Books

Ramana Maharshi: Total Introversion of the Mind is required for Self-Realisation | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

The following is taken from Aham Sphurana 27th September 1936:

Questioner: If the Self will reveal Itself only to those whom It chooses, what then is the use of our effort?

[Tom: The phrase ‘The self can be gained by He whom the Self chooses’ is one translation of verses found in both the Mundaka Upanishad (Verse 3.2.3) and the Katha Upanishad (Verse 1.2.23)]

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi: The Self will draw unto Itself an aspirant only when he becomes totally introverted. So long as he is extroverted in the slightest, Realisation would remain altogether impossible.

Q.: So to make myself eligible for Realisation, I have to introvert the mind?

B.: Yes; total introversion is needed so as to bring about Realisation; the same can be achieved only gradually.

Q.: Please mention any 5 unique characteristics, features or attributes of the Self.

B.: [no response]

Q.: So silence is Its only quality?

B.: Yes. The silence of the Self is not inertness; it alone is Life.

Q.: ‘Giving to others is giving to oneself.’ What is the meaning of this statement?

B.: There is no multiplicity of selves. There is no myself, yourself and himself. All there is, is only One Impersonal Absolute Self.

Q.: How to become aware of this Absolute Self?

B.: There are no two selves, so that they may take it in turns to be aware of each other. What IS, is only that One. There can be no reaching Him. All attempts to reach Him will end only in futility. The thing to do is to surrender to Him without reserve.

Q.: If there be no multiplicity in truth, why do we observe that in actual practice there are many persons in the world?

B.: They appear to be there only when you appear to be there to observe them.

Q.: So this vast cosmos is only my own mental creation or projection?

B.: Undoubtedly.

Q.: How then does the mindless Sri Bhagawan see the world?

B.: Why not Realise the Self and find out for yourself?

Ramana Maharshi on Aurobindo’s Intergral Yoga – bringing Divinity back down into the world after Self-Realisation | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

The following is taken from the text Aham Sphurana, 7th July 1936. Please see here to find out more about this text:

Questioner: I am aware that Bhagavan is a solipsist. However, to dismiss all human problems as being imaginary requires a giant leap of faith towards the Idealism end of the spectrum.

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: It merely needs disillusionment with materialism.

Q.: According to Sri Aurobindo’s claims, he has probed beyond the experience of the Vedic Rishis. What is Sri Bhagavan’s opinion? Is it authentic or not?

B.: Aurobindo’s talk of bringing down divine consciousness from above overlooks the same being already Self-effulgent in the Heart. Reality simply IS. Where arises the question of moving it from place to place, etc.? People keep asking me about Sri Aurobindo’s yoga system; and if I give my reply according to my capacity, they go away disgruntled saying, “These Jnanis are always contradicting each other.” What can I do?

Q.: What about Sri Aurobindo’s claim that one must commence from Self-Realisation and then proceed to bring down the Divine to the Earth?

B.: Let us first Realize and then discuss, if need be; not now.

[Tom’s comments: Sri Aurobindo’s view was that once the truth was realised, it should be ‘brought back down’ into the level of the world, in what he called Purna Yoga or Intergral Yoga. Sri Aurobindo rejected the notion of Shankara or Vedanta that the world was unreal or ‘maya’, stating that the world is a real expression of the divine, and that the purpose of spiritual teachings is not nirvana or escape from samsara, but instead to enrich and enliven the lives of people here in this world and help people live divine lives here on Earth. Sri Aurobindo felt that the Vedic rishi’s had discovered the Truth, but had not learnt to or were not able to or even inclined to bring it back down to Earth, and that the notion of the world being an illusion was a result of the failure to bring the Divine back down to the Earth.

Here is a link to a chapter on Integral Yoga by Sri Aurobindo for those interested on these points, where he defines Purna Yoga and explains his view on the above points I have made: https://sri-aurobindo.co.in/workings/sa/37_28/02_004_e.htm

Sri Ramana in response to the questioner is saying how can Truth be ‘moved’ anywhere, let alone ‘back down’ into the world? ‘Reality simply IS’. The implication is that the very notion of bringing truth back into the world is based on ignorance or non-realisation of the actual truth]

Q.: What is the ultimate purpose of a man’s life?

B.: To find an answer to the question of “Why am I, apparently, limited to, and therefore by, a body? Am I nothing more?”. This question finally resolves itself into the question of “Who am I, who am apparently bound by this limitation of being or carrying a body?”. This much is certain: one who foolishly takes his bodily existence for granted, who thinks that it is an inevitable finality that he is, in fact, born, will never succeed in the Quest no matter what austerities or penance he might perform.

Only the Unborn can know the Unborn. The Unborn knows itself only – that is, it knows no birth or death. The intellectual understanding that the bodily existence is futile, undesirable, useless and delusory is the very first step towards Realisation. If you accept the existence of limitations [Tom: eg. if you accept or start with the premise that you are a body-mind entity, or that the world is real], any Sadhana performed will have precisely only one result – it will make the Ego grow stronger and stronger and stronger. One who wants to transcend limitation should cease to imagine himself to be limited – that will do; yes, it indeed is as simple as that. Instead of simply giving up the unreal, people want to do Sadhana to eradicate it! Is it not funny?!

Q.: Is Sadhana not useful?

B.: Only if it is done without assuming the existence of limitations. The only useful Sadhana is the investigation “Who am I?”. Everything else is just “release-of-concept-gas” [movement of mental ideas or churning of vrittis within the mind], because existence of limitations is implicitly assumed and accepted. If non-existent limitations are accepted to exist, how can any Sadhana performed on the basis of that wrong acceptence have any use, and how can such spurious Sadhana help you transcend those very limitations?

Q.: The logic seems to suggest that the Self can be discovered by the mind.

B.: The dead mind becomes the Self or discovers itself to be the Self.

Q.: I understand Nietzsche talks about the concept of Eternal Reccurrance of the same in Also sprach Zarathustra. Does B. agree with it? Each time the universe is recreated after the cosmic dissolution, does it exactly repeat itself? If that were to be true, both free-will and Self-Realisation would be impossible. If everything is going to unfold now exactly as it did previously, my incumbent free will is obviously just a myth. If everything is going to unfold in exactly the same manner in the future as now, I am never going to escape from the cycle of births and deaths!

B.: All these are only mental concepts. Even now you are not born. Realize it.

Q.: The body was born.

B.: Are you it?

Q.: It is part of me – Bhagavan’s teachings tell me that I am Brahman and therefore immanent everywhere.

B.: Leave Brahman alone. Talk about yourself first. Who are you?

Q.: I really don’t know… I am Pure Consciousness, is it not?

B.: Is Pure Consciousness now conversing with me? Is it is saying, “I am Brahman.”, etc.?

Q.: Then what is the answer?

B.: The effortless thought-free state is the answer.

Q.: How to attain it?

B.: There is no question of attaining anything. BE – don’t ask how to be. It is your very nature.

Q.: I am unable to realize it.

B.: This is also only a thought. Get rid of it and all will be well.

Q. I have heard of the Jnana-vichara technique expounded by Sri Bhagavan. How could asking oneself the question ‘Who am I?’ lead to transcendence of mind, when asking the question itself is only an activity initiated and sustained on the level of the mind?

B.: The vichara begins with the mind and ends in the Self. Mind turned fully inward discovers itself to be the Self.

Chadwick was asked by Bhagavan to give the man Bhagavan’s ‘Who am I?’ to read. He read it and then asked –

Q.: I find it shocking to consider seriously Advaita’s proclamation that the Jagrat state [Tom: waking state] is nothing better than a dream. It amounts to saying that I am now dreaming whereas I believe to the contrary, that whatever I am experiencing through the senses exist independantly of my perception thereof… How is it that the numerous disciples of yours – or followers or devotees or worshippers or afficionados or whatever it is that one would be justified in calling them take gladly to the idea that the world – the same world they experience everyday – is a dream?

B.: You say it is the same world you saw yesterday that you are seeing today. How do you know that? Through memory. Memories are also illusory. They create a deceptive fabric of intellectual continuity where in fact none exists.

What actually exists is only Beingness or Self. Even in dreams you have memories, go to familiar places, etc. How is it? Jagrat or Swapna, the same mind draws the poisonous veil of objectification or differentiation over the pure Self, hiding it. This veil is called the screen of avidya maya. Don’t ask, who cast this veil? Instead, ask, who sees the veil? Then you will see there was never any veil. This is called Self-Realisation. The desire to do sadhana to attain it is itself meaningless because it presupposes the existence of someone apart from the Self who is doing Sadhana to reach the Self.

Q.: Is it the realisation you speak of as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi? Should I not do any Sadhana? Is Sadhana useless then?

B.: Yes, it is the same realisation. Sadhana is the means to gain the Self. Only the idea “I am doing Sadhana” renders the Sadhana totally pointless and useless. Sadhana becomes natural if attraction to worldly pleasures stands removed. Desire for worldly pleasures take to their heels when you realise the world is only a dream.

Q.: I still find it impossible to believe this solid world could only be a mere dream.

B.: [smiling] Two different categories of spiritual aspirants or sadhakas exist. One is the Spülauftrag [Kritopasaka] and the other is the Wischauftrag [Akritopasaka]. [Bhagavan sometimes used words in the questioner’s native tongue to drive the impact home, or where technical terms were involved.]

[Tom: Kritopasaka refers to those who have done sadhana previously, eg. in a previous life, and so who are mature seekers, akriopasaka is the opposite; Spulauftrag (‘rinsing task’) means that task which only needs to be washed or rinsed, whereas Wischauftrag (‘wiping task’) refers to a task in which some wiping or scrubbing is first required before rinsing/washing can take place]

The former is born with the intellectual conviction, born of aeons of serious and steadfast spiritual practice directed along the correct channel [that of making the mind turn Selfwards or Sourcewards], that the cosmos he sees around him is the merest of illusions, and that expending one’s mental faculties upon it would be the ruin of one’s inherent nature of abiding peace and unshakeable happiness; whereas the latter is shocked and unsettled when informed that there is no difference – for all practical purposes – between the Jagrat [Tom: waking] and swapna [Tom: dream] states.

The firm intellectual conviction that the perceived cosmos is seen, owing to delusion, as being constituted by multiple disparate entities while the truth is that it is vested in the same Substratum, Adhishtanum [Tom: substratum], or Sadhvasthu [Tom: Sad = true or real; vastu = thing or substance or reality] as the Seer, is born only as a result of arduous spiritual practice which is possible only if the Sadhguru’s abundant Grace is available as a catalyst, which Grace descends unto him alone who perpetually bathes his heart in the effulgent glow of unselfish and non-reciprocation-expecting love of God, Humanity or any other single-minded ideal of pure, ecstatic devotion or parabhakti, and this intellectual conviction [as to the world’s objective unreality] is the seed of Jnana that grows into the tree that chokes the poisonous weed of Egotism or Ahankara at its root, destroying it once and for all, such seed having been planted long ago in the fathomless, dark misty depths of the mind by way of the Supremely merciful glance of Grace of the infinitely compassionate Sadhguru.

Q.: So, the widely held perception that without a Guru, even Atmajigyasa [Tom: the desire for self-knowledge], leave alone Atmasakshatkara [Tom: Self-realisation], is totally impossible, is…?

[he left his words trailing in the air, for the Sage to rythimically conclude,]

B.: Unequivocally and absolutely correct.

Q. Why are some of our prayers not answered? How to know if a Jnani is genuine? | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

The excerpt below is taken from the text Aham Sphurana (see here to find out more about this text and download a copy for free), 20th July 1936:

Questioner: It happens to some that they pray – in all good faith – to God, yet their prayers are unequivocally repudiated. What is the reason?

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Can you be trusted to know what is best for you?

Q.: I should hope so.

B.: That is your opinion.

Q.: What then is Sri Bhagawan’s opinion?

B.: ‘O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.’

Q.: The implication being?

B.: He knows what is best for you; you do not. Therefore unconditionally surrender yourself to him and leave your fate in his hands. That is the only thing to be done. Prayer is merely a lower form of surrender. It is highly prone to failure, because if what is asked does not aid Realisation, it may not be granted, even though you may be thinking that what you are asking is going to [serve as an] aid in Realisation. Or, your karma may not permit the request to be granted.

Q.: Spiritually-inclined people pray for strength to inrovert the mind. Or, they pray for Self-Realisation. How can that be not an aid in Realisation?

B.: Because it posits the dangerous notion that there exists an [individual] “I” who craves for himself the state called Realisation. Such prayers are unnecessary. Maam Aekam Sharanam Vraja. ‘Only surrender to Me.’

Q.: Why does God allow karma to meddle with even the efforts of sincere aspirants who are trying to Realise?

B.: The arrangement of karma – [for karma itself is] unavoidable – is actually adroitly done in such a way as to give the sadhaka the maximum possible chance of completely cleansing the mind of all vritts. So, if you are destined to Realise in this lifetime, rest assured that your karma has been ingeniously arranged in such a manner as to inevitably take you to the Goal.

Q.: And if I am destined otherwise?

B.: Perhaps you would not be here today.

Q.: The same astute God who manipulates karma so carefully – why was he not careful enough to safeguard the Self from slipping into the bondage of ignorance?

B.: Does the Self complain of having thus fallen?

Q.: No. But I do.

B.: Are you apart from the Self?

Q.: The mahavakyas state that I am supposed to be one with Brahman.

B.: And your Experience is in Corroboration?

Q.: Alas! No. All I feel is the miserable ego.

B.: Yes. Misery is one with the ego. Kill the ego.

Q.: It seems to be an impossible accomplishment even for those with decades of systematic training in the spiritual field.

B.: There is no accomplishment possible. What is intimate and inherent cannot be accquired. The only thing to do is destroy the useless accreations that cause all the nuisance. We are not trying to attain anything. On the other hand, we are trying to give up everything.

Q.: Should I not try to attain Realisation of the Self?

B.: No. Give up everything. Only the Self remains.

Q.: It sounds simple enough. Yet, only one in a million men manage to reach this supreme state, according to Sri Krishna. Does it mean that, at any given point of time in the world, the number of Jnanis living should be a precise 0.0001% of the total population?

B.: [laughing] Possibly!

Q.: In my view even this seems an outlandish estimate. Are there now circa 269 Jnanis living in India, then, regard having been had to the numbers available by the 1931 Census?

B.: [somewhat mordaciously but without deviating from his good cheer] Why not? Do you suppose all Jnanis are unfortunate enough to be put in a cage like this, and put up for ‘public examination’? [in English:] Ladies and gentlemen, presenting… THE FREAK SHOW! Exhibit No. 1 – Sharji, the Venus of the Hottentots! Exhibit No. 2 – Elephant-man Merrick! Exhibit No. 3 – The ‘Bhagawan’, Ramana! அ என்ன பாழாகப் ேபான பகவானே◌ா [Tom: What a waste, O Lord] . No. Only those whose prarabdha is destined to be exceedingly miserable suffer like this! Sri Gandhiji has written, ‘The woes of Mahatmas are known to Mahatmas alone.’ [laughs heartily]

Q.: Other Jnanis, who, according to Bhagavan, enjoy a better prarabdha – they would be meditating in solitary places such as inaccesible jungles and caves, well away from habitable zones of humanity, I presume…

B.: You may presume whatever you like, no doubt…

Q.: So I am wrong?

B.: It all varies according to prarabdha. The Jnani is unfazed by what happens to the body. He has nothing to do with it. He has no localised consciousness functioning from within it. Killing it cannot harm him. Torturing it cannot affect him. He is absorbed by the Beyond, and quite lost there – for good. He may have 4 wives and 32 children. He may be running a busy household with dozens of mouths to feed. He may be employed on both day and night shifts of duty. Or, again, he may be sitting in an inaccesible cave with sensory organs in an inactive state, body rotting. It may be either way, but all this can be only from the point of view of the onlooker, since action is altogether alien to the Jnani; he himself knows nothing, sees nothing, does nothing. He has quite perished. Only a Jnani can tell who is a Jnani.

A person might look like a simpleton, yet he might know himself as the immortal Self. Another may display an unending spout of vedantic learning, yet his mind may not in the least have subsided. In this topsy-turvy world, which must needs always judge by its usual yardstick of ‘doing’, it is the latter who is generally extolled as the genuine case. The result? Misery for all involved. People cheat themselves into believing that they are in the vicinity of a great Mahatma. The pretender eventually himself foolishly comes to believe that he must indeed be a great Jnani, since so many people praise him day and night. So his ego becomes bloated; as a consequence he lands himself in all sorts of unpleasant situations. So, display of vedantic learning may cause a great very many problems for all involved. It is best to keep quiet.

Q.: Bhagavan said a Jnani may have numerous wives. Polygamy is a sin as per Hindu dharma. Can a Jnani sin, then? As far as my knowledge goes, the Manusmriti allows taking the next wife only if the existing wife or wives are mentally ill, infecundous, or unable to participate in rituals for the departed ancestors.

B.: What the Jnani does is always right. This does not mean that a man is morally excused in pretending to be a Jnani and then conveniently committing all sorts of crimes.

Q.: But how to tell who is a genuine Jnani?

B.: Only by yourself becoming lost in Jnana. However, there is one exceedingly rare exception. If a particular Jnani is destined to be your Jnanaguru, when you meet him there is an inexplicable mutual outpouring of ecstatic Love. The Love mentioned here is not consummated by any physical act. It is consummated only by surrendering to the object of such Love. The Jnani himself never loves or hates; only, when he meets one who is destined to be placed in his ultimate care, he directs his attention toward that person. It is not volitionary, but rather Automatic Divine Activity. There is nothing in him left to choose. Unto one who has the pakkuvam [Tom: ripeness], the Grace or Love begins to flow of its own accord. The Jnana-guru might not look at the mature devotee or exchange words with him, yet, one who is Ready feels the irresistible onslaught of inevitable rapid mental introversion in the form of blissful divine Love. This way you can tell that the person in whose presence you have such experience, is your Jnana-guru. Again, this might not happen in the case of all aspirants.

Q.: I have so far not had any such novel experiences with Bhagavan. Can I still Realise in this lifetime?

B.: All will turn out Right in the end.

Q.: Sometimes Bhagavan does not look at visitors. He does not respond to their queries. Does he refuse them his impartial Grace?

B.: Have you seen how they seperate chaff from the Grain here? They pour the seeds on the றம◌் , and then trenchantly shake it in a speedious upand-down motion. Can you guess the scientific principle underlying the act?

Q.: What is worthless and light in weight is blown away by the wind. What is precious and heavy is not affected by the movement. Yes, it is clear now.

B.: நல்லத◌ ! [Tom: good]

Q.: One imagines things and enjoys them by virtue of his strength of imagination. It is said that gross manifestations of such mental creations are possible for Brahma the Creator. Should the same power not be available with His creation, man?

B.: That is your opinion.

B.: J.K. says that man should try to find out the ‘I’. Then ‘I’ dissolves away, being only a bundle of circumstances. There is nothing assertible behind the ‘I’. His teaching seems to be very much like the Buddha’s.

B.: Yes. The truth is well beyond possibility of conceptual expression or explanation. It is pure Experience only, for there is no experiencer. When you finally do reach the Self, you will be shocked to discover that you have been foolishly searching frantically for something that was always right in front of your nose – no, even closer, for the nose and the object in front of it must be seen with the eye to ascertain their apparent existence, whereas the Self requires no perception to support its actual existence. The Self is pratyakshasakshathswayamprakasha-swaroopam. Everything shines in and by its light, but it knows nothing but itself. It shines by its own light alone. The lusturous beauty of it never fades. It is truly immutable, indestructible and imperishable. One who loses himself in it has no more cares or worries. It is the one true goal of man’s life, yet it is here and now. That is the great mystery.

Ramana Maharshi: Q. How to surrender and how to live and survive if we have completely surrendered? Partial surrender vs total surrender | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

3rd August, 1936

Q.: After conversing with several devotees here, I have arrived at a rough observation that Sri Bhagavan gives spiritual advice which pertains to every conceivable genre, depending upon the inclination, maturity or palate of the aspirant in question. What, if any, is his nativistic teaching?

B.: [no response]

Q.: Is it Silence?

B.: Yes.

Q.: For those unfit to understand it?

B.: They are advised to keep quiet. [Summa iru.]

Q.: For those even this?

B.: The inquiry ‘Who-am-I?’ is suggested.

Q.: For those like me who lack the determination to practise this inquiry?

B.: Unconditional surrender.

Q.: To whom shall I surrender? To Sri Bhagawan or to my Guru Sri Chandrasekara Barathi of the Sringeri Mutt?

B.: Does surrender need a recepient? Simply surrender or let go of everything.

Q.: If I let go of everything, is Mukti assured unto me?

B.: To let go of everything is to let go of this question also.

Q.: So, expecting a reward for surrender is not appropriate?

B.: How can one who has surrendered expect anything? To surrender is to give up the spurious ‘you’ once and for all. When you are not there at all, where is the question of expecting or anticipating anything? Who would be there to do the expecting or anticipating? If there is still anyone left to engage in expecting or anticipating, no surrender has really taken place.

Q.: If I give up everything, what will happen to my body? How then will it be able to find food for itself, leave alone earn a living or maintain a family?

B.: Were you asked to neglect the body? You were asked to not deliberately take care of the body – that is all. How is it that you translate the directive, ‘Let go of everything.’ into ‘Neglect the body and its duties.’? The problem in its totality lies in the fact that you are labouring under the delusive impression that it is you as the ego who are maintaining your body, attending to your vocation, taking care of the household and everything else that it has fallen upon the body’s prarabdha to execute in this lifetime. So, when asked to give up everything, that is to say give up the ego, you give yourself to understand that your regular routine will come to a standstill.

No. Whether you are aware of it or not, whether you like the fact or not, the truth is that it is the Higher Power that does everything. We imagine ourselves to be the doer. When asked to give up the personal self, we imagine that the body’s actions also should come to cessation, because according to us, it is the personal self that is the cause and source of all action. No. It is a mistake. The ego merely fraudulently assumes responsibility for the actions of the body. Doerless doing or actorless action is not for the Jnani only; it is true – as an actual fact – in the case of all. In the case of the ajnani, something called “I” rises up to falsely claim responsibility for the body’s actions. This fictitious accreation is absent in the case of the Jnani. That is the only difference between them.

If you give up the ego or ‘Body-am-I.’ idea completely, some power effortlessly takes over the body and makes it run through its ordained course of prarabdha without the need for the least mental involvement or participation on your part. This is a matter for experience. To surrender is to totally let go of everything. People attached to concepts of the intellect or things of the world cannot possibly let go; vairagyam is necessary to let go. How to cultivate vairagyam? Proximity to the Guru.

Worldly attachment and the Guru pull the mind in opposite directions. If Love for the Guru is unequivocal and unconditional, His pull eventually wins. Again, how to cultivate this Love? By nature the minds of most men are occupied with the problems of the personal self. What vocation shall I pursue? Shall I study further or shall I opt for employment? Shall I marry the girl I like, or shall I marry the other one, the rich, obese character that I was introduced to by my parents? What measures shall I take to safeguard myself from penury in old age? How shall I ideally invest my wealth so that it stands me in good stead when I am no longer in a position to actively work to earn a living? Will my children take care of me in old age or will they abandon me and go their seperate ways? And so on and so forth.

This is how lifetime after lifetime is wasted. If you would only keep quiet without thinking these thoughts, providence would admirably take care of you; but no, you must have your ‘knowledgeable say’.

It so happens that in rare cases a man ceases to take thought of his personal self and wholeheartedly gives himself to an ideal of beauty, be it sport, literature, art, patriotism or anything else. The quantum of importance attributed to the personal self becomes negligible when the loftier pursuit occupies the whole of his attention. Thus he begins, for the first time, to experience a Love in which the personal self has no space. Such is the sweetness of this passionate Love that he yearns to experience the pinnacle thereof. The desire for this feeling of Love is not motivated by the objective of personally experiencing it. The Love for the higher ideal eventually comes to dominate and possess the soul with such complete fervour that his desire for such Love is not on account of any motive to personally experience it, but simply for the sake of such Love itself.

He does not think, I must experience more of this Love. He thinks, this Love must shine forth with the utmost possible intensity! Then, the ideal towards which Love hitherto had been directed merges imperceptibly into Love itself. Thus, the man is left with Love and only Love in his hands: Love without rhyme or reason.

Feeling it but unable to attain it, he becomes crazed with longing. It is at this stage that God or Guru appears to him as the manifestation of his Love: the manifestation may or may not be an anthropomorphic form; it may be an abstract image or ideal altogether deviod of form or even name. Eager to consummate his Love, he surrenders totally to the Guru and Realisation devours him by operation of the Guru’s benevolent grace.

Swami Vivekananda has said, ‘Take up one idea. Make that one idea your life – think of it, dream of it, live on that idea. Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every part of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other idea alone. This is the way to success.’.

So, volitionless Love, which, allowed to wax indefinitely, surely leads to Kaivalyam, may as well come to an inveterate materialist or atheist: belief or faith in God is not of any considerable importance, for it stops at the level of the intellect – it is Love that matters, uncaused, blind, mad, unconditional Love. In the work The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan, when Christian is about to drown in the dreaded river of Death, he has a vision of the Christ who reminds him of the verse: ‘When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee…’. The next moment the Christian finds steady ground to stand upon, and he manages to ford the remaining strech of the river safely.

Likewise, when Vasudeva was travelling to the house of Nandagopa and Yashodha, carrying the infant Krishna in his arms, the Yamuna river was in full spate, ready to devour him should he behave so unwisely as to step into it. Vasudeva thought of God and was immediately assisted by the giant 10-headed celestial serpent, Vasuki; thus he managed to ford the flooded river without incident.

Again, when Sri Abbanacharyal heard the news that his Guru, Swami Raghavendra, was about to enter into his brindavanam, he forthwith rushed to Mantralayam, but did not know what to do when he was faced with the flooded Tungabhadra. He gathered courage, closed his eyes, thought of his Guru, and threw himself into the raging deluge. He was not swept away by the river, but landed safely on the other bank.

How did all this become possible? Is not genuine Love for the Lord on the part of the devotee the reason? Thus, develop a deep obsessive infatuation with any particular ideal, and of itself that will plunge you into unfathomable Love; such Love invariably leads to Kaivalyam.

Q.: I am too weak to surrender, in the total sense of the term that I find Bhagawan suggesting. Also, I do not feel attracted to any one particular ideal or idea. What am I to do?

B.: It is holding on or doing anything that requires strength. If you feel you are weak, letting go of everything should be very easy, for that alone is non-doing.

Nevertheless, if total surrender is found too hard, practise surrender as a sadhana. This is called partial surrender. In course of time it leads to complete surrender.

Q.: Various descriptions of God are given by scriptures belonging to the different religions. Which is the description that tallies with Bhagavan’s teachings?

B.: Words cannot convey the Real. Yet, the closest is, Ehyeh asher ehyeh.[Tom: Hebrew, from Exodus 3:14 meaning ‘I am that I am’]

Q.: What is the difference between attempting on one’s own to Realise the Self and taking the help of a Guru?

B.: Suppose you want to go to America. Which is the sensible method? Taking a spade in hand and digging into the Earth, saying, ‘I am confident that I shall eventually reach America, which must be located on the exact other side of this very spot.’ or booking a place for yourself on the next outbound steamer?

The above excerpt is taken from Aham Sphurana, 3rd August 1936, see here for more information on this text.

Q. Without a mind, how is Bhagavan able to talk and function? Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

The excerpt below is taken from the text Aham Sphurana (see here to find out more about this text and download a copy for free), 8th September, 1936:

Questioner: How is it that without a mind, Bhagavan is able to conduct rational converations with us and engage in many other tasks and functions besides?

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Causality is unknown to the Jnani; the Emancipated-one’s actions therefore are always bereft of motive, purpose or volition. Bhagawan does not act at all. Action is alien to the Self; He is Life Itself, but yet absolutely motionless. He is simply AWARE. Other than fullness of Being-consciousness, which he abides as, he does not know anything.

The body may act in the world or remain idle; He cannot know. The faculties of sensory perception may remain inactive or function so as to take cognition of objects in the world; He cannot know. Being the Self, the Jnani is totally ignorant of anything and everything but the Self. He is referred to as the Witness-consciousness transcending space, time and causality; but that is exclusively from the point of view of objects with name, form and shape that take their origin in Him, subsist in Him, and dissolve back into Him, being merely appearances in Him, of Him and by reason of Him; He Himself has nothing to witness or see. The body might be working day and night like a steam-engine, but no karma can touch Him. His sensory-organs might be experiencing the greatest of pleasures, but He enjoys nothing. No matter what manner of work the body might be engaged in doing, He never does anything.

K.: Maharshi, please clarify this one thing for me: are you, or are you not, now talking to us?

B.: No. “I” am not talking to you.

K.: [reflectively] That’s right. Maharshi is not doing any talking. Maharshi simply IS.

Chadwick: I am sometimes given to wondering how a Jnani’s awareness of the Self could formerly have been obscured or obstructed by prior ignorance. Was there ever ignorance for a Jnani?

B.: No.

C.: Are Jnanis born Jnanis then?

B.: One’s idea that one took birth is merely mental information. When mind is annihilated, there is nothing to falsely inform the Jnani that he was born. Therefore, the Emancipated-one abides in perpetuity as the Unborn, to which time, space and any other transformation or possibility of measurement is wholly alien. We point to the body of the Emancipated-one and give it the name ‘Jnani’, thinking that such person must have awareness of the Self. But what is the fact? Is there anybody who can both stand apart from the Self and yet know the Self? The only way to know the Self is to BE It. So, the Jnani is verily Jnana and nothing but Jnana. There are no Jnanis. Jnana IS, Jnana alone IS, and Jnana alone could ever BE.

K.: [in an over-awed cadence of voice] Maharshi, you inspire me. I also want to become great like you; I want to attain your same greatness; I want to become as great as you. I consider it my life’s mission to emulate you. You are my idol, my super-hero. Please tell me what I should do to attain the same greatness that you have attained: you the incomparably great Bhagawan Ramana.

Chadwick: Impossible and inconceivable. How could anybody become our Bhagawan? He is God Absolute.

B.: [smiling] What is there in it? Only remain still [- i.e., summa iru].

K.: Maharshi, I would like to know how I shall get rid of all my sin.

B.: Original sin and original ignorance are all one and the same thing. To get rid of the one is to get rid of the other, and the other the one. Pursuing the investigation ‘Who am I?’ all the way to its successful culmination in Realisation, you will surely get rid of all your sin.

K.: Is the investigation ‘Who am I?’ easy or difficult?

B.: It is the easiest thing there can be. If attending to other things is readily possible for you, imagine how much more easier should be attending to yourself, and attending to yourself exclusively!

K.: Some say that it is exceedingly difficult.

B.: Pay no attention to their words. Do you trust Bhagawan or not?

K.: Implicitly and absolutely.

B.: Then never mind what others are saying. Regard only what is said here.

Bhagawan [tapping right cheek with palm multiple times rapidly and then pointing to own face] says vichara is easy. Will you practice it or not?

K.: [eyes swimming in barely suppressed tears, voice choked and face convulsed with emotion] Yes, Bhagawan.

B.: [smiling] Good.

Also see: Zen Master Huang Po’s teaching compared with the Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi

The power of contemplating Arunachala | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Self-Enquiry | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

The following is taken from the text Aham Sphurana, from the date 20th July 1936. See here to find out more about this text and also to download it for free:

Questioner: It is said that the legendary Sanjeevani herb is found somewhere in this Arunachala hill, by consuming which one attains to state of Immortality. Will Bhagavan please let me know where it is in the hill?

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The hill itself bestows immortality.

Q.: How?

B.: Constant rememberance of Arunachala’s form steadily but surely introverts the mind. Then the mind accquires the strength to plunge inward, or rather loses the strength to move outwards, towards thoughts, intellectual concepts or physical objects. Eventually it becomes still entirely; then the Arunachala within pulls it into itself and destroys it once and for all. This is the Sanjeevani shakti [Tom: shakti means ‘power’] of Arunachala about which you are asking.

[Tom’s comments: here we have Bhagavan explaining how remembrance of Arunachala introverts the mind, pulling it inwards away from both gross and subtle objects, until it becomes entirely still. Arunachala then does the final step of destroying the mind, the result of which is explored below]

Q.: Is it not a herb?

B.: I have said what I know.

Q.: Is the ultimate aim of spiritual practice, only destruction of mind?

B.: Yes.

Q.: One whose mind is dead would perhaps have life in the body, but he would be in a state of comatose senselessness, like a stony, frigid vegetable, unable to understand anything. Is that the perverse fate toward which all spiritual aspirants are gravitating?

B.: Absence of mind is pure Bliss. It is possible to function in the world normally, without mind.

Q.: Oh! How so?

B.: Some power takes over his body and animates it without his knowledge.

Q.: Is it God?

B.: Give it any name you like- God, Providence, Fate, Karma, etc.; the nomenclature matters not.

[Tom’s comments: Bhagavan first confirms that manonasa, or destruction of mind, is indeed the ultimate aim of spiritual practice, thus equating manonasa with both self-knowledge or liberation. Then he goes onto explain that the body can continue to function without the mind under another higher power. This is done without the Jnani’s knowledge or awareness. Of course, Bhagavan is describing this form the relative standpoint, or the standpoint of ignorance/maya. Below we will see a higher teaching given later]

Q.: Are names unimportant in the scheme of things, then? How to call someone if he has no name?

B.: The fact is that in order to escape its own destruction the mind creates a world of name and form over the pure vastu [Tom: vastu means reality] that is the Atman. It abhors chaos and randomness and prefers order and systematisation. It creates cause-consequence relationships and gives itself to understand ideas about its environment, which is actually merely its own projection. It tries to study the nature of its body’s physical surroundings and formulates laws by means of which it then expects those surroundings to function; deviations from existing laws give rise to the birth of new laws! Never once does it wonder, ‘What is my self?’; thinking to conquer its surroundings, it foolishly occupies itself with sensory perceptions, thoughts, and intellectual hypotheses. Thus it is born again and again and needlessly undergoes all sorts of tribulations. Then it asks, ‘Alas! Why has God done this to me?’. Who is to blame for our mistake, if not ourselves?

[Tom’s comments: here Bhagavan explains that the mind creates the universe of name and form and superimposes this onto the formless objectless reality that is Atman, one’s true self. It then projects cause and effect, or karma, and starts to study the environment around it, which is actually nothing but its own projection, never asking or enquiring ‘who am I?’. Below Bhagavan will again confirm, as he has done many times in his own writings, the nature of Jnana:]

Q.: The state without mind is called Jnana?

B.: Yes.

Q.: Then what or who is a Jnani?

B.: One who has mastered the art of not knowing anything and not doing anything.

Q.: I am unable to divine the explication underlying Bhagavan’s sibylline [Tom: mysterious] words.

B.: The Jnani’s senses are unhinged from the world about him. He is sunk in the Self and quite irrevocably lost there.

[Tom’s comments: Bhagavan is explaining that the Jnani does not truly perceive the world, something he only intimated above, and he will expand on this below]

Q.: How is he different from the man on the Clapham omnibus (சாதாரண மனிதன) [Tom: the Tamil phrase given here means ‘the common man/person’ which the translator has translated as ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’ a phrase popular in the 1930s which also means ‘the common everyday person’; this latter phrase was very common amongst lawyers, and the person who was said to have recorded these dialogues, Sri Gajapathi Aiyyer, was also said to have been a lawyer]

B.: The standard of reality employed by the man on the Clapham omnibus is the jagrat [Tom: waking] state in the jagrat state, and so on. For the Jnani the standard of reality is Reality itself.

Q.: What is this Reality?

B.: Man’s true Self.

Q.: How am I to realise this true Self?

B.: Whose Self is it?

Q.: Mine… but really who am I?

B.: Yes. All other questions lead up only to this supreme question.

[Tom’s comments: all paths eventually lead to self-enquiry]

Q.: What is the answer to the question?

B.: The discovery that the personal self, including the one making the discovery, never existed.

Q.: What remains thereafterward?

B.: Only the Truth; it is the state where the world of word, name and form perishes and silence alone prevails.

[Tom: here Bhagavan has clearly stated that for the jnani there is no world or name and form, only the Self or Silence remaining. Now Bhagavan will explain the method of Self-Enquiry:]

Q.: How to communicate thoughts to others without the assistance of words?

B.: That is only necessary so long as duality still persists in the mind.

Q.: How to get abiding shanti [Tom: peace]?

B.: Shanti is the natural state. The mind obstructs one’s inherent peace. Atma-vichara is only in the mind; it does not affect the Self. Investigate the mind; it will disappear. There is no entity by name mind. Because of emergence of thoughts, we surmise the existence of something from which they must originate; this we term mind. When we probe inwards to see what it is, there is nothing to be found except the real Self. After the false mind has vanished, Peace will be found to be Eternal.

Q.: Then what is buddhi?

B.: The thinking or discriminating faculty. These are only names. Call it the ego, the mind or the intellect; it is all the same. Whose mind? Whose intellect? The ego’s. Is the ego real? No. We confound ourselves with the ego and call it intellect or mind. This is because of the evil influence of avidyamaya [Tom: avidya means ignorance, maya means the power which projects the illusion of the body, mind and world. Here Sri Ramana is equating or compositing the two], which has superimposed this ephemeral, illusory, and worthless world of name and form over the ever-existing substratum, which is verily pure Reality and the supreme Peace itself. How to escape from the illusion? By searching for the mind and finding it, including that very finder, to be non-existent, to have been always non-existent, and in fact impossible of existence.

Q.: Emerson says, “Soul answers soul by itself – not by description or words.”

B.: Quite so. However much you learn, there can never be an end to objective knowledge. You ignore the doubter but try to solve the doubts. On the other hand, search for the doubter, and the doubter and his doubts will both disappear.

Q.: Therefore, the question resolves itself into one of knowing the Self.

B.: Quite so.

Q.: How to know the Self?

B.: Enquire into what the self is. What you are now imagining to be your Self, is really either the mind, the intellect or the ‘I-thought’. [Tom: Bhagavan has already said above that these three are the one same thing] Other thoughts are able to arise only after the ‘I-thought’ rises. So, hold on to the I-thought without pause. Soon, you will find that all thoughts vanish leaving the Self alone as the residue.

Q.: The difficulty lies in reaching the Self.

B.: There is no reaching it at all because it is eternal, here and now. If the Self were to be gained anew, it would not be permanent. What is impermanent is not worth striving for.

Q.: How to obtain equilibrium of mind? What is the best way?

[Tom’s comments: We will see Bhagavan subtly rebuking the questioner here – Bhagavan has advised self-enquiry in which the mind is no more, and instead the questioner is asking ‘how to obtain equilibrium of the mind?’]

B.: Just now you were asked to investigate the mind. It is eliminated and the Real you remain over. Let your standpoint become that of Jnana and then the world will be found to be not apart from the Self. Drishtin jnanamayim kritva pashyaet Brahmamayam jagat [Tom: ‘Having made your outlook one of Jnana, one will see the world full of Brahman’ ~Tejobindu Upanishad 1.29; this was a phrase often repeated by Sri Ramana, eg. also see Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 238, which is likely a record of the same conversation given here]. So, the question is one of outlook. The Atman pervades all. You have now lost hold of your Self and go on doubting about other things. Find your Real Self and all your problems and doubts will disappear.

Q.: But how to find this Real Self?

B.: Are there two ‘I’s in the same One? How do you know your own existence now? Do you see yourself with these eyes? Investigate into yourself. How does this question arise? Do I remain to ask it or not? Can I find my Self as in a mirror? Because your outlook has, owing to the poisonous delusion of ignorance, become outward-bent, it has lost sight of the actual Self and your vision is external. The Self is not to be found in external objects. Turn your gaze within and plunge within; you will be the Self.

Q.: It is said that the unknowable can be attained only by the grace of the unknowable.

B.: Yes. He helps you to Realise, if only you would forsake the external world of word, name and form. Such is His merciful Grace.

Q.: How to kill the mind, since the death of the mind is said to bring about Realisation easily?

B.: Will a thief betray himself? Will the mind find itself? The mind cannot kill the mind. You abandon what is real and are holding on to the mind which is unreal and also trying to find what this unreal mind is. Was there any mind in your sleep? No. It is now here. It is therefore impermanent. Can the mind be found by you? You are not the mind. You think you are the mind and therefore ask me how it is to be checked. If it is there it can be checked. But it does not exist at all. Understand this truth by search. Search for unreality is fruitless. Therefore seek the reality, i.e., the Self. That is the way to ruin the mind. There is only one thing Real, and that is Reality, which is the same as man’s true Self.

Q.: What is the nature of the true Self of man? Is it always happy?

B.: It alone is what IS: the ‘other elements’ are only appearances. Diversity is not the nature of the Real. We read the printed characters on the newspaper but ignore the paper which is the background. Similarly you are obsessed with the modifications of the mind and ignore the ever-present background of pure consciousness. Whose fault is it?

Q.: Is there a limit to the Real Self?

B.: What is the Real Self?

Q.: The Individual soul is the only self I know. According to Bhagavan it is unreal.

B.: What is the individual soul? What is the cosmic soul? Is there any difference between the two or are they identical? Any appearances are bound to disappear. Anything created will certainly be destroyed. The eternal is not born – consequently, nor can it die. We are now confounding appearances on Reality with Reality itself. Any appearance carries its own end in itself. Can there be anything that appears newly? If you cannot find the Self through the Jnana-vichara method, surrender to the substratum of appearances unreservedly; then, actual Reality will be left over as the residue.

Q.: What happens to a man after death?

B.: Engage yourself in the living present. The future will take care of itself. There is no need to worry about the future. The state before creation, the process of creation, etc., etc. are all dealt with in the scriptures in order that you may finally endeavour to know the present. Because you say you are born, therefore they say, yes, and add that God created you. But do you see God or anything else in your sleep? If God be real why does He not shine forth in your sleep also? You are always – now the same as you were in sleep.

You are not different from the one in sleep. Thus, why should there be any difference in the feelings or experiences governing the two states? Did you ask, while asleep, the question regarding your birth? Did you ask then, where do I go after death? Why think of all this now in the wakeful state? Let what is born think of its birth, the remedy, the cause and the ultimate results. What is birth? Is it of the ‘I-thought’ or of the body? Is ‘I’ separate from the body or identical with it? How did this ‘I-thought’ arise? Is the ‘I-thought’ your nature? If not, what is your Real nature?

Q.: To whom to ask these questions?

B.: Exactly – that is it. There is no end to it all.

Q.: Are we then to merely keep quiet?

B.: Doubts cease when your apparent ignorance is transcended.

Q.: How did this ignorance originally arise?

B.: Is ignorance asking you, ‘Why have I arisen?’. It is you who are asking the question. So, find out who you are. Then other things will take care of themselves.

Q.: The vichara again! Why should I engage in this Atma-vichara?

B.: Because if Atma-vichara is not pursued, loka-vichara creeps in [Tom: Loka means world, vichara means enquiry, Atma means self]. Engage in Self-investigation; thereby the non-self disappears. The true Self is left over. This is self-investigation of the Self. The one word ‘தான்’ [Tom: ‘Thaan’ or ‘Self’ or ‘oneself’] is equivalent to the mind, body, man, individual, the Supreme and all else.

Ajata Vada as explained by Sage Vasistha in Yoga Vasistha

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

This article is an excerpt from a much longer article which you can view here, that gives further quotes on this same topic from others including Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Shankara, Suresvara and Ribhu Gita. The original article also gives disclaimer which you should read (ie. these teachings are for earnest seekers only and can have detrimental effects for those not ready for them) and makes some suggestions as how to best appraoch these teachings.

The following verses are taken from the text Voga Vasistha Sara, which you can view and download here in its entirely. As with most Advaita texts, various teachings from different levels are given in this text. In Yoga Vasistha mainly Ajata Vada and Dristi Sristi Vada teachings are given, and below I will list some of the quotes pointing to Ajata Vada:

1.17 Even the slightest thought immerses a man in sorrow; when devoid of all thoughts he enjoys imperishable bliss.

1.23 Nothing whatever is born or dies anywhere at any time. It is Brahman alone appearing illusorily in the form of the world.

2.1 Just as the great ocean of milk became still when the Mandara Mountain (with which it was churned by the Devas and the Asuras) became still, even so the illusion of samsara comes to an end when the mind is stilled.

2.2 Samsara rises when the mind becomes active and ceases when it is still. Still the mind, therefore, by controlling the breath and the latent desires (vasanas).

2.3 This worthless (lit. burnt out) samsara is born of one’s imagination and vanishes in the absence of imagination. It is certain that it is absolutely unsubstantial.

2.5 This long-living ghost of a samsara which is the creation of the deluded mind of man [ie. ignorance] and the cause of his sufferings disappears when one ponders over it.

2.8 Whatever is seen does not truly exist. It is like the mythical city of Gandharvas (fata morgana) or a mirage.

2.11 This creation, which is a mere play of consciousness, rises up, like the delusion of a snake in a rope (when there is ignorance) and comes to an end when there is right knowledge.

2.19 The bliss of a man of discrimination, who has rejected samsara and discarded all mental concepts, constantly increases.

3.22 If, by perceiving that the objects of perception do not really exist, the mind is completely freed (from those objects) there ensues the supreme bliss of liberation.

3.23 Abandonment of all latent tendencies is said to be the best (i.e. real) liberation by the wise; that is also the faultless method (of attaining liberation).

3.24 Liberation is not on the other side of the sky, nor is it in the nether world, nor on the earth; the extinction of the mind resulting from the eradication of all desires is regarded as liberation.

3.25 O Rama, there is no intellect, no nescience, no mind and no individual soul (jiva). They are all imagined in Brahman.

3.26 To one who is established in what is infinite, pure consciousness, bliss and unqualified non-duality, where is the question of bondage or liberation, seeing that there is no second entity?

4.1 Consciousness which is undivided imagines to itself desirable objects and runs after them. It is then known as the mind.

4.9 The mind is the cause of (i.e. produces) the objects of perception. The three worlds depend upon it. When it is dissolved the world is also dissolved. It is to be cured (i.e. purified) with effort.

4.12 O Rama, he who, with in-turned mind, offers all the three worlds, like dried-grass, as an oblation in the fire of knowledge, becomes free from the illusions of the mind.

4.13 When one knows the real truth about acceptance and rejection and does not think of anything but abides in himself, abandoning everything, (his) mind does not come into existence.

4.14 The mind is terrible (ghoram) in the waking state, gentle (santam) in the dream state, dull (mudham) in deep sleep and dead when not in any of these three states [ie. when in the fourth state, Turiya, self-realisation].

4.16 The mind is samsara; the mind is also said to be bondage;

6.2 The mind, the intellect, the senses, etc. are all the play of Consciousness. They are unreal and seem to exist only due to lack of insight [ie. objects only appear due to lack or self-knowledge, which is also known as ignorance].

6.9 The world which has come into existence on account of my ignorance has dissolved likewise in me.

7.16 It is again strange that while the Supreme Brahman is forgotten by men, the idea ‘this is mine’ called avidya is firmly held by them (lit. strongly confronts them).

10.1 Supreme Bliss cannot be experienced through contact of the senses with their objects. The supreme state is that in which the mind is annihilated through one-pointed enquiry.

10.2 The bliss arising from the contact of the senses with their objects is inferior. Contact with the sense objects is bondage; freedom from it is liberation.

10.5 The belief in a knower and the known is called bondage. The knower is bound by the known; he is liberated when there is nothing to know.

10. 6 Abandoning the ideas of seer, seen and sight along with latent desires (vasanas) of the past, we meditate on that Self which is the primal light that is the basis of sight.

10.11 The rock-like state in which all thoughts are still and which is different from the waking and dream states, is one’s supreme state.

10.16 There is only the one waveless and profound ocean of pure nectar, sweet through and through (i.e. blissful) everywhere

New recommended reading text: Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

I have decided to add the book Aham Sphurana to the recommended reading list. Please see the list here for more information about this decision, which may be controversial for some. For clarity, the version I am recommending is the original unabridged version and not the edited selections published by others which may contain distortions to the teachings. See here to download the text for free.

Bodilessness Is Liberation: Shankara on Jivanmukti and Videhamukti | Ajata Vada

~ Tom Das ~ 2 Comments

Some people have informed me of their view that in full liberation there is no appearance of the body, mind and world, but that this full liberation, called videhamukti, only occurs when the body dies. As long as the body lives, they say, the appearance of the world continues, this being called Jivanmukti (liberation whilst alive as a person or jiva). For the Jivanmukti, the appearance of the body, mind and world continue, but they are known to be an illusion.

The Jnani, they say, will continue to experience pleasure and pain, etc, until the body dies. Some say this means that some ignorance is retained for the jivanmukti and ignorance is only completely dispelled when the body dies after jivanmukti, which again is called videhamukti (liberation without the body, ie. The state of liberation once the body has died – note if this is true, then there are 2 forms of liberation, which itself is a contradiction to non-duality – ie. there cannot be 2 different forms of non-dual liberation by definition, for that would be inherently dualistic).

This is not Shankara’s view at all. He specifically states this view is not correct in many places throughout his writing. Incidentally Sri Ramana Maharshi also explains how this view is not correct too and is in full agreement with Shankara.

In this post I will demonstrate that Shankara has the following view:

1) for the liberated sage (jnani) there is no appearance of the body, mind or world – there is no appearance of a body, there is no appearance or experience of pleasure or of pain, and there is not even any experience or appearance of time and space for the jnani

2) this liberation does not occur only once the body has died – the implication is that whilst others may perceive the jnani to have a body, to experience pleasure, pain, etc, to experience time and space, this is only the view of the ignorant onlooker. The Jnani has a different ‘experience’, namely they do not perceive samsara, the world, pleasure, pain, time, space or a body – they only ‘experience’ the ever-blissful self, which is one, homogenous and ultimately beyond all experience, all conception and all description.

3) Shankara explains that the appearance of the body (and mind and world) is an effect of ignorance, and that the cessation of ignorance cannot depend on an action such as the death of the body (yes, death of the body is an action, and Shankara famously and repeatedly taught that actions cannot lead to removal of ignorance or liberation). Conversely, if the body mind and world appear, that is an indicator that ignorance is still in effect, for these are the hallmarks of duality, samsara, jivahood and suffering.

4) Moreoever, the body, being an effect of ignorance, cannot itself remove ignorance by dying. Ignorance is the cause, the body-appearance is a consequence of ignorance. Any changes to the effect cannot effect the root cause, no, rather the root cause of duality has to be removed, and when that occurs, any effects dependent on the cause will naturally fall away.

Shankara comments on the nature of liberation

In Shankara’s commentary on the Brahma Sutra 1.1.4 Shankara makes several definitive points about the nature of liberation. In this part of the commentary, his main aim is to show that the Self is not attained through any actions or thoughts, but through Jnana or knowledge (which he explains is not a thought or understanding). However in making his arguments, he also makes some other points about the nature of liberation.

Bodilessness is liberation

First he says that there is no body in liberation, that the jnani is without a body. He uses the word अशरीरत्व (aśarīratva) which literally means ‘the state of being without a body’ (sarira = body; a- is the negating prefix, -tva denotes the state of being, similar to the English suffix ‘-ness’) or ‘bodilessness’.

Shankara writes:

Hence it is proved that asiriratva (bodilessness), which is liberation, is eternal and different from the results of action…it is all pervasive like space, devoid of all modifications, ever happy, without parts and self-effulgent by nature. This is that bodilessness, called liberation, where the idea of the three periods of time does not exist, and the virtuous and unvirtuous deeds cease along with their effects, as stated in the scriptures…

We can clearly see in the text above that Shankara is stating the Jnani is without a body, and also does not experience any actions, any effects of actions, nor do they experience any concept of the three periods of time (past, present and future).

Of course, this teaching is given by Shankara repeatedly thoughout his commentarial works where he states the transactional reality (vyvaharika) only exists for the ignorant/ unrealised, and for the Jnani, there is only the Ultimate Truth (paramarthika). Shankara also writes this in his non-commentarial works, such Upadesa Saharsri, as follows:

All this world is unreal and proceeds from ignorance, because it is seen only by one afflicted by ignorance

Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 17.20

and also here:

Having thus effaced the triad consisting of dreamless sleep, dream and waking experience, one crosses over the great sea of ignorance. For he is then established in his own Self, void of all attributes of the empirical world, pure, enlightened, and by his very nature liberated.

Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 17.58

and also here:

Of me who am ever-liberated, pure, rock-firm and changeless, not subject to modification, immortal, indestructible and so without a body, there is no hunger or thirst or grief or delusion or old age or death. For I am bodiless…

Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 13.3-13.4

Bodilessness has nothing to do with the death of the body

But perhaps one could argue that this bodiless state of liberation only occurs when the body dies, ie. in so-called Videhamukti, but that the body persists in jivanmukti? Shankara addresses this very point in the same commentary on Brahma Sutra verse 1.1.4, where he writes the following:

Opponent: Suppose we argue that this bodilessness comes when the body falls [dies], but it cannot be so for the person still living?

Vedantin: Not so, for the idea of having a body is the result of ignorance. Unless it be through the ignorance of identifying the Self with the body, there can be no having a body for the self. And we have said that the bodilessness of the Self is eternal, since it is not a product of action.

Shankara is explaining 2 points here, firstly that the notion of the body itself is downstream from ignorance, ie. that the body only persists due to ignorance, and when ignorance has gone, so has the body. Therefore one does not need to wait for the body to die to become ‘bodiless’. These kinds of misconceptions arise from the strong identification of being a body in the first place.

His second point is that the death of the body is an action, and so cannot be responsible for the eternal state of bodilessness, which is liberation and the Self (note that earlier in this commentary Shankara has already made the point that all actions lead to effects which themselves are finite and impermanent, and so action cannot lead to something permanent such as the eternal state of bodilessness which is our true nature – ie. Shankara has argued that no action or karma can lead to liberation or moksha)

The Jnani’s worldly experience doesn’t continue as before

But surely, one could argue, the jnani has the same essential worldly experience as the ajnani (the unenlightened or ignorant one)? Don’t we see the Jnani walking, taking, eating, laughing, getting annoyed, etc? Shankara denies this – he goes on to say the following, again in his commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.1.4:

..it is established that the liberated one has no body even whilst living…hence one who has realised his own identity with Brahman cannot continue to experience the world (samsara) as before, whereas the one who experiences the world (samsara) as before has not realised his identity as Brahman. Thus it is all beyond criticism.

And again Shankara writes in his commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.1.4:

Opponent:…it is a patent fact that even one who has heard of Brahman continues to have his mundane life just as before?

Vedantin: To this the answer is being given: for one who has realised the state of the oneness of the Self and Brahman, it cannot be proved that his mundane life continues just as before, for this contradcits the knowledge of the oneness of Brahman and the Self…hence it is stated in the scriptures ‘Happiness and sorrow do not touch one who has become definitely without a body’ [Chandogya Upanishad 8.7.1]

We can see here the objection is raised that surely it is an obvious fact that the jnani experiences their mundane life just as before. Shankara denies this, stating firstly that this cannot be proved and secondly that this notion contradicts the scriptures and concept of non-dual realisation. Shankara in the above comments also explains that the Jnani does not experience any worldly happiness or sorrow, an idea consistent with what Shankara wrote earlier, namely there are no actions or effects of actions (such as happiness or sorrow) in the Self.

We see Sri Ramana explain the same in this picture quote below, when he is commenting on another writing of Shankara’s:

If you are interested to see how Sri Ramana Maharshi, Gaudapada and Suresvara give the same teachings please see this post here:

Does the liberated Jnani or Sage see the body, the mind, the world or the 3 states of deep sleep, waking and dream according to Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Adi Shankara?

and

Gaudapada and Shankara explain Ajata Vada: No body,mind or world appear in Self-Realisation or Liberation

and

Ramana Maharshi teaches us: Does the Sage (Jnani) see the world? Does the world appearance exist after liberation?

SRUTI (THE UPANISHADS) DENY THE EXISTENCE OF EVEN A TRACE OF MULTIPLICITY | Aparokshanubhuti | Swami Chinmayananda

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment



Swami Chinmayananda writes the following:

The Śrutis have emphatically denied that the pluralistic world of minerals, mountains, trees, animals and human beings together constituting the world of multiplicity* exist even as a trace in the pure Reality.

The great seers, saints and sages have corroborated this with their personal experience. When there is no duality as the devotee and the Lord, how can the devotee say he is experiencing God?

When the dream merges [Tom: ie. dissolves and disappears] itself in the waking, how can the waker say that the dreamer is different from the waker?

So too when you transcend this place of Consciousness and wake up to the plane of God-consciousness, how can you experience duality or multiplicity? This is what all Śrutis declare.

~ Swami Chinmayananda, commentary on Aparoksanubhuti (a text by Shankara), verse 47


*Swamiji defines plurality and multiplicity as being the world of objects, such as minerals mountains trees animals and human beings. He states that not even a trace of these exist in the reality. He is following the definition of multiplicity given by the Upanishads and by Shankara when he writes this, both of whom are unequivocal that this world of multiplicity and plurality refers to the appearance of objects such as mountains trees etc, and these only appear to exist due to ignorance, and cease to appear to exist once ignorance has been removed.

When Swamiji explains that ‘not a trace’ of multiplicity exists in the reality, meaning in self-realization, when only reality is there, nothing else, no ignorance, he is also copying the language of Shankara and the Upanishads who also say ‘not a trace’ of multiplicity exists in self-realisation.