aham sphurana

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

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

B.: No. “I” am not talking to you.

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

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

B.: No.

C.: Are Jnanis born Jnanis then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K.: Some say that it is exceedingly difficult.

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

K.: Implicitly and absolutely.

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

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

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

B.: [smiling] Good.

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

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

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

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

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

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The hill itself bestows immortality.

Q.: How?

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

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

Q.: Is it not a herb?

B.: I have said what I know.

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

B.: Yes.

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

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

Q.: Oh! How so?

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

Q.: Is it God?

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

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

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

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

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

Q.: The state without mind is called Jnana?

B.: Yes.

Q.: Then what or who is a Jnani?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q.: What is this Reality?

B.: Man’s true Self.

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

B.: Whose Self is it?

Q.: Mine… but really who am I?

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

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

Q.: What is the answer to the question?

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

Q.: What remains thereafterward?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q.: Then what is buddhi?

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

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

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

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

B.: Quite so.

Q.: How to know the Self?

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

Q.: The difficulty lies in reaching the Self.

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

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

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

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

Q.: But how to find this Real Self?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.: What is the Real Self?

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

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

Q.: What happens to a man after death?

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

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

Q.: To whom to ask these questions?

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

Q.: Are we then to merely keep quiet?

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

Q.: How did this ignorance originally arise?

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

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

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

New recommended reading text: Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

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

Why is man born, only to die? Why does God create, only to destroy? | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Q.: Why is man born, only to die? Why does God create, only to destroy? Is it not absurd? If one is going to die one day, why is he born? If everything is going to be destroyed one day, why create anything?

B.: All creation is mental hallucination or delusion. In Reality there is no creator and no creation.

Q.: I desire to know the reason for the existence of the world I see around me.

B.: The apparent perceiver is the reason for the apparent perceptions.

Q.: I do not understand.

B.: Perceiver perceived and perception are all completely fictitious.

Q.: For Bhagavan it might be so. I see a solid world around me. I desire an explanation for it.

B.: What of your own apparent existence in the form of this perishable body?

Do you desire no explanation for that?

Q.: Yes, that too.

B.: Any number of theoritical explanations may be given to satisfy the craving of the intellect for the time being; but there will be no permanency in your satisfaction. Soon new doubts will arise and your old intellectual standpoint or belief will collapse. Then you will set about searching for a new explanation.

This goes on happening until the mind becomes disgusted with temporal life as a whole; then, it plunges into the Heart and loses itself there – that is the final dawn of wisdom.

Q.: So, the world is something that appears to exist only because I am engaged or involved in perceiving?

B.: Quite so.

Q.: So, now, if I close my eyes for two minutes, during those two minutes do Bhagavan, the sofa he is sitting on, this Hall and Tiruvannamalai, all totally disappear or vanish into thin air? [closes his eyes seriously for sometime] There, now, was Bhagavan not there in this Hall, were the other people in this Hall not present, even whilst my eyes remained closed? If I ask anyone, ‘Excuse me, did you exist whilst my eyes were closed, or not?’ will they not think I have gone mad?

What is the explanation?

B.: You are confusing implicit existence with implied existence. No doubt corroboration is available from the ‘others’ seated in this Hall including Bhagavan, but naturally in a dream everything is in spontaneous synchronisation. It is [your] one mind that has become all this. So, naturally confirmation is available. What is the surprise in it? You think you are taking corroboration from others, and therefore asking this question. The one whom you are asking is [also] your own mind only. Of course he would corroborate.

The idea that things exist, and then you perceive them, is implied exixstence.

It derives its strength from the principle of intellection, which in turn from the buddhi [faculty of reasoning], which in turn from the mind. Implicit existence is swayam-pratyaksham. It shines by its own light, not by any borrowed light.

Therefore it is the one thing Real.

Q.: Will sriramanamasmaranam [Tom: repetition of the Holy Lord’s name ‘Sri Rama’] help me Realise?

B.: If and only if it be accompanied by intense devotion. The devotion must be so intense that even the thought ‘I am engaging in sriramanamasmaranam’ must not find it possible to arise

The above excerpt is taken from Aham Sphurana, 20th July 1936, see here for more information on this text.

Guru’s Grace means inward-vision or introverted mind | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Questioner: I want Bhagavan to bestow his compassionate glance of Grace on me, so that I should undergo Emancipation in this very lifetime.

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Listen to the following joke:

Once upon a time man was fully aware of his Realised nature, and all humans enjoyed Transcendental consciousness while yet in a body; but on one fine morning, Brahma found he had become jealous of them, since all humans were then equal to him in rank, all being Realised gods. So, Brahma decided to take Self-knowledge away from man and hide it where it could never be found by him. Where to hide It was the question. So Brahma called a council of the gods of Heaven, headed by Indra, to help him resolve the matter.

“Let us bury it deep in the earth,” said the gods. But Brahma answered, “No, that will not do, because men will dig into the earth and find it.”

Then the gods said, “Let us sink it in the deepest ocean.” But Brahma said, “No, not there, for they will eventually learn to dive into the ocean, and so will surely find it one day.”

Then the gods said, “Let us take it to the top of the highest mountain and hide it there.” But again Brahma replied, “No, that will not do either, because they will sooner or later climb every mountain and once again find their Immortal Self.

We must hide It so thoroughly from man that he will never succeed in finding It again.” Then the gods gave up and said, “We do not know where to hide it, because it seems that there is no place on earth or under the sea that man will not eventually reach.”

Brahma thought for a long, long, long time. Finally he said, “Here is what we shall do. We will hide It deep in the center of their own being, for men will never think to look for It there.” All the gods agreed that this, in fact, was the perfect hiding place, and the deed was done. Ever since that day, men have been going up and down the earth, digging, diving, climbing, and excavating- searching for something which is already within themselves.

Q.: How cruel of Brahma to do such a thing…!

B.: That was only a joke. The point is, turn inwards and SEE. That is Guru’s Grace. Guru’s Grace means inward-vision or introverted mind. Guru’s Grace and Jnana-dhrishti [Tom: literally knowledge-vision, ie. vision of self-knowledge or experience of self-knowledge] are thus one and the same.

The above excerpt is taken from Aham Sphurana, 30th August 1936, see here for more information on this text.

If told ‘Everything is an illusion’ people may find it disturbing | The analogy of ‘toxic gas’ | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Gajapathi Aiyyer: If told, ‘Everything is an illusion’, people may find it disturbing…

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Thus they are told, ‘Find your Self’ or ‘Gnothi seauton’ [Tom: Greek for ‘Know thyself’], leaving them to make the discovery themselves that there is no world to see, but only the Self. Actually saying ‘Everything is an illusion’ or ‘There is no anything’ is more meaningful.

Strictly speaking, ‘Know thyself’ is absurd. The Self has nothing to know. It cannot be known by anything. People may say, ‘Bhagavan teaches that the Self is Self-aware, or that the Self knows Itself.’ It is not correct. Knowledge implies vritti [Tom: thoughts]. There are no vrittis in the Self. It is Purity Itself. The Self does not need to know Itself, because it is Knowledge Itself.

It cannot know Itself or anything else, because it is in Motionless Timeless Realisation of Actionless Reality, which is Itself; therefore it is Nescience Itself [Tom: here Bhagavan is saying the Self is actually Nescience or Ignorance, as it knows nothing, which is the literal meaning of nescience or ignorance].

Yet the Self transcends Knowledge and Nescience. Nothing can know the Self, because there is nothing besides it; therefore there is no such thing as not-Self. That day on which man awakens into Living Realisation of the fact that knowledge of the not-Self or nescience of the Self is impossible is the day on which he awakens into his true imperishable nature of Immortality. This teaching alone is verily the nectarous ambrosia which rouses man from the sleep of his illusory mortality.

Chadwick was swimming in tears by the time Bhagavan had finished enunciating these words.

G.: While the teaching sounds simple, practising the state of effortless-and-volitionless-thoughtlessness does not seem to be so easy…

B.: The biggest tragedy is that people, instead of giving up everything, think that by doing some practise they are going to go somewhere or attain something. If everything is thrown away, only Jnana remains. Supposing you want to make space inside a room – how do you go about it? Hurl away the useless objects taking up space in the room – as simple as that. There is no question of importing space from elsewhere. If all ideas or vrittis [mental modifications or conceptualisations] are thrown away or given up, only the Self remains.

If you are able to realise the truth that what you are giving up is indubitably more obnoxious than the egesta in your intestines and what you gain is indubitably worthier than your life in this ephemeral body, you will be able to give up everything in your mind one, neat, simple stroke; to such a one Jnana comes in a trice; then what awaits is only the Kingdom of Heaven from which there is no return possible.

Chadwick: We are unable to develop the conviction that the world is worthless or mirage-like – that is the problem.

B.: There is no need for any [new] convictions to be cultivated. Give up even your existing convictions.

C.: The conviction that the world is unreal can be used to combat the conviction that the world is real.

B.: [laughing] Oh! Is that so? Have you heard the story of the monkey that kept chasing its own tail?

C.: No.

B.: You would not have, and you cannot. Why? Because the story is yet to conclude. The monkey started at the beginning of Krita-yugam. Still he is going on.

C.: He must be a very energetic monkey. Bhagavan must have fed him peanuts with his own hands… [All 3 of us laugh.]

G.: What is the analogy?

B.: That will be the perverse fate of one who endeavours to counteract concepts with concepts. The fetid odour of concept-gas can be eliminated only by diverting the gas away from the mind-room. Instead, some want to release into their own originally odour-free, pristine and blemishless mental environment more and more poisonous, odious concept-gases, thinking, ‘Aa haa! This concept-gas will fight [all] the previous one[s]!’. If this should keep on happening, as it does indeed in the case of many unfortunate beings on this Earth, what will the result be? [laughs] Will not everyone suffocate unto death? What has caused the absurd mentality which prompts man to go on releasing one mephitic concept-gas after another? HE HAS FORGOTTEN THE BLISS OF HIS ORIGINAL ODOUR-FREE ENVIRONMENT.

He thinks being surrounded with the miasmic fumes of his own concept-gas is his natural state. When it has all become patently and obviously unmanageable, he goes to a charlatan, who says unto him:

[Tom: in all the following examples Bhagavan is referring to thoughts and concepts as being like toxic gas, and various false teachers as handing out these toxic-gas concepts]

‘Sir! Be certain that your anxities end with today. What I have with me is the most precious concept-gas in the world, released by the Self-Realised Sages of the Himalayas. Here I have captured it in this areca nut-coloured bottle. You are indeed fortunate that you have met with me today, sir, have not the least doubt about it. Forthwith take this invaluable gas into your room and release the same. Then you will come back and thank me till your mouth aches.’

Delighted, the man rushes back into his noisome room and with tremendous eagerness does as told. What is the result? He ends up burning his nostrils. He thinks his delicate nostrils are to blame and thus harbours no ambition to pick any quarrel with the charlatan.

What does he do next? Go to another charlatan. This time the gas has been released by the Sages of the Vidhya Hills. And then another – perhaps this time the Podhigai Hills. And so on and so forth. Finally he decides these foreign gases are only making his room more olid, and, abjectly resigning himself to his miserable fate of having to put up with his putrid mental environment, gives up hunting after newer and newer exotic nocuous concept-gases to release.

Then a friend of him chances to meet him and asks why he should look so despondent, whereupon the man confesses unto him his malodorous problem. ‘Oh! Is this all?’, says the other, ‘Don’t worry. I know just the thing to set you aright. In the Arunachala Hill there is one koupeenadhâri-swami; he-‘.

[Tom: koupeenadhâri means one who wears a kaupina or loin cloth]

The next moment the vexed man catches hold of his friend by the scruff of the neck and shouts wrathfully into the alarmed man’s face, ‘I shall have no more of it, I tell you. It is all a grand fraud; I realised the fact just some time prior. ALL GAS STINKS’.

‘Pray, do not enrage yourself, my good man.’, says the calm friend, shaking himself free from the first man’s irate grip, ‘This swami will neither demand any money from you nor will he give you any gas to release.’

‘Then what is he a swami for?’ ‘He never announced himself as a swami. People understand him to be this or that depending upon their individual tempraments of mind. I am sure you will benefit by visiting him…’ The man reluctantly makes the trip, telling himself, ‘At any rate I don’t have anything to fear from possibility of disappointment, since this time I have no expectations. What is probably going to happen is this: he will try to sell me a bottle of his gas, and I shall refuse to buy it and come away peacefully, after telling him, “Thank you very much for the kind offer, sir, but you see, my nostrils have been assaulted with enough gas for this one lifetime.”. If he tries to persuade me [into making a purchase] I shall slap him and run away from the place.’.

When he puts his difficulty before the koupeenadhâri-swami, he expects to as usual be handed with a bottle of concept-gas and demanded money, but the swami, being no gas-releaser, merely decorously says, ‘Open the windows’. The man is stunned. Can it really be that simple?, he wonders. For a time the man is reluctant to give up the rancid odours to which he has been for a long time now acclimatised. Then he begins to yearn for the odour-free state. Finally he abandons altogether his penchant for concept-gases and throws the windows open as per the advice of the koupeenadhâri-swami of Arunachala Hill. Then sweet, fresh air, which he has not experienced in [his] living memory, bursts into the room and he dances for ecstatic joy. He remembers all his various exploits with the different charlatans he had encountered and enjoys a hearty laugh at his own expense…

Chadwick is unable to contain himself. He has already collapsed against the wall of the Hall in laughter at hearing Bhagavan’s ‘gas-analogy’. His paroxysmic convulsions, which are yet to abate, are now observed with a curious eye by early inmates and visitors trickling into the Hall. ‘Shoo! Shoo!’ says Bhagavan, smiling and putting a finger to his lips. Chadwick – with difficulty – manages to straighten himself up. He wipes away the tears trickling down his cheeks and tries to look serious.

G.: Concept-gas stands for vrittis, the bottles stand for instructions on sadhana, releasing them in one’s room means trying to practise any mental activity as sadhana, and opening the windows is summa iruththal [Tom: ‘Be still’ or ‘just be’]. Am I correct?

C.: Hey, boy! Isn’t it obvious?

G.: I still want to make sure. So I am corroborating my understanding with Bhagawan. What does Bhagavan say?

B.: Yes. Also, the reluctance to abandon one’s age-old mental predilections is exclusively the handiwork of – But at that moment the brahmins enter the Hall. It is time for the chanting of the vedas. For now the conversation is at an end.

The above excerpt is taken from Aham Sphurana, 14th August 1936, see here for more information on this text.

One who would try to teach something can never be the Sadhguru | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

B.: One who would try to teach something can never be the Sadhguru [Tom: the true or genuine or real guru]. He who gives unto the earnest sadhaka suggestion to do this or that can never be the Sadhguru. The sadhaka wants rest from activity – that is why he has come in search of spiritual awakening. He has already become exasperated with ‘doing’, although he might be unable to understand, express or articulate that such is the case with himself. The peace he is searching for so longingly is permanent termination of possibility of activity. In other words he wants everlasting cessation of the madness called ‘doing’.

Instead of being told how to achieve the same, the conned sadhaka finds that the charlatan asks him to do something in addition to, or in place of, his incumbent activities. Could more ‘doing’ possibly be a help to the sadhaka? It will make him lose what little peace of mind he yet had.

Activity stands for creation; creation stands for the destruction of one’s inherent happiness – i.e., the natutal state of poorna.

Reality is perfect happiness only because there is no creation possible in that state. Creation is seen owing to avidya maya. If activity be advocated, the adviser is not a Guru but a heartless tormentor. In such cases we can say that Lord Yama has come in the guise of a Guru, to torture the unsuspecting, gullible sadhaka.

The [evil-minded] charlatan cannot Emancipate; but the one thing he invariably does is this – he strengthens the fetters of those who care to pay any attention to him. You talk of appointing an uttharadikari [Tom: heir or successor] for Ramana Maharshi. Ramana Maharshi has nothing to say; he makes no assertions; he has no message for the world; he has got nothing to convey; he is no teacher; he has no teachings. He IS. That is all. That being the case, where is the question of any successor? The charlatan, therefore, first collects a hefty fee as ‘dhakshina’ and then persuades the unwitting man on the Clapham omnibus to do this and that, saying, ‘If you sincerely do as I tell you, you will obtain peace of mind…’. It is like paying a fortune to purchase poison, thinking it to be amrutham, and drinking it gleefully, congratulating yourself on your ‘rare luck’ at having chanced upon the same. So, the charlatan abets your attempt to kill yourself; obscuring the self-luminous Aathman, which is fathomless Bliss Itself, with upadhis that obnubilate it, and reaffirming for yourself thereby the poisonous, false conviction that your self-identity lies with the perishable body, is certainly an act of attempting suicide. As for Sec. 306, no amount of concealment can permanently veil the Self.

No matter how dense one’s nescience [Tom: ignorance] might be, one casual, merciful glance of Grace from the compassionate Sadhguru, lasting not even for a complete nimisha, will suffice to destroy countless aeons of accumulated ignorance. A mountainsized heap of gunpowder is burnt up by a single spark of fire.

A room might have been in darkness for thousands of years, but when the door is thrown open and sunlight floods in, how long does it take for the room to become totally illumined? Thus, since ignorance is totally vulnerable to being eviscerated by the Sadhguru’s Grace at any time, it cannot be said to have any permanence; so, it is unreal or non-existent…

…The point is, turn inwards and SEE. That is Guru’s Grace. Guru’s Grace means inward-vision or introverted mind. Guru’s Grace and Jnana-dhrishti [Tom: literally, knowledge-vision, ie. seeing the self or self-knowledge] are thus one and the same.

The above excerpt is taken from Aham Sphurana, 30th August 1936, see here for more information on this text.

Tom: compare the above text to Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 271:

271.
The guru who tells his disciple
“Do this or that,” becomes for him
Yama, lord of death, or Brahma,
Lord of birth. He who declares
“You have done enough,” is the true guru
Bringing grace divine.

[The true guru prescribes no discipline, but the enquiry “Who am I?”]

Why has God created the world? | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Questioner: Why has God created the world? I want to know why.

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Did God come and tell you that He has created the world?

Q.: I see creation around me. There must be some reason for creation.

B.: You say “I see.”; if you see that seer, all your doubts will be resolved.

Q.: I do not understand.

B.: Is there anything to be seen in sleep?

Q.: No.

B.: Continue to remain in the state where there is nothing to be seen.

Q.: Should I always be sleeping?

B.: Not seeing anything while remaining AWARE is Realisation. That is God and that is everything.

Q.: Awareness of what?

B.: Being.

The above excerpt is taken from Aham Sphurana, 17th July 1936, see here for more information on this text.

You also are a Jnani; only, you think otherwise! | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

Questioner: For Jnanis it is different; what of the common man?

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: You also are a Jnani; only, you think otherwise!

Q.: How could that be?

B.: The option of turning inwards and quietly allowing the mind to plunge and dissolve in the Self is equally available for all. It is not the fiefdom of a select few. All are verily only the Self.

Q.: That does not satisfy me. I am unable to Realise it for myself.

B.: So long as worldly attachments are present the mind cannot be succesfully turned inwards.

Q.: How to eliminate worldly attchment?

B.: By turning the mind inwards.

Q.: Really!

B.: The more you hold on to the Self or retain the mind in its native state of subjective-awareness-sustained-effortlessly-and-volitionlessly, the more the mental tendancies and worldly attachments wither off; the lesser the mental tendancies and worldly attachments, the easier does become retention of the mind in its native state of subjective-awareness-sustained-effortlessly-andvolitionlessly.

Q.: Which comes first?

B.: The sadhaka [Tom: seeker] recognises and reflects upon the ephemeral nature of the objective world and the transient nature of his own body. He gets fed up with material pleasures, because they eventually lead only to sorrow, when their enjoyment becomes, for any reason, impossible. He asks himself if a more permanent experience of life might not be possible.

Then he discovers the Ajata-advaita doctrine. Initially he is not convinced, and argues that if it were a dream there would be no possibility of corroboration, but that here his relatives and friends are able to confirm the evidence provided by his senses; he also asks why the same dream should be repeated everyday, were it all only a dream – according to him, here he sees the same sun, moon and earth everyday, whereas in his dreams he finds himself in new worlds moment to moment.

Eventually it dawns upon him that everything he thinks he knows, including an understanding of the apparent permanency of the world he believes himself to live in, is only thought or imagination. Then at the intellectual level he understands the truth – that the names and forms constituting the world are fictitious. This sparks a search for the substratum said to be underlying them, which alone is said to be Real by the wise.

He hears the teaching that the source of the mind, Beingness, is the gateway to the Real Self. Then he begins the practice of quietening the mind by vichara or any other method, tackling various distractions as and when they arise, by withdrawing attention from them and fixing it on Beingness or the Self. The beginning is only becoming fed-up with the evanescent nature of the world and the fugacious attractions it has to offer.

Q.: The boubts Bhagavan mentioned – they are my doubts also. Why is everyone witnessing the same dream? The sun, moon, etc. are seen by all.

B.: In turn those “all” are seen by you only. In deep slumber when there is no mind, nothing is available to be seen, but your existence is a constant.

Q.: Why do I dream the same dream everyday? For instance yesterday I came to the ashram and had darshan of Bhagawan; he was sitting on the same sofa in exactly the same manner. Today I am seeing Bhagawan and tomorrow also it is going to be the same Bhagawan.

B.: The future is a mere mental projection. The past is a mere memory. Have you not had dreams where the places you visit look extremely familiar?

Q.: At least is the present real?

B.: Anything seen cannot be Real. What is seen is not Pratyaksha. It is not self-evident, because there is a subject-object relationship involved. It is merely sensory information that is fed into the mind by the strength of its own evil faculty of avidya maya. That alone is Real which shines by its own light.
You are asking about the objects of the world. Can such objects exist without a YOU, a perceiver? When there is no perceiver, as in swoon or deep slumber, is there anything to be perceived? No. What is the inference? The objects owe the appearance of their apparent existence to you only. They are merely mental creations. The appearance of this enormous cosmos around you is merely a mental information. The mind is fiction. Therefore the ‘objects’ manufactured by it are also fictitious. Have not the least doubt about it.

Q.: If everything is unreal, can we conclude that bondage and liberation are also unreal?

B.: Yes.

Q.: Then why should I try to obtain Liberation? Let me remain as I am.

B.: Exactly!

Q.: I do not understand.

B.: Remaining as you are is the loftiest Sadhana.

Q.: How can remaining in ignorance be sadhana?

B.: You think that you are in ignorance. When you do not think at all, what remains is only wisdom. Removal of the screen of thought is all that is required for Reality to be revealed. Since you want a sadhana by means of which you may reach this thought-free state, vichara is suggested. Actually there is no need for any sadhana for one who has mastered the art of remaining as he is – the art of Being. That is the import of the advice Summa Iru. People generally misunderstand it. It does not mean keeping the body idle. It means keeping the mind still or free from thought. Remain perpetually absorbed in the thought-free I-Current. This will automatically lead you to the Sahaja-stithi [Tom: the natural state] without requirement for further effort.

Q.: Is even desire for Liberation an obstacle to Liberation?

B.: Yes.

The above excerpt is taken from Aham Sphurana, 17th July 1936, see here for more information on this text.

Q. The sage and the ignorant both have a body – what is the difference between them? Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana | Verse 17 Ulladu Narpadu 40 verses on Reality

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

The following is from the text Aham Sphurana from the entry dated 15th September, 1936. Some of the language is quite difficult so I have summarised the points in my comments which, as usual, are in italicised red:

Questioner: The Jnani [Tom: knower, enlightened sage] and ajnani [Tom: non-knower, the ignorant one] both have a body; what is the difference between them?

Tom: See Sri Ramana’s text ’40 Verses on Reality’ (Ulladu Narpadu), Bhagavan writes in verse 17:

17. To those who do not know the Self and to those who do, the body is the ‘I’. But to those who do not know the Self the ‘I’ is bounded by the body; while to those who within the body know the Self the ‘I’ shines boundless. Such is the difference between them.


Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The mistake made by the ajnani is that he limits his “I” to the body. Both the Jnani and the ajnani have a body, and both say ‘I am the body’. The difference lies in the fact that in the case of the Jnani the diaphanous [Tom: subtle] stream of consciousness needed to sustain life in the body is an upadhi [Tom: adjunct, superimposed object], whereas in the case of the other, that macilent [Tom: thin or subtle] ray of reflected consciousness [known as body-consciousness] is the one and only consciousness he is aware of.

I Am is the truth. Body-consciousness is an obnubilating [Tom: obscuring] limitation which obscures Revelation of the Self in the case of the ajnani and an upadhi in the case of the Jnani. You are always the same “I”, whatever state it is that may be passing in front of you. In sleep “I” remains without a body. That same “I” remains undisturbed and unmutilated in the jagrat [Tom: waking] and swapna [Tom: dream] states also.

Tom: To summarise the above paragraph, which contains some convoluted language, Bhagavan says that for the Jnani, the body is a mere appearance in Consciousness (Upadhi) which doesn’t cover his true identity as Self/Consciousness, whereas for the ajnani, the body is the sole identity and this obscures the vision of Truth of ‘I’ or ‘I AM’ or ‘True Self’. However, we will see below that this description is only from the relative point of view, and that truly there is no body for the Jnani in Truth.

Only, in these states, we abandon our actual identity with “I” and imagine ourselves to be perishable bodies made of matter. Despite this confusion on our part, “I” remains happily without a body in truth always, although we assume that we are within the body. Although by us imagined to be within the body, the Real “I” ever is without any body or other limitation, being the Absolute Immutable Self Itself. One’s ignorant outlook is not merely ‘I am the body.’; it lies in having confounded the Self with the not-Self, such as the mind, intellect or body. Does the Real “I” formulate or proclaim the idea of it being this or that? Is it not always perfectly silent? It is the spurious “I” which is capable of rumbustiousness or obstreperousness, and which says, ‘I am this.’ or ‘I am that.’.The body is insentient and cannot say so. Our mistake lies in thinking “I” to be what “I” is not. “I” cannot be insentient; therefore “I” is not the inert body. What then is this “I”? “I” means Sentience or Awareness which is not adumbrated by the faculty of thought-manufacture- i.e., the aham vritti.

The body’s movements are confounded with “I” and excruciating agony is the result. Whether the body and mind work or not, “I” remains free and happy i.e., in its nativistic or intrinsic state of ecstatic, Eternal Emancipation. The ajnani’s “I” is limited to his body and mind only; that is where his whole error lies. The Jnani’s “I” includes the body and everything else. For the Emancipated-one there cannot be anything apart from “I” the Self. He sees no other. Verily everything is only Himself. In the case of the ajnani, some phantasmagoric, intermediate entity known as ahankaram [Tom: ego] arises between the body and the Self and gives rise to all sorts of trouble. If its source is sought, it disappears, leaving the Self alone behind, as the solitary residue. Continuous and intense inward-pointed scrutiny of the mind results in its disappearance.

Tom: similar to my previous comments, Bhagavan is saying essentially the same thing here, namely that the Jnani is not identified with the body whereas the ajnani is. There is also a hint that in truth there is no body, and this is made slightly clearer below.

Bhagavan also says that it is this phantom ego which arises and claims to be I and also claims to be the body, and it is this that ‘gives rise to all sorts of trouble’. The method of self-enquiry is thereafter briefly described – seek the source of this ego, and via this continuous intense inward pointedness of mind, the mind disappears and Self-knowledge remains.

Q.: Since the Jnani has a tangible body, what happens to the soul in that body after its death?

B.: Others say that the Jnani has a body, and talk of jivanmukti, videhamukti, mukti by means of making the body disappear in a flash of blazing light, etc.; the Jnani’s experience of Reality is altogether unconditioned and totally absolute. His experience is that he has no body. If others see him as being one with a body, or as possessing a body, can that affect him? He does not identify himself with the body even whilst the body is yet alive. Can the death of the body then affect him?

Tom: for a moment here Bhagavan Sri Ramana speaks in absolute terms, declaring that for the Self or Jnani, there is no body at all. Below, however, Bhagavan will flip back into speaking in relative terms, presumably due to the nature of the question and the state of the questioner:

Q.: But just now Bhagawan said that the Jnani also says “I am the body.”.

B.: Yes. His “I” includes the body. His experience is that for him there cannot be anything apart from “I”. If the body is destroyed there is no loss for the “I”. “I” remains the same as ever. If the body feels dead let it raise questions. Can it? No; being inert it cannot. “I” never dies and it does not ask any question. Who then dies and who asks questions?

Q.: For whom are all the sacred-books then? They cannot be for the real “I”. They must be for the unreal “I”. The real one would not require them. Am I correct?

B.: Yes, yes.

Q.: Is it not strange that an unreal entity should have so many sacred-books written for him?

B.: Quite so. Death is merely a thought and nothing more. He who thinks raises questions and experiences troubles. Let the thinker tell us what happens to him in death.

Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Om