One of the best books ever written on the subject of Self-Realisation/Liberation is the Seven Steps to Awakening, compiled by Michael Langford. It contains wonderful, clear and rare teachings for those who are able to truly take in what is presented here:
One of the best books ever written on the subject of Self-Realisation/Liberation is the Seven Steps to Awakening, compiled by Michael Langford. It contains wonderful, clear and rare teachings for those who are able to truly take in what is presented here:
One of the best books ever written on the subject of Self-Realisation/Liberation is the Seven Steps to Awakening, compiled by Michael Langford. It contains wonderful, clear and rare teachings for those who are able to truly take in what is presented here:
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):
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.
Tom: Here in Shankara’s introduction to his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad and his commentary on Sri Gaudapada’s Karika (ie. Sri Gaudapadas commentary on the same Mandukya Upanishad), Shankara explains some fundamental teachings of vedanta which may (or may not) suprise you!
Throughout, Shankara’s writings are in black whilst my comments are in italicised red.
Shankara gives these same teachings throughout his commentaries, eg. in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad but also in many other places too. However these teachings are often missed, glossed over or re-interpreted by many current so-called traditional teachers of Vedanta.
The following translation is my own, and I have simplified the language to aid understanding. Below I have also provided the PDF of a more literal translation of this commentary by Shankara on the Mandukya Upanishad from Swami Gambhirananda of Advaita Ashrama (this is the translation that I recommend as it is the most literal of the available translations in English, and so has the smallest amount of distortion and re-interpretation according to the prior beliefs and prejudices of the translator) which you can also read, which states the same as my translation but perhaps using more complex and at times archaic language.
Translated by Tom Das
Om! O gods, may we hear auspicious words with
the ears; while engaged in sacrifices, may we see
auspicious things with the eyes; while praising the
gods with steady limbs, may we enjoy a life that is
beneficial to the gods.
May Indra of ancient fame be auspicious to us;
may the supremely rich and all-knowing Pisa, god
of the earth, be propitious to us; may Garuda, the
destroyer of evil, be well disposed towards us; may
Brihashpati ensure our welfare.
Om! Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!
(Om! May there be peace! May there be peace! May there be peace!)
Tom: Some say that the Mandukya Upanishad, which is the smallest of the Upanishads consisting only of 12 verses, has no mention of God within it. They clearly have not read the invocatory verses above! Devotion and worship has always been a part of the nondual tradition of Vedanta. Below Shankara will provide 2 more invocatory verses that he has written:
I bow to that Brahman,
which after having enjoyed the gross objects [in the waking state],
by pervading all the worldly objects through a diffusion of Its rays of unchanging consciousness that embraces all that moves or does not move;
Which after having ‘drunk’ [during the dream state] all the variety of objects, produced by desire and lighted up by the intellect,
And sleeps [in the deep sleep state] while enjoying bliss
and making us enjoy through Maya;
and which is [in liberation] counted as the Fourth from the point of view of Maya,
and is supreme, immortal, and birthless.
Tom: Shankara in his first invocatory verses states that liberation, or Turiya, is called the Fourth state, but that this is only from the point of view of Maya (or ignorance), which admits of the 3 states. In true liberation, the 3 states, which are superimpositions on the Self, do not exist in any way shape or form, so Turiya is actually the Singular Reality and not the Forth state at all. This is explained in more detail later in the text by both Shankara and Gaudapada, and Shankara also explains this in more detail here in the text he wrote called Upadesa Sahasri.
The structure of Shankara’s invocatory verses also mimics the structure of the actual Mandukya Upanishad, which first explains the nature of the 3 states of waking, dream and deep dreamless sleep, before lastly explaining the nature of liberation (see verse 7 of the Mandukya Upanishad here), also known as the Self or Turiya, Turiya literally meaning ‘the fourth’ in Sanskrit. Let us continue with Shankara’s second invocatory verse:
May that Fourth one protect us which,
after having [in the waking state] identified Itself with the universe,
enjoys the gross objects created by the merits (and demerits) of past deeds;
After having [in the dream state] experienced through its own light the subtle objects of enjoyment that are called up by its own intellect;
Which [in deep sleep] withdraws promptly all these into Itself;
and which lastly [in liberation] becomes free from all attributes,
by discarding every distinction and difference [ie. by discarding all phenomenal appearances/objects].
Tom: the implication is that in liberation, there are no appearances of any objects, for these have been cast out, and that the appearance of any objects is tantamount to duality. This is further explained below. Let us read Shankara’s introduction to both the Mandukya Upanishad and to Gaudapada’s Karika:
The word [or letter] Om is everything [idam sarvam, literally meaning ‘all this’ or ‘all things’]. This will all be explained in the rest of this following text.
The four chapters of Sri Gaudapada’s commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, that sum up the quintessence of Vedanta, starts with the phrase ‘The word Om is everything…’. Because Gaudapada starts with this phrase, the stated aim and purpose of this text, which we would usually state at the start of any text on Vedanta, should be obvious and need not be stated here. Clearly the aim and purpose of the text is the unfolding of Vedanta.
However, as I am giving a commentary here, I should briefly state the purpose of the text. The text, as it explains the spiritual disciplines that lead to a desired goal, will naturally have an aim and subject matter.
What is the aim of the text? Let me explain: just as a healthy person afflicted by disease will seek a cure for the disease in order to regain the natural state of health, the natural state of being the Self, when afflicted by suffering, will be returned to its ‘natural state of health’ through the cessation of the phenomenal universe of duality.
The aim therefore is the realisation of non-duality. Since the phenomenal world of duality is a creation of ignorance, it can be eradicated through knowledge.
Hence this text aims to reveal the knowledge of Brahman.
Tom: Shankara here is stating that the entire phenomenal world is a creation of ignorance, and that it needs to be eradicated for liberation to occur. This eradication of the phenomenal world can be attained through knowledge of Brahman, which is the same as liberation. The exact nature of knowledge of Brahman is explained later in this commentary here and how to attain this knowledge is explained by Gaudapada here and here.
Compare to Sri Ramana Maharshi when he says in the text Guru Vachaka Kovai in the following verses:
23. The Realised, who do not know anything as being other than Self, which is absolute Consciousness, will not say that the world, which has no existence in the view of the Supreme Brahman, is real.
28. O aspirants who hide yourselves away fearing this world, nothing such as a world exists! Fearing this false world which appears to exist, is like fearing the false snake which appears in a rope.
35. Since this world of dyads [knower-known] and triads [perceiver-perceiving-perceived] appears only in the mind, like the illusory ring of fire formed [in darkness] by whirling the single point of a glowing rope-end, it is false, and it does not exist in the clear sight of Self.
[Tom: The illusory ring of fire is a metaphor that Gaudapada himself uses throughout Chapter 4 of Gaudapada’s Karika].
87. Self appearing as the world is just like a rope seeing itself as a snake; just as the snake is, on scrutiny, found to be ever non-existent, so is the world found to be ever non-existent, even as an appearance.
Also compare also to Sri Ramana Maharshi when he writes in the beginning few paragraphs of his work entitled ‘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.
Shankara will now justify his assertions by quoting from the highest scriptural authority in Vedanta, the Upanishads, let us see:
This fact is established by such Vedic texts as:
‘Because when there is duality, as it were, then one-smells something, one sees something…’ and so on (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II. iv. 14);
‘When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, on can know something’ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV. iii. 31);
‘But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? What should one know and through what?” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II. iv. 14).
Tom: we can see that Shankara is providing 3 quotes from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to back up this assertion, namely that appearances in the world, or perceiving things (apparently) through the senses, is the same as duality, and that all perceptions of the sense organs and all knowledge in the mind ceases with liberation. Now Shankara will summarise the contents of the 4 chapters of Gaudapa’s Karika (commentary) on the Mandukya Upanishad:
That being so, the first chapter explains the meaning of Om based on the traditional teachings [of Vedanta] and helps us to attain the reality that is the Self.
The second chapter aims to rationally prove the unreality of that phenomenal world of duality, on the cessation of which non-duality is attained, just as the reality of the rope is known on the elimination of the illusion of a snake imagined on it.
Tom: Shankara is again stating that non-duality or liberation is attained upon the cessation of the phenomenal world, which is duality, and Shankara gives the example of the rope and snake to justify his claim. We will only see the rope when the wrong-seeing or illusion of the snake (which causes fear and suffering) goes. Compare with Sri Ramana Maharshi when he writes in ‘Who Am I?’:
‘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, which is the base, will not be obtained unless the perception of the world, which is a superimposition, ceases.’
Shankara continues to summarise the contents of the last 2 chapters of Gaudapa’s Karika, and thus ends Shankara’s introduction to the Mandukya Upanishad. If you wish, you can compare my translation of Shankara’s introduction to this wonderful text to the more scholarly translation below by Swami Gambhirananda:
The third chapter aims to rationally establish the truth of non-duality, and to prevent it too from being negated by a similar process of argument.
The fourth chapter seeks to logically refute all the non-Vedic points of view, which are counterproductive to attaining of the truth of non-duality, and which remain concerned with this unreal duality.
Tom: we can see that in the last sentence of his introduction, Shankara is stating that the false teachings, ie. the teachings that do not lead to liberation, keep on coming back to the unreal duality, ie. false teachings keep on wanting to come back to the world of names and form, also known as maya. There is no Maya in the Self, and in truth there never was. This is the doctrine of ajata vada (no creation or no birth) that is famously explained in Gaudapada’s commentary on this Mandukya Upanishad.
The two main ways that the truly liberating teaching is distorted is firstly by stating that we do not need to turn within in order to realise the self, and secondly by stating that once the self has been realised we must turn back towards the world and integrate our newly-found non-dual understanding/ knowledge/ realisation with the world of phenomenal appearances.
As far as I’m aware Shankara never actually taught ‘The world is an illusion, only Brahman is real, the world is Brahman.’ – this appears to be a misquote.
The actual teaching is ‘Brahma satyam, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah’
..which means:
‘Brahman is Truth/Reality, the world is illusion, the Jiva (individual Self or ‘I’ or ‘I Am’) [when enquired into] is nothing but Brahman’
147. Creation is not other than seeing; seeing and creating are one and the same process. Annihilation is only the cessation of seeing and nothing else, for the world comes to an end by the right awareness of oneself.
330. There is no creation apart from seeing; seeing and creation are one and the same. And because that seeing is due to ignorance, to cease seeing is the truth of the dissolution (of the world).
~Sri Ramana Maharshi, verses taken from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad
To understand these verses more deeply see these posts here and here
Why do the different portions of the Vedas describe creation in different ways? Their sole intention is not to proclaim a correct theory of creation, but to make the aspirant enquire into the Truth which is the Source of creation.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Guru Vachaka Kovai, Verse 102
Here, in one of the earliest texts Sri Ramana authored he wrote the following in response to the following question:
Question: If the entire universe is of the form of mind, then does it not follow that the universe is an illusion? If that be the case, why is the creation of the universe mentioned in the Veda?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no doubt whatsoever that the universe is the merest illusion. The principal purport of the Veda is to make known the true Brahman, after showing the apparent universe to be false. It is for this purpose that the Vedas admit the creation of the world and not for any other reason.
Moreover, for the less qualified persons creation is taught, that is the phased evolution of prakriti (primal nature), mahat-tattva (the great intellect), tanmatras (the subtle essences), bhutas (the gross elements), the world, the body, etc., from Brahman: while for the more qualified simultaneous creation is taught, that is, that this world arose like a dream on account of one’s own thoughts induced by the defect of not knowing oneself as the Self. Thus, from the fact that the creation of the world has been described in different ways it is clear that the purport of the Vedas rests only in teaching the true nature of Brahman after showing somehow or other the illusory nature of the universe.
That the world is illusory, every one can directly know in the state of realization which is in the form of experience of one’s bliss-nature.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi, Self Enquiry (Vichara Sangraham)
Sri Sadhu Om also wrote a commentary on the above verse of Guru Vachaka Kovai (verse 102), as follows:
‘If creation were true, the scriptures would describe it in only one manner, but their diverse theories make it clear that creation is not the truth. To enable ripe aspirants to discover the falsity of the notion of creation, the Vedas purposely teach contradictory theories. However, such contradictions are found only in the descriptions of creation, they never occur when the Vedas attempt to describe the nature of Self, the Supreme. Concerning Self, they all agree and speak in one voice, saying ‘Self is One, Perfect, Whole, Immortal, Unchanging, Self-shining etc., etc.’ From this we should understand that the deep intention behind such conflicting theories of creation is to indirectly show aspirants the necessity of enquiring into Self, which is the Source of all ideas of creation.’
Tom Das 