Online Satsang with Tom Das | Advaita with loving devotion to Sri Ramana Maharshi | Online Non-duality meetings | Advaita Vedanta

See here for more details

Please join us – all are welcome and no prior knowledge is required.

We meet ONLINE twice every week (every Thursday 8pm and Sunday 3pm UK time).

We meet IN-PERSON on the first Sunday of every month at 2pm UK time and this meeting is also livestreamed on Zoom.

Meetings often start with some Silence followed by some readings, a talk and some questions. The initial silence is a wonderful opportunity for stillness and to put the teachings into practice.

After the meeting there is an opportunity to stay and connect with other people attending the meeting.

To join or find out more please see this link.

Q. I want to become a Jnani, what should I do? Sri Ramama Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

The following excerpt is from the text Aham Sphurana 18th August 1936 – you can download the entire text here

Questioner: I also want to Realise the Self and become a Jnani like Sri Bhagavan. What should I do?

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Do not do anything. Step aside and permit the Light to Shine.

Q.: I do not understand what I should do to Realise the Self.

B.: Summa Iru. It means, ‘Remain naturally without thinking.’

Q.: As distinct from suppression or control of thought?

B.: Yes.

Q.: In my case effort is needed to remain without thinking.

B.: That is the problem.

Q.: How am I to reach the state wherein I am able to effortlessly remain in the state of absence of thoughts?

B.: Only by pursuing the investigation ‘Who-am-I?’.

Q.: How long to investigate?

B.: Until investigation is no-longer possible.

Q.: If I am able to effortlessly remain in the state wherein there are no thoughts, can I also become a Jnani?

B.: Undoubtedly.

Q.: God’s Grace is said to be necessary for it.

B.: Yes.

Q.: How to win God’s Grace?

B.: Only by relentlessly pursuing the investigation.

Q.: Is not everything predetermined?

B.: That argument is not meant to be used to justify anticipation of failure.

Q.: So long as the idea or belief ‘The world is real’ is sustained within the mind, vichara will yield no benefit. Am I correct?

B.: Yes. But the vichara itself will progressively facilitate you to see the truth.

Q.: Is it belief in the objective reality of the world that is preventing me from Realising?

B.: Not only that idea, all arbitrary-mental-conceptualisations [vrittis] must be eradicated from the mind before there can be any possibility of Realisation.

Q.: Why so?

B.: Vrittis [mental modifications or arbitrary-mental-conceptualisations] act as water in a cauldron which reflects the Sun as an image upon its surface. Thoroughly empty the cauldron. That is the nivritti state of mind. When the cauldron has been toppled and broken into pieces, chance of reflection – any further – is permanently ruined. This is the Sahaja-stithi of the Jnani. [Tom: Sri Ramana is stating that all vrittis (mental modifications or thoughts) must cease for realisation. When the mind is destroyed (through self-enquiry) and can no longer generate thoughts, that is the Sahaja or natural state of self-realisation, also known as self-knowledge]

Bhagavan then turned to the attendant and asked him to pick out a certain volume of the Bengali work Sri Ramakrishna Kathamritha. But that gentleman could not succeed in identifying the same from the book-case. Bhagavan himself retrieved the same and presently read out for the Hall in Tamil:

One attains the state of Brahmajnana when the mind has been destroyed. When the mind disappears and the ego has scarpered without leaving behind the least residue, that which was repeating I,I is discovered to have always been non-existent. It is possible to reach this state through bhakti or jnana. The Jnana-anveshaka considers the world as a mere dream or hallucination. Once perception of the world has ceased, only the ‘I-Consciousness’ remains. Imagine that there are 10 cauldrons filled with water. They all reflect the Sun. Now, totally how many suns do you see?

A Devotee – Ten reflected suns and the one true Sun.

Sri Ramakrishna – Imagine now that one of these cauldrons shatters into pieces. Now how many suns do you see?

The Devotee – Nine reflected suns and the one true Sun.

Sri Ramakrishna – Well, supposing that nine cauldrons are broken, how many suns would you see?

The Devotee- One reflected image of the sun and the one true Sun.

Sri Ramakrishna – What remains after the last cauldron is broken?

The Devotee – The one true Sun.

Sri Ramakrishna – No. No words can possibly describe what remains. It is what really IS. When there is no reflected sun, how can you tell that there is the real sun? In the state of samadhi the ‘I’ vanishes. What a man experiences then cannot be expressed through ideas when he comes down to a lower plane.

Q.: Is Bhagawan now talking to us from a lower plane, then?

B.: Sri Ramakrishna is describing nirvikalpa samadhi. In the Sahaja-stithi there is no lower plane or higher plane. [Tom: some say there are 2 aspects of reality – that which is with form and changed, and the unchanging formless, and that these 2 are actually a single inseperable whole. However, this is not the actual truth – it is an idea of truth that the ego may like and understand, but not the truth itself. Bhagavan is telling us that the Self, devoid of name, movement and form, that alone is the reality, and that is beyond words and ideas and concepts, that cannot be understood or conceived]

Q.: The example befuddles me. The Sun is never obscured by its reflection on any number of surfaces. Reflections of the Sun do not affect the Sun itself in any way.

B.: Exactly.

Q.: But the Self is obscured by the ego.

B.: Did the Self complain of being obscured by the ego?

Q.: So bondage is a fact only from the ego’s point of view.

B.: Quite so.

Q.: In that case how did the ego arise?

B.: Whose ego?

Q.: Mine. But who am I?

B.: Find out.

Q. Is this world really a dream? I want proof! | Ramana Maharshi on Ramakrishna’s teachings | Aham Sphurana

The following excerpt is from the text Aham Sphurana 14th August 1936 – you can download the entire text here

Questioner: Is your teaching the same as Sri Ramakrishna’s?

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Absolutely.

Q.: If I-am-God is the Truth, does it not amount to arrogance?

B.: It does not mean you – as you incumbently imagine yourself to be – are God. It means, God is the Real “I”.

Q.: There is a self which is co-eval with the personality and attaches itself to the body. This is known as the mind. Then there is the Parabrahman mentioned in the Vedanta. This is known as the Impersonal Essence of man. Which is my true self? Can I have more than one self?

B.: The mind is a phantom. In the Impersonal Essence the mind is nowhere to be found.

Q.: How to reach it?

B.: There is nobody there to reach it. Thus there is no reaching it. Subside and let the Light shine forth. Subside as the mind and shine as the Self.

Q.: Practically what is the method for it?

B.: The investigation, ‘Who-am-I?’.

Q.: But this investigation also is made with mind only.

B.: It commences no doubt in the mind. It ends in no-mind.

Bhagavan asked Major Chadwick to read out ‘Who-am-I?’ to him in French. This was done and the creature listened carefully, cocking his huge head against a meagre shoulder, so that his left ear should be better exposed to the sounds emanating from Chadwick’s lips. Presently he extracted a small ear-trumpet from the folds of his laborious clothes and grooved the ear-piece of the same into his left ear.

The bell of the contraption was positioned to face Major Chadwick.’s direction. Bhagavan looked at the surprised faces in the Hall and laughed. Presently –

Q.: What is the authority for saying that the world is a dream? Where is the proof, I mean?

B.: Did you exist in sleep?

Q.: Yes.

B.: Do you exist now?

Q.: Yes.

B.: Then what is the difference [in the 2 states]?

Q.: I am not aware of my body and world [in sleep].

B.: Being aware of the body and world is called dreaming. Remain unaware of them now also. That verily is Jnana or Reality. This alone is the state of true wakefulness.

Q.: But how can we call this world a dream?

B.: Why not?

Q.: There are so many people on the Earth. If it is a dream, whose dream might it be?

B.: Yours.

Q.: But why pick me out specifically? For instance it may even be the dream of the amiable Monsieur Chadwick here.

B.: Only you are there.

Q.: What about you, then, sir?

B.: No, I am not here or there. I AM. There is no here or there or anywhere. I AM THAT I AM.

Q.: I comprehend not.

B.: Evidence produced by the sensory organs is merely mental in nature. All knowledge of diversity is fictitious mental information. Your Being is Real. There is nothing else.

Q.: I want proof.

B.: If proof is given to you, how will you be able to believe it?

Q.: I comprehend not.

B.: The proof given to you, if any, is also going to be mere mental information only.

Q.: What can be believed, then, as true?

B.: Whatever is believed is false only. Truth is in Being only.

Q.: How to attain this Being?

B.: By giving up the idea that there could be anything to be attained and all other ideas.

Q.: Practically, how can I go about it?

B.: Investigate ‘Who-am-I?’.

Q.: Will repetition of sacred syllables not be helpful? Do not the sacred incantations of your religion hold some sort of latent spiritual power? By unlocking this power or energy can we not reach the state of Enlightenment?

B.: You have been appraised of the direct method.

Q.: The others are by-lanes or diversions?

B.: Yes.

Q.: Should food restrictions be followed by a seeker after Enlightenment? Can I eat pork?

B.: Try to thrive on grain and fruit.

Q.: Can the investigation of ‘Who-am-I?’ be done in your presence only? If I do it at, say, Nantes, would I able to succeed in Enlightening myself? Is your physical presence needed? In order so as to bring about a successful outcome to the practise, I mean?

B.: It is the mind that matters. If the mind is kept steadily poised in introversion, such questions cannot arise even.

Q.: Is worship of, or even belief in, a personal God permissible?

B.: Yes.

Q.: Does it not thwart one’s progress toward Enlighenment?

B.: When you become ripe enough, you will no longer feel that it is you who are praying.

Q.: Is philanthropy a distraction or ought one to try to help the suffering world?

B.: It varies according to the temprament of the individual’s psyche.

Q.: I see. What about my case?

B.: When you see suffering, what thought first crosses your mind?

Q.: “I wish God had created a world in which there was no suffering.”

B.: Those destined to help think – impetuously- “Let me see what I can do here…”.

Q.: Is there any need to officially renounce my affirmed affiliation into the La Rochelle Temple?

B.: No.

Q.: Occasionally I become frightened when my health takes a turn for the worse. How to remain free from such fears?

B.: You already know that for this perishable body made of the elements, destruction is certain one day. Why crib over the inevitable?

Q.: But how do I keep fear at bay?

B.: By not identifying the Self with the body or mind.

Q.: But how to get rid of such erroneous identification?

B.: Only by relentless pursuit of the investigation, ‘Who am I?’.

Then the Distraught One proudly produced a gift for Bhagavan – a small tin box which rattled. Bhagavan opened it and smiled.

Q.: [beaming happily] They are roasted seeds belonging to the St. Ignatius fruit – fruits produced by the tree Strychnos ignatius! Very difficult to obtain ever since the War, sir! Specially procured for your consumption, if I may be permitted to say so, sir!

Q. Does God have a distasteful revolting sense of humour, allowing all this suffering in the world? Can we move and act without thinking? Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

The following excerpt is taken from Aham Sphurana 9th August 1936, you can download the entire text here.

Questioner: If this suffering world is some sort of joke, I find God’s sense of humour distasteful – revolting, even.

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi: The world is not external to you. Because you imagine yourself to be confined to this body, such a thing called ‘world’ appears outside you. In truth, only you are there and there is nothing else.

Q.: If I am the formless Aathman, how and why did I come to be trapped within or confined to this body?

B.: Who complains that he is limited to a phenomenal body? Is the Aathman raising this complaint?

Q.: No; I am.

[Tom: we will see that the questioner is lead to realise that the entity asking the question is neither the insentient physical body, not the exquisite perfect self, but some imposter that lies inbetween the two – ie. the ego-mind]

B.: Are you apart from the Aathman?

Q.: Yes; the Aathman is formless and perfect; I am confined to the form of this perishable body and therefore imperfect. Am I correct?

B.: Does the body bemoan the fact of its caducity?

Q.: No; I do.

B.: According to your own admission, you are neither the body nor the Aathman. Who, then, are you?

Q.: I am the intermediary entity, namely the individual soul [Tom: ie. Jiva or sense of separate self] or mind.

B.: How are you conscious of the mind’s existence? Is the mind you or are you aware of it as something apart from you?

[Tom: we will see that Bhagavan leads the questioner to realise that there are 2 aspects to his supposed identity or sense of self – consciousness and the thought or personality stream; he will see that consciousness is fundamental whereas the mind-personality-stream is not]

Q.: The mind seems to be the sentient life-force or stream of consciousness underlying my personality.

B.: Which is dependant on which for survival?

Q.: The mind’s sentience or consciousness is the fuel for my personality to function…

B.: Among these two, which can be eliminated by you?

Q.: Consciousness seems to be a given force or current. All I can do is to avoid the personality by refusing to indulge in thoughts; for thoughts seem to constitute the personality.

B.: So, if there are no thoughts, there is no possibility of raising the question ‘How and why did I come to be trapped within or confined to this body?’ or any other question; is that correct?

Q.: No doubt in the thought-free state the question cannot possibly be raised; but the question – as such – remains! Will avoiding the question address it?

B.: The question supplies the answer as itself!

Q.: I do not understand.

B.: The thought ‘I have a body’ is not a description of an independant situation. The body appears to exist ONLY by virtue and as a consequence solely of such thought.

Q.: So, it is the thought ‘I have a body’ that is responsible for creating the false impression that I have a body, whereas in truth I have none. Am I correct?

B.: Yes.

Q.: In that case, if I think, ‘I have no body’, the body should disappear, but it does not disappear. Why is this so?

B.: Intensely thinking about the disappearance of the body does make it disappear; but accquisition of such worthless siddhis is not our objective. You were asked to remove the idea ‘I have a body’ and keep quiet. Instead you remove that idea and in its place introduce the idea ‘I have no body’. Jnana is the disappearance of all ideas. ‘All ideas must disappear’ is also an idea. Eschew that idea also and keep quiet.

Q.: How will day-to-day life go on in the absence of thoughts?

B.: Many times better than it is going on now.

Q.: Can we move or speak without thinking?

B.: Once the ego is burnt away in the crucible of Jnana, all actions become automatic.

Q.: This is the Jnani’s point of view. Can it apply to an ajnani?

B.: Never mind Jnanis and ajnanis. Keep quiet and see whether your body’s actions are not spontaneously guided by an unfathomable Higher Power.

Q.: Can the Higher Power be trusted to always act in accordance with my interest?

B.: He always does the right thing. What he does may or may not co-incide with your weltanschauung and your understanding of or preferance for how things ought to go about or events ought to unfold. His actions may even seem unwise in your eye. What you should do is to close the eye of perception or judgement once and for all and open the eye of wisdom once and for all. Let the Master take care of the body and the circumstances, favourable or adversarious, that it is destined to face. You remain permanently submerged in the Heart and lose yourself there. Then it will not matter whether the body is drenched in rain or roasted in the sun or buried in the bowels of the earth; you remain unaffected, irrevocably and irretrievably lost in supreme shanti and not knowing anything apart therefrom.

Q.: Only a Jnani could be so indifferent to the body.

B.: Be a Jnani, then.

Q.: But it is said to be the hardest of all attainments.

B.: On the other hand, it is always your natural state.

Q.: If so why am I unaware of the same?

B.: Because you think you are unaware.

Q.: How to remedy the affliction?

B.: Stop thinking.

Q.: How is that done?

B.: Every time a thought arises, ask yourself, ‘To whom has this thought arisen?’ and then take the mind back to its origin, which is the primordial state of subjective-awareness-sustained-effortlessly-and-volitionlessly.

Q.: The thought ‘To whom has this thought arisen?’ is also a thought.

B.: The stick which is used to stir a burning pyre – what is its ultimate fate?

Q.: Generally it is thrown into the pyre itself to burn.

B.: Exactly.

Ramana Maharshi: Is it easier for artistic types to turn within and do self-enquiry and attain liberation? (Aham Sphurana)

The following excerpt is taken from the text Aham Sphurana 7th August 1936. You can download the entire text for free here.

Questioner: Those who have a great, insatiable taste or longing thirst for art, those who are profoundly moved by the intricate and subtle beauties of art: is it true that they find it easier to introvert the mind?

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

Q.: Why so?

B.: Being moved by art renders the mind sensitive. Its dross-content burns up. But the intensity of the passion must be extreme… The idea is that the mind must NOT [be permitted to] peacefully rest content with the present state of Body-am-I consciousness. The Grace of the Guru or the company of a Jnani sparks off the commencement of a regular war within the mind between the 2 elements of sattvagunam and tamogunam. Really the battle is between satvas and tamas only; rajas is merely a form of manifestation of tamas. [Tom: this is a wonderful and deep insight here – tamas is ignorance, and rajas is the projecting or active power that results for springs forth from ignorance; note that nescience, mentioned below, is a synonym for ignorance] So, we are fighting against sleep. Sleep or oblivion is the worst enemy of man. Sleep is the anti-thesis of Realisation. Permanent destruction of sleep or nescience is Realisation.

Q.: Only a Jnani can dispense with sleep altogether.

B.: True. The sadhaka, excluding the neophyte, should try to restrict sleep to 6 hours; very gradually this may be reduced to 4, and then after yet more time has elapsed, 3, hours. It is possible provided the correct lifestyle and dietary patterns are followed. Needless to say it requires vairagyam. All changes introduced should be gradual. Any violent upheaval will toxify the mind and may kill the body. Suddenly trying to reach perfection men try to remain without sleep and food for long periods, imagining they are yogis. Retribution, bodily and mental, is swift and harsh; he is frightened off the spiritual-path forevermore; this is a duplicitous stratagem followed by the mind to prevent its own extinction.

Q.: I sleep for 10 hours a day, but still feel sleepy whilst I am awake.

B.: More sleep produces more craving for more sleep.

Q.: Yes, I observe it to be so. How to break the addiction to sleep?

B.: Change in lifestyle and diet.

Q.: Am I to give up my sybaritic and sedentary pattern of living?

B.: Yes.

Q.: Am I to give up my daily appetite for barbecued hogget?

B.: Yes.

Q.: Will it not be painful to give up these long-cherished habits?

B.: Yes!

Q.: How to avoid the pain?

B.: Do not think, ‘I am feeling pain.’.

Q.: Merely imagining pain to go away does not make it go away.

B.: You are not asked to imagine pain to go away. You are asked to cease imagining the presence of pain.

Q.: The body’s pains are very real to me. I am not able to dismiss it away as fiction.

B.: Get rid of the root cause.

Q.: Which is?

B.: The idea that you are this body or are in it.

Q.: How to get rid of the idea?

B.: Formulas are so as for accquisition not discardal. [Tom: it is the ego-mind that wants the formula, so the seeking of a formula, rather than simply letting go or being still, is an ego-preservation strategy. The ego may pose as if it is sincerely asking ‘How do I let go?…How do I be still?’, but this is actually all a delaying tactic, an ego-preservation strategy]

Q.: But what am I to do to be rid of misery?

B.: Doing is misery. Doing cannot get rid of misery. More doing brings more misery. Try non-doing. See what a refreshing change it brings.

Q.: Well, then, how to not do anything?

B.: [laughing] Can non-doing be accomplished by doing? If it were possible there would be no such thing as non-doing and therefore no possibility of Realisation. You have become so used to doing that when asked to put an end to it all, you ask how this is to be accomplished! Can non-doing be accomplished? Give up everything. Summa iru. That is non-doing.

Q.: Is Summa-iruththal the most efficacious means to Self-Realisation?

B.: It is Self-Realisation [itself].

Q.: Doing and non-doing in Bhagavan’s vocabulary refer to the mind alone; am I correct?

B.: Yes.

Q.: The body is to be kept active in some worthy pursuit or the other, preferrably one of an altruistic nature. Am I correct?

B.: Leave the body to its prarabdha and attend to yourself. One destined to work cannot keep idle. One destined to keep idle cannot find work. It is not in our hands at all. [Tom: whatever is destined to happen will happen, whatever is destined not to happen will not happen; relatively speaking, all happens according to God’s will at all times in all places, thus has Bhagavan taught us]

Q.: May I be assured of Bhagavan’s blessings upon my endeavours?

B.: There cannot be any fruitful endeavour in the absence of Bhagavan’s blessings.

Q.: Are my efforts fruitful or not?

B.: Do not bother with this question; it does not lead anywhere.

Q.: I want some support or encouragement that I am on the right track.

B.: If the mind remains simply AWARE, without being aware of anything, you are on the right track. [Tom: ie. mind turned inwards, away from all objects/phenomena, merely being self only]

Q. But don’t the scriptures talk of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman? Nirguna Brahman is the only true Brahman | Shankara’s commentary on Brahma Sutras

The following is taken from the much longer post here which explores this topic in more depth.

Tom: Yes, or rather Shankara in his commentaries speaks of these – Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without objects or without arising phenomena) is the true formless Brahman that exists without any arising phenomena or forms, and when there is ignorance present, we take ourselves to be a body-mind entity living in a world, and that projection of name and form (due to ignorance) is called Saguna Brahman (Brahman with objects or with arising phenomena appearing within it). It is Nirguna Brahman that is to be known, for this is what liberates, not saguna Brahman, which is Brahman plus Maya or Brahman plus ignorance. The latter, saguna Brahman, not only does it not liberate – it doesn’t even truly exist – this is the meaning of ajata vada.

This is explained many times in many places by Shankara in his commentaries, eg. in his commentaries on Brahma Sutras 3.2.14 and 3.2.15 he writes the following, which explains that the true Brahman is nirguna, without name and form, but Brahman is spoken of as saguna (with name and form) for the purposes of meditation and purification of the mind of lower level seekers:

3.2.14: For (Brahman) is merely devoid of form, on account of this being the main purport of scripture.

Shankara's commentary: Brahman, we must definitively assert, is devoid of all form, colour, and so on, and does not in any way possess form, and so on -- why? - 'On account of this being the main purport (of scripture).', 'It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long' (Bṛ. Up. III, 8, 8); 'That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay' (Ka. Up. I, 3, 15); 'He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which forms and names are, that is Brahman' (Ch. Up. VIII, 14, 1); 'That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2); 'That Brahman is without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside, this Self is Brahman, omnipresent and omniscient' (Bṛ. Up. II, 5, 19). These and similar passages have for their purport the true nature of Brahman as non-connected with any world, and have not any other purport, as we have proved under I, 1, 4. On the ground of such passages we therefore must definitively conclude that Brahman is devoid of form. Those other passages, on the other hand, which refer to a Brahman qualified by form do not aim at setting forth the nature of Brahman, but rather at enjoining the worship of Brahman. As long as those latter texts do not contradict those of the former class, they are to be accepted as they stand; where, however, contradictions occur, the passages whose main subject is Brahman must be viewed as having greater force than those of the other kind. This is the reason for our deciding that although there are two different classes of scriptural texts, Brahman must be held to be altogether without form, not at the same time of an opposite nature. But what then is the position of those passages which refer to Brahman as possessing form? To this question the next Sūtra replies.


3.2.15: And as light (assumes forms as it were by its contact with things possessing form, so does Brahman;) since (the texts ascribing form to Brahman) are not devoid of meaning.

Shankara's commentary:
Just as the light of the sun or the moon after having passed through space enters into contact with a finger or some other limiting adjunct, and, according as the latter is straight or bent, itself becomes straight or bent as it were; so Brahman also assumes, as it were, the form of the earth and the other limiting adjuncts with which it enters into connexion. Hence there is no reason why certain texts should not teach, with a view to meditative worship, that Brahman has that and that form. We thus escape the conclusion that those Vedic passages which ascribe form to Brahman are devoid of sense; a conclusion altogether unacceptable since all parts of the Veda are equally authoritative, and hence must all be assumed to have a meaning. But does this not imply a contradiction of the tenet maintained above, viz. that Brahman does not possess double characteristics although it is connected with limiting adjuncts? By no means, we reply. What is merely due to a limiting adjunct cannot constitute an attribute of a substance, and the limiting adjuncts are, moreover, projected by Nescience only. That the primeval natural Nescience leaves room for all practical life and activity, whether ordinary or based on the Veda, we have explained more than once.

Tom: Shankara concludes, as he does throughout his many commentaries, that Brahman is to be truly known without form, but Brahman is said to be with form only for purposes of worship (ie. purification of the mind as opposed to self-realisation). He states that the teachings that state Brahman has form do have value in that regard only, but he concludes by reaffirming that name and form and 'practical life' (vyavaharika) only appear/arise due to nescience (ignorance) - ie. that in liberation or Brahma-Vidya, no names and forms arise, ie. nirguna Brahman is to be realised as ones self.

Ramana Maharshi: Q. Is Hitler really a divine instrument in God’s hands? Why does Bhagavan wear no clothes? Occult powers, Milarepa | Aham Sphurana

The following is taken from Aham Sphurana 19th July 1936

A convivial, middle-aged Caucasian asked –
Questioner: I understand that according to Bhagavan, Reality refers to consciousness unsullied by thought.

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: What you comprehend, or think you are able to apprehend, can never be Reality. That suble space in which this fleeting you, as you are now falsely imagining yourself to be, ceases to exist, so exposing the actual, permanent you lying underneath as true Being, is Reality.

Q.: It is said that this mountain Arunachala posseses a powerful spiritual energy. If I carry away rocks from the mountain back home, will the mountain’s power accompany me? From which portion of the Hill should rocks be gathered for maximum beneficious effect?

B.: Is there any use in going on rock-hunting expeditions? The contumacious [Tom: stubborn and disobedient] mind must be introverted and destroyed. That [regaining the natural state of Self] is the only worthwhile thing to do in life.

Q.: I am interested in experimenting with alternate forms of medicine. What is Bhagavan’s opinion on Hahnemann’s system of ‘Like-cures-like.’? How can diluting a substance make its effect upon the patient more potent?

B.: [no answer]

Q.: What is Bhagavan’s opinion on the present German Chancellor? Today morning I met a Brahmin in this place, who confidently asserts that he is a divine incarnation, or a servile instrument in God’s hands, meant to ruthlessly put down injustice wherever it occurs in the world, commencing from Germany. Is deployment of violence justified to root out injustice? Does not Mr. Gandhi advocate –

At that moment, an excited voice, in strained English, suddenly announced into the air from the back of the Hall –

‘I am convinced that Sri Hitler and Sri Bhagawan are in the same supreme state of Brahmajnana [Tom: Brahman-knowledge, ie. self-knowledge]. But perhaps Hitler may be a Brahma-rakshasha [Tom: an evil spirit arisen from a sinful or fallen Brahmin].Nevertheless he is also a Jnani, nothing inferior to that… Has not his deputy said, “Do not seek Hitler with the mind. It is through the Heart that you shall succeed in finding Him.”? Is this not Bhagawan’s teaching verbatim, when people question Him about finding God? Hitler may use violent methods because it is his ordained style of functioning. Nonetheless, He is an avatar. I know… Consider his inspiring words – “It is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.”, “The Strong is Mightiest Alone.”, “Man has become great through perpetual struggle. In perpetual peace his greatness must decline.”, “He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where perpetual struggle is the only permanent law of life, has not the right to exist.”, “The sledgehammer of fate which strikes down the one so easily suddenly finds the counter-impact of Steel when it strikes at the other.”, and many more. Are these not the words of a Jnani? Is it not self-evident that it must be so? If Bhagavan will give permission I want to read out more, so that everyone can be benifitted by these holy words uttered by a great Jnani.’

There was no response from Bhagavan. The brahmin retreated into silence.

Q.: Yes, this is the man. What is to be made out of his outlandish claims? Is Herr Hitler really a divine instrument in God’s hands?

B.: நாம் எல்ேலாேம அவரால் ஆட்ைவக்கப்பட்ட ைகப்பாைவகள் தாேன. [All sentient beings are verily divine instruments in the hands of the Supreme Lord {Parameshwara}.]

Q.: Sri Bhagawan wears only underwear. I hear, whilst living in the Hill, He was totally nude. What is the philosophy behind it? Is it aversion to luxury? Will being nude help in Realising the Self?

B.: Mental nudity is the way to the Self.

Q.: And what is that?

B.: Mind denuded of vrittis.

Q.: What is a vritti?

B.: A strand of modification in and of pure consciousness.

Q.: Still, what is the reason Bhagavan won’t wear any clothes?

B.: Have you come all the way from the New World only to ask this question?

Q.: It is said that the Jnani never sleeps. Is it true? Do you never sleep?

B.: On the other hand, I am always asleep. I have permanently put myself to Eternal Sleep from which no waking could ever be possible.

Q.: Bhagavan is now talking to me. How can he be asleep? Is he talking in his sleep, then?

B.: Yes.

Q.: I am beginning to guess there is a hidden layer of meaning in all your answers…

B.: The Jnani’s mind is asleep in Brahman. It is awake to Brahman but unaware of anything else – rather, there is no ‘anything else’ for him, apart from Brahman, to be aware of. “I” am not talking to “you”; these [are appearances that] are inseperable from Brahman. Their substratum or vasthu [Tom: truth or reality] is Brahman only. There cannot be a not-Brahman. What IS, is only Brahman. What IS NOT, cannot BE. Thus the import of Sri Krishna’s wisely enunciated words: Nasatho vidyathey bhavo nabhavo vidyathey sathaha [Tom: ‘Of the unreal, there is no being; of the Real, there is no non-being…’ This is the first section of Bhagavad Gita verse 16.2]

Q.: The yogi smears his body all over with ash from the crematorium. What is the purpose?

B.: To remember: ‘One day I shall likewise be reduced into ash.’

Q.: Why keep on reflecting upon such a macabre truth?

B.: To get rid of the idea, ‘I am this body.’; so long as such an idea, or any other vritti, remains, Realisation cannot be had, even in dreams.

Q.: How, and why, did the Absolute Self or ‘the Brahman’ fall from his high state of Godhood, and become the mind?

B.: He never fell.

Q.: What then is to account for the existence of the mind?

B.: Its own ignorance.

Q.: How did that ignorance arise?

B.: On the false strength of the one who meaninglessly asserts, ‘I am ignorant.’.

Q.: If the assertion ‘I am ignorant.’ is wrong, all are then Jnanis.

B.: Quite so.

Q.: I am also a Jnani like Bhagavan, then? Am I not a mere mortal?

B.: In fact, all are only Jnanis – at least in my vision it is so. One who feels otherwise should ask himself, ‘Who is the one who admits the apparent truth of his own ignorance?’.

Q.: Back to Who-am-I? again, I see!

B.: It is the only useful thing to do.

Q.: What is the purport of this investigation? I mean – what does it aim to reach?

B.: Subjective awareness maintained without volition and without effort is the objective of Atma-vichara.

Q.: If everything is a dream, right now what is the position? I mean: Is Bhagavan appearing in my dream? Or am I appearing in Bhagavan’s dream?

B.: Bhagavan does not dream. He is the Real.

Q.: So it is I who have imagined the great Ramana Maharshi, thus bringing him into existence! How great I must be, to have created not only this whole cosmos, but also Ramana Maharshi himself!

B.: [laughs]

Q.: You see the – pardon me – the absurdity of your thesis that the world is a dream… ?

B.: The world of name and form is the merest of illusions. Only the substratum underlying it is Real and True. Only by right Experience can this be further understood.

Q.: Can you give me ‘the saktipada’? It is said to be transfer of psychic energy from master to pupil.

B.: Who is the master and who is the pupil? In whose point of view?

Q.: I humbly pray that my request be considered favourably.

B.: Catch hold of the “I-Current” and remain still. It will give you all you need.

Q.: How to discover this psychic current?

B.: Once all thoughts have subsided, a steady stream of subjective consciousness remains as the residue. Hold on to it without effort and without volition. It will lead you to the Goal invariably.

Q.: There is said to have lived a saint called ‘Sadasiva Brahmendral’ in South India. He is said to have bodily manifested at the same measured time, at various different locations, perfectly simultaneously! Further, according to the same legend or story, once for some reason the King of the land became furious with him and ordered that his arms be chopped off. This was done.

The saint merely picked up the severed arms with his mouth, and holding them by the skin, betwixt his rows of teeth, demurely walked away from the place, blood trailing along in his wake. Even the slightest twitch of pain could not be observed in him. The king then begged for forgiveness. The saint said nothing; he seemed to be unaware of his environment; he would not even care to look at anyone. Just then, a beetle was about to drown in the pool of blood lying on the ground. Moved by compassion for the hapless creature, the saint dropped his severed arms from his mouth; instead of falling on the ground, the arms magically attached themselves in their original positions, and functioned normally! The saint rescued the beetle, which everyone else noticed only now, and went his way as if nothing at all had happened. What are we to make out of this story? Many otherwise normal people seem to believe in it!

B.: The world is under no obligation to produce forth only those events which lie within the horizon of your ability to comprehend.

Q.: So the supernatural… is real?

B.: Only as real as you are – you as the body or mind.

Q.: If I also try to get occult or thaumaturgic powers such as reading others’ thoughts, moving physical objects using the mind, manifesting objects and making them vanish, predicting the future, spontaneously coming to know of events happening far away, transmutation of base metals into gold, etc., will they carry me towards or away from Realisation of the Brahman?

B.: The latter.

Q.: Why so – may I know?

B.: Because the powers are exercised using the mind. Patanjali himself says, Bahirakalpita vrittir mahavideha tataha prakashavaranakshayaha [Tom: The ‘great bodiless state’ is a state of ‘mind’ that functions outside the body and is unimagined. From this, the covering of the light is destroyed.]. From this it is obvious that the Atman will never reveal itself unless and until one has transcended the mind in its entireity. Whilst I was living in Virupaksha-cave, in 1902 or 1903, a man came who showed me many tricks of the sort you mention. Then he drove Palanisamy out, and showed me his crowing act. Do you know what this crowning act was?

Q.: I am eager to hear it.

B.: [in English] He slanted his body. The lower jaw remained on the neck. The rest of his head rolled off. I picked it up and parted the hair in a neat manner. The half-mouth in my hand, somehow produced the sound ‘Thank you!’ – in English. I smiled at it and fitted it back.

I and another in the Hall who could understand English were horrified; the American coolly said –

Q.: Oh! Really! Bhagavan is sure it was not a mere dream?

B.: [waving at the Hall] As much as all this is.

Q.: Will the omnipotent Bhagavan do the same trick himself now and show me, so that I am convinced?

B.: What you should be convinced about is this – such powers are worthless. They lead you away from peace. The illusionist, once his head was safely back on, wept and wept in front of me. He had learnt these tricks from an occultist by serving him like a dog for three decades; only now did he see the pointlessness, the futility and the evil repercussions of it all. Now he was tempted to perform these everywhere. As a result of the distraction, he was unable to find the time for genuine spiritual pursuits. His peace of mind was now totally extinct. He begged me to take the powers away. To that effect, I gesticulated him to circumambulate the Hill that very night. He replied that it was ammavasai that night, hence he would not be able to see his way. I signalled it was all the better that he be not guided by his perfidious senses, but rather by God’s grace. Thanking me, he went away. I never saw him thereafter. A few days later Palanisamy, it seems, chanced to meet him near the Sona theertham. He had followed my advice, and now was bereft of his psychic abilities. He sent his many thanks to me through Palanisamy. I never heard of him since. So, what is the observation? Even one with such advanced powers finds them a nuisance. Thus you should aim for Realisation and Realisation alone.

Q.: But it is all said to be pre-determined: ‘One shall be able to Realise only if destiny permits it.’ Who knows what she permits? I have heard that Bhagavan himself is not even a determinist, but an absolute fatalist. Am I right?

B.: Destiny cannot so much as cause a ripple upon the introverted mind. Let her do what she will with the body. You merge in the Self.

Q.: ‘Destiny is powerless to disturb the introverted mind.’ Very well. Now – has she the power to thwart a mind that is endeavouring to introvert itself? If yes, what is the use of engaging in spiritual practices?

B.: That power goes on diminishing the more and more the introversion becomes intense.

Q.: I will now frame the question in a slightly different way – If everything is predestined, are my thoughts also predestined?

B.: Do you choose to forsake the Self and think, or do you choose to inhere in the Heart? This is the only choice given to you at any given point in time. The only freedom given to you is to turn inward and drown yourself in the Heart. This is the one and only free-will allowed to man.

Q.: I find nowadays that my faculty of memory often gives me the slip. What is the remedy?

B.: Forgetting [also the fact of] your forgetfulness.

Q.: Is it true that for the south-Indian and Japanese people, Realisation comes easily relative to other cultures on the Earth, on account of conducive psychological constitution caused by appropriate upbringing?

B.: It may or may not be true. But can you help your place of birth? Can it be retroactively changed? Impossible. So, make the best out of the prevailing circumstances and try to direct the mind into the Heart here and now. All other pursuits are ultimately proved futile.

Q.: Am I under any moral obligation to Realise the Self? Is it my rightful duty? Or do I have a choice to remain an ignoramus, should I so please? Is it wrong morally not to Realise?

B.: If and once you practically understand the personal-self to be an illusion [or delusion], the inescapable obligation [to Realise] does devolve on you invariably and automatically.

Q.: The direct means to regain the Absolute – according to Bhagavan, it is the one and only ‘Who-am-I?’ investigation, is that not so?

B.: Yes.

Q.: Why so?

At this point, Bhagavan said something to an attendant, whereupon the latter extracted a heavy-looking volume from the book-case in the Hall. The book was handed to Bhagawan. He opened it once and it had opened onto the very page he had been aiming for; this curious knack I have already noticed many times in the master. He handed the open book to the interpreter, and gave him some instructions. Presently the interpreter read as follows –

The following are the words of the Tibetian Yogi Milarepa:

‘Oh! Ignorant mortal! When you run after your thoughts, you are verily a dog chasing a stick. Everytime a stick is thrown, you run after it. Instead be like a lion. The lion, rather than chasing the stick, turns to face the thrower. One only throws a stick at a lion once.

‘Oh! Ignorant mortal! Know this for certain – all worldly pursuits have but one unavoidable and inevitable end, and that is sorrow. Accquisition ends in dispersion, building in destruction, meetings in seperation, births in death, and so on. Knowing this, one should, from the very beginning, renounce accquisition, accumulation, and the like.

‘Oh! Ignorant mortal! How long will you go on dreaming, rotting in this odious marsh of births and deaths? Do you not want to taste the sweet, intoxicating nectar of immortality? For this, investigate your “I”. Do not entertain hopes or ambition for Realisation, but sincerely practise all your life.’

Q.: Are there pre-requisites or qualifications needed for one who wishes to follow this path of inquiry?

B.: Only one – complete absence of belief in the world as an objectively real, self-supporting, or continuous entity.

4 more books added to the recommended reading list | Law of Attraction | Self-Help

I have added a further section to my recommended reading list as follows. Whilst the other recommended books point the way directly to liberation, these books instead may help you more in your daily life:

Appendix 2 – other book recommendations

These are books that contain teachings that are not directly liberating but may be helpful to you on the path. Some of these I have read myself, others are books that people I have worked with have found particularly helpful for them.

1. Jesus Calling by Sarah Young (a book for devotional practice)

This is a beautiful book, devotional in nature, written by a Christian, which encourages us to feel God’s Presence, Love and Support throughout our life. There is an entry to read for each day of the year. Whilst it is dualistic in nature, it can serve as a wonderful reminder to surrender to That Higher Power and lean on It rather than try to do everything by oneself…and much more…highly recommended for those who resonate

2. Maximum Achievement by Brian Tracy (a book for personal success in daily life)

This wonderful book, which in my opinion is a spiritual book disguised as a self-help productivity manual, contains many skills and tips on all areas of your life in order to help you attain personal success. It gives advice on health, energy levels, finances, relationships, personal fulfillment and peace of mind. Have a read, see if you like it.

3. The Astonishing Power of Emotions by Abraham Hicks (on the Law of Attraction)

This wonderful book summarises many of the teachings given by Abraham Hicks on the Law of Attraction and also helps us use our own positive and negative emotions to guide us along the way. See if it resonates with you.

4. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt (a book on society and politics)

I haven’t read this book myself, but some of us find the area of society and politics to be a cause of confusion, stress and worry, and several people have told me that this book has helped them. See what you think and feel free to let me know.