Books
Gaudapada’s commentary on Mandukya Upanishad with further comments by Tom Das – Chapter 1
Tom: Here are most of the verses from Chapter 1 of Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, as translated by Swami Nikhilananda. I have made comments on some of these verses in italicised red. See here for the full text of Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad.
See here for my translation of Shankara’s Introduction to this great work.
Translation by Swami Nikhilananda
The Mandukya Upanishad is 12 verses on AUM Mantra. It is often cited as the most important of the Upanishads. Gaudapada’s Karika is a commentary relating to those 12 verses and is one of the most important and authoritative texts in the Advaita Vedanta tradition.
Chapter I [of Gaudapada’s Karika] – Agama Prakarana (The Chapter based on Vedic Testimony)
Mandukya Upanishad – Verses I-VI:
I: Harih Aum! AUM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. A clear explanation of it is as follows: All that is past, present and future is, indeed, AUM. And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is truly AUM.
Tom: all there is is AUM
II: All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters.
Tom: AUM is Brahman, they are one and the same. Brahman is Atman. It has 4 parts – we will see later that 3 of these 4 parts do not actually exist at all
III: The first quarter is called Vaisvanara (Tom: the waker), whose sphere of activity is the waking state, who is conscious of external objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of gross objects.
IV: The second quarter is Taijasa (Tom: the dreamer), whose sphere of activity is the dream state, who is conscious of internal objects, who is endowed with seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of subtle objects.
V: That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna (Tom: the sleeper), whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking.
VI: He is the Lord of all. He is the knower of all. He is the inner controller. He is the source of all; for from him all beings originate and in him they finally disappear.
Tom: note that Prajna, or the sleeper or deep sleep, here is characterised as being the source of all maya, the seed of ignorance from which arises all manifestation/duality – ‘He is the source of all; for from him all beings originate and in him they finally disappear.’
Gaudapada’s Karika
1 Visva is all—pervading, the experiencer of external objects. Taijasa is the cognizer of internal objects. Prajna is a mass of consciousness. It is one alone that is thus known in the three states.
Tom: Vivsa is the waker – that which experiences the waking state, taijasa is the dreamer – that which experiences the dream state, and prajna is the sleeper – that which experiences the deep sleep state
2 Visva is the cognizer through the right eye; Taijasa is the cognizer through the mind within; Prajna is the akasa in the heart. Therefore the one Atman is perceived threefold in the same body.
3—4 Visva experiences the gross; Taijasa, the subtle; and Prajna, the blissful. Know these to be the threefold experience. The gross object satisfies Visva; the subtle, Taijasa; and the blissful, Prajna. Know these to be the threefold satisfaction.
5 The experiencer and the objects of experience associated with the three states have been described. He who knows these both does not become attached to objects though enjoying them.
6 Surely a coming into existence must be predicated of all positive entities that exist. Prana manifests all inanimate objects. The Purusha manifests the conscious beings in their manifold forms.
7 Some of those who contemplate the process of creation regard it as the manifestation of God’s powers; others imagine creation to be like dreams and illusions.
8 Those who are convinced about the reality of manifested objects ascribe the manifestation solely to God’s will, while those who speculate about time regard time as the creator of things.
9 Some say that the manifestation is or the purpose of God’s enjoyment, while others attribute it to His division. But it is the very nature of the effulgent Being. What desire is possible for Him who is the fulfillment of all desires?
Mandukya Upanishad Verse VII:
VII: Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.
Tom: Turiya is here being equated with the Self, Atman, and it is this Turiya that is to be realised: ‘This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized’. This Atman is not conscious of the waking, dream or deep sleep state, nor is it mere ordinary consciousness – it is indescribable and it contains no phenomena within it, so states the Upanishad: ‘Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both…It is not simple consciousness…It is the cessation of all phenomena‘
Gaudapada’s Karika continued
10 Turiya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and all—pervading.
Tom: Turiya ends all suffering, everything other than turiya is unreal
11 Visva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Neither cause nor effect exists in Turiya.
Tom: there is no cause or effect in Turiya
12 Prajna does not know anything of self or non—self, of truth or untruth. But Turiya is ever existent and all—seeing.
13 Non—cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. But Prajna is associated with sleep in the form of cause and this sleep does not exist in Turiya.
Tom: In both deep sleep and Turiya there is no cognition of duality or cognition of objects – we can see that Gaudapada equates perception of objects with perception of duality. However in deep sleep the Self is not known as there is a cause or seed of ignorance present (the Sanskrit word ‘bija’ used in this verse means both cause or seed). In Turiya this sleep-seed of ignorance is not present.
14 The first two, Visva and Taijasa, are associated with dreaming and sleep respectively; Prajna, with Sleep bereft of dreams. Knowers of Brahman see neither sleep nor dreams in Turiya.
Tom: in Turiya (or for the knower of Brahman or the one who is Self-realised), there is no perception or arising of waking, dream or deep sleep
15 Dreaming is the wrong cognition and sleep the non—cognition, of Reality. When the erroneous knowledge in these two is destroyed, Turiya is realized.
16 When the jiva, asleep under the influence of beginningless maya, is awakened, it then realizes birthless, sleepless and dreamless Non—duality.
Tom: the reality (ie. Self or Turiya) is without birth (objects arising), without sleep, and without dream. ie. the waking, dream and deep sleep states are not present, nor do they arise in reality. So, do they disappear in self-realisation? Let us see…
17 If the phenomenal universe were real, then certainly it would disappear. The universe of duality which is cognized is mere illusion (maya); Non—duality alone is the Supreme Reality.
Tom: this verse is often quoted by itself without the preceding verses, and so misinterpreted. We can see in context that it is saying the following: if the phenomenal universe ever appeared, then it would certainly disappear. However, since the universe is maya, it (paradoxically to the mind) never actually appeared at all. There was only the non-dual Turiya or Self, nothing else. See here for more on this teaching.
18 If anyone imagines illusory ideas such as the teacher, the taught and the scriptures, then they will disappear. These ideas are for the purpose of instruction. Duality ceases to exist when Reality is known.
Tom: The same point is being made again – ie. in truth duality or maya or appearances never actually ever came about. Note that Gaudapada here, like elsewhere, equates appearances with duality.
Mandukya Upanishad – Verses VIII-XI:
VIII: The same Atman explained before as being endowed with four quarters is now described from the standpoint of the syllable AUM. AUM, too, divided into parts, is viewed from the standpoint of letters. The quarters of Atman are the same as the letters of AUM and the letters are the same as the quarters. The letters are A, U and M.
IX: Vaisvanara Atman, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, is A, the first letter of AUM, on account of his all— pervasiveness or on account of his being the first. He who knows this obtains all desires and becomes first among the great.
X: Taijasa Atman, whose sphere of activity is the dream state, is U, the second letter of AUM, on account of his superiority or intermediateness. He who knows this attains a superior knowledge, receives equal treatment from all and finds in his family no one ignorant of Brahman.
XI: Prajna Atman, whose sphere is deep sleep, is M, the third letter of AUM, because both are the measure and also because in them all become one. He who knows this is able to measure all and also comprehends all within himself.
Gaudapada’s Karika continued
19 When it is desired to describe the identity of Visva and the letter A, the chief ground given is the fact that each is the first in its respective sphere. Another reason for this identity is the all—pervasiveness of each.
20 The clear ground for realizing Taijasa as of the same nature as the letter U is the common feature of superiority. Another plain reason for such identity is their being in the middle.
21 The indisputable reason given for the identity of Prajna and M is the common feature that both are the measure. The other reason for such identity is another common feature, namely, that both represent the state of mergence.
22 He who knows for certain the similarity of the three states and the three letters of AUM, based upon their common features, is worshipped and adored by all beings and also is a great sage.
23 Through meditation on A the seeker attains Visva; through meditation on U, Taijasa; and through meditation on M, Prajna. Meditation on the “soundless” brings no attainment.
Mandukya Upanishad – Verse XII:
XII: The Fourth (Turiya) is without parts and without relationship; It is the cessation of phenomena; It is all good and non—dual. This AUM is verily Atman. He who knows this merges his self in Atman—yea, he who knows this.
Tom: like in verse 7, Turiya is again equated with Atman and AUM – it is without any parts, meaning there are no objects that can arise in it, again emphasised by stating it is without relationship – meaning there is no relative ‘truth’ present and it has no relation to objects or phenomena. This is further emphasised when it states ‘It is the cessation of phenomena’, as per verse 7 which states the same. It is all good, meaning it is pure positivity without any negativity whatsoever, without any opposite. It is non-dual, meaning without any time, space, people or objects. It is what you are. Aum Tat Sat. This will be further explained and elaborated upon in the following verses. See here for more on this teaching.
See here for the full text of Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad.
Ramana Maharshi on Devotion or Bhakti | Guru Vachaka Kovai
Here are some verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai (Garland of Guru’s Sayings, a collection of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings) on Bhakti:
314. Treading the path, one finds the world
Composed of ‘I’ and ‘this’
Transformed into the Guru Himself.
This steadiness of vision, this
Awareness of his presence bright
Everywhere is the true pupil’s
Worship of the Master.
512. Rare indeed is the non-dual jnana.
Yet fixing firmly one’s true love
On Siva’s Feet will easily lead
One to the Grace divine, the light
Which destroys illusion dark
And reveals the Real.
513. Through love firm fixing the Lord’s Feet
Ever in the heart, one can destroy
All false desires. And then the heart,
Now blossoming wide, beholds the true
Light of supreme awareness.
649. Do not wander endlessly
Searching in vain for certitude
Through strenuous study, listening, learning.
In love surrender to the Love
Supreme, the Lord, and reach
And hold the state supreme of Real
Being.
651. Those poor fools who have not savoured
The taste ineffable of Love
May go on talking of seven savours.
But we who have enjoyed Love’s sweetness,
We assert that this alone,
Love, is the sole true savour.
652. To disentangle life’s hard knots
One needs must understand the Self
As Love itself. Only when one knows
This Love supreme is moksha gained.
Of every creed this is the heart,
The real teaching.
720. Those with mind matured by bhakti,
Relishing, drinking in, its sweetness,
Deem bhakti supreme, the ever fresh
Nectar, as its own reward
And yearn for more and more of it.
792. If all you wish for is fulfilled,
Think not that it is due to your
Tapas. Know it is but God’s
Good grace, and cling with more and more
Love to His Feet.
(Tom: note, this is how the Law of Attraction can lead one to liberation – it eventually encourages love of God more than love of Things, and this in turn takes one eventually to Self as described above)
965. If towards the Lord you take
One single step, then with much more
Than a mother’s love He takes
Nine steps towards you to accept you.
Such is the Guru’s Grace.
974. Unbroken Self-awareness is
The true, bright path of devotion or love.
Knowledge of our inherent nature
As indivisible Bliss supreme
Wells up as Love.
1205. The mark of bhakti true, total
Self-surrender at Siva’s Feet,
Is perfect peace without a thought
Or word of prayer or plaint.
1206. In the heart which grace divine
Has filled with radiant bliss, can there
Be room for any trivial care,
The symptom of the ignorance which
Is knowledge for the body-bound ego?
1209. When, the dense darkness of ignorance gone,
The heart’s wide open firmament
Is filled with peace serene, clear, bright,
An inner fount of love up springs
Which is devotion true, the pure
Auspiciousness of Siva Himself.
1210. The fortunate ones who in the Self
Abide forever, they alone,
Have realised the Truth. From others
Far indeed is that eternal
Home of grace supreme.
1211. True devotees are they who are
Forever to the Self alone
Devoted. Only they enjoy
Eternally the bliss supreme
Of all-transcendent, highest heaven.
The meaning of ‘Real’ and ‘Unreal’ in Advaita Vedanta | The Mirage analogy vs the Rope and Snake | The world and self-realisation
Also see this post on Ajata Vada and this post on Turiya
‘Unreal’, both in Vedanta and in common parlance, means that which doesn’t actually exist; ‘real’ means that which exists.
This means that if something exists it is real, and vice versa. This is highlighted by the fact that in Sanskrit, the most common word for both ‘real’ and ‘exists’ is the same word ‘satya’ or ‘sat’. ie. the Sanskrit word ‘sat’ means both ‘real’ and ‘exists’. I have seen some commentators say that something can be unreal but still exist, and vice versa. In doing so they have uncoupled the meaning of these synonymous words, ‘real’ and ‘exists’, which is particularly ironic as in Sanskrit they are one and the same word, ‘sat’.
Vedanta texts say that which changes is unreal, or the things that are subject to change are unreal, meaning that which changes does not truly exist (ie. They do not exist in self-realisation, or they are non-existent when the self is realised).
Vedanta texts do not define ‘real’ as being ‘that which doesn’t change’, nor does the word ‘unreal’ simply refer to things that exist but change/are subject to change. Never do we see this false definition in the Vedanta scriptures.
I hope you can see the difference. If you cannot see the difference, then please reflect on the above as it is in important part of the teaching, and this is an important way the teaching is distorted by the ego-mind.
Note that if the teaching is distorted in this way it is likely not to lead to liberation.
So how does this all fit together?
The idea is that if you discover Sat (reality) in its true essence, meaning as it really or truly is, devoid of illusion or ignorance, all that is anitya (impermanent) will disappear, and so be revealed to be asat (unreal or non-existent), its only having appeared to exist due to ignorance/error.
This has been explained by Sri Ramana Maharshi many times, for example, see the following verses of Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad:
88. That which survives in the experience of the real Self is the supreme state. [That] alone is real. All else is only unreal. This is the distinction between the real and the unreal, revealed to us by the teachings of all the sages.
91 As the dream world is known to be unreal for the reason that it vanishes upon waking, so this waking world is also proved to be unreal by its vanishing in the light of the real Self.
92 But ignorant men, who are averse to winning the supreme state, put forth an endless series of arguments, [trying to refute this teaching]. The sages clear the doubts generated by these arguments so that earnest aspirants may not be deluded by them.
We are then cautioned about teaching this teaching to those who are attached to the notion that they are the body mind (living in a world), or those who cling to the notion of the self being the owner of the body mind:
93 This teaching of the unreality of the world is not addressed to those who look upon the body itself as the Self, or consider the Self to be the owner of the body. For these people the world is real, not unreal.
However, for those who genuinely seek liberation, this teaching is given:
95 To those who seek deliverance, the teaching is that all these three are equally unreal. This teaching must [therefore] be accepted, exactly as it is taught, by those who are earnestly seeking to win deliverance by the extinction of ignorance.
How can something that we perceive be unreal? Sri Ramana explains:
98 Everyone who is ignorant [of the real Self] thinks the world is real because it is seen. This is no proof because it proves too much. The same reason would prove the reality of the mirage, the rope in the snake, etc.
And so the text continues in this vein, drumming home the teaching. See the introductory articles on tomdas.com to explore this further, especially this article. I have made a YouTube video on this that explains this more here.
AN OBJECTION TO THIS TEACHING – THE MIRAGE vs ROPE & SNAKE
Q. Tom, a mirage exists yet it is unreal. In the same sense a separate ego-mind-body-world exists yet is unreal in the sense that its existence is dependent. Knowing that on which it depends as oneself is bliss…..
Just some early morning musings…
Tom: this is not the vedanta teaching given in the Upanishads. This is a modern re-writing of the vedantic teaching.
Vedanta usually uses the rope and snake metaphor, eg, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes in Who Am I?:
Q. When will the realization of the Self be gained?
A. When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed, there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.
Q. Will there not be realization of the Self even while the world is there?
A. There will not be.
Q. Why?
If the mind, which is the cause (and base) of all knowledge (all objective knowledge) and all action, subsides, the perception of the world (jagat-drishti) will cease. Just as the knowledge of the rope, which is the base, will not be obtained unless the knowledge of the snake, the superimposition, goes, so the realization of Self (swarupa-darsanam), which is the base, will not be obtained unless the perception of the world (jagat-drishti) which is a superimposition, ceases.
And later from the same text:
When the mind comes out (rises) from Self, the world appears. Therefore, when the world appears, Self will not appear; and when Self appears (shines), the world will not appear.
And later:
The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry Who am I?’. The thought ‘Who am I?’ (which is but a means for turning our attention Selfwards), destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre.
And later:
By repeatedly practising thus, the power of the mind to abide in its source increases. When the mind (the attention), which is subtle, goes out through the brain and sense-organs (which are gross), the names-and-forms (the objects of the world), which are gross, appear; when it abides in the heart (its source, Self), the names-and-forms disappear. Keeping the mind in the heart (through the above-described means of fixing our attention in Self), not allowing it to go out, alone is called ‘Selfwardness’ (ahamukham) or ‘introversion’ (antarmukham). Allowing it to go out from the heart alone is called ‘extroversion’ (bahirmukham). When the mind thus abides in the heart, the ‘I’ (the thought ‘I’, the ego), which is the root of all thoughts, having vanished, the ever-existing Self alone will shine.
And later:
The place (or state) where even the slightest trace of the thought ‘I’ does not exist, alone is Self (swarupam). That alone is called ‘Silence’ (maunam). To be still (summa iruppadu) in this manner alone is called ‘seeing through (the eye of) knowledge’ (jnana-drishti). To be still is to make the mind subside in Self (through Self-attention). Other than this, knowing the thoughts of others, knowing the three times (past, present and future), knowing events in distant places – all these can never be jnana-drishti (knowledge realisation).
And later:
What really exists is Self (atma-swarupam) alone. The world, soul and God are superimpositions in it like the silver in the mother-of-pearl; these three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously.
🙏🙏🙏
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? | Advaita Vedanta Essential teachings| Picture quotes
You are welcome to download and share any of the following picture quotes – many more can be found on my Facebook page here in the photo albums.
Sri Ramana often said that the Jnani (self-realised or liberate Sage) is totally unaware of the body, the mind and the world, and that the liberated sage also has no awareness of the 3 states of dream, deep sleep or waking, all of which are a projection of ignorance (aka the mind). We will see below that Sri Shankara says the same.
Also see: Does the Sage (Jnani) see the world? Does the world appearance exist after liberation?
In the text Guru Vachaka Kovai (Garland of Guru’s Sayings) – a highly authoritative collection of Sri Ramana’s teachings recorded by Sri Muruganar, there are several verses that were written by Sri Ramana Maharshi himself, often highlighting key or especially important teachings. These verses were called ‘Sri Bhagavan’ – here is the 24th such verse from that text, which Sri Ramana himself wrote:
The Self-Realised Sage knows not whether the transient body comes and stays, or dies and leaves, even as a senseless drunkard knows not what happens to his clothes.
Guru Vachaka Kovai, Sri Bhagavan 24
We can see that Sri Ramana is saying that in truth the Jnani is not aware of the body at all.
This next quote is from Maharshi’s Gospel:
To him who is one with that Reality, there is neither the mind nor its three states, and therefore, neither introversion nor extroversion.
Maharshi’s Gospel (Chapter 6)
We can see here Sri Ramana is implying that it is the mind that gives rise to the 3 states (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) and for the Jnani there is no mind, nor the 3 states, therefore the Jnani’s (non-existent) mind cannot be said to be introverted nor extroverted (both of which are in relation to the body and the world of objects, of which the Jnani is unaware).
Taking about a different triad, the triad of jiva, jagat and iswara (individual person, the world, and the power that animates these – the prior verse specifies that this is the triad he is speaking of), Sri Ramana states that none of these remain in Self Realisation in the text Guru Ramana Vachana Mala:
Though these* (three) are unreal, they are not different from the Supreme Reality (Brahman); but the Supreme Reality is different (from these), because It exists without these* in the State of Self -Realisation
*the triad of jiva, jagat and Isvara; ie. the individual person, the world, and the personal God; these 3 do not exist in Self-Realisation
Guru Ramana Vachana Mala, verse 290
But doesn’t Sri Ramana teach us that for the Jnani they see the names and forms and body and mind AS THE SELF and not apart from the SELF? Yes, he does teach this, but this is a lower teaching, as he has also explained. See Sri Ramana’s own writing in Ulladu Narpadu verse 18:
18. To those who do not know and to those who do, the world is real. But to those who do not know, Reality is bounded by the world; while to those who know, Reality shines formless as the ground of the world. Such is the difference between them.
Careful readers will realised that Bhagavan Sri Ramana is saying that for the Jnani, only the substratum is real, and that the ‘world’ of the Jnani is the Pure consciousness only devoid of name and form, as he has already explained above.
Lakshmana Sarma (LS) was a close devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s for over 20 years, and he was one of only 2 people to have private tuition with Sri Ramana Maharshi on the true meaning of Sri Ramana’s teachings. LS was unhappy about how Sri Ramana’s teachings had been misrepresented even by other devotees, so after consulting with Sri Ramana Maharshi he wrote several texts aimed at correcting these distorting teachings. In this post I have included some of what he said about this aspect of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings, and also given LS’s comments and explanation on verse 18 above, which Sri Ramana Maharshi allegedly said was the correct interpretation.
Here are some more teachings of Sri Ramana’s in a similar vein. When read separately they are clear. When read together they surely give a definitive teaching (please also scroll past the pictures for teachings from Shankara on this same topic further below):
So Bhagavan Sri Ramana has give these types of teachings to us many times – see the introductory articles on the homepage of this website which explore many of these teachings even further – but so has Sri Shankara given us these same teachings in various places. Here are some quotes from Upadesa Sahasri (‘A Thousand Teachings’), the only non-commentarial work attributed to Adi Shankara that is universally agreed as being a genuine work of his:
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
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
Because I am without an eye*, I have no sight. As I have no ear either*, how could I have hearing? As I have no voice I can have no speech. As I have no mind, how could I have thought?
There cannot be action on the part of that which does not have life force (prana). There cannot be knowership on the part of that which has no mind. Neither can there be knowledge or ignorance on the part of me who am the Light of Pure Consciousness
*Shankara is quoting from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.8
Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 13.1, 13.2
Just as a dream is [apparently] real and valid until one awakens from it, so are the experiences of the waking state, such as identity with the body and the authoritativeness of perception and the other means of knowledge, real and valid until knowledge of the Self
Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 11.5
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
There are many other places Shankara has given this same teaching, such as in his introduction to his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad which you can view here and if you explore this website you will find many such similar teachings.
Below I have put together some picture quotes of Shankara’s teachings which I previously shared on Facebook (there are dozens more on Facebook!)- you are also welcome to share any picture quotes I have created:
And here are some verses of Sri Shankara’s that Sri Ramana Maharshi himself has translated (into Tamil – these are the English translations of his translations):
‘It is wrong to call Self the Witness’ – Sri Ramana Maharshi
The following is an excerpt from this post: Is the Self a witness? Or is it everything? Or both?
Sri Ramana Maharshi has taught us in Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 98 (Guru Vachaka Kovai is the most authoritative record of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s verbal teachings according to Sri Ramana Ashram):
98. Unless the body is taken to be ‘I’, otherness – the world of moving and unmoving objects – cannot be seen. Hence, because otherness – the creatures and their Creator – does not exist, it is wrong to call Self the Witness.
Sri Sadhu Om, a direct devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi, writes in his commentary on this verse:
Descriptions of self as the ‘witness of the individual soul’ (jiva sakshi) or the ‘witness of everything’ (sarva sakshi), which can be found in some sacred texts, are not true but are only figurative (upacara), because only when other things are known would the one who knows them be a ‘witness’ of them. Since self does not know anything in the state of absolute oneness, which is devoid of any other thing, to what can it be a witness? Therefore describing self as a ‘witness’ is incorrect.
What both Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Sadhu Om are saying is that objects only appear when the ego/ignorance is present. In Self-realisation, there are no objects, only the Self, so in truth the Self cannot be said to be a witness.
In verse 869 of Guru Vachaka Kovai Sri Ramana teaches us:
869. ’Tis a foolish fancy to ascribe the role of ‘witness’ to the Self, the luminous Sun, the mighty sky of Pure Awareness. In the Self Immutable there is no room for maya’s darkness void. The Self is one sole whole without a second.
Here is an alternative translation of the same verse, with Sri Sadhu Om’s commentary, which essentially states in truth, ie. in realisation, there is no Maya in the Self. It is only for ajnani’s, ie. the ignorant, that consider the Self to be a witness of phenomena/maya:
869. The role [dharma] of seeing is ascribed to Self – the space of consciousness, the sun – only in the imagination of ajnanis, [because] maya, the empty ignorance [of seeing otherness], never exists in Self, the support [sthanu], [and also because] Self is without a second.
Sri Sadhu Om’s comments: Since Self is in truth that which transcends all roles and all qualities, and since It exists as one without a second, to glorify It as the ‘witness of all’ [sarva-sakshi] or as the ‘knower of all’ [sarvajna] is merely the folly of ignorant people.
Q. The sage and the ignorant both have a body – what is the difference between them? Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana | Verse 17 Ulladu Narpadu 40 verses on Reality
The following is from the text Aham Sphurana from the entry dated 15th September, 1936. Some of the language is quite difficult so I have summarised the points in my comments which, as usual, are in italicised red:
Questioner: The Jnani [Tom: knower, enlightened sage] and ajnani [Tom: non-knower, the ignorant one] both have a body; what is the difference between them?
Tom: See Sri Ramana’s text ’40 Verses on Reality’ (Ulladu Narpadu), Bhagavan writes in verse 17:
17. To those who do not know the Self and to those who do, the body is the ‘I’. But to those who do not know the Self the ‘I’ is bounded by the body; while to those who within the body know the Self the ‘I’ shines boundless. Such is the difference between them.
Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The mistake made by the ajnani is that he limits his “I” to the body. Both the Jnani and the ajnani have a body, and both say ‘I am the body’. The difference lies in the fact that in the case of the Jnani the diaphanous [Tom: subtle] stream of consciousness needed to sustain life in the body is an upadhi [Tom: adjunct, superimposed object], whereas in the case of the other, that macilent [Tom: thin or subtle] ray of reflected consciousness [known as body-consciousness] is the one and only consciousness he is aware of.
I Am is the truth. Body-consciousness is an obnubilating [Tom: obscuring] limitation which obscures Revelation of the Self in the case of the ajnani and an upadhi in the case of the Jnani. You are always the same “I”, whatever state it is that may be passing in front of you. In sleep “I” remains without a body. That same “I” remains undisturbed and unmutilated in the jagrat [Tom: waking] and swapna [Tom: dream] states also.
Tom: To summarise the above paragraph, which contains some convoluted language, Bhagavan says that for the Jnani, the body is a mere appearance in Consciousness (Upadhi) which doesn’t cover his true identity as Self/Consciousness, whereas for the ajnani, the body is the sole identity and this obscures the vision of Truth of ‘I’ or ‘I AM’ or ‘True Self’. However, we will see below that this description is only from the relative point of view, and that truly there is no body for the Jnani in Truth.
Only, in these states, we abandon our actual identity with “I” and imagine ourselves to be perishable bodies made of matter. Despite this confusion on our part, “I” remains happily without a body in truth always, although we assume that we are within the body. Although by us imagined to be within the body, the Real “I” ever is without any body or other limitation, being the Absolute Immutable Self Itself. One’s ignorant outlook is not merely ‘I am the body.’; it lies in having confounded the Self with the not-Self, such as the mind, intellect or body. Does the Real “I” formulate or proclaim the idea of it being this or that? Is it not always perfectly silent? It is the spurious “I” which is capable of rumbustiousness or obstreperousness, and which says, ‘I am this.’ or ‘I am that.’.The body is insentient and cannot say so. Our mistake lies in thinking “I” to be what “I” is not. “I” cannot be insentient; therefore “I” is not the inert body. What then is this “I”? “I” means Sentience or Awareness which is not adumbrated by the faculty of thought-manufacture- i.e., the aham vritti.
The body’s movements are confounded with “I” and excruciating agony is the result. Whether the body and mind work or not, “I” remains free and happy i.e., in its nativistic or intrinsic state of ecstatic, Eternal Emancipation. The ajnani’s “I” is limited to his body and mind only; that is where his whole error lies. The Jnani’s “I” includes the body and everything else. For the Emancipated-one there cannot be anything apart from “I” the Self. He sees no other. Verily everything is only Himself. In the case of the ajnani, some phantasmagoric, intermediate entity known as ahankaram [Tom: ego] arises between the body and the Self and gives rise to all sorts of trouble. If its source is sought, it disappears, leaving the Self alone behind, as the solitary residue. Continuous and intense inward-pointed scrutiny of the mind results in its disappearance.
Tom: similar to my previous comments, Bhagavan is saying essentially the same thing here, namely that the Jnani is not identified with the body whereas the ajnani is. There is also a hint that in truth there is no body, and this is made slightly clearer below.
Bhagavan also says that it is this phantom ego which arises and claims to be I and also claims to be the body, and it is this that ‘gives rise to all sorts of trouble’. The method of self-enquiry is thereafter briefly described – seek the source of this ego, and via this continuous intense inward pointedness of mind, the mind disappears and Self-knowledge remains.
Q.: Since the Jnani has a tangible body, what happens to the soul in that body after its death?
B.: Others say that the Jnani has a body, and talk of jivanmukti, videhamukti, mukti by means of making the body disappear in a flash of blazing light, etc.; the Jnani’s experience of Reality is altogether unconditioned and totally absolute. His experience is that he has no body. If others see him as being one with a body, or as possessing a body, can that affect him? He does not identify himself with the body even whilst the body is yet alive. Can the death of the body then affect him?
Tom: for a moment here Bhagavan Sri Ramana speaks in absolute terms, declaring that for the Self or Jnani, there is no body at all. Below, however, Bhagavan will flip back into speaking in relative terms, presumably due to the nature of the question and the state of the questioner:
Q.: But just now Bhagawan said that the Jnani also says “I am the body.”.
B.: Yes. His “I” includes the body. His experience is that for him there cannot be anything apart from “I”. If the body is destroyed there is no loss for the “I”. “I” remains the same as ever. If the body feels dead let it raise questions. Can it? No; being inert it cannot. “I” never dies and it does not ask any question. Who then dies and who asks questions?
Q.: For whom are all the sacred-books then? They cannot be for the real “I”. They must be for the unreal “I”. The real one would not require them. Am I correct?
B.: Yes, yes.
Q.: Is it not strange that an unreal entity should have so many sacred-books written for him?
B.: Quite so. Death is merely a thought and nothing more. He who thinks raises questions and experiences troubles. Let the thinker tell us what happens to him in death.
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Om
‘All that is necessary is to be rid of the thought: “I have not realised”’ – the teaching explained | Sri Ramana Maharshi
‘All that is necessary is to be rid of the thought: “I have not realised.”’
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 245
This teaching sounds so simple, but let us see what this teaching actually means. To do this, we have to take a look at the context in which this teaching was given, and not merely cling to a single quote taken out of context. The quote was taken from talk 245 from the book ‘Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi’. Let us look at the talk in its entirely. We will see there are many wonderful and revealing teachings packed into this short talk. As usual my comments will be in italicised red and the text itself will be in black:
Devotee (D):“I understand that the Self is beyond the ego. My knowledge is theoretical and not practical. How shall I gain practical realisation of the Self?”
Sri Ramana Maharshi (M).: Realisation is nothing to be got afresh. It is already there. All that is necessary is to be rid of the thought: “I have not realised.”
Tom’s comments: we can see that the questioner is asking a very relevant question, namely how to covert their intellectual knowledge into genuine realisation. Bhagavan Sri Ramana is essentially pointing out that you are the Self already and that you simply have to remove any ideas of non-realisation. We will see below, based on the text itself, that this actually means removing the entirely of non-self, for any residue of non-self is synonymous with the idea ‘I have not realised’ or ‘the feeling of non-realisation’ (this term is used next below).
D.: Then one need not attempt it.
M.: No. Stillness of mind or peace is realisation. There is no moment when the Self is not.
So long as there is doubt or the feeling of non-realisation, attempt must be made to rid oneself of these thoughts.
Tom: As Sri Ramana has said that you are already the Self, the questioner naturally follows up by asking – if that is the case, then there is no need to seek, no need to search, and by extension, no need to practice, correct? Bhagavan replies by stating ‘No’, this is not the case. As long as there is ‘the feeling of non-realisation’, one must attempt to remove or ‘rid oneself’ of these thought. He goes on to define realisation as ‘stillness of mind’. We will see later that this means cessation of mind, or pure mind, which is Self. But what is this ‘feeling of non-realisation’? What thoughts do we have to remove, and how? Do we have to remove some thoughts or all thoughts? Sri Ramana continues:
The thoughts are due to identification of the Self with the non-self. When the non-self disappears the Self alone remains. To make room anywhere it is enough that things are removed from there. Room is not brought in afresh. Nay, more – room is there even in cramping.
Absence of thoughts does not mean a blank. There must be one to know the blank. Knowledge and ignorance are of the mind. They are born of duality. But the Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance.
It is light itself. There is no necessity to see the Self with another Self. There are no two selves. What is not Self is non-self. The non-self cannot see the Self. The Self has no sight or hearing. It lies beyond these – all alone, as pure consciousness.
Tom: there are a large number of points Sri Bhagavan makes in the above paragraph. Let us briefly go through them -each of the following can be derived from the above 2 paragraphs:
-Thoughts appears due to identification with the non-self (ie. the body, the mind, the world)
-Self alone remains when non-self disappears – Bhagavan gives the metaphor of clearing the rubbish from a room to make space. The idea is that we do not need to find the self or bring the self in from elsewhere, we just need to clear space and the self or room will remain over, self-shining. The junk we need to clear out is the non-self
-The absence of thoughts is not a mere blank, but instead we are to know the One who knows the ‘blank, that is we must know the Self.
-Knowledge and ignorance are both of the mind, whereas the Self is beyond the mind, Self is the Light that lights up knowledge and ignorance.
-Knowledge and ignorance are born of duality, ie. they are false, non-self, born of primal ignorance or ego. They too must disappear, like all non-self, is the implication, for liberation to ensue.
-The non-self (ie. body or mind in this case), cannot see the Self. It is the Self that ‘sees’ the Self by simply being the Self
-The self has no sight and no hearing (because it has no body or mind, both of which are non-self, both of which must disappear for realisation to occur).
-The Self is beyond all phenomena, it is Pure Consciousness. If we read carefully we will see that the word ‘Pure’ means without any objects or thoughts appearing in it. Bhagavan continues:
A woman, with her necklace round her neck, imagines that it has been lost and goes about searching for it, until she is reminded of it by a friend; she has created her own sense of loss, her own anxiety of search and then her own pleasure of recovery. Similarly the Self is all along there, whether you search for it or not. Again just as the woman feels as if the lost necklace has been regained, so also the removal of ignorance and the cessation of false identification reveal the Self which is always present – here and now. This is called realisation. It is not new. It amounts to elimination of ignorance and nothing more.
Tom: Here Bhagavan makes it very clear, using the traditional story of the woman and her necklace, that the Self is ever present. All we need to do is remove ignorance. This is the same as removal of the cessation of the false identification with non-self. Earlier Bhagavan said all we have to do is ‘be rid of the thought ‘I have not realised” and that we have to be rid of the ‘feelings of non-realisation’. It therefore follows that ignorance, identification with non-self, feelings or non-realisation and the thought ‘I have not realised’ are all the same thing. In each case, Bhagavan is simply saying ignorance must be removed. What does this actually mean? Bhagavan will explain further:
Blankness is the evil result of searching the mind. The mind must be cut off, root and branch. See who the thinker is, who the seeker is. Abide as the thinker, the seeker. All thoughts will disappear.
Tom: Bhagavan makes it clear: ‘The mind must be cut off, root and branch’. This is what Bhagavan means by removing the thought ‘I have not realised’. This is what it means to remove ignorance. This is what it means to remove identification with non-self and rid one of ‘feelings of non-realisation’. This is what he means when he says ‘realisation is stillness of mind’. He is speaking of manonasa. It is not just the peripheral thoughts (branches) that must go, but the root thought too, the thought ‘I am the body-mind’ – ‘The mind must be cut off, root and branch‘.
How to do this? Bhagavan says ‘See who the thinker is, who the seeker is’, meaning find out the Subject, the Self, know your Self, ie. Self-enquiry is the way. Bhagavan says then ‘All thoughts will disappear’. Not some thoughts will disappear, but all thoughts will disappear.
D.: Then there will be the ego – the thinker.
M.: That ego is pure Ego purged of thoughts. It is the same as the Self. So long as false identification persists doubts will persist, questions will arise, there will be no end of them. Doubts will cease only when the non-self is put an end to. That will result in realisation of the Self. There will remain no other there to doubt or ask. All these doubts should be solved within oneself. No amount of words will satisfy. Hold the thinker. Only when the thinker is not held do objects appear outside or doubts arise in the mind.
Tom: Does Bhagavan want us to hold onto thoughts or the thinker? Does he want us to hold onto the mind or the Self? Clearly when Bhagavan says ‘only when the thinker is held’, he is not speaking of the mind, but of the Self. Especially as he has already said ‘The mind must be cut off, root and branch’ and ‘all thoughts will disappear’ a few moments earlier. Self knowledge is the way. Self Enquiry is the way.
The questioner asks this very question – are we to hold onto the ego then? The thinker? Bhagavan gives us another wonderful and revealing answer: the ego purified or ‘purged of thoughts’ – that purified ‘ego’ or ‘I’ is Self. The Jiva (purified, purged of thoughts) is Siva.
In the Skanda Upanishad it is stated:
‘Jiva is Siva. Siva is Jiva. That Jiva is Siva alone. Bound by husk [non-self], it is paddy [jiva]. Freed from husk, it is rice [Self]‘
Shankara also wrote in verse 20 of Brahma Jnanavali Mala ‘Brahma satyam, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah’ which means ‘Brahman is Truth/Reality, the world is illusion, the Jiva [when enquired into] is nothing but Brahman’
Concluding points
We have seen that Bhagavan has said ‘When the non-self disappears self alone remains‘ and ‘the mind must be cut off, root and branch‘ and ‘it amounts to elimination of ignorance, nothing more‘ and ‘the self has no sight or hearing‘.
We can therefore deduce that ‘the mind’, ‘non-self’ and ‘ignorance’ are essentially synonyms, as in each case Bhagavan has said only these have to be removed. Sure, these words may be used in different ways in different contexts, but essentially they are one, one ignorance, one maya (illusion).
How to do this? How to remove ignorance? How to end Maya? How to still the mind? How to remove non-self and clear ‘space in the room’? And to come back to our original question, How to be rid of the thought ‘I am not realised’? By going back to the Subject, all thoughts and objects disappear and only Self remains. This is known as Self-Enquiry and it results in liberation.
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Om
Awareness continues even in Deep Sleep | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Maharhi’s Gospel PDF download
The following is from the book Maharshi’s Gospel (Click on the link for a PDF download), Book 2, Chapter 6:
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Do you remember, I told you once previously that existence and awareness are not two different things but one and the same? Well, if for any reason you feel constrained to admit the fact that you existed in sleep be sure you were also aware of that existence.
What you were really unaware of in sleep is your bodily existence. You are confounding this bodily awareness with the true Awareness of the Self which is eternal. Prajnana [Pure Consciousness], which is the source of ‘I-am’-ness, ever subsists unaffected by the three transitory states of the mind, thus enabling you to retain your identity unimpaired.
Prajnana is also beyond the three states because it can subsist without them and in spite of them.
It is that Reality that you should seek during your so-called waking state by tracing the aham-vritti to its Source. Intense practice in this inquiry will reveal that the mind and its three states are unreal and that you are the eternal, infinite consciousness of Pure Being, the Self or the Heart.
Everyone must eventually come to the path of Self-Enquiry | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Sri Sadhu Om
When I first came to Bhagavan and heard him repeating constantly that everyone must eventually come to the path of self-enquiry, I wondered whether he was being partial to his own teaching, but I soon understood why he insisted that this is so. The final goal is only oneness, and to experience oneness our mind must subside, which will happen entirely only when we attend to nothing other than ourself.
So long as we attend to anything other than ourself, our mind cannot subside, because attention to other things sustains it, since that which experiences otherness is only this mind. When the mind subsides completely, only self-attention remains, and self-attention alone is the state of absolute oneness. Bhagavan used to repeat this teaching every day, maybe ten or twenty times, but still we didn’t change. He didn’t change his teaching either, because to him this truth was so clear.
The above is an excerpt from ‘The Paramount Importance of Self Attention’ by Sri Sadhu Om, entry dated 29th December 1977. The book is highly recommended. You can download the entire text here. Also see the full recommended reading list here.
Tom Das 