Maharshi's Gospel - 1

 https://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Maharshi's-Gospel.pdf

q/a form 113 pgs

18

The mind of the Sage who has realized the Self is wholly destroyed. It is dead.

 But to the onlooker, he may seem to possess a mind just like the layman. 

Hence the ‘I’ in the Sage has merely an apparent ‘objective reality’. 

In fact however, it has neither a subjective existence nor an objective reality.

pg 22 chp 3 Mind Control

The mind of the Sage who has realized the Self is wholly destroyed. It is dead. But to the onlooker, he may seem to possess a mind just like the layman. Hence the ‘I’ in the Sage has merely an apparent ‘objective reality’. In fact however, it has neither a subjective existence nor an objective reality.

D: If the mind is merely a shadow how then is one to know the Self? 

M: The Self is the heart, self-luminous. 

Illumination arises from the heart and reaches the brain, which is the seat of the mind. 

The world is seen with the mind; so you see the world by the reflected light of the Self. The world is perceived by an act of the mind. When the mind is illumined it is aware of the world; when it is not so illumined, it is not aware of the world. 

If the mind is turned in, towards the source of illumination, objective knowledge ceases, and the Self alone shines as the heart.

The moon shines by reflecting the light of the sun. When the sun has set, the moon is useful for displaying objects. When the sun has risen no one needs the moon, though its disc is visible in the sky. So it is with the mind and the heart. 

The mind is made useful by its reflected light. It is used for seeing objects. 

When turned inwards, it merges into the source of illumination which shines by Itself and the mind is then like the moon in the daytime. 

When it is dark, a lamp is necessary to give light. But when the sun has arisen, there is no need for the lamp; the objects are visible. And to see the sun no lamp is necessary; it is enough if you turn your eyes towards the self-luminous sun. Similarly with the mind; to see the objects the light reflected from the mind is necessary. To see the heart it is enough that the mind is turned towards it. Then the mind does not count and the heart is self-effulgent.

D: Is a set meditation necessary for strengthening the mind? 

M: Not if you keep the idea always before you that it is not your work. 

At first, effort is needed to remind yourself of it, but later on it becomes natural and continuous.

 The work will go on of its own accord, and your peace will remain undisturbed. 

Meditation is your true nature. 

You call it meditation now, because there are other thoughts distracting you. 

When these thoughts are dispelled, you remain alone — that is, in the state of meditation free from thoughts; and that is your real nature, 

which you are now trying to gain by keeping away other thoughts. 

Such keeping away of other thoughts is now called meditation. 

But when the practice becomes firm, the real nature shows itself as true meditation.

(A boy of eight and a half years sat in the hall at about five in the evening, when Sri Bhagavan went up the Hill. During His absence, the boy spoke on yoga and Vedanta in pure, simple and literary Tamil, quoting freely from the sayings of saints and the sacred scriptures. When Sri Bhagavan entered the hall, after nearly three-quarters of an hour, only

silence prevailed. For the twenty minutes the boy sat in Sri Bhagavan’s presence, he spoke not a word but was merely gazing at Him. Then tears flowed from his eyes. He wiped them with his left hand and soon after left the place saying that he still awaits Self-realization). 

D: How should we explain the extraordinary characteristics of the boy? 

M: The characteristics of his last birth are strong in him. But however strong they may be, they do not manifest themselves save in a calm, still mind. It is within the experience of all, that attempts to revive memory sometimes fail, while something flashes into the mind when it is calm and quiet.

D: How can the rebellious mind be made calm and tranquil? 

M: Either see its source so that it may disappear, or surrender yourself so that it may be struck down.

Self-surrender is the same as Self-knowledge, and either of them necessarily implies self-control. 

The ego submits only when it recognises the Higher Power.

D: How can I escape from samsara which seems to be the real cause for making the mind restless? Is not renunciation an effective means to realise tranquillity of mind?

M: Samsara is only in your mind. The world does not speak out saying, ‘Here I am, the world’. If it did so, it would be ever there, making its presence felt by you even in your sleep. Since, however, it is not there in sleep, it is impermanent. Being impermanent, it lacks substance. Having no reality apart from the Self it is easily subdued by the Self. The Self alone is permanent. 

Renunciation is the non-identification of the Self with the not-Self. 

When the ignorance which identifies the Self with not-Self is removed, not-Self ceases to exist, and that is true renunciation.

D: Can we not perform actions without attachment even in the absence of such renunciation?

 M: An atma jnani alone can be a good karma yogi. 

D: Does Bhagavan condemn dvaita Philosophy? 

M: Dvaita can subsist only when you identify the Self with the not-Self. Advaita is non-identification.

/......

29 chp 4 bhakti and Dnyana

,,

D: Sri Bhagavata outlines a way to find Krishna in the heart by prostrating to all and looking on all as the Lord Himself. Is this the right path leading to Self-realization? Is it not easier thus to adore Bhagavan in whatever meets the ‘mind’, than to seek the supramental through the mental enquiry, Who am I?

 M: Yes, when you see God in all, do you think of God or do you not? You must certainly think of God for seeing God all round you. 

Keeping God in your mind becomes dhyana and dhyana is the stage before Realization. 

Realization can only be in and of the Self. 

It can never be apart from the Self: and dhyana must precede it. 

Whether you make dhyana on God or on the Self, it is immaterial; for the goal is the same. 

You cannot, by any means, escape the Self. 

You want to see God in all, but not in yourself? If all is God, are you not included in that all? 

Being God yourself, is it a wonder that all is God? 

This is the method advised in Sri Bhagavata, and elsewhere by others. But even for this practice there must be the seer or thinker. Who is he?

D: What is the relation between jnana and bhakti? 

M: The eternal, unbroken, natural state of abiding in the Self is jnana. 

To abide in the Self you must love the Self. 

Since God is verily the Self, 

love of the Self is love of God; and that is bhakti. Jnana and bhakti are thus one and the same.

D: How should I carry on nama japa?

M: One should not use the name of God mechanically and superficially without the feeling of devotion

  To use the name of God one must call upon Him with yearning and unreservedly surrender oneself to Him. 

Only after such surrender is the name of God constantly with the man. 

D: Where is, then, the need for enquiry or vichara? 

M: Surrender can take effect only when it is done with full knowledge as to what real surrender means. 

Such knowledge comes after enquiry and reflection and ends invariably in self-surrender.

 There is no difference between jnana and absolute surrender to the Lord, 

that is, in thought, word and deed. 

To be complete, surrender must be unquestioning; the devotee cannot bargain with the Lord or demand favours at His hands. 

Such entire surrender comprises all; it is jnana and vairagya, devotion and love.

.................

32 chp 5 self an individuality

...

D: How does individuality emanate from the Absolute Self, and how is its return made possible? 

M: As a spark proceeds from fire, individuality emanates from the Absolute Self. The spark is called the ego.

 In the case of the ajnani, the ego identifies itself with some object simultaneously with its rise. 

It cannot remain without such association with objects. This association is due to ajnana, whose destruction is the objective of one’s efforts. 

If this tendency to identify itself with objects is destroyed, the ego becomes pure and then it also merges into its source. The false identification of oneself with the body is dehatma-buddhi or ‘I-am-the-body’-idea. This must go before good results can follow.

D: How am I to eradicate it?

 M: You exist in sushupti without being associated with the body and the mind, but in the other two states you are associated with them. If you were one with the body, how could you exist without the body in sushupti? 

You can separate yourself from what is external to you but not from that which is one with you. Hence the ego cannot be one with the body. This must be realised in the waking state. The three states are studied in order to gain this knowledge.

D: How can the ego which is confined to two of the states endeavour to realise That which comprises all the three states? 

M: The ego in its purity is experienced in the intervals between two states or between two thoughts. The ego is like the worm which leaves one hold only after it catches another. 

Its true nature is known when it is out of contact with objects or thoughts. 

You should realise this interval as the abiding, unchangeable Reality, your true Being, through the conviction gained by the study of the three states, jagrat, svapna and sushupti.

D: Can I not remain in sushupti as long as I like and also be in it at will, just as I am in the waking state? What is the jnani’s experience of these three states?

 M: Sushupti does exist in your waking state also. You are in sushupti even now. That should be consciously entered into and reached in this very waking state. There is no real going in and coming out of it. 

To be aware of sushupti in the jagrat state is jagrat-sushupti and that is samadhi. 

The ajnani cannot remain long in sushupti, because he is forced by his nature to emerge from it. 

His ego is not dead and it will rise again and again. 

But the jnani crushes the ego at its source. 

It may seem to emerge at times in his case also as if impelled by prarabdha. 

That is, in the case of the jnani also, for all outward purposes prarabdha would seem to sustain or keep up the ego, as in the case of the ajnani;

 but there is this fundamental difference, that

 the ajnani’s ego when it rises up (really it has subsided except in deep sleep) is quite ignorant of its source; 

in other words, the ajnani is not aware of his sushupti in his dream and waking states; 

in the case of the jnani, on the contrary, 

the rise or existence of the ego is only apparent,

 and he enjoys his unbroken, transcendental experience

 in spite of such apparent rise or existence of the ego,

 keeping his attention (lakshya) always on the Source. 

This ego is harmless; it is merely like the skeleton of a burnt rope — though with a form, it is useless to tie up anything. By constantly keeping one’s attention on the Source, the ego is dissolved in that Source like a salt-doll in the sea.

D: Sri Ramakrishna says that nirvikalpa samadhi cannot last longer than twenty-one days; if persisted in, the person dies. Is this a fact? 

M: When the prarabdha is exhausted, the ego is completely dissolved, without leaving any trace behind. This is the final liberation (nirvana). Unless prarabdha is exhausted, the ego will rise up as it may appear to do in the case of jivanmuktas.

.....

37 chp 6 self realization

D: How can I attain Self-realization? 

M: Realization is nothing to be gained afresh, it is already there. All that is necessary is to get rid of the thought ‘I have not realised’. Stillness or peace is Realization. There is no moment when the Self is not. 

So long as there is doubt or the feeling of non-realization, the attempt should be made to rid oneself of these thoughts. 

They are due to the identification of the Self with the not-Self. 

When the not-Self disappears, the Self alone remains. To make room, it is enough that the cramping be removed; room is not brought in from elsewhere. 

D: Since Realization is not possible without vasanakshaya, how am I to realise that State in which the vasanas are effectively destroyed? 

M: You are in that State now! 

D: Does it mean that by holding on to the Self, the vasanas should be destroyed as and when they emerge? 

M: They will themselves be destroyed if you remain as you are.

D: How shall I reach the Self?

 M: There is no reaching the Self. If Self were to be reached, it would mean that the Self is not here and now but that it is yet to be obtained. 

What is got afresh will also be lost. So it will be impermanent. 

What is not permanent is not worth striving for. So I say the Self is not reached. You are the Self; you are already That.

 The fact is, you are ignorant of your blissful state. Ignorance supervenes and draws a veil over the pure Self which is Bliss. Attempts are directed only to remove this veil of ignorance which is merely wrong knowledge. 

The wrong knowledge is the false identification of the Self with the body, mind etc. 

This False identification must go, and then the Self alone remains. 

Therefore Realization is for everyone. 

Realization makes no difference between the aspirants. 

This very doubt, whether you can realise, and the notion ‘I have-not-realised’ are themselves the obstacles. Be free from these obstacles also. 

D: What is the use of samadhi and does thought subsist then? 

M: Samadhi alone can reveal the Truth. 

Thoughts cast a veil over Reality, and so It is not realised as such in states other than samadhi. 

In samadhi there is only the feeling ‘I AM’ and no thoughts. 

The experience ‘I AM’ is being still.

D: How can I repeat the experience of samadhi or the stillness that I obtain here?

 M: Your present experience is due to the influence of the atmosphere in which you find yourself. Can you have it outside this atmosphere? The experience is spasmodic. 

Until it becomes permanent, practice is necessary.

D: One has at times vivid flashes of a consciousness whose centre is outside the normal self, and which seems to be all-inclusive. Without concerning ourselves with philosophical concepts, how would Bhagavan advise me to work towards getting, retaining and extending those rare flashes? Does abhyasa in such experience involve retirement? 

M: Outside! For whom is the inside or outside?

 These can exist only so long as there are the subject and object. For whom are these two again? 

On investigation you will find that they resolve into the subject only. 

See who is the subject; and this enquiry leads you to pure Consciousness beyond the subject. 

The normal self is the mind. This mind is with limitations. 

But pure Consciousness is beyond limitations, and is reached by investigation as above outlined. 

Getting: The Self is always there. You have only to remove the veil obstructing the revelation of the Self.

 Retaining: Once you realise the Self, it becomes your direct and immediate experience. It is never lost.

Extending: There is no extending of the Self, for it is as ever, without contraction or expansion.

 Retirement: Abiding in the Self is solitude. Because there is nothing alien to the Self. 

Retirement must be from some one place or state to another. There is neither the one nor the other apart from the Self. All being the Self, retirement is impossible and inconceivable. 

Abhyasa is only the prevention of disturbance to the inherent peace. 

You are always in your natural State whether you do abhyasa or not.... To remain as you are, without question or doubt, is your natural State.

 D: On realizing samadhi, does not one obtain siddhis also? 

M: In order to display siddhis, there must be others to recognise them. That means, there is no jnana in the one who displays them. Therefore, siddhis are not worth a thought; jnana alone is to be aimed at and gained. 

D: Does my Realization help others?

 M: Yes, and it is the best help that you can possibly render to others.

 Those who have discovered great truths have done so in the still depths of the Self. 

But really there are no ‘others’ to be helped. 

For, the Realised Being sees only the Self, just as the goldsmith sees only the gold while valuing it in various jewels made of gold. 

When you identify yourself with the body, name and form are there. But when you transcend the body-consciousness, the ‘others’ also disappear. The Realised one does not see the world as different from Himself. 

D: Would it not be better if the saints mix with others? 

M: There are no ‘others’ to mix with. The Self is the only Reality. 

D: Should I not try to help the suffering world? 

M: The Power that created you has created the world as well. If it can take care of you, it can similarly take care of the world also .... if God has created the world, it is His business to look after it, not yours.

D: Is it not our duty to be patriots? 

M: Your duty is to be and not, to be this or that. ‘I AM THAT I AM’ sums up the whole truth; 

the method is summarised in ‘be still’.

 And what does stillness mean? 

It means ‘destroy yourself’; because, every name and form is the cause of trouble. 

‘I-I’ is the Self.

 ‘I am this’ is the ego. 

When the ‘I’ is kept up as the ‘I’ only, it is the Self. 

When it flies off at a tangent and says ‘I am this or that, I am such and such’, it is the ego.

D: Who then is God? 

M: The Self is God. 

‘I AM’ is God. 

If God be apart from the Self, He must be a Selfless God, which is absurd. 

All that is required to realise the Self is to be still. 

What can be easier than that? 

Hence atma vidya is the easiest to attain.

...

42 chp 7 Guru and His Grace

D: What is guru kripa? How does it lead to Self-realization? 

M: Guru is the Self.... Sometimes in his life a man becomes dissatisfied with it, and, not content with what he has, he seeks the satisfaction of his desires, through prayer to God etc. 

His mind is gradually purified until he longs to know God, more to obtain His grace than to satisfy his worldly desires. 

Then, God’s grace begins to manifest. God takes the form of a Guru and appears to the devotee, teaches him the Truth and, moreover, purifies his mind by association. 

The devotee’s mind gains strength and is then able to turn inward. 

By meditation it is further purified and it remains still without the least ripple. That calm expanse is the Self. 

The Guru is both ‘external’ and ‘internal’. From the ‘exterior’ he gives a push to the mind to turn inward; from the ‘interior’ He pulls the mind towards the Self and helps in the quieting of the mind.

 That is guru kripa. There is no difference between God, Guru and the Self.

D: In the Theosophical Society they meditate in order to seek Masters to guide them.

M: The Master is within. Meditation is meant to remove the ignorant idea that He is only outside. If He be a stranger whom you await, He is bound to disappear also. Where is the use for a transient being like that? But as long as you think you are separate or that you are the body, so long is the Master ‘without’ also necessary, and He will appear as if with a body.

 When the wrong identification of oneself with the body ceases, the Master will be found as none other than the Self.

D: Will the Guru help us to know the Self through initiation etc.? 

M: Does the Guru hold you by the hand and whisper in the ear? You may imagine him to be what you are yourself. Because you think you are with a body, you think He also has a body to do something tangible for you. His work lies within, in the spiritual realm.

D: How is the Guru found?

 M: God, who is immanent, in His grace takes pity on the loving devotee and manifests Himself according to the devotee’s development. The devotee thinks that He is a man and expects a relationship as between two physical bodies. But the Guru, who is God or the Self incarnate, works from within, helps the man to see the error of his ways and guides him in the right path until he realises the Self within.

D: What should the devotee do then? 

M: He has only to act up to the words of the Master and work within. 

The Master is both ‘within’ and ‘without’, so He creates conditions to drive you inward and at the same time prepares the ‘interior’ to drag you to the Centre.

 Thus He gives a push from ‘without’ and exerts a pull from ‘within’, so that you may be fixed at the Centre. 

You think that the world can be conquered by your own efforts. 

When you are frustrated externally and are driven inwards, you feel ‘Oh! there is a Power higher than man!’ 

The ego is like a very powerful elephant which cannot be brought under control by any less powerful than a lion, which, in this instance, is no other than the Guru, whose very look makes the elephant-like ego tremble and die.

 You will know in due course that your glory lies where you cease to exist. 

In order to gain that state, you should surrender yourself. 

Then the Master sees that you are in a fit state to receive guidance, and He guides you.

 D: How can the silence of the Guru, who gives no initiation nor does any other tangible act, be more powerful than His word etc.? How is such silence better than the study of scriptures? 

M: Silence is the most potent form of work. However vast and emphatic the scriptures may be, they fail in their effect. The Guru is quiet and Grace prevails in all. This silence is more vast and more emphatic than all the scriptures put together.

D: But can the devotee obtain happiness? 

M: The devotee surrenders himself to the Master and it means that there is no vestige of individuality retained by him. 

If the surrender is complete, all sense of self is lost, and then there can be no misery or sorrow.

The eternal Being is nothing but happiness. That comes as a revelation.

D: How can I obtain Grace? 

M: Grace is the Self.

That also is not to be acquired; you only need to know that it exists.

 The sun is brightness only. It does not see darkness. Yet you speak of darkness fleeing on the sun’s approach. 

So also the devotee’s ignorance, like the phantom of darkness, vanishes at the look of the Guru.

 You are surrounded by sunlight; yet if you want to see the sun, you must turn in its direction and look at it. 

So also Grace is found by the proper approach you make, though it is here and now.

D: Cannot Grace hasten ripeness in the seeker? 

M: Leave it all to the Master. Surrender to Him without reserve. 

One of two things must be done: either surrender yourself, because you realise your inability and need a higher power to help you; 

or investigate into the cause of misery, go into the Source and so merge in the Self. 

Either way, you will be free from misery. 

God or Guru never forsakes the devotee who has surrendered himself.

D: What is the significance of prostration to the Guru or God? 

M: Prostration signifies the subsidence of the ego, and it means merging into the Source. God or Guru cannot be deceived by outward genuflexions, bowing and prostrations. He sees whether the ego is there or not.

..

The Sage is ignorant in a different line. He is ignorant because there is no ‘other’ for Him

..

M: Those who attain moksha in one life must have passed through all the initiations in their former lives.

D: Does Bhagavan use occult powers to make others realise the Self, or is the mere fact of Bhagavan’s Realization enough for that? 

M: The spiritual force of Self-realization is far more powerful than the use of all the occult powers.

 Inasmuch as there is no ego in the Sage, there are no ‘others’ for Him. 

What is the highest benefit that can be conferred on you? It is happiness, and happiness is born of peace. Peace can reign only where there is no disturbance, and disturbance is due to thoughts that arise in the mind. 

When the mind itself is absent, there will be perfect peace. 

Unless a person has annihilated the mind, he cannot gain peace and be happy. 

And unless he himself be happy, he cannot bestow happiness on ‘others’.

 Since however there are no ‘others’ for the Sage who has no mind, the mere fact of His Self-realization is itself enough to make the ‘others’ happy 

..........

48 chp 8 Peace and happiness

..

book2 

..

52 chp 1 Self Enquiry

...

56

M: Self-enquiry is certainly not an empty formula; it is more than the repetition of any mantra. If the enquiry, ‘Who am I?’ were a mere mental questioning, it would not be of much value. 

The very purpose of Self-enquiry is to focus the entire mind at its source. 

It is not, therefore, a case of one ‘I’ searching for another ‘I’. 

Much less is Self-enquiry an empty formula, for it involves an intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in pure Self-awareness. 

Self-enquiry is the one infallible means, the only direct one, to realise the unconditioned, Absolute Being that you really are.

D: Why should Self-enquiry alone be considered the direct means to jnana?

 M: Because every kind of sadhana except that of atma vichara 

pre-supposes the retention of the mind as the instrument for carrying on the sadhana, and without the mind it cannot be practised. 

The ego may take different and subtler forms at the different stages of one’s practice, but is itself never destroyed. 

When Janaka exclaimed, “Now I have discovered the thief who has been ruining me all along. He shall be dealt with summarily”, the King was really referring to the ego or the mind.

D: But the thief may well be apprehended by the other sadhanas as well. 

M: The attempt to destroy the ego or the mind through sadhanas other than atma vichara, is just like the thief assuming the guise of a policeman to catch the thief, that is himself.

 Atma vichara alone can reveal the truth that neither the ego nor the mind really exists,

 and enables one to realise the pure, undifferentiated Being of the Self or the Absolute.

Having realised the Self, nothing remains to be known, because it is perfect Bliss, it is the All.

D: In this life beset with limitations can I ever realise the bliss of the Self? 

M: That bliss of the Self is always with you, and you will find it for yourself, if you would seek it earnestly. 

The cause of your misery is not in the life without; it is in you as the ego.

 You impose limitations on yourself and then make a vain struggle to transcend them. All unhappiness is due to the ego; with it comes all your trouble. What does it avail you to attribute to the happenings in life the cause of misery which is really within you? 

What happiness can you get from things extraneous to yourself? When you get it, how long will it last? If you would deny the ego and scorch it by ignoring it, you would be free. If you accept it, it will impose limitations on you and throw you into a vain struggle to transcend them. That was how the thief sought to ‘ruin’ King Janaka. To be the Self that you really are is the only means to realise the bliss that is ever yours.

D: Not having realised the truth that the Self alone exists, should I not adopt bhakti and yoga margas as being more suitable for purposes of sadhana than vichara marga? Is not the realization of one’s Absolute Being that is, Brahma jnana, something quite unattainable to a layman like me? 

M: Brahma jnana is not a knowledge to be acquired, so that acquiring it one may obtain happiness. 

It is one’s ignorant outlook that one should give up. 

The Self you seek to know is verily yourself. 

Your supposed ignorance causes you needless grief like that of the ten foolish men who grieved the ‘loss’ of the tenth man who was never lost. 

The ten foolish men in the parable forded a stream and on reaching the other shore wanted to make sure that all of them had in fact safely crossed the stream.

 One of the ten began to count, but while counting others, left himself out. “I see only nine; sure enough, we have lost one. Who can it be?” he said. “Did you count correctly?” asked another, and did the counting himself. But he too counted only nine. One after the other each of the ten counted only nine, missing himself. “We are only nine” they all agreed, “but who is the missing one?” they asked themselves. Every effort they made to discover the ‘missing’ individual failed. “Whoever he be that is drowned”, said the most sentimental of ten fools, “we have lost him”. So saying he burst into tears, and the rest of the nine followed suit. Seeing them weeping on the river bank, a sympathetic wayfarer enquired for the cause. They related what had happened and said that even after counting themselves several times they could find no more than nine. On hearing the story, but seeing all the ten before him, the wayfarer guessed what had happened. In order to make them know for themselves that they were really ten, that all of them had come safe from the crossing, he told them “Let each of you count for himself but one after the other serially, one, two, three and so on, while I shall give you each a blow so that all of you may be sure of having been included in the count, and included only once. The tenth ‘missing’ man will then be found.” 

Hearing this they rejoiced at the prospect of finding their ‘lost’ comrade and accepted the method suggested by the wayfarer. While the kind wayfarer gave a blow to each of the ten in turn, he that got the blow counted himself aloud. “Ten” said the last man as he got the last blow in his turn. Bewildered they looked at one another, “We are ten” they said with one voice and thanked the wayfarer for having removed their grief. That is the parable. From where was the tenth man brought in? Was he ever lost? By knowing that he had been there all the while, did they learn anything new? 

The cause of their grief was not the real loss of any one of the ten, it was their own ignorance, rather their mere supposition that one of them was lost (though they could not find who he was), because they had counted only nine. Such is also the case with you. 

Truly there is no cause for you to be miserable and unhappy. 

You yourself impose limitations on your true nature of Infinite Being, and then weep that you are but a finite creature. 

Then you take up this or that sadhana to transcend the non-existent limitations.

 But if your sadhana itself assumes the existence of the limitations, how can it help you to transcend them?

 Hence I say, know that you are really the Infinite, Pure Being, the Self Absolute. 

You are always that Self and nothing but that Self. 

Therefore, you can never be really ignorant of the Self; your ignorance is merely a formal ignorance, like the ignorance of the ten fools about the ‘lost’ tenth man.

 It is this ignorance that caused them grief. 

Know then that true knowledge does not create a new Being for you, it only removes your ‘ignorant ignorance’. 

Bliss is not added to your nature, it is merely revealed as your true and natural state, eternal and imperishable. 

The only way to be rid of your grief is to know and be the Self.

 How can this be unattainable? 

...

81 part 2 sadhana and grace

..

D: Does knowing myself imply knowing God?

 M: Yes, God is within you.

 D: Then, what stands in the way of my knowing myself or God?

 M: Your wandering mind and perverted ways. 

D: I am a weak creature. But why does not the superior power of the Lord within remove the obstacles? 

M: Yes, He will, if you have the aspiration. 

D: Why should He not create the aspiration in me? 

M: Then surrender yourself. 

D: If I surrender myself, is no prayer to God necessary?

M: Surrender itself is a mighty prayer.

 D: But is it not necessary to understand His nature before one surrenders oneself?

 M: If you believe that God will do for you all the things you want Him to do, then surrender yourself to Him. Otherwise let God alone and know yourself. 

D: Has God or the Guru any solicitude for me? 

M: If you seek either — they are not really two but one and identical — rest assured that they are seeking you with a solicitude greater than you can ever imagine.

D: But one may not be quite sure of God’s Grace.

 M: If the unripe mind does not feel His Grace, it does not mean that God’s Grace is absent,

 for it would imply that God is at times not gracious, that is, ceases to be God.

D: Is that the same as the saying of Christ, “According to thy faith be it done unto thee”. 

M: Quite so.

 D: The Upanishads say, I am told, that he alone knows the Atman whom the Atman chooses. Why should the Atman choose at all? If it chooses, why some particular person?

 M: When the sun rises, some buds alone blossom, not all. Do you blame the sun for that? Nor can the bud blossom of itself, it requires the sunlight to do it.

D: Is God personal? 

M: Yes, He is always the first person, the I, ever standing before you. 

Because you give precedence to worldly things, God appears to have receded to the background. 

If you give up all else and seek Him alone He alone will remain as the I, the Self.

D: The final state of Realization according to Advaita, is said to be the absolute Union with the Divine and according to Visishtadvaita, a qualified union, while Dvaita maintains that there is no union at all. Which of these should be considered the correct view? 

M: Why speculate as to what will happen some time in the future? All are agreed that the ‘I’ exists. 

To whichever school of thought he may belong, let the earnest seeker first find out what the ‘I’ is. 

Then it will be time enough to know what the final State will be, whether the ‘I’ will get merged in the Supreme Being or stand apart from Him. Let us not forestall the conclusion, but keep an open mind.

D: But will not some understanding of the final state be a helpful guide even to the aspirant?

M: No purpose is served in trying to decide now what the final state of Realization will be. It has no intrinsic value. 

D: Why so?

 M: Because you proceed on a wrong principle. 

Your ascertainment has to depend on the intellect which shines only by the light it derives from the Self. 

Is it not presumptuous on the part of the intellect to sit in judgement over that of which it is but a limited manifestation, and from which it derives its little light? 

How can the intellect which can never reach the Self be competent to ascertain, and much less decide the nature of the final state of Realization?

 It is like trying to measure the sunlight at its source by the standard of the light given by a candle.

 The wax will melt down before the candle comes anywhere near the sun. 

Instead of indulging in mere speculation, devote yourself here and now to the search for the Truth that is ever within you. 

..............\

66   chp 3 the dnyani and the world

..

D: If the jnani and the ajnani perceive the world in like manner, where is the difference between them?

 M: Seeing the world, the jnani sees the Self which is the substratum of all that is seen; 

the ajnani, whether he sees the world or not, is ignorant of his true Being, the Self. 

Take the instance of moving pictures on the screen in the cinema-show. What is there in front of you before the play begins? Merely the screen. On that screen you see the entire show, and for all appearances the pictures are real. But go and try to take hold of them. 

What do you take hold of? Merely the screen on which the pictures appeared so real. After the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The screen again! So with the Self. That alone exists; the pictures come and go. If you hold on to the Self, you will not be deceived by the appearance of the pictures. Nor does it matter at all if the pictures appear or disappear.

Ignoring the Self the ajnani thinks the world is real, just as ignoring the screen he sees merely the pictures, as if they existed apart from it.

 If one knows that without the seer there is nothing to be seen, just as there are no pictures without the screen, one is not deluded. 

The jnani knows that the screen, the pictures and the sight thereof are but the Self. 

With the pictures the Self is in its manifest form; without the pictures It remains in the unmanifest form.

 To the jnani it is quite immaterial if the Self is in the one form or the other.

 He is always the Self. 

But the ajnani seeing the jnani active gets confounded.

70

D: I cannot say it is all clear to me. Is the world that is seen, felt and sensed by us in so many ways something like a dream, an illusion?

 M: There is no alternative for you but to accept the world as unreal, if you are seeking the Truth and the Truth alone. 

D: Why so? 

M: For the simple reason that unless you give up the idea that the world is real, your mind will always be after it. 

If you take the appearance to be real you will never know the Real itself, although it is the Real alone that exists. 

This point is illustrated by the analogy of the ‘snake in the rope’. 

As long as you see the snake you cannot see the rope as such. 

The non-existent snake becomes real to you, while the real rope seems wholly non-existent as such.

D: It is easy to accept tentatively that the world is not ultimately real, but it is hard to have the conviction that it is really unreal. 

M: Even so is your dream world real while you are dreaming. So long as the dream lasts, everything you see, feel, etc., therein is real. 

D: Is then the world nothing better than a dream? 

M: What is wrong with the sense of reality you have while you are dreaming? 

You may be dreaming of something quite impossible, for instance, of having a happy chat with a dead person. Just for a moment you may doubt in the dream saying to yourself, ‘Was he not dead?’, but somehow your mind reconciles itself to the dream vision, and the person is as good as alive for the purposes of the dream. 

In other words, the dream as a dream does not permit you to doubt its reality. Even so, you are unable to doubt the reality of the world of your wakeful experience. 

How can the mind which has itself created the world accept it as unreal? 

That is the significance of the comparison made between the world of wakeful experience and the dream world. Both are but creations of the mind and so long as the mind is engrossed in either, it finds itself unable to deny the reality of the dream world while dreaming and of the waking world while awake. 

If, on the contrary, you withdraw your mind completely from the world 

and turn it within and abide thus,

 that is, if you keep awake always to the Self, 

which is the substratum of all experience, 

you will find the world, of which alone you are now aware, 

just as unreal as the world in which you lived in your dream.

D: As I said before, we see, feel and sense the world in so many ways. These sensations are the reactions to the objects seen, felt etc., and are not mental creations as in dreams, which differ not only from person to person but also with regard to the same person. Is that not enough to prove the objective reality of the world? 

M: All this talk about inconsistencies and their attribution to the dream world arises only now, when you are awake. While you are dreaming, the dream was a perfectly integrated whole. That is to say, if you felt thirsty in a dream, the illusory drinking of illusory water did quench your illusory thirst. But all this was real and not illusory to you so long as you did not know that the dream itself was illusory. Similarly with the waking world; and the sensations you now have, get coordinated to give you the impression that the world is real.

If, on the contrary, the world is a self-existent reality (that is what you evidently mean by its objectivity) what prevents the world from revealing itself to you in sleep? You do not say you have not existed in your sleep.

D: Neither do I deny the world’s existence while I am asleep. It has been existing all the while. If during my sleep I did not see it, others who are not sleeping saw it. 

M: To say you existed while asleep, was it necessary to call in the evidence of others so as to prove it to you? Why do you seek their evidence now? 

Those ‘others’ can tell you of having seen the world (during your sleep) only when you yourself are awake. With regard to your own existence it is different. 

On waking up you say you had a sound sleep, so that, to that extent you are aware of yourself in the deepest sleep, whereas you have not the slightest notion of the world’s existence then. Even now, while you are awake, is it the world that says “I am real”, or is it you?

 D: Of course I say it, but I say it of the world. 

M: Well then, that world, which you say is real, is really mocking at you for seeking to prove its reality while of your own Reality you are ignorant. 

You want somehow or other to maintain that the world is real. 

What is the standard of Reality? 

That alone is Real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging.

 Does the world exist by itself? 

Was it ever seen without the aid of the mind?

 In sleep there is neither mind nor world. When awake, there is the mind and there is the world. 

What does this invariable concomitance mean? 

You are familiar with the principles of inductive logic, which are considered the very basis of scientific investigation. 

Why do you not decide this question of the reality of the world in the light of those accepted principles of logic? Of yourself you can say ‘I exist’. That is, yours is not mere existence, it is Existence of which you are conscious. Really, it is Existence identical with Consciousness.

D: The world may not be conscious of itself, yet it exists. 

M: Consciousness is always Self-consciousness. If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself. Un self conscious existence is a contradiction in terms. 

It is no existence at all. It is merely attributed existence, whereas true Existence, the sat, is not an attribute, it is the Substance itself. It is the vastu. Reality is therefore known as sat-chit, Being-Consciousness, and never merely the one to the exclusion of the other. The world neither exists by itself, nor is it conscious of its existence. How can you say that such a world is real? And what is the nature of the world? It is perpetual change, a continuous, interminable flux. A dependent, un self conscious, ever-changing world cannot be real.

..

78  chp 4  Heart is the self

..

D: Sri Bhagavan speaks of the heart as the seat of Consciousness and as identical with the Self. What does the heart exactly signify? 

M: The question about the heart arises because you are interested in seeking the source of consciousness. 

To all deep thinking minds, the enquiry about the ‘I’ and its nature has an irresistible fascination. 

Call it by any name, God, Self, the heart or the seat of Consciousness, it is all the same. 

The point to be grasped is this, that Heart means the very core of one’s being, the Centre, without which there is nothing whatever.

D: It is only on that basis that I have put the question about the position of the heart. I am asking about Sri Bhagavan’s experience. 

M: Pure Consciousness wholly unrelated to the physical body and transcending the mind is a matter of direct experience. 

Sages know their bodiless, eternal Existence just as the layman knows his bodily existence. But the experience of Consciousness can be with bodily awareness as well as without it. 

In the bodiless experience of Pure Consciousness the Sage is beyond time and space, and no question about the position of the heart can then at all arise. 

Since, however, the physical body cannot subsist (with life) apart from Consciousness, bodily awareness has to be sustained by Pure Consciousness. 

The former, by its nature, is limited to and can never be co-extensive with the latter which is infinite and eternal. 

Body-consciousness is merely a monad-like, miniature reflection of the Pure Consciousness with which the Sage has realised his identity. 

For him, therefore, body-consciousness is only a reflected ray, as it were, of the Self-effulgent, Infinite Consciousness which is himself. It is in this sense alone that the Sage is aware of his bodily existence. 

Since, during the bodiless experience of the heart as Pure Consciousness, the Sage is not at all aware of the body, that absolute experience is localized by him within the limits of the physical body by a sort of feeling-recollection made while he is with bodily awareness.

...

84  chp 5 The place of the Heart

...

D: But I have heard it said by a Saint that his spiritual experience is felt at the place between the eyebrows. 

M: As I said previously, that is the ultimate and perfect Realization which transcends subject-object relation. When that is achieved, it does not matter where the spiritual experience is felt. 

D: But the question is, which is the correct view of the two, namely, (1) that the centre of spiritual experience is the place between the eyebrows, (2) that it is the heart.

 M: For purposes of practice you may concentrate between the eyebrows, it would then be bhavana or imaginative contemplation of the mind; 

whereas the supreme state of anubhava or Realization, with which you become wholly identified and in which your individuality is completely dissolved, transcends the mind. Then, there can be no objectified centre to be experienced by you as a subject distinct and separate from it.

D: But Sri Bhagavan has specified a particular place for the heart within the physical body, that it is in the chest, two digits to the right from the median. 

M: Yes, that is the centre of spiritual experience according to the testimony of Sages. 

This spiritual heart-centre is quite different from the blood propelling, muscular organ known by the same name. The spiritual heart-centre is not an organ of the body.

 All that you can say of the heart is that it is the very core of your being. 

That with which you are really identical (as the word in Sanskrit literally means), whether you are awake, asleep or dreaming, whether you are engaged in work or immersed in samadhi.

89

The supreme state of Self-awareness is never absent; it transcends the three states of the mind as well as life and death.

D: Since Sri Bhagavan says that the Self may function at any of the centres or chakras while its seat is in the heart, is it not possible that by the practice of intense concentration or dhyana between the eyebrows this centre may itself become the seat of the Self? 

M: As long as it is merely the stage of practice of concentration by fixing a place of controlling your attention, any consideration about the seat of the Self would merely be a theorisation. 

You consider yourself as the subject, the seer, and the place whereon you fix your attention becomes the object seen. This is merely bhavana.

 When, on the contrary, you see the Seer himself, you merge in the Self, you become one with it; that is the heart.

D: Then, is the practice of concentration between the eyebrows advisable? 

M: The final result of the practice of any kind of dhyana is that the object, on which the sadhaka fixes

 his mind, ceases to exist as distinct and separate from the subject. 

They (the subject and object) become the one Self, and that is the heart. 

The practice of concentration on the centre between the eyebrows is one of the methods of sadhana, and thereby thoughts are effectively controlled for the time being. 

The reason is this. All thought is an extroverted activity of the mind; and thought, in the first instance, follows ‘sight’, physical or mental. It should however be noted, that this sadhana of fixing one’s attention between the eyebrows must be accompanied by japa. Because next in importance to the physical eye is the physical ear, either for controlling or distracting the mind. 

Next in importance to the eye of the mind (that is, mental visualisation of the object) is the ear of the mind (that is, mental articulation of speech), either to control and thereby strengthen the mind, or to distract and thereby dissipate it. 

Therefore, while fixing the mind’s eye on a centre, as for instance between the eyebrows, you should also practise the mental articulation of a nama (name) or mantra (sacred syllable or syllables).

 Otherwise you will soon lose your hold on the object of concentration. Sadhana as described above leads to identification of the Name, Word or Self — whatever you may call it — with the centre selected for purposes of dhyana. 

Pure Consciousness, the Self or the heart is the final Realization.

D: Why does not Sri Bhagavan direct us to practise concentration on some particular centre of chakra? 

M: Yoga sastras say that the sahasrara or the brain is the seat of the Self. 

Purushasukta declares that the heart is its seat. 

To enable the sadhaka to steer clear of possible doubt, I tell him to take up the ‘thread’ or the clue of ‘I’-ness or ‘I-am’-ness and follow it up its source. 

Because, firstly it is impossible for anybody to entertain any doubt about his ‘I’-notion; 

secondly whatever be the sadhana adopted, the final goal is the realization of the source of ‘I-am’-ness which is the primary datum of your experience. 

If you, therefore, practise atma vichara you will reach the heart which is the Self.

...

92 chp 6 Aham and Aham vritti

..

D: How can any enquiry initiated by the ego reveal its own unreality? 

M: The ego’s phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive into the Source where from arises the ahamvritti.

D: But is not the aham-vritti only one of the three forms in which the ego manifests itself? Yoga Vasishtha and other ancient texts describe the ego as having a threefold form. 

M: It is so. The ego is described as having three bodies, the gross, the subtle and the causal, but that is only for the purposes of analytical exposition. 

If the method of enquiry were to depend on the ego’s form, you may take it that any enquiry would become altogether impossible, because the forms the ego may assume are legion. Therefore, for purposes of jnana vichara, you have to proceed on the basis that the ego has but one form, namely that of aham-vritti.

D: But it may prove inadequate for realizing jnana.

 M: Self-enquiry by following the clue of aham-vritti is just like the dog tracing its master by his scent.

 The master may be at some distant, unknown place, but that does not at all stand in the way of the dog tracing him. The master’s scent is an infallible clue for the animal, and nothing else, such as the dress he wears, or his build and stature etc., counts. The dog holds on to that scent undistractedly while searching for him, and finally it succeeds in tracing him.

D: The question still remains why the quest for the source of aham-vritti, as distinguished from other vrittis, should be considered the direct means to Self realization. 

M: The word ‘aham’ is itself very suggestive. 

The two letters of the word, namely A (A) and h (HA), are the first and the last letters of the Sanskrit alphabet. The suggestion intended to be conveyed by the word is that it comprises all. How? Because aham signifies existence itself. 

Although the concept of ‘I’-ness or ‘I-am’-ness is by usage known as aham-vritti, it is not really a vritti like the other vrittis of the mind. 

Because, unlike the other vrittis which have no essential interrelation, the aham-vritti is equally and essentially related to each and every vritti of the mind. 

Without the ahamvritti there can be no other vritti, 

but the ahamvritti can subsist by itself 

without depending on any other vritti of the mind. 

The aham-vritti is therefore fundamentally different from other vrittis. 

So then, the search for the source of the aham-vritti is not merely the search for the basis of one of the forms of the ego but for the very Source itself 

from which arises the ‘I-am’-ness. 

In other words, the quest for and the realization of the source of the ego in the form of aham-vritti necessarily implies the transcendence of the ego in everyone of its possible forms.

D: Conceding that the aham-vritti essentially comprises all the forms of the ego, why should that vritti alone be chosen as the means for Self-enquiry? 

M: Because it is the one irreducible datum of your experience; because seeking its source is the only practicable course you can adopt to realise the Self. The ego is said to have a causal body, but how can you make it the subject of your investigation? When the ego adopts that form, you are immersed in the darkness of sleep

D: But is not the ego in its subtle and causal forms too intangible to be tackled through the enquiry into the source of aham-vritti conducted while the mind is awake? 

M: No. The enquiry into the source of aham-vritti touches the very existence of the ego. Therefore the subtlety of the ego’s form is not a material consideration. 

D: While the one aim is to realise the unconditioned, pure Being of the Self, which is in no way dependent on the ego, how can enquiry pertaining to the ego in the form of aham-vritti be of any use?

M: From the functional point of view, the form, activity or whatever else you may call it (it is immaterial, since it is evanescent), the ego has one and only one characteristic. 

The ego functions as the knot between the Self which is Pure Consciousness and the physical body which is inert and insentient. The ego is therefore called the chit-jada granthi. 

In your investigation into the source of aham-vritti, you take the essential chit aspect of the ego; and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure consciousness of the Self

D: What is the relation between the pure consciousness realised by the jnani and the ‘I-am’-ness which is accepted as the primary datum of experience?

 M: The undifferentiated consciousness of Pure Being is the heart or hridayam which you really are, as signified by the word itself (hrit + ayam = heart am I). 

From the heart arises the ‘I-am’-ness as the primary datum of one’s experience. 

By itself it is suddha-sattva in character. It is in this suddha-sattva svarupa (that is, uncontaminated by rajas and tamas), that the ‘I’ appears to subsist in the jnani.....

95/113 cont