I’ll be speaking at the Awake in Stillness Conference today (9th November 2024) at 4.30pm UK time.
It’s FREE to register and FREE to watch live using this affiliate link (if you buy a paid ticket to re-watch the event at a later time then I will receive some commission):
https://awake-in-stillness.purepresenceconferences.com/?sc=mYIBqNek&ac=eTD6a6Dq
Please also click on this link above to show your support from my being at the conference 🙏
Sri Ramana Maharshi:
Effortless and choice-less awareness is our real nature. If we can attain that state and abide, that is all right. But one cannot reach it without effort, the effort of deliberation or meditation, whether it be upon Self inquiry, surrender or both. All the age-old vasanas (inherent tendencies) turn the mind outward to external objects. All such thoughts must be given up, the mind turned inwards. That, for most people, requires effort. Every teacher and every scripture tells the aspirant to keep quiet, but it is not so easy to do.
That is why all this effort is necessary. Even if we find somebody who has achieved this supreme state of stillness without seeming effort, you may take it that the necessary effort had already been made in a previous life. So effortless and choice-less awareness is attained only after deliberate meditation. That meditation can take whatever form that most appeals to you. See what helps you to be free of thought and adopt that for your meditation.
Bliss will ensue if you keep still, but however much you tell your mind this truth, it will not keep still. It is the ego-mind that tells itself to be still in order for it to attain bliss, but it will not do it. Though all the scriptures have said it and though we hear it daily from the great ones and even from our Guru, we are never quiet, always straying into the world of Maya (illusion) and sense objects. That is why conscious, deliberate effort is needed to attain that effortless state of stillness.
Indeed, until the supreme, effortless state is attained, it is impossible for a man not to make effort. His own nature compels him to, just as Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita told Arjuna that his own nature would compel him to fight.
If you can keep still without engaging in any other pursuits, well and good. But for so long as you are obliged to be active, do not give up the attempt to realize the Self. Often glimpses of Realization are attained before it becomes permanent, and in all such cases effort remains necessary.
Yet, the belief that you have to make an effort to get rid of this dream of a waking state and attain Realization or real awakening is also a part of the dream. When you attain Realization you will see that there was neither the dream during sleep nor the dream during the waking state, but only yourself and your real nature.
~ Sri Ramana Maharshi.
🙏🙏🙏
You are free to download and share these pictures quotes which contain some key teachings of Advaita Vedanta courtesy of Adi Shankara, taken from the text Upadesa Sahasri (A Thousand Teachings):
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.
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.
🙏🙏🙏
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):
This is one of a series of introductory articles – please see the homepage of tomdas.com for more introductory articles. Also see: Recommended Reading: Books for Enlightenment, Liberation and Self-Realisation
This article was first published on Facebook here.
‘…Look directly at your own experience. Can you find anything in your own direct experience apart from consciousness? Isn’t everything you perceive sense and know, all arising within your consciousness? More than that, isn’t everything arising not only within your consciousness, but as consciousness itself? And can you find a boundary to this consciousness, can you find a beginning or an end to this consciousness… and so on, and so on….’
Whilst this CAN be and IS a wonderful teaching as an entry point into the teaching*, this is ultimately a false teaching. And by false teaching, as I have just implied, I do not mean a bad teaching necessarily (although some false teachings are bad), by false teaching I mean, in this context, a teaching that is not truly or ultimately liberating.
(*As an aside, were it not for this kind of teaching, I myself probably would not have found the deeper teachings. It was these kinds of teachings that encourage one to explore one’s own direct experience that helped me get into this ‘subject of non-duality’. My mind did, in fact, dismiss the deeper teachings when I first came across them, as I thought them too ridiculous and absurd. It was only many years later that I was led to the deeper teachings, which answered all my questions and were ultimately liberating in my own personal experience.)
Why is this a false teaching? Well, the logic is completely flawed and suffering is not removed once and for all (which is what happens with genuine liberation – or to be more accurate, in genuine liberation, suffering is seen never to have arisen in the first place).
Here is how the logic is flawed: you can only be conscious of things you are conscious of. You can only be aware of things that arise in your awareness. So it is a circular argument to say everything is consciousness because everything that arises in your consciousness is not apart from consciousness. The instrument we use, in this case our awareness or our consciousness, determines the nature of what we see/perceive. Because the instrument we are using is consciousness or awareness, this determines that everything perceived must necessarily arise within that awareness. This obviously does not mean that everything is awareness, or everything is consciousness.
For example if I give you a ruler, all you’ll be able to measure is distance. See if you can measure anything with a ruler that is not distance. That does not mean that ‘distance is the only thing that exists’ or ‘all there is is distance’, and that ‘distance is the only measurable thing’. It means that a ruler measures distance only.
Similarly, just as a ruler is only able to detect distance, consciousness only is aware of objects arising in consciousness.
Also see: Look – there’s no one here! (And other false teachings)
This form of circular reasoning in the field of logic is known as a tautology. Tautological statements often appear to be profound, but in fact provide us with no new information and just restate what is already known in a new or novel way.
An example of a tautological statement would be ‘the future is yet to come’. This may seem to be an inspiring, bold and novel statement, but actually no new information is given. By definition, the future has not yet occurred, so of course the future is yet to come. No new information has been imparted to us. In a particular context, this could actually be an inspiring statement, but this statement is rhetorical (rhetoric is the art of speaking and persuasion through speaking), not informative in its nature.
Similarly, all we can be aware of is what we are conscious of, or to put it a different way, we can only be conscious of those things that rise up in our consciousness. This does not mean that all is consciousness. It just means we are only conscious of what we are conscious of, which is nothing particularly profound, and provides us with no new information at all – it is a tautology.
There are several more issues with these kinds of teachings that ask us to explore our own direct experience, not realising that our own direct experience is the problem, and that this ‘direct experience’ should be distrusted for us to discover something more genuine and more real and infinitely more blissful, in which no suffering and duality remains. In fact this trusting in our own direct experience of our body our mind and our senses, is a core part of what ignorance actually is.
These teachings that encourage us to explore our own direct experience do not reveal to us the infinite, deathless nature of reality, what we truly are. They only give us proxies such as ‘can you find an edge or a border or a boundary to this consciousness? No? Therefore this consciousness is infinite’. Clearly this is just word-play and not the genuine infinite nature of consciousness that the scriptures and great sages are talking about at all. If all ‘infinite consciousness’ means is that we cannot find a boundary to consciousness, isn’t this a rather anticlimactic spiritual statement?
Can you see through a wall or around a corner? No? Well doesn’t that reveal that our own personal consciousness is FINITE and LIMITED? Can you smell better than a wolf or a dog? No? Doesn’t that represent a boundary to your perception and consciousness?
The word ‘infinite’ when applied to consciousness doesn’t mean these types of things at all. It is much grander (and simpler) that this. We are the Source. We are Pure Positivity. We are truly infinite. Not some re-interpretation of the word ‘infinite’ to mean ‘I cannot find a boundary to consciousness in my own direct experience’. This is just word-play.
If we, instead of indulging in word-play, turn towards our own intuitive inner knowing, it is obvious that these are false intellectualised teachings that remain on the surface level only, and that the term ‘infinite consciousness’ is pointing to a far deeper more magnificent truth of what we actually are.
Also see: Ramana Maharshi – three theories of reality of the world – the 3 levels of the teaching
Perhaps because so many great teachers or authorities are saying the same thing, that makes it seem true, but this is also a false way of determining the truth. Majority opinion or a proclaimed authority stating something, doesn’t necessarily make it true at all. The idea is to discover this truth for yourself, yes in our own experience, but we will see this is not done by exploring our everyday experience, meaning it is not done by exploring our sense perceptions or our thoughts and seeing how they relate to our awareness or consciousness, or anything like this.
Also see:
Rupert Spira’s ‘Direct Path’ vs Traditional Advaita Vedanta and Sri Ramana Maharshi
These teachings that encourage us to explore our everyday experience also do not really inform us whether or not consciousness depends on the body or brain, or whether or not consciousness is primary and the body and brain arise within it, or something else.
The logic goes ‘what you know of the body and the brain only arises in consciousness, therefore consciousness is primary and the body and brain are secondary’. Again, if you have not been brainwashed by these teachings, which are erroneous conceptual conclusions, it is easy to realise that this is false logic. Just because what we PERCEIVE to be the body or the brain arises within our consciousness, that does not mean that the Brain and body actually DEPEND on consciousness.
It is true that our PERCEPTION of the body/brain depends on consciousness, but that does not mean that there is not something real underlying our perception of the body, a real body/brain beyond our perception so to speak, which precedes consciousness.
The true teachings however resolve all these questions for us directly in our own experience, but not by exploring our own outer experience of thoughts sensations and objects, or how they relate to consciousness or awareness.
The false teachings also do not account for how one person may have one perspective of the world, and another person has a different perspective of the world. If all is one, then how can we account for all these seemingly different people with different sense perceptions, different knowledge, different skills, etc
And if consciousness is one, why can we not be aware of what everybody else is thinking, feeling, perceiving, knowing, etc?
And if consciousness is one, why do we have our own particular experience rather than someone else’s particular experience?
And how do we know that there aren’t in fact 8 billion or so different consciousnesses and not just one consciousness? How do we know?
Are not these scientific questions that require scientific answers?
None of these questions are answered by the false teachings, but they are all answered by the true teachings (genuinely, and not just intellectually), and we can discover this truth for ourself.
The false teachings also do not give us a satisfactory answer for why terrible things happen in the world, or why a loving God or a singular consciousness could allow so many terrible things to happen.
The true teachings give a satisfactory answer to this question, again, not just intellectually, but actually in our direct experience.
So, am I saying that all is NOT consciousness, and that all the great teachers, sages, and scriptures are wrong when they posit that all IS consciousness?
No! Not at all! What am I saying then? All IS consciousness, and Consciousness IS the ground of being, the sole reality.
All I’m saying is that this teaching of simply exploring one’s direct sensory and mental experience is not a correct method to truly discover that all is consciousness or to discover your true nature. This method of simply exploring one’s own direct experience is NOT a correct method, not a legitimate method, not a rational or logical method to determine that the ground of being, that the sole reality is a consciousness that is beyond the scope of words. It simply doesn’t, by itself, work. To repeat what I said at the start of this post – it is a good teaching in that it may form an entry point into the teaching, which is wonderful, but it is not a liberating teaching itself.
There is another way. This other way has been encoded in the oldest spiritual teachings that still survive to this day, such as the Vedanta teachings of the Upanishads/Vedas, or the early Buddhist teachings that survive to this day. This other method that does work has been given out countless times by numerous sages in different times and different places. Of course this method is often corrupted over the course of time, distorted by the ego, through ignorance, through intellectual (flawed) logic, by the intellectuals and by the well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) ignorant ones (apparently). Many people who teach Vedanta and Buddhism,, some of whom are very prominent and well-respected, are demonstrably teaching something quite different to what the scriptures actually say.
However recently, this teaching has been given in a very pure and simple form by a great sage, Sri Ramana Maharshi.
Notice that never do the Vedanta teachings or the original Buddhist teachings ask us to make an examination of our everyday experience. Notice that never does Sri Ramana or Sri Krishna ask us to examine our everyday experience in order to discover the Truth.
No, instead they ask us to distrust our everyday experience, to distrust what our senses show us, and to distrust what our thoughts may think or conclude about the world around us. They give us a different method.
This theme, as well as other themes, are explored more in this article here as well as in many of the introductory articles on the tomdas.com homepage:
Just as modern-day science has discovered apparently profound truths about the way the universe operates that seem completely contrary to the world our senses reveal to us, similarly, but much more profoundly, these genuine spiritual teachings reveal a truth that appears counter to what the mind and senses think and perceive to be true.
Contrary to our everyday experience, current quantum mechanics tells us that particles can exist in multiple different states at the same time, something called superimposition. This forms the basis of quantum computers in which quantum bits (qubits) can exist in superimposition as a combination of zero or one (which will later collapse into a one or a zero), whereas a classical bit in classical non-quantum computers can either be a one or a zero. This allows quantum computers to perform some calculations much quicker than classical computers, and even perform calculations that a classical computer would not be able to perform at all.
Einstein’s theory of special relativity reveals that the faster we are travelling, the slower time passes, so theoretically someone travelling at very high speeds will age less quickly compared to someone travelling at a lower speed (not a recommended anti-aging therapy by the way – you would need to travel at near light speed for this feature of special relativity to have any noticeable effect!). Again, this is a counter-intuitive discovery made by exploring more deeply than what our sense perceptions and thoughts present to us in our everyday experience, and discovering that these are not necessarily true.
And this is a key feature of science – it investigates and often contradicts what appears to be self-evident truths.
Plato illustrated that we should not trust our own direct experience using the famous example of what has now become known as ‘Plato’s cave’.
The idea is that several human beings, living in a dimly lit cave, seeing only shadows on a wall of the cave, are not able to see themselves. They mistake the shadows dancing on the wall as themselves and as the sole reality. This is akin to trusting our own sense perceptions and thoughts, rather than discovering a more fundamental truth that may superficially seem opposed to what our senses and mind perceives and thinks to be true.
Plato was telling us that in order to discover a deeper truth, we must distrust what we take at face value on the body mind world level and investigate more deeply to find deeper truths that may apparently contradict what we see.
A classic example in science is that the earth seems flat, but when investigated we discover it is spherical, or that the sun and stars and planets appear to orbit around us in our own experience, but actually the solar system is heliocentric, not geocentric.
Similarly we must investigate deeper than our everyday experience to discover what we actually are.
Despite these deeper teachings revealing something to us that is contrary to what our mind and senses are telling us, intuitively, it is possible that these genuine deeper teachings ring true despite them seeming superficially incorrect or even perhaps absurd. And intuitively* it is possible for each and every one of us to know this spiritual truth for our self.
(*I am using this word intuitively to mean to know something without using the faculties of the mind, the body or the senses. Ultimately this intuitive knowledge is not for a person at all)
Also see The Non-Dual Vision of Jesus Christ and the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi
So, how to actually know this spiritual truth for oneself, that consciousness is the sole ground of reality? To this end I have put together a recommended reading list on my website, tomdas.com, and a group of introductory articles on the same website which you can read and look at yourself.
Due to the potentially radical natures of this teaching, these resources are aimed at those who are genuinely seeking liberation, and who are not just seeking mere entertainment (it is absolutely fine by the way if you are looking to kill a few hours! It is just not the intended audience of this material). It is also recommended that you read several of the resources with an open mind before jumping to any conclusions and dismissing these teachings.
Many people start to read these teachings, and when they seem counter to what they have already learnt and what they think they know, they dismiss the teachings. This is what I did when I first came across these teachings – it was only a few years later I was able to engage with them. The ego mind often clings to teachings that it likes and then it can feel secure in, and that it can understand, and rejects teachings that go against its preconceived views, but this is often an (unconscious?)attempt of the ego to preserve itself.
The reading list compiles teachings from different times and different places. Some of these teachings are ancient, some are less ancient, and some of these teachings were written very much in the modern day. All give the same essential teaching using different words, and each different expression of the teaching gives us a different flavour and different clues as to how this truth can be truly known.
All of the above is available for free, without a subscription or without you having to give any of your personal information to anyone. Some of the books you will have to buy, but I do not receive any money when you purchase these books. Most of the books are available for free as downloads from tomdas.com
This has been done as a spontaneous labour of love for you. No, actually it was not a ‘labour’ at all, as ‘labour’ implies hard work – it flowed effortlessly and organically over time through interacting with various people. Most of the posts, including the recommended reading list itself and this post here, were a product of people asking me questions and my writing them answers, or a response to interacting with seekers and seeing the difficulties they are going through.
No, this is not a labour of love, this is a spontaneous expression of love, for you, and for anyone who is interested.
Wishing you well on your (apparent) journey
🙏🙏🙏
Q. Tom, aren’t all these teachings pointing to the same thing, but in different ways? You may have found your way but that doesn’t mean these other ways are not pointing to the same truth.
Tom: unfortunately this is not true. While all teachings YOU come across in YOUR journey will help YOU towards the truth, that does not mean those specific teachings are actually specifically pointing to the same truth. Some people, when they come across the teachings I share, are able to see this at once, for others it can take several months of engaging with these teachings for them to start to see the genuine differences. I encourage you to engage with the teaching material, and if it resonates, go with it. Otherwise it is fine to go with a different teaching and a different teacher that resonates with you right now.
Q. Tom, it is great that you have so much love and devotion for your teacher Ramana Maharshi, but perhaps you are a bit biased towards him, no?
Tom: it is true that I have a great devotion towards Sri Ramana, but I genuinely do not feel I am being biased in my presentation. Quite the opposite. The reason I enjoy sharing his teachings is because he points the way to truth, not the other way around. There are many others who have also pointed this same way, and it is this way that is important, not my personal affection for a singular teacher. If other teachers, who have genuinely realised this truth for themselves, recommend this same way, then I will recommend them too! And this is demonstrated by the variety of teachers and teachings in my recommended reading list.
Q. Thanks Tom for putting all this together, but I really don’t feel it is for me. I prefer another teacher or teaching.
Tom: that is great – it is important you follow your heart when it comes to these things. If you do not resonate with what I share, and you resonate with something else, it is likely that this something else is going to be more beneficial for you right now. It is much better to follow your heart with these things, and engage with the teacher or teaching you think is right for you, than to engage with a teaching that is theoretically ‘the best’ but you are not genuinely engaged with on a heart level. If you follow your heart, and you are discerning in mind, you will surely find the way that is quickest for you, irrespective of whether or not you follow these teachings which I share. In 1 to 1 meetings with people I often stray from these teachings and meet the person where they are, whereas in satsang meetings I generally share these higher teachings. This is not always the case but is generally true. I will say that eventually all have to come to this teaching in their own way, and I hope it is obvious that it doesn’t have to be through me or what I share here.
Q. I already have a teacher and a teaching I follow. What should I do?
Tom: again, I encourage you to follow your heart on this matter. If you genuinely want to stay with your teacher and follow that teaching, then I encourage you to do so. However if you feel there is something lacking, then question them if that is possible or feel free to explore other teachers and teachings and find the right one for you – this is what I did. See if you can find someone who you trust and who is genuine. Even if the teacher is not fully realised, if you can trust them and if they are genuine, and if you connect/resonate with them, no doubt they will help you on your journey. One of my best teachers was someone who was not self-realised, but they were sincere and genuine, and I learnt a lot from them.
Q. Do I need a teacher for these teachings you share?
Tom: everybody needs a teacher. For some the teacher will be solely within (ie. no external teacher is required), and ultimately this teacher within is the only true teacher, but for others, perhaps for most, an external teacher is seemingly required. It is for you to discern and decide this matter for yourself.
Q. Isn’t the very idea of a teacher, or even a teaching, a hindrance on this path?
Tom: yes, it can be. But it can also be an essential help. When I first started teaching I often said how teacher is not that important, as all we need is already within us, but through teaching and having experience teaching others I have come to see how a teacher is necessary for most of the people who come to me. So now I emphasise the importance of being in close regular contact with a teacher, as I can see how beneficial this is in removing ignorance which seems to constantly creep back in. However this experience of mine may be due to selection bias, in that the people who are drawn to me may be the very ones who need a teacher, and perhaps I am less likely to come across those who do not need a teacher – so again, it is up to you to decide. My personal experience is that a teacher can be invaluable on this apparent spiritual journey and save you much time, but I leave that up to you to discern for yourself. Eventually all concepts, even that of a teacher, a teaching, a path – the very notion of liberation itself – these are all ultimately obstacles, but until then they can be most helpful. I hope this answer makes sense.
There are many other questions like these that I answer in the introductory articles on the homepage of tomdas.com and more that are also answered in the books in the recommended reading list. There are hundreds of free articles also available on tomdas.com and lots of videos on my YouTube channel that answer almost every conceivable question on this path. If there is a question that has not been answered, you are welcome to simply ask me!
With love and best wishes
Namaste
Tom
🙏🙏🙏
For those seekers who are attached to the world, the world is considered to be a divine manifestation. For the more advanced seeker, the world is considered to be an illusion. Many teachers teach this the wrong way around – this, of course, is itself due to their attachment to the world, ie. this wrong teaching is due to ignorance.
This is why Sri Ramana says, right at the start in the beginning few verses of The Garland of Gurus Sayings (Guru Vachaka Kovai), in verse 21:
21. For those who take the world appearance as real and enjoy it, it is the Lord’s creation. But for those who, free from fear, have known the Truth, the undeluded Self, it is no more than a mere mental image projected by desire.
For those who are fearful of the world, Sri Ramana gives the following even more radical advice in the same text, verse 28:
28. Ye who in fear shrink from the world, know that the place has no existence. Fear of this phenomenal world is like being frightened by a rope mistaken by you for a snake.
In verse 35 he uses the same analogy as Gaudapada (in his commentary on Mandukya Upanishad, Mandukya Karika), of a glowing flame whirled in a circle:
35. The empirical world of jostling names and forms is false and has no real existence in bright, full Awareness. Like a ring of fire formed in the dark when one whirls fast a glowing joss-stick, ’tis an illusion, mind-created.
The idea here is that in the dark (ie. in ignorance), a whirling flame appears as a world (that is a body, a mind and a world), but in the light (ie. in self-knowledge or self-realisation, also known as liberation), it is not seen at all.
Sri Ramana explains this in page 193 of Day by Day with Bhagavan when he states:
‘In reality, saying ‘We must see Brahman in everything and everywhere’ is also not quite correct. Only that state is final, where there is no seeing, where there is no time or space. There will be no seer, seeing and an object to see. What exists then is only the infinite eye.’
Similarly, Sri Ramana says in Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 87:
‘…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‘
And in Guru Ramana Vachana Mala, verse 21, Sri Ramana gives us the Ajata teaching, that no-thing ever really came into existence at all:
‘There is no mind, nor body, nor world, nor anyone called a soul; the One pure Reality alone exists, without a second, unborn and unchanging, abiding in utter Peace’
For more on this teaching see here and here
Namaste
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.’
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
2024: More teachings from Sri Ramana Maharshi and also from Shankara on this subject here.
Many have misinterpreted Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings and the Vedanta/Upanishadic teachings (which both say and teach the same thing).
One devotee of Sri Ramana’s, a certain Lakshmana Sarma (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.
Below are some of his writings and some of Bhagavan Sri Ramana’s writings on the nature of Liberation.
Lakshmana Sarma, who was with Sri Ramana for over 20 years, was uniquely qualified to comment on Sri Ramana’s teachings as he was one of only 2 people who received personal 1 to 1 tuition from Sri Ramana on the deeper meaning of the teachings which went on for several years. He was also a Vedic and Sanskrit scholar, having studied the Upanishads and Shankara’s vast works as well as many other works too. Many of LS’s works were published during Sri Ramana’s lifetime, were written with the help of Sri Ramana and were thereafter recommended by Sri Ramana himself.
In LS’s book entitled ‘Maha Yoga‘, he explains Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings in the context of the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta; and he also gives Sri Ramana’s view on how the Sage sees the world.
LS’s commentary on Ramana’s masterpiece Ulladu Narpadu (40 verses on Reality) was said by Sri Ramana to be the best available commentary on this work, which is hardly suprising as Ramana instructed LS on the deep meaning of this text over a 2-3 year period.
As a multilinguist, LS translated these texts into English himself, so we can be sure of the accuracy of the English translations too.
Whilst these teachings are open to all, these specific teachings are only for those who have a deep interest in liberation through the path of self-enquiry, as is explained in the post below.
It should be emphasised that understanding what is written in this post is NOT a prerequisite for realisation – see my personal note below for an example of this. This information is just provided for those who are interested, as it can be very helpful for some. Even if we disagree with this post, all we have to do is lovingly turn within and discover our own true nature, and then the truth (or falsehood) of this will be discovered for our self, first-hand 
Ramana cautions us not to spend time arguing whether or not the world exists or does not exist in realisation and rather our time is better spent in turning inwards in surrender and devotional self-enquiry. This entire teaching can become a distraction. Let us remember what Sri Ramana writes in Ulladu Narpadu, verses 3 and 34:
3. ‘The World is true’; ‘No, it is a false appearance’; ‘The World is Mind’; ‘No, it is not’; ‘The World is pleasant’; ‘No, it is not’ – What avails such talk? To leave the world alone and know the Self, to go beyond all thought of ‘One’ and ‘Two’, this egoless condition is the common goal of all.
34. The natural and true Reality forever resides in the Heart of all. Not to realise It there and stay in It but to quarrel ‘It is’, ‘It is not’, ‘It has form’, ‘It has not form’, ‘It is one’, ‘It is two’, ‘It is neither’, this is the mischief of maya.
Tom: The following is an excerpt from Maha Yoga, pages 167-8; as usual, my comments are in italiscised red:
A question was put to the Sage [Sri Ramana Maharshi]: “Does the Sage see the world as others do?”
The Sage [Sri Ramana Maharshi] replied: “The question does not arise for the Sage, but only for the ignorant. He puts the question because of his ego. To him the answer is. ‘Find out the Truth of him to whom the question occurs.’ You ask the question because you see the Sage active like other men. The fact is, the Sage does not see the world as others do. Take for an illustration, the cinema. There are pictures moving on the screen. If one goes up to them and tries to seize them, he seizes only the screen. And when the pictures disappear, the screen alone remains. Such is the case with the Sage.”
Tom: there is a false vedanta teaching that states that the Sage (jnani) sees the world just as the ignorant jiva (ajnani) does. Here above LS refutes that view when he says ‘the Sage does not see the world as others do’. We will see many more quotes like this in the rest of the post below.
The same question is answered by the Sage also as follows: “The world is real, both to the ignorant and to the Sage. The ignorant one believes the Real to be co-extensive with the world. To the Sage the Real is the formless One, the basic Substance on which the world appears. Thus great indeed is the difference between the Sage and the ignorant one.”
Tom: the above answer in italics forms verse 18 of Ulladu Narpadu, or Forty Verses on Reality, written by Sri Ramana Maharshi. The paragraphs below form LS’s explanation of the true meaning of this verse:
Here the Sage begins by saying that, superficially considered, the ignorant one and the Sage are alike. For they both say that the world is real. But it is here pointed out that what the Sage means by the words is quite the opposite of what the other means.
The ignorant man takes the world to be real as such, with all its variety of name and form and, has no idea of the basic Reality which, as shown before, is like gold to the jewels made of it – is the Substance that is real as opposed to the forms that are unreal.
The Sage rejects the unreal part of the world and takes as real only the Substratum, the formless Pure Consciousness, the Self, which is unaffected by the false appearances. “The Self is real”, says the Sage, “not the world, because He exists alone in His State of Purity as the Pure Consciousness, without the world. The world cannot exist without the Self.” Thus we have to conclude that the Sage does not see the world and has no part or lot in it.
Tom: we see the same explanation given by Lakshmana Sarma in the footnotes of the first 15-20 verses of Guru Ramana Vachana Mala, and small but wonderfully comprehensive collection of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings compiled by LS that are well worth reading. Also see verse 31 of LS’s translation of Ulladu Narpadu (picture quote below) which drives the same point home, even more clearly perhaps:
Tom: this is why Sri Ramana Himself wrote the following verse from Guru Vachaka Kovai:
The sage Self-realised knows not
Whether the transient body comes
And stays, or dies and leaves, even as
The senseless drunkard knows not what
Happens to his clothes.
~ SRI BHAGAVAN 24
Tom: this is also the true meaning of the Upanishadic verse, a form of which is here written by Sri Ramana, also in Guru Vachaka Kovai:
There is no creation, no destruction.
None bound, none seeking, striving,
Gaining freedom. Know that this
Is the Truth supreme.
~ SRI BHAGAVAN 28
Tom: please note that Sri Ramana wrote the above 2 verses himseld. A version of this above verse is found in the Amritabindu Upanishad in verse 10 and in the Atma Upanishad in verse 2.31. It was later incorporated by both Gaudapada (Mandukya Karika 2.32) and Shankara (Vivekachudamani verse 574) in their writings. A very similar teaching is given in the text Guru Ramana Vachana Mala, in the section that describes the Jivanmukti (the one liberated in this life):
313. As one that is profoundly alseep in a carriage in unaware of the varying states of the carriage – (its running, stoppages and unyoking of horses [Tom: – ie. the 3 states of waking, dream and deep sleep]) – so the one in the Transcendental State is unaware of the varying states of the body.
And another verse from the same text:
21. There is no mind, nor body, nor world, nor any one called a soul; the One pure Reality alone exists, without a second, unborn and unchanging, abiding in utter Peace.
We see the same teaching recorded in another text by LS, Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad. He wrote a whole series of verses dotted throughout the text to make his point – he is one example in verse 39 (see below for more verses like this):
39. Unless and until the mind becomes utterly extinct, these three states will continue to prevail. When the mind becomes extinguished the supreme state is won, wherein this world once and for all ceases to appear.
LS then writes in his own commentary on this verse, as follows. Note that LS often uses the word ‘quest’ to refer to self-enquiry:
During the prevalence of ignorance the three states conceal the supreme state. The latter cannot be experienced because of these. To be able to experience that state the mind must be destroyed so that the world-creation will also cease. To this end, the quest must be taken up and pursued until the mind-free state is established.
We see a similar teaching, again in Maha Yoga, page 50:
So long as the Self appears to us as the world, we shall not realise Him as the Self; the world-appearance effectually conceals the Self; and it will do so until we get rid of the appearance.
And in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk 187:
The activities of such a being [the realised Jnani] are like the feeding of a somnolent boy, perceptible to the onlooker (but not to the subject). The driver sleeping on his moving cart is not aware of the motion of the cart, because his mind is sunk in darkness. Similarly the sahaja Jnani remains unaware of his bodily activities because his mind is dead – having been resolved in the ecstasy of Chit Ananda (Self)
And in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk 82:
Just as a passenger when asleep in a carriage is unaware of the motion, the halting or the unharnessing of the horses, so also a Jnani in sahaja samadhi is unaware of the happenings, waking, dream and deep sleep.
…In sahaja samadhi the activities, vital and mental, and the three states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the Jnani active e.g., eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to his body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the sleeping passenger – or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it.
And in Maya Yoga, page 120:
He that sees the unreal appearances does not see the Reality; he that sees the Reality does not see the unreal appearances.
And Maha yoga, page 125:
So too the world and the Reality are negations of each other. They cannot be seen simultaneously. The rope is unrelated to the snake; it did not give birth to the snake. So too the world and the Reality are negations of each other, in the sense that he that sees one of them does not and cannot at the same time see the other. The two cannot be experienced simultaneously. He that sees the world sees not the Self, the Reality; on the other hand he that sees the Self does not see the world. So one of them alone can be real — not both. Hence there is no real relation between them. The world did not come into existence from the Reality. The latter is wholly unrelated to the former. Therefore it is clear that the bridge that the intellect demands does not exist and cannot be built.
Or course many of you will recognise how the above quote from LS’s ‘Maha Yoga’ mimics Sri Ramana’s own writing in ‘Who Am I?’ when he writes:
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.
And also from Sri Ramana’s ‘Who Am I?’:
Therefore, when the world appears, Self will not appear; and when Self appears, the world will not appear
Going back to Maha Yoga, p. 138:
Deliverance is here and now – if only we lose the ego. Ignorance, bondage and the incidents of bondage, namely all this multiplicity and difference, do not exist even now. Therefore it follows that the Sage who is egoless does not see all this, which seems so real to us. For him this cinema-show of the world and its seer, the ego, have ceased; so he does not recognise its having been seen before. For him the screen alone remains, the Light of Consciousness; the moving pictures have vanished.
From Maha Yoga, p. 139:
The true Self, it is here expressly pointed out, is not Itself the cause of this variety. It has no becoming, as shown before. What becomes the universe is Maya, the mysterious power that has to be assumed as belonging to the Self, to account for the world-appearance. This Maya is the same as mind, which is the ego. Out of this Maya come forth the four, of which the individual soul is one, that is why he is unreal. Therefore it follows that this false appearance will persist only so long as the ego-sense continues, not after the extinction of the ego. Therefore we have to understand that to the Sage the world does not appear, though it may appear to others that the Sage sees the world, and though the Sage himself does not always deny seeing the world.
From Maha Yoga, p. 158:
For the Sage, therefore, nothing exists except the Self; there is neither body, nor mind, nor world, nor other persons
And in Maha Yoga page 159 it is explained that from the Jnani’s point of view, not only is there no body, mind nor world, but that these never existed in the first place, and they were never even seen as an appearance:
From his [the sage’s] point of view all the three bodies are non-existent. Not only that, he does not even recognise that they existed before. Hence it is only as a concession to the semi-ignorant disciple that the distinction is mentioned in the books. The absolute truth of Deliverance is that It is bodiless and worldless, because Deliverance is the state where the Truth [ie. the formless objectless Self] alone shines.
…LS explains that this view is only held by those who only have an intellectual understanding of the teaching, and who have not therefore actually discovered the Self through self-enquiry/turning within, see here from page 57 of Maha Yoga:
But when a rope is first mistaken for a serpent, and then recognised to be a rope, the serpent ceases to appear [italics to emphasise ‘ceases’ are by LS]. That does not seem to be the case with the world. Even when it is known that the world is only an appearance of the real Self, the world continues to appear. This is the objection raised by one that has heard the teaching and been more or less convinced. The correct explanation is that mere theoretical knowledge does not dissolve the world-appearance, but only the actual Experience of the Self.
In the last sentence of the above quote, LS reiterates that the ‘Experience of the Self’ does ‘dissolve the world-appearance’.
It is commonly argued that ‘dissolve the world appearance’ and ‘the world not appearing’ really just means that the world does not appear separate from the self – ie. that the world does appear, but not as a separate reality. However, note that this would be a dristi-shristi teaching and not ajata vada.
On a personal note – I usually don’t talk too much about myself in these posts as I prefer the teachings to focus on Sri Ramana rather than myself – it may be of interest to you to know that my own personal view of the teaching when I was seeking was that the world does not disappear upon realisation but just is seen as one with the Self. I thought the types of views presented in this post were dogmatic, ideological and overly-intellectual, and were taking a too literal stance on what was meant to be a more poetic of metaphorical teaching perhaps.
It was only when my seeking ended that the direct radical truth of the teachings was actually revealed to me – there is only the formless objectless worldless Self, one without a second, with no mind to know anything, and no body to suffer. It was only then that the true meaning of the scriptures became clear to ‘me’! My mind would not let me see this truth beforehand as I could not understand, and did not even desire, the disappearance of the body, mind and world. My concept of realisation was to be happy and free in the world, or at least with the world and those I love still appearing.
Luckily for me, all I wanted was to be with Bhagavan in my Heart, and this love took me home.
There are several obvious questions that arise from this teaching, such as is this state of liberation even desirable? (quick answer: yes, it is actually total unending freedom and bliss and what we are truly longing for), if the world does not appear for a jnani, then how does a sage function in the world? (quick answer: it only appears as if the Jnani is a person that carries out actions due to ignorance, they are actually the formless reality itself – see here and here for more on this) If the three states are no longer present for the sage, then why do I see them eating, sleeping, dreaming, etc? (quick answer is the same answer as for the previous question) Isn’t this a dualistic teaching if we are separating Reality from illusion? (quick answer – no! but see here and here for more), how to realise this for oneself (quick answer: self-enquiry, turn within) and if this world is illusory how should I live my life and what is the role of spiritual practice (quick answer: be good to yourself and others and the world/envoronment, act kindly and responsibly and engage with Bhagavan Sri Ramana’s teachings which will lead you to realisation of this for yourself) – do let me know if other questions also arise.
All these questions are answered in much more detail in the texts in the recommended reading list, such as The Path of Sri Ramana, Maha Yoga, Ramana Paravidyopanishad, Sadhanai Saram, The Happiness of Being and Manonasa, just to name a few. The articles at the end of this post also answer some of these questions too, especially the Manonasa post and the post about how a Jnani functions with no thoughts.
Most people find this strange teaching confusing or difficult to understand – it cannot truly be understood with the mind, after all – so don’t worry if you are confused (isn’t it commonly said that liberation cannot be understood with the mind? But then don’t many go on to explain the nature of liberation in detail in a way that it actually makes sense? This should be a red flag). It will all become clear if you truly have a desire for liberation – your desire for truth and reality and happiness will create the clarity that you seek.
This is true; there are many instances of verses in the vedanta scriptures and in Sri Ramana’s teachings where it is said that the sage sees the world as others do. How can we reconcile this with the verses above and below contained in this post?
Bhagavan Sri Ramana explains that this is because these teachings that admit to the existence of the body mind and world (ie. Maya) are lower teachings for those who are not willing or able to accept there is not world or maya at all. There are many instances when after giving such a teaching to someone, once the questioner had left the room, Sri Bhagavan would therafter turn to those close devotees who remained in the room and explain to them that that was just a lower teaching given on a level that was appropriate for them.
This is rather like how we explain the workings of the universe to a child as opposed to a university graduate. It is not duplicitous, but rather it is presenting information in a way the audience of that information can understand it and therefore make use of it. Typically there are three levels on which the teachings are given, and the quotes in this post point to the highest level, ajata vada, a teaching that is rarely given, generally speaking, but a teaching which Bhagavan Sri Ramana was adamant was the only real truth.
Here is how LS describes this in Maha Yoga pages 59-60; here LS speaks of 2 levels of the teaching, the higher (true) and lower (ultimately untrue); note that LS uses the English word ‘revelation’ to refer to Shruti (the revealed scriptures consisting primarily of the Vedas and Upanishads):
The ancient lore is twofold. One part of it is addressed to those who are not conscious of being in ignorance, and therefore have no use for a teaching intended to dispel that ignorance. The other part of the ancient lore is addressed to those that are conscious of the ignorance and are in earnest to escape from it. These two parts are quite distinct. But this feature of the ancient Revelation is not known to these believers. Besides they are offended by the inevitable corollary that theirs is a lower position; they also feel it a grievance that the world, which they believe to be real, should be dismissed as unreal, and often want to quarrel with us who are followers of the Sages; we however have no quarrel with them, as the Sages have pointed out, because we realise that for them it is all right to believe as they do, and, so believing, to make the best of the world while it lasts. They are like dreamers who are persuaded that their dreams are real, and do not want to awake. We have begun to see that this worldly life is only a dream, because the Sages tell us so; and we want to awake.
LS testifies about how he often saw Bhagavan Sri Ramana ‘water down’ the teachings to suit those who were unwilling or unable to hear the true teachings. Even many of Sri Ramana’s devotees were unable or unwilling to accept the higher teachings. See here in Maha Yoga pages 160-161:
Even among the Sage’s disciples, there are some who cannot understand the answer [that the world is not real and has never even actually appeared]; but that is so because they are believers in a fascinating, but complicated creed, in which the chief tenet is that the world is real as such; it is therefore quite natural that they should refuse to understand the Sage’s teachings, of which the essential part is that the world is not real as such. They are dualists in fact, and as such violent haters of Advaitic teaching.
In this connection we may take note of the tenderness the Sage shows for the weaknesses of believers. The Sage observes the rule enunciated in the Gita (3.26) that no one’s faith should be disturbed. Therefore when ardent dualists are present, the Sage is very careful in what he says. He does not, while they are present, give out clear Advaitic teaching. But as soon as the dualists go out, he turns round to the Advaitis that remain, and apologetically explains to them that he had to water down the teaching to suit the dualists.
Tom: This is important to note, as Sri Ramana’s closest devotees were all in agreement about this point, that Sri Ramana’s highest teaching to those who knew him best was ajata vada, and that the body-mind-world does not even appear to a Jnani, not even as an appearance. Lower teachings stating that the world still remained were often given out to those who were not willing or able to receive these higher teachings.
In the Bhagavad Gita verse 3.26, referred to above by LS, Lord Krishna recommends that we do not disturb the minds of the ignorant who are attached to a life of doing and action (karma) and who are not yet ready to hear the higher teaching:
3.26 Let not the wise disrupt the minds of the ignorant who are attached to action, they should not be encouraged to refrain from work, but to engage in work in the spirit of devotion
He thus treats the latter as immature ones, and the Advaitis as adults who can understand that allowances have to be made to the immature. But he leaves us in no doubt at all, that the Advaitic teaching is the highest there can be*.
*On many occasions the Sage has clearly testified to this. One such occasion was this. Somebody had written in a book, that the Truth would be whole only if the world be real as such – with all its variety – not else. When this writer was reading this, the Sage exclaimed: ‘As if the Truth would be mutilated otherwise.’
How many times have we heard the (false) teaching that true non-duality would and must include the world! Here above Sri Ramana is clearly refuting this.
Interestingly, there is a PDF version of Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad on David Godman’s website here, which has been edited and amended by David Godman. Whilst presumably this is well-intentioned, he unfortunately distorts the teaching when he changes the translation of verse 39 to:
39. Unless and until the mind becomes utterly extinct, these three states will continue to prevail. When the mind becomes extinguished, the supreme state, in which this world once and for all ceases to appear [as real], is won.
Comparing it to the original version of the verse, which was translated into English by LS himself, you can see David Godman has slightly changed the words themselves as well as the word order, but more noteably he has added ‘[as real]’ in square brackets. This small addition in square brackets could imply that the world still appears but is just somehow identified as being unreal.
Here is how the verse was originally translated by LS before David Godman edited it:
39. Unless and until the mind becomes utterly extinct, these three states will continue to prevail. When the mind becomes extinguished the supreme state is won, wherein this world once and for all ceases to appear.
Hopefully you can see how a small addition has potentially changed the meaning of the verse. I have had discussions with people who use these types of [amended] quotes to cling onto their erroneous view,something that LS comments on below in this post. Unfortunately this is not the first time I have seen distortions of these kinds in books edited by David Godman. This is a shame as LS went to such efforts to dispell these types of views!
If a distortion could happen so easily within only a few years of a text being published, it is easy to see how the older traditional scriptures can be distorted over time, even by those who have the best of intentions.
We see a similar distortion in the Sri Ramana Ashram publication of the English translation of ‘Who Am I?’ where the translator has similarly inserted text in brackets, presumably again with good intentions, but having the effect of distorting the actual meaning of the teachings. First we will see how Question and answer 4 is correctly translated:
We can see how this teaching above is in line with the above article and this has been correctly translated; now here is the subtle distortion in the next question and answer, where the bracketed portion is not present in the original text, but has been ‘helpfully’ added by the translator:
However, as the bracketed text does not appear in the original Tamil, an accurate translation should simply read:
Hopefully you do not need me to re-explain how this slight alteration by the translator can distort the actual meaning of the teachings!
All of the verses below are taken from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad. ‘LS’ designates LS’s own commentary upon these verses, my comments or additions are in italicised red – enjoy!:
9 The world appearance is ignorantly superimposed by the mind upon that substratum, which is the truth of the Self. It [the world appearance] conceals that reality and shines [as if it is] real so long as the ignorance persists.
LS: Ignorance and mind are inseparable; where there is mind, there alone is ignorance; where there is no mind, there is no ignorance, since in the mind-free state the real Self is not concealed. This explains why the real Self is not known to men in general.
Tom: as a slight aside, we see the teaching that ignorance and mind are the same thing multiple times in Shankara’s Vivekachudamani, eg. in verses 169 & 180:
169. There is no Ignorance (Avidya) outside the mind. The mind alone is Avidya, the cause of the bondage of transmigration. When that is destroyed, all else is destroyed, and when it is manifested, everything else is manifested.
180. Hence sages who have fathomed its secret have designated the mind as Avidya or ignorance, by which alone the universe is moved to and fro, like masses of clouds by the wind.
For more on this teaching see here where Shankara also explains that the mind/ignorance creates the entire universe/world; see also Ramana Paravidyopanishad verse 85 below:
13 As one seeing the false snake fails to see the real rope, so, seeing the world – in which are included the personal God and the individual soul – he does not see the real Self as it really is, that is, as the supreme reality [Brahman].
Tom: Note that LS translates the word ‘Jiva’ as ‘soul’ or ‘individual soul’ as at the time of translation the notion of jiva, the (false) notion of being a seperate body-mind entity or person, was not well known in the English-speaking world.
LS: How long will this effect of ignorance continue?
14 The Self will remain concealed [in this way] as long as the world is taken to be real. It will cease to be so taken when the mind is once and for all extinguished; hence one must strive towards extinguishing the mind.
LS: The world-appearance being the obstacle to right awareness of the Self, and the mind being the cause of the world-appearance, the cure of this evil is the attainment of the mind-free state, which is done by the quest, which will now be briefly described.
15-16 The mind projects on the Self the illusory world appearance. He who, seeing the Self, becomes firmly established in the true state as that Self, thus uncovering that Self and dissolving the mind, which comprises ignorance and the whole world, will enjoy his own true state, which is without samsara, which is not covered by the vehicles, which is identical with Brahman, and which exists alone, without a second.
LS: The full significance of these revelations will be understood in due course, in the course of this book.
28 Since that state is changeless, worldless and calm, beyond the states of waking and the rest, it is called the fourth state. Such is the teaching of the Mandukya Upanishad.
LS: This means that for the one who has transcended the ignorance, the three states do not exist.
Tom: The forth state or ‘Turiya’ (literally meaning ‘the forth’), refers to the formless Self (Atman) which is beyond the 3 states (of waking, dream and deep sleep), and in which the 3 states do not appear, as explained in the Mandukya Upanishad, verse 7, as follows:
7. Turiya [the forth] 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 realised.’
We can see that Turiya is explained in the Upanishad as being the Self which ‘has to be realised’. Note the Upanishadic verse also states that in Turiya there is no consciousness of the inner world (thoughts, feelings, dreams), and also no consciousness of the outer world (ie. the waking state and gross objects).
30 The whole of this world is contained within this trinity of states. The reality of the fourth state, which is wordless, transcends these three states.
31 Deep sleep is just dreamless sleep; the other two are sleep with dream. The fourth state, being without sleep and without dream, is the abode of deliverance.
LS: Thus it is stated that, because of the underlying sleep of ignorance, the so-called waking is really a state of dream. This will be elaborated later, when the question of the reality of the world is discussed. The fourth state is in perfect contrast with the other three, being sleepless, dreamless and therefore worldless.
LS: The world-appearance, therefore, is just a dream. In fact, it often assumes the quality of a nightmare. It arises in the sleep that is ignorance of the real Self. This is stated next.
Tom: as the waking state is considered to be another form of dream, to say deliverance (liberation) is without sleep and without dream is to also say it is without the waking state; see also verse 39 below.
33 Those that are overwhelmed by this sleep of ignorance are the seers of this bad dream, the world. And so long as this ignorance does not cease by the right awareness of the real Self, the souls have to wander in this maze of the three states. The only way to escape from this bad dream is to become fully aware of the real Self.
39. Unless and until the mind becomes utterly extinct, these three states will continue to prevail. When the mind becomes extinguished the supreme state is won, wherein this world once and for all ceases to appear.
LS: During the prevalence of ignorance the three states conceal the supreme state. The latter cannot be experienced because of these. To be able to experience that state the mind must be destroyed so that the world-creation will also cease. To this end, the quest must be taken up and pursued until the mind-free state is established. This is often styled the state of knowledge. But this description is misleading for the reason stated presently.
Tom: note that LS uses the English word ‘quest’ to refer to self-enquiry
40 Though that state of being the real Self is called the state of knowledge, it is one in which there is none of the three: the knower, the object known, and the act of knowing. That being the case, what does one know there, by what means, and who is there to know? It must be understood that knowledge is just a name for the state of being the Self.
LS: That state is different from anything else because it is a state of non-duality (advaita). There is no object to be known, nor is there a knower – the soul [Jiva]– and hence there is no knowing. So ‘knowledge’ or ‘awareness’ are just arbitrary names for this state. This will be explained later.
Tom: note that LS uses the English word ‘soul’ to refer to the jiva, which is the false identification as a body-mind entity.
74 The aspirant will naturally turn away from the world at once and, with his mind turned inwards, will strive for the goal. It is by turning the mind away from the world that the quest is made, and for that reason the world is certainly to be renounced.
LS: The knowledge derived from worldly experience is ignorance. Hence, it cannot be used as evidence. If relied on, it will lead to wrong conclusions. The reason is next given briefly.
78 All worldly experience is rooted in ignorance. It is dream-like; it takes place in worldliness; it pertains to men ignorant [of the real Self]; and it is false. It is therefore no evidence for the seeker of deliverance in [this] discrimination between the real and the unreal.
LS: It has been explained that the three states of life, waking, dream and sleep, take place in the profound sleep of ignorance, and hence even waking experience is dreamlike.
84 The Guru, who is a sage, teaches the unreality of the world in accordance with his own experience, also giving reasons supporting it. The disciple who aspires to become free should accept this teaching with perfect faith and [with its help] strive for this goal.
85 The universe, comprising these three – the soul, God and the world of visible objects – is superimposed by the mind on the real Self, which is the sole reality of the supreme state. Hence all this [universe] is just an outcome of ignorance.
LS: The mind is the creator of the universe. Ignorance is the primal cause of the mind. Hence it is said here that this ignorance is the cause of the universe.
86 That being so, when this ignorance is annihilated by the light of awareness of that Self, then, along with it, the consequence of it [the world] will, like the darkness that disappears before sunlight at dawn, cease to appear.
LS: This will become more and more intelligible as we proceed. What is stated above are the actual facts of the Guru’s own experience. The conclusion that follows for the disciple is given next.
87 This universe [we see] shines in the dense darkness of ignorance, but does not shine in the great splendour of the light of Self-awareness. If this universe were real, why does it not shine in the supreme state, lit as it is by the conscious, effulgent light of the real Self?
LS: An axiomatic distinction between the real and unreal, which is implicit in vedantic metaphysics, is next enunciated.
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.
LS: By this test the world is shown to be unreal. The next verse elaborates on this.
89 Since multiplicity is experienced only in the state of ignorance, it is declared to be unreal. On the other hand, because the unity of the Self is experienced on the liquidation of ignorance, that unity is real.
LS: The reality is only that which survives in the supreme state.
90 ‘The sole reality is that peaceful Self which shines by the light of its own nature as pure consciousness in the supreme state wherein the world is lost.’ Such is the teaching of our holy Guru.
LS:Here it is shown that the state is one of peace because there is no duality there. This is what we learn from all the Upanishads. This teaching is further confirmed by the analogy of the dream world.
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.
Tom: What about those who seek to discredit this teaching? Are they really interested in turning within, away from the world, and discovering the self? Let us see:
LS: It is next pointed out that those who seek to discredit this teaching are those who do not ardently aspire to the supreme state.
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.
LS: The teaching is addressed not to all men, but only to those who aspire to win the supreme state, because they alone are qualified to receive it.
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.
LS: The teaching has to be adapted to the person being taught. The same teaching is not good for all. Here it is shown that he who believes that the Self is not the body, but the owner of it, or the dweller therein, is for this purpose in the same category as the one who believes the body itself to be the Self.
LS: Why is it that the world is real to these people?
94 The teaching – that the trinity of the soul, God and the world is unreal – is indivisible. If one is convinced that one of these is real, the other two also will appear to be real.
LS: That is, the teaching must either be accepted as a whole or rejected wholly. There is no option to split it up and accept it partially, rejecting some of it.
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.
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.
101 Only the sage who knows the substratum of the world appearance, the reality, by being firmly established in the supreme state, is competent to reveal the truth of the world.
LS: By his unawareness of that truth the common man, being a victim of his ignorance, cannot know the truth about the world.
102 When vision is focused on the outside, who can know the truth, whether of the real Self or of the world? But, with the mind turned inwards, the sage knows the truth of both by the eye of right awareness.
LS: It is with the knowledge of this uniqueness of the sage that the disciple has to approach him and listen to his teaching.
116 In the state of ignorance both the world and the Self are seen as forms. [But] on the extinction of ignorance both are [found to be] formless, because in the supreme state the infinite Self is the eye.
LS: In the true state, which is the supreme state, the Self alone is. It is described as infinite, and therefore formless. There are no objects to be seen, nor is there any real seeing. Hence, forms are unreal. If they were real, they would survive in that state.
117 By the vision of right awareness, the world, along with the soul, merges into the formless, real Self. The sages call that the vision of right awareness, wherein there is neither seer nor spectacle.
118 In that natural state [of the Self] there survives only the Self, which is consciousness, worldless, alone, and without the six modes of change, such as birth, and so on. Hence, it alone is real in its own right.
121 It is only by conceiving the formless Self as a form that one sees this world as consisting of forms. All this is really an ignorant superimposition on the formless, infinite reality, the Self.
122 It is only to him that sees himself as having a form that the names and forms appear as real. They have been fabricated by ignorance and superimposed on the nameless, formless Self, which is consciousness.
123 Thus it has been made plain by the Master that the seeing of the world is an effect of the primary ignorance. Thus, the claim that the world is real has been refuted by him. Also, it has been shown by him that the aloneness of the real Self in the true state is real.
124 Our Master confirms this teaching first by showing that the world is mental [inseparable from the mind], then by proving the unreality of the mind and the ego, and finally by teaching that even the primary ignorance is non-existent.
Tom: saying the world is mental is essentially vivarta vada, the idea that the world is a mere projection or appearance in consciousness; to say that the primary ignorance, which resulted in the world appearance, never existed, is tantamount to saying that the projection of the world never occurred, not even apparently/as an appearance. This is ajata vada.
131 The truth that the world is unreal is taught by the sages only to him who aspires to attain the highest state by the quest of the Self. It is not addressed to others, and hence the contentions of these objections are wholly in vain.
LS: The uniqueness of Vedanta is that no one is coerced by threats of hell or otherwise to accept its highly elusive teachings. It is given out only to those whose minds are ripe and have become receptive to these metaphysical truths. Indeed, Vedanta advises ordinary people not to dabble in vedantic studies.
132 No one is able to know the unreality of the dream world during the dream itself. In the same way, no one is able to know the unreality of the waking world while he is in the waking state.
144 The mind itself creates the world in the waking state, as it does in dream. But the mind does not know, either in waking or in dream, that this is its own creation.
146 This is the very nature of the mind, that it takes as real all that it creates. This is seen in day-dreaming, witnessing dramas, or listening to stories.
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.
Tom: Here we see that merely seeing objects is itself creation, jata. Therefore ajata vada, the doctrine of non-creation, states that the world was never even created, and the world never appeared, not even as an appearance.
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).
334 Therefore the aspirant, being firmly convinced that space and time are unreal, should give up the whole world and seek to know the substratum, the Self, through the quest of his own true nature.
341 Therefore the aspirant must cease from thoughts of the worldly life and strive to become aware of the truth of the Self, which is the same as Brahman, by means of the quest of that Self.
448 The Supreme Being did not become mind, neither did it become the world. It remains unswerving from its true nature as pure, unmodified, consciousness, transcending time, space and the rest.
449 The world did not come into being, nor is it going to be destroyed. No one called ‘the individual self’ was really born. There is no one in bondage, no one who has become free, nor is there any spiritual seeker. This is the most excellent truth that has been clarified.
LS: This is the truth of non-becoming [ajata], demonstrated by the sage Gaudapadacharya, in his Mandukya Karikas, which is strictly in agreement with the experience of all the sages.
456 When, forgetting the Self, one thinks that the body is oneself and goes through innumerable births and in the end remembers and becomes the Self, know this is only like awakening from a dream wherein one has wandered all over the world.
LS: In a dream one may go on a world-tour and in the dream itself return home and lie down in one’s own bed; but when one awakes one knows that it was all a dream. In the same way all of one’s samsaric reincarnations are only a long-drawn out dream, at the end of which only the Self remains, unaffected by all this. There is a difference here, because it was not the Self that dreamed, but only the ego-mind.
523 How can any man understand, by the unaided power of his own intellect, one who is mind-free, bodiless and worldless?
LS: The one who is established in that state of deliverance is called a sage, or ‘Prabuddha’ or Buddha. He cannot be known because he has none of the attributes of an individual. He is one with the eternal subject, the supreme reality, and so cannot be made an object for anyone to know.
LS: Does the world survive after the egolessness is established?
541 The statement of the vedantic text that the Self swallows up the moving and the unmoving, means that the world, which is only darkness, is consumed by the effulgence of that Self.
LS: The Upanishads thus clearly state that the world, being only darkness, cannot possibly survive in the presence of the light of right awareness. The very same truth has been expressed by Bhagavan in the first verse of his Arunachala Pancharatnam, which is paraphrased here.
Tom: ‘Darkness’ in the verse above refers to ignorance, as LS confirms in the commentary on the next verse.
542 The essential nature of the Self has been sung by Guru Bhagavan in the following words: ‘The Supreme Self, named Arunachalesa [The Lord of Arunachala], shines alone without a second, having swallowed this solid-seeming universe by his own consciousness-light.’
LS: This confirms the statement that creation is composed of darkness (ignorance) alone, and has no substantial reality even now, when ignorance and ego are rampant. An inaccuracy of statement that is unavoidably made is corrected.
543 The statement that the Self, by attaining oneness with Brahman, becomes freed from the bondage of samsara is not true, because the Self never fell from its true state.
544 Just as white cloth does not acquire a new whiteness, whiteness being its nature, so the Self does not become Brahman because the Self is eternally Brahman by nature.
545 Two names are commonly in use to designate the sage, namely ‘Knower of Brahman’ and ‘Knower of the Self’. Since the sage is himself Brahman, as well as the Self, how can they become known to the sage?
LS: Neither of the two, which are identical with each other, can become the object of knowledge. The Self, as the eternal subject, is not an object to be known, and Brahman is therefore not an object. The unknowability of Brahman is due to its being the Self. So the terms, taken literally, are inapplicable. What then are their proper meanings?
552 The state of the non-dual, real Self, experienced by the sage who attains the supreme state, is not the fruit of the practice of sadhana. It is the eternal nature of that Self.
Tom: Some mistakenly think that the Self will be gained as a result of practice. Whilst it may seem this way, it is not actually the truth. There is only everlastingly the Self. The non-self never really existed at any time.
578 The sage in his worldly activities may appear to be aware of worldly differences, but he is really no more aware of them than a sleepwalker who moves about, performing actions.
583 Though he appears as embodied, he is really bodiless, being egoless. His subtle body does not survive and go forth somewhere when the gross body falls, but undergoes disintegration here.
584 Some believers in the reality of the world say that the sage has a body. Others say that the sage, being bodiless, can assume a body if he so pleases.
585 By the dawn of right awareness of the real Self, the ego, the root cause of the appearance of forms, has been lost. Therefore for the sage, all forms are unreal, and hence this talk of forms is foolishness.
586 Since it is not proper to say that this [world] existed before [enlightenment], but was lost afterwards, and since [even in ignorance] no one has a form from the point of view of the reality, how can the sage have a form?
587 In the case of the sage who is established in his own natural state, free of all the three bodies, how can a desire arise to have a body? This talk of forms is in vain, being merely a concession to the unenlightened.
592 The popular notion that there are many sages is also not true. All differences belong to the world. In the worldless state they do not exist.
593 He who says, ‘I have today seen this sage; I shall see others also,’ does not know the true nature of sages, which is reality-consciousness-bliss. This is what Bhagavan has told us on this point.
594 For him who knows not the sage who is within himself there appear many sages. For him who knows that one, which is his own Self, this plurality [of sages] is non- existent.
600 It is the deluded men with outward-turned minds, hankering for worldly enjoyments, who talk of these siddhis [Tom: special supernatural powers, the literal meaning of siddhi is attainment], namely becoming minute, etc. Revelation mentions these siddhis for attracting the dull-witted ones also to the path for deliverance.
645 The statement in revelation that prarabdha karma [the apparent actions destined for the body-mind] survives [in the liberated sage] is only in conformity with the view of the ignorant. From their point of view, those actions have results, because in their view the sage is embodied.
654 The sleeper in the carriage does not know anything about the going, the stopping and the unyoking of the horses [of the carriage]. Just so, the sage who is asleep [to the world] in the carriage, the body, does not know its changing conditions.
For more on this topic also see the following links where Sri Shankara, Sri Gaudapada and Sri Sadhu Om, amongst others, give this same teaching. The Michael Langford link also goes into great depth about this topic that is rare to find elsewhere:
Non-duality, Self-Realisation and the appearance of the world | Sri Sadhu Om
Ramana Maharshi – the 3 levels of the teaching
The entire path explained: the Path of Sri Ramana (Parts 1 and 2; PDF downloads)
Shankara: how to Realise the Self (commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad)
The nature of Liberation | Manonasa by Michael Langford
How can the Jnani (sage) function with NO THOUGHTS? Sri Ramana Maharshi
The nature of Self-Realisation according to Shankara and Gaudapada | Mandukya Upanishad and Karika
Tom Das 