Sri Ramana Maharshi has taught us in Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 98 (Guru Vachaka Kovai is the most authoritative record of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s verbal teachings according to Sri Ramana Ashram):
98. Unless the body is taken to be ‘I’, otherness – the world of moving and unmoving objects – cannot be seen. Hence, because otherness – the creatures and their Creator – does not exist, it is wrong to call Self the Witness.
Sri Sadhu Om, a direct devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi, writes in his commentary on this verse:
Descriptions of self as the ‘witness of the individual soul’ (jiva sakshi) or the ‘witness of everything’ (sarva sakshi), which can be found in some sacred texts, are not true but are only figurative (upacara), because only when other things are known would the one who knows them be a ‘witness’ of them. Since self does not know anything in the state of absolute oneness, which is devoid of any other thing, to what can it be a witness? Therefore describing self as a ‘witness’ is incorrect.
What both Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Sadhu Om are saying is that objects only appear when the ego/ignorance is present. In Self-realisation, there are no objects, only the Self, so in truth the Self cannot be said to be a witness.
In verse 869 of Guru Vachaka Kovai Sri Ramana teaches us:
869. ’Tis a foolish fancy to ascribe the role of ‘witness’ to the Self, the luminous Sun, the mighty sky of Pure Awareness. In the Self Immutable there is no room for maya’s darkness void. The Self is one sole whole without a second.
Here is an alternative translation of the same verse, with Sri Sadhu Om’s commentary, which essentially states in truth, ie. in realisation, there is no Maya in the Self. It is only for ajnani’s, ie. the ignorant, that consider the Self to be a witness of phenomena/maya:
869. The role [dharma] of seeing is ascribed to Self – the space of consciousness, the sun – only in the imagination of ajnanis, [because] maya, the empty ignorance [of seeing otherness], never exists in Self, the support [sthanu], [and also because] Self is without a second.
Sri Sadhu Om’s comments: Since Self is in truth that which transcends all roles and all qualities, and since It exists as one without a second, to glorify It as the ‘witness of all’ [sarva-sakshi] or as the ‘knower of all’ [sarvajna] is merely the folly of ignorant people.
The following is from the text Aham Sphurana from the entry dated 15th September, 1936. Some of the language is quite difficult so I have summarised the points in my comments which, as usual, are in italicised red:
Questioner: The Jnani [Tom: knower, enlightened sage] and ajnani [Tom: non-knower, the ignorant one] both have a body; what is the difference between them?
Tom: See Sri Ramana’s text ’40 Verses on Reality’ (Ulladu Narpadu), Bhagavan writes in verse 17:
17. To those who do not know the Self and to those who do, the body is the ‘I’. But to those who do not know the Self the ‘I’ is bounded by the body; while to those who within the body know the Self the ‘I’ shines boundless. Such is the difference between them.
Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The mistake made by the ajnani is that he limits his “I” to the body. Both the Jnani and the ajnani have a body, and both say ‘I am the body’. The difference lies in the fact that in the case of the Jnani the diaphanous [Tom: subtle] stream of consciousness needed to sustain life in the body is an upadhi [Tom: adjunct, superimposed object], whereas in the case of the other, that macilent [Tom: thin or subtle] ray of reflected consciousness [known as body-consciousness] is the one and only consciousness he is aware of.
I Am is the truth. Body-consciousness is an obnubilating [Tom: obscuring] limitation which obscures Revelation of the Self in the case of the ajnani and an upadhi in the case of the Jnani. You are always the same “I”, whatever state it is that may be passing in front of you. In sleep “I” remains without a body. That same “I” remains undisturbed and unmutilated in the jagrat [Tom: waking] and swapna [Tom: dream] states also.
Tom: To summarise the above paragraph, which contains some convoluted language, Bhagavan says that for the Jnani, the body is a mere appearance in Consciousness (Upadhi) which doesn’t cover his true identity as Self/Consciousness, whereas for the ajnani, the body is the sole identity and this obscures the vision of Truth of ‘I’ or ‘I AM’ or ‘True Self’. However, we will see below that this description is only from the relative point of view, and that truly there is no body for the Jnani in Truth.
Only, in these states, we abandon our actual identity with “I” and imagine ourselves to be perishable bodies made of matter. Despite this confusion on our part, “I” remains happily without a body in truth always, although we assume that we are within the body. Although by us imagined to be within the body, the Real “I” ever is without any body or other limitation, being the Absolute Immutable Self Itself. One’s ignorant outlook is not merely ‘I am the body.’; it lies in having confounded the Self with the not-Self, such as the mind, intellect or body. Does the Real “I” formulate or proclaim the idea of it being this or that? Is it not always perfectly silent? It is the spurious “I” which is capable of rumbustiousness or obstreperousness, and which says, ‘I am this.’ or ‘I am that.’.The body is insentient and cannot say so. Our mistake lies in thinking “I” to be what “I” is not. “I” cannot be insentient; therefore “I” is not the inert body. What then is this “I”? “I” means Sentience or Awareness which is not adumbrated by the faculty of thought-manufacture- i.e., the aham vritti.
The body’s movements are confounded with “I” and excruciating agony is the result. Whether the body and mind work or not, “I” remains free and happy i.e., in its nativistic or intrinsic state of ecstatic, Eternal Emancipation. The ajnani’s “I” is limited to his body and mind only; that is where his whole error lies. The Jnani’s “I” includes the body and everything else. For the Emancipated-one there cannot be anything apart from “I” the Self. He sees no other. Verily everything is only Himself. In the case of the ajnani, some phantasmagoric, intermediate entity known as ahankaram [Tom: ego] arises between the body and the Self and gives rise to all sorts of trouble. If its source is sought, it disappears, leaving the Self alone behind, as the solitary residue. Continuous and intense inward-pointed scrutiny of the mind results in its disappearance.
Tom: similar to my previous comments, Bhagavan is saying essentially the same thing here, namely that the Jnani is not identified with the body whereas the ajnani is. There is also a hint that in truth there is no body, and this is made slightly clearer below.
Bhagavan also says that it is this phantom ego which arises and claims to be I and also claims to be the body, and it is this that ‘gives rise to all sorts of trouble’. The method of self-enquiry is thereafter briefly described – seek the source of this ego, and via this continuous intense inward pointedness of mind, the mind disappears and Self-knowledge remains.
Q.: Since the Jnani has a tangible body, what happens to the soul in that body after its death?
B.: Others say that the Jnani has a body, and talk of jivanmukti, videhamukti, mukti by means of making the body disappear in a flash of blazing light, etc.; the Jnani’s experience of Reality is altogether unconditioned and totally absolute. His experience is that he has no body. If others see him as being one with a body, or as possessing a body, can that affect him? He does not identify himself with the body even whilst the body is yet alive. Can the death of the body then affect him?
Tom: for a moment here Bhagavan Sri Ramana speaks in absolute terms, declaring that for the Self or Jnani, there is no body at all. Below, however, Bhagavan will flip back into speaking in relative terms, presumably due to the nature of the question and the state of the questioner:
Q.: But just now Bhagawan said that the Jnani also says “I am the body.”.
B.: Yes. His “I” includes the body. His experience is that for him there cannot be anything apart from “I”. If the body is destroyed there is no loss for the “I”. “I” remains the same as ever. If the body feels dead let it raise questions. Can it? No; being inert it cannot. “I” never dies and it does not ask any question. Who then dies and who asks questions?
Q.: For whom are all the sacred-books then? They cannot be for the real “I”. They must be for the unreal “I”. The real one would not require them. Am I correct?
B.: Yes, yes.
Q.: Is it not strange that an unreal entity should have so many sacred-books written for him?
B.: Quite so. Death is merely a thought and nothing more. He who thinks raises questions and experiences troubles. Let the thinker tell us what happens to him in death.
This is one of a series of introductory articles – please see the homepage of tomdas.com for more introductory articles.
The following was originally posted here on Facebook
For me, Guru Bhakti was such an important feature of my path. Worshipping the name and form of Bhagavan Sri Ramana took me, eventually, to the formless objectless Guru in my Heart, whereupon, through the revelation of self-inquiry, He consumed me, totally and utterly, making me One with Him:
(Non-Dual) Love, Being, Consciousness and Bliss, beyond (dualistic) love, being, consciousness and bliss.
It was only later, retrospectively, that I analysed and realised what had happened and what had been happening. The intellectual understanding and appreciation of His Teachings came later.
Prior to this I never cared much for Bhagavan Sri Ramana’s written/spoken teachings – in my mind I had actually dismissed them. I just, for some reason, had a love for Him. I actually preferred Buddhist-style teachings or intellectualised versions of Advaita Vedanta, or even the teachings of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, as they made more sense to my rational scientific mind. Before I thought I had seen many flaws and holes in His Teachings.
Now, in retrospect, I can see how perfect His verbal and written teachings in fact are! Now I love to share his teachings. Sharing his teachings for me is a spontaneous expression of devotion, not an act of teaching at all!
At the time I was simply loving my Beloved, at the time I simply felt compelled to surrender myself to my Beloved, throw myself down at his feet. Everything else, such as Self Enquiry and Silence, spontaneously flowed from this Love and Bhakti without my being conscious at the time of what was happening or why.
This is why I often say that if you have some kind of connection to Sri Ramana, nurture that, and surrender to that, and know you are already saved. Metaphorically speaking, once you have come to Sri Ramana, your head is now in the tiger’s mouth!
Thus, in my experience, is the power of Genuine Heartfelt Guru Bhakti in which you surrender yourself to Him.
There are several verses in the Bhagavad Gita (one of my favourite texts) which teach the higher advaita teaching of ajata vada. Here we will look at a few of them.
Ajata literally means ‘no birth’, ‘no creation’ or ‘no origination’, and vada means doctrine or view or teaching. Many misunderstand what ajata actually means, and even many prominent teachers of vedanta misunderstand this teaching, as fundamentally it cannot be truly understood by the mind.
Ajata is the notion that there was never any creation, and that the world, including the body and mind, never actually were created, and never even appeared in consciousness at all, not even as an illusory dream-like appearance. On the face of it this sounds ludicrous, but if you take on board this understanding of the scriptures, you will find that the deeper teachings of Advaita will be revealed to you, and parts of the teaching that would otherwise not make sense will start to make sense.
See here for Sri Ramana Maharshi explaining the ajata teachings in more detail and giving us the true meaning of these wonderful but radical teachings.
Perhaps the most famous of the verses from the Bhagavad Gita that give the Ajata teaching is 2.16:
‘The unreal has no being; the real never not-is [never is non-existent, ie. the real always IS]; The seers of ultimate reality have thus perceived the final truth about them both‘
We can see here the definitive statement at the start of the Bhagavad Gita which states the unreal never came to be, never had any being, and never actually existed. Unreal refers to that which comes and goes, that which is perceived, ie. the body, the mind and the world. Some misinterpret the verse to say that the unreal appears to exist, but actually doesn’t exist, like a dream or an illusion, but this is not the deeper meaning at all. The deeper, seeminlgy paradoxical meaning is that the unreal never came to be, as the verse clearly states, not even as an appearance.
Sri Ramana Maharshi, in Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad, gives this teaching to us in verses 147 and 330, where he explains that creation and appearance are the same. Therefore ‘no-creation’ or ‘ajata’ means no appearance:
147. Creation is not other than seeing; seeing and creating are one and the same process. Annihilation is only the cessation of seeing and nothing else, for the world comes to an end by the right awareness of oneself.
330. There is no creation apart from seeing; seeing and creation are one and the same. And because that seeing is due to ignorance, to cease seeing is the truth of the dissolution (of the world).
And Sri Ramana also gives us a teaching from Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 87:
87. Self appearing as the world is just like a rope seeing itself as a snake; just as the snake is, on scrutiny, found to be ever non-existent, so is the world found to be ever non-existent, even as an appearance.
More verses like the one above from Sri Ramana Maharshi can be found here.
Another verse from the Bhagavad gita that teaches Ajata Vada is Chapter 7, Verse 24:
‘The unwise, lacking in discrimination, think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having manifestation, knowing not My higher, immutable and most excellent nature.’
For the ignorant, the world is considered to be a manifestation of the divine. This verse clearly states that in Truth, Brahman never has any manifestation. It is only through ignorance that Brahman seems to manifest, but the wise (the sage), with ignorance eradicated, see the truth – there is only Brahman, and He/That is without manifestation. To the Jnani (liberated sage), Brahman is unmanifest and immutable, while the world of manifestation is a distorted perception of the Unmanifest seen through the lens of ignorance.
We see Sri Ramana explain this too, in Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 35:
35. Since this world of dyads [eg. knower/known] and triads [eg. knower/knowing/known] appears only in the mind, like the illusory ring of fire formed [in the darkness of ignorance] by whirling the single point of a glowing rope-end, it is false, and it does not exist in the clear sight of Self.
Here is the last verse in this post from the Bhagavad Gita where Ajata is taught. It is from Chapter 9, Verse 4:
‘By Me, in My unmanifest form, is this entire universe pervaded. All beings have their existence in Me, but I do not have My existence in them.’
For the ignorant, the world is considered to be a manifestation of the divine, but in Truth, there has never been any manifestation, there has never been any duality, there has never been any multiplicity, there has never been any appearance, there has never been any ignorance (indeed this is another ramification of the ajata teachings – that there never was really any ignorance at all, that the apparent evils and injustices of the world never actually occurred, and there has only ever been liberation or heaven). These have never ever come to be. But, whilst we consider the manifestation (of the world/universe) to be real, we can say all is Brahman, but in truth, Brahman is not to be found in the world. This is why Lord Krishna says ‘I do not have My existience in them [the manifestation])
We see a similar teaching given by Sri Ramana Maharshi in one of the first few verses of Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 21. This verse does not give the highest ajata teaching, but does clarify that the lower teaching is to consider the world to be a manifestation of the divine, but that the higher teaching is that the world does not in Reality exist:
21. For those who take the world appearance as real and enjoy it, it is the Lord’s creation. But for those who, free from fear, have known the Truth, the undeluded Self, it is no more than a mere mental image projected by desire.
Let us now go back, full circle, to the first verse quoted, and enjoy both its poetry and its clarity of expression:
“The unreal has no being; the real never not-is; The seers of ultimate reality have thus perceived the final truth about them both.”
‘All that is necessary is to be rid of the thought: “I have not realised.”’
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 245
This teaching sounds so simple, but let us see what this teaching actually means. To do this, we have to take a look at the context in which this teaching was given, and not merely cling to a single quote taken out of context. The quote was taken from talk 245 from the book ‘Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi’. Let us look at the talk in its entirely. We will see there are many wonderful and revealing teachings packed into this short talk. As usual my comments will be in italicised red and the text itself will be in black:
Devotee (D):“I understand that the Self is beyond the ego. My knowledge is theoretical and not practical. How shall I gain practical realisation of the Self?”
Sri Ramana Maharshi (M).: Realisation is nothing to be got afresh. It is already there. All that is necessary is to be rid of the thought: “I have not realised.”
Tom’s comments: we can see that the questioner is asking a very relevant question, namely how to covert their intellectual knowledge into genuine realisation. Bhagavan Sri Ramana is essentially pointing out that you are the Self already and that you simply have to remove any ideas of non-realisation. We will see below, based on the text itself, that this actually means removing the entirely of non-self, for any residue of non-self is synonymous with the idea ‘I have not realised’ or ‘the feeling of non-realisation’ (this term is used next below).
D.: Then one need not attempt it.
M.: No. Stillness of mind or peace is realisation. There is no moment when the Self is not. So long as there is doubt or the feeling of non-realisation, attempt must be made to rid oneself of these thoughts.
Tom: As Sri Ramana has said that you are already the Self, the questioner naturally follows up by asking – if that is the case, then there is no need to seek, no need to search, and by extension, no need to practice, correct? Bhagavan replies by stating ‘No’, this is not the case. As long as there is ‘the feeling of non-realisation’, one must attempt to remove or ‘rid oneself’ of these thought. He goes on to define realisation as ‘stillness of mind’. We will see later that this means cessation of mind, or pure mind, which is Self. But what is this ‘feeling of non-realisation’? What thoughts do we have to remove, and how? Do we have to remove some thoughts or all thoughts? Sri Ramana continues:
The thoughts are due to identification of the Self with the non-self. When the non-self disappears the Self alone remains. To make room anywhere it is enough that things are removed from there. Room is not brought in afresh. Nay, more – room is there even in cramping.
Absence of thoughts does not mean a blank. There must be one to know the blank. Knowledge and ignorance are of the mind. They are born of duality. But the Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance. It is light itself. There is no necessity to see the Self with another Self. There are no two selves. What is not Self is non-self. The non-self cannot see the Self. The Self has no sight or hearing. It lies beyond these – all alone, as pure consciousness.
Tom: there are a large number of points Sri Bhagavan makes in the above paragraph. Let us briefly go through them -each of the following can be derived from the above 2 paragraphs: -Thoughts appears due to identification with the non-self (ie. the body, the mind, the world) -Self alone remains when non-self disappears – Bhagavan gives the metaphor of clearing the rubbish from a room to make space. The idea is that we do not need to find the self or bring the self in from elsewhere, we just need to clear space and the self or room will remain over, self-shining. The junk we need to clear out is the non-self -The absence of thoughts is not a mere blank, but instead we are to know the One who knows the ‘blank, that is we must know the Self. -Knowledge and ignorance are both of the mind, whereas the Self is beyond the mind, Self is the Light that lights up knowledge and ignorance. -Knowledge and ignorance are born of duality, ie. they are false, non-self, born of primal ignorance or ego. They too must disappear, like all non-self, is the implication, for liberation to ensue. -The non-self (ie. body or mind in this case), cannot see the Self. It is the Self that ‘sees’ the Self by simply being the Self -The self has no sight and no hearing (because it has no body or mind, both of which are non-self, both of which must disappear for realisation to occur). -The Self is beyond all phenomena, it is Pure Consciousness. If we read carefully we will see that the word ‘Pure’ means without any objects or thoughts appearing in it. Bhagavan continues:
A woman, with her necklace round her neck, imagines that it has been lost and goes about searching for it, until she is reminded of it by a friend; she has created her own sense of loss, her own anxiety of search and then her own pleasure of recovery. Similarly the Self is all along there, whether you search for it or not. Again just as the woman feels as if the lost necklace has been regained, so also the removal of ignorance and the cessation of false identification reveal the Self which is always present – here and now. This is called realisation. It is not new. It amounts to elimination of ignorance and nothing more.
Tom: Here Bhagavan makes it very clear, using the traditional story of the woman and her necklace, that the Self is ever present. All we need to do is remove ignorance. This is the same as removal of the cessation of the false identification with non-self. Earlier Bhagavan said all we have to do is ‘be rid of the thought ‘I have not realised” and that we have to be rid of the ‘feelings of non-realisation’. It therefore follows that ignorance, identification with non-self, feelings or non-realisation and the thought ‘I have not realised’ are all the same thing.In each case, Bhagavan is simply saying ignorance must be removed. What does this actually mean? Bhagavan will explain further:
Blankness is the evil result of searching the mind. The mind must be cut off, root and branch. See who the thinker is, who the seeker is. Abide as the thinker, the seeker. All thoughts will disappear.
Tom: Bhagavan makes it clear: ‘The mind must be cut off, root and branch’. This is what Bhagavan means by removing the thought ‘I have not realised’. This is what it means to remove ignorance. This is what it means to remove identification with non-self and rid one of ‘feelings of non-realisation’. This is what he means when he says ‘realisation is stillness of mind’. He is speaking of manonasa. It is not just the peripheral thoughts (branches) that must go, but the root thought too, the thought ‘I am the body-mind’ – ‘The mind must be cut off, root and branch‘.
How to do this? Bhagavan says ‘See who the thinker is, who the seeker is’, meaning find out the Subject, the Self, know your Self, ie. Self-enquiry is the way. Bhagavan says then ‘All thoughts will disappear’. Not some thoughts will disappear, but all thoughts will disappear.
D.: Then there will be the ego – the thinker.
M.: That ego is pure Ego purged of thoughts. It is the same as the Self. So long as false identification persists doubts will persist, questions will arise, there will be no end of them. Doubts will cease only when the non-self is put an end to. That will result in realisation of the Self. There will remain no other there to doubt or ask. All these doubts should be solved within oneself. No amount of words will satisfy. Hold the thinker. Only when the thinker is not held do objects appear outside or doubts arise in the mind.
Tom: Does Bhagavan want us to hold onto thoughts or the thinker? Does he want us to hold onto the mind or the Self? Clearly when Bhagavan says ‘only when the thinker is held’, he is not speaking of the mind, but of the Self. Especially as he has already said ‘The mind must be cut off, root and branch’ and ‘all thoughts will disappear’ a few moments earlier. Self knowledge is the way. Self Enquiry is the way.
The questioner asks this very question – are we to hold onto the ego then? The thinker? Bhagavan gives us another wonderful and revealing answer: the ego purified or ‘purged of thoughts’ – that purified ‘ego’ or ‘I’ is Self. The Jiva (purified, purged of thoughts) is Siva.
In the Skanda Upanishad it is stated:
‘Jiva is Siva. Siva is Jiva. That Jiva is Siva alone. Bound by husk [non-self], it is paddy [jiva]. Freed from husk, it is rice [Self]‘
Shankara also wrote in verse 20 of Brahma Jnanavali Mala ‘Brahma satyam, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah’ which means ‘Brahman is Truth/Reality, the world is illusion, the Jiva [when enquired into] is nothing but Brahman’
Concluding points
We have seen that Bhagavan has said ‘When the non-self disappears self alone remains‘ and ‘the mind must be cut off, root and branch‘ and ‘it amounts to elimination of ignorance, nothing more‘ and ‘the self has no sight or hearing‘.
We can therefore deduce that ‘the mind’, ‘non-self’ and ‘ignorance’ are essentially synonyms, as in each case Bhagavan has said only these have to be removed. Sure, these words may be used in different ways in different contexts, but essentially they are one, one ignorance, one maya (illusion).
How to do this? How to remove ignorance? How to end Maya? How to still the mind? How to remove non-self and clear ‘space in the room’? And to come back to our original question, How to be rid of the thought ‘I am not realised’? By going back to the Subject, all thoughts and objects disappear and only Self remains. This is known as Self-Enquiry and it results in liberation.
The following is from the book Maharshi’s Gospel (Click on the link for a PDF download), Book 2, Chapter 6:
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Do you remember, I told you once previously that existence and awareness are not two different things but one and the same? Well, if for any reason you feel constrained to admit the fact that you existed in sleep be sure you were also aware of that existence.
What you were really unaware of in sleep is your bodily existence. You are confounding this bodily awareness with the true Awareness of the Self which is eternal. Prajnana [Pure Consciousness], which is the source of ‘I-am’-ness, ever subsists unaffected by the three transitory states of the mind, thus enabling you to retain your identity unimpaired.
Prajnana is also beyond the three states because it can subsist without them and in spite of them.
It is that Reality that you should seek during your so-called waking state by tracing the aham-vritti to its Source. Intense practice in this inquiry will reveal that the mind and its three states are unreal and that you are the eternal, infinite consciousness of Pure Being, the Self or the Heart.
Om Nama Bhagavate Sri Arunachala Ramanaya Om 
Tom Das 