can to help that person—but there will be no feelings of guilt.

WIE: Do you mean to say that if an individual acts in a way that ends up hurting another, then the person who did it, or, as you say, the "body/mind organism" who did it, is not responsible?

RB: What I'm saying here is that you know that "I" didn't do it. I'm not saying I'm not sorry that it hurt someone. The fact that someone was hurt will bring about a feeling of compassion and the feeling of compassion will result in my trying to do whatever I can to assuage the hurt. But there will be no feeling of guilt: I didn't do it! The other side of this is that an action happens that the society lauds and gives me a reward for. I'm not saying that happiness will not arise because of the reward. Just as compassion arose because of the hurt, a feeling of satisfaction or happiness may arise because of a reward. But there'll be no pride.

WIE: But do you literally mean that if I go and hit someone, it's not me doing it? I just want to get clear about this

RB: The original fact, the original concept, still remains: You hit somebody. The additional concept arises that whatever happens is God's will, and God's will with respect to each body/mind organism is the destiny of that body/mind organism.

WIE: So I could just say, "Well, it was God's will that I did that; it's not my fault."

RB: Sure. An act happens because it is the destiny of this body/mind organism, and because it is God's will. And the consequences of that action are also the destiny of that body/mind organism. If a good deed happens, that is the destiny. For example, we had a Mother Teresa. The body/mind organism known as "Mother Teresa" was so programmed that only good deeds happened. So the happening of the good deeds was the destiny of the body/mind organism called Mother Teresa. And the consequences were: a Nobel Prize, rewards, awards, and donations to the causes. All those were the destiny of that body/mind organism called Mother Teresa. On the other hand, there's a psychopathic organism that is so programmed—by the same source-that only evil or perverted deeds happen. The happening of those evil, perverted deeds is the destiny of a body/mind organism that the society calls a psychopath. But the psychopath didn't choose to be a psychopath. 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.

WIE: Are you saying that everything is predestined? That everything is preprogrammed from birth?

RB: Yes. I use the word "programming" to refer to the inherent characteristics of the body/mind organism. "Programming," to me, means genes plus environmental conditioning. You had no choice which particular parents you were born to, therefore you had no choice about your genes. By the same token, you had no choice in being born in a particular environment. Therefore you had no choice about the childhood conditioning you received in that environment, which includes the conditioning at home, in society, school, and church. The psychologists say that the total conditioning that you received up to the age of three or four is your basic conditioning. There'll be further conditioning, but the basic conditioning that creates the personality is genes plus environmental conditioning. I call that programming. Each body/mind organism is programmed in a unique way. There are no two body/mind organisms alike.

WIE: Yes, but isn't it true that two people could have very similar sets of conditioning, and yet one might turn out a completely different way than the other?

RB: Right. That's why I use two terms: one is the programming in the body/mind organism itself; the other is the destiny. The destiny is God's will with respect to that body/mind organism, stamped at the moment of conception. The destiny of one conception may be not to be born at all—in which case it will be aborted. This is all a concept, make no mistake. This is my concept.

WIE: You say that this is a concept and, of course, all words are concepts, but how do we know that this concept represents the truth? I tend to think that everyone has individual responsibility and that although there is a certain amount of conditioning that we inherit, we can still choose how we respond. One individual can transcend aspects of their conditioning that another might be stuck in all their life. Since this does occur, I would say that it is due to the individual wanting to transcend their conditioning, and succeeding.

RB: But if that happens, can it happen unless it is God's will? Say there are two people: one tries to overcome his handicap and does it; the other doesn't. What I say is that the one who succeeds and the one who fails each do so because that is the destiny of each body/mind organism—which is God's will.

WIE: But couldn't we just as easily say that it's God's will to give each individual free choice to make their own decisions?

RB: No. You see, my question to you is: Whose will prevails? The individual's or God's? From your own experience, to what extent has your own free will prevailed?

WIE: Well, I feel that the individual will can definitely prevail at times.

RB: Over God's will? When you want something and you work for it and it happens, it happens because your will coincided with God's will.

WIE: Let's take the example of an individual who becomes a drug addict and remains one all their life. One could just as easily argue that they've chosen to go against God's will and have succeeded—precisely because there is free will.

RB: But whether you accept this or not is itself God's will, don't you see? That you accept God's will or you do not accept God's will is itself God's will!

WIE: Saying that everything is preprogrammed, that it's all destiny and that there's no choice, seems like a very extreme form of reductionism. According to this view, human beings are like computers; everything about us is completely set.

RB: That's precisely it, yes.

WIE: But that seems to me to be a view that lacks a human heart. Then we're just like machines—everything's happening to us. There's nothing we can do, nothing we can change.

RB: Yes, exactly!

WIE: But that could easily lead to a profound indifference to life.

RB: Yes, and if it did, then it would be wonderful!

WIE: Really? Would it?

RB: But that is the point! Sure. Then you can say that whatever is happening is accepted. Then there is no unhappiness; there is no misery, no guilt, no pride, no hate, no envy. What is wrong with that? And as I already told you, actions happen through this body/mind organism, and if this individual finds that an act has hurt somebody, compassion arises.

WIE: But doesn't it seem a bit strange to go ahead and hurt someone and then feel compassion for them afterwards? Wouldn't it be better not to hurt them in the first place?

RB: But you have no control over it! If you had control over it, you would never have done it in the first place.

WIE: But if one believes that one does have control over it as opposed to believing that one doesn't, one might choose not to do it!