Scriptures

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

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

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

Shankara explains some fundamentals of Advaita Vedanta teachings in his introduction to his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad | Do objects/does the world continue to appear in liberation? Gaudapada

~ Tom Das ~ 23 Comments

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.

Shankara’s Introduction to his commentary on Mandukya Upanishad

Translated by Tom Das

Invocatory Mantra

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:

Invocation by Shankara

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:

Introduction to the text by Shankara

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.

Click here to a PDF of the full text as translated by Swami Gambhirananda of Ramakrishna Mission (Advaita Ashrama)

Shakara did not teach ‘The world is an illusion, only Brahman is real, the world is Brahman’

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

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’

Sri Ramana Maharshi: perceiving and creation are one and the same

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

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

The Purpose behind the Various and Diverse Theories of Creation in the Vedas | Advaita Vedanta | Sri Ramana Maharshi

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

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.’

THE SUPREME STATE (according to the Upanishads & Shankara) | Advaita Vedanta

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

When the five organs of perception become still, together with the mind, and the intellect ceases to be active: that is called the Supreme State [Brahma-Vidya or Self Knowledge]

~Katha Upanishad 2.3.10

Shankara’s commentary on this above verse (Katha Upanishad, verse 2.3.10) states the following:

‘At the time when the five senses…, together with the mind…, which is now no longer functioning and thinking, are at rest in the Self alone, after turning away from objects, and with the intellect…no longer engaging with its functioning, that they call the highest state [Brahma-Vidya or Self-Knowledge].’

This is an excerpt from this post which contains more quotes like this

The paths of Devotion and Knowledge – Bhakti vs Jnana | Advaita Vedanta

~ Tom Das ~ 2 Comments

The following is taken from the wonderful text Sadhanai Saram (The Essence of Spiritual Practice) written by Sri Sadhu Om, a direct devotee of Sri Ramana’s. This text not only gives us the essence of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teaching, but also directs us to the true Vedanta teachings. The notes are written by Sri Sadhu Om himself. You can download the full text as a PDF using the above link.

The paths of knowledge and devotion are more fully explained in the text The Path of Sri Ramana which you can download for free here. This is one of the few texts that goes into detail into both the paths of knowledge and love.

Also see Recommended Reading: Books for Enlightenment, Liberation and Self-Realisation

The Paths of Devotion (Bhakti) and Knowledge (Jnana)

79. To the extent to which love for God arises in one’s heart, to that extent will one acquire knowledge about Him. And to the extent to which one knows the nature of God, to that extent will the mind gain steadfast love for Him. Thus, knowledge (jnana) will be increased by devotion (bhakti), and devotion (bhakti) will be increased by knowledge (jnana).

80. By means of our love for God, He will give us more knowledge of Him, and by means of our knowledge of Him, He will give us more love for Him. Therefore, of these two paths, bhakti and jnana, follow that one for which you first gain a liking, because that one path will lead you to follow the other one into the heart.

81. In the life of an aspirant who is seeking liberation, bhakti and jnana will be experienced as inseparable, like the two sides of one sheet of paper. Hence, each one is equal to the other. They are not two different things, for the true nature of both of them is one and the same; know that bhakti and jnana are merely two names for that one thing. (Garland of Guru’s Sayings (Guru Vachaka Kovai) verses 722, 731)

82. The state of abiding firmly in Self-alone is wisdom (jnana). Would it be possible to abide thus in Self if one did not have love for Self? Love for Self-alone is bhakti; abiding firmly in Self on account of that love alone is jnana. What difference is there between these two? Discriminate and know this truth. (Maharshi’s Gospel p.24)

83. If there did not exist the power of gravity, which attracts and pulls everything towards the earth, would anything remain stable on earth? On scrutiny, devotion (bhakti) is found to be similar to the gravitational power of attraction, while the state of wisdom (jnana) is found to be similar to the state of objects remaining stable on earth as a result of that attraction. If either one of these two, the power of attraction or bhakti and the state of abidance or jnana, were absent, the other one would not exist.

84. An aspirant who practices Self-inquiry, which is the path of jnana, denies his own individuality by knowing, “I, this insignificant ego, am not the doer of any action”; while a devotee denies his own individuality by knowing, “God alone is the doer of all actions.” Thus, since an aspirant who follows either of these two paths refrains from assuming the sense of doership, understand that these two paths are not different even during the time of practice, and follow either of them.

85. We should not allow our minds to become bewildered and confused by trying to deliberate and decide, “Which of these two, the practice of bhakti or the practice of jnana is the best means for attaining liberation?” For whichever path a liking arises in the heart of a person, for that person that path alone is the best.

86. According to the strength of habit continuing from former lives, in this life the mind will acquire a liking either for the path of devotion or the direct and unfailing path of Self-inquiry, and will feel that particular path to be the best and most suited to itself. Therefore, follow at least one of these two paths to its very end.

Inquiry Becoming Easy Due to Devotion

87. When, having wept and wept with intense yearning for a long time, unceasingly thinking of and adoring the Gracious Feet (of the Lord), the mind which rises (as “I am so-and-so”) dissolves and becomes pure, the blemishless Self-inquiry (jnanatmavichara) will become firmly settled (in the heart) and the experience of Self (swarupa-anubhava) will of its own accord arise very easily indeed. (Sri Muruganar, Sri Ramana Jnana Bodham v.1286)

88. O, you who say, “We have never seen you closing your eyes and practicing Self-abidance (nishtha); tell us, how did you attain the state of inner silence (mauna)?” Understanding the above verse, know the secret of (how to attain the true experience of) God, who is not seen even though one waits closing one’s eyes (for a long time in expectation of seeing His true vision).

Note: the previous verse is the answer to the above question

Tom: The paths of knowledge and love are more fully explained in the text The Path of Sri Ramana which you can download for free here. This is one of the few texts that goes into detail into both the paths of knowledge and love.

Also see:

Non-dual devotion, worship and prayer

Ramana Maharshi on those who ridicule idol-worship or image-worship

Does Jnana (or Self-Enquiry) lead to Bhakti (or Self-Surrender) or the other way round? Sri Ramana Maharshi

Bhakti Yoga as a complete path to Final Liberation

Sri Ramana Maharshi: the necessity of Meditation