body

The Sage or Guru is the form of Ultimate Reality

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

“Those who say that the reality has no form are those who do not know the reality. For the form of the Sage [sahaja nishta] who correctly knows and abides in the reality, Self, the nature of which is like the [all- pervading] nature of space, is verily the form of the reality. Know this.”

Sri Ramana Maharshi, Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 656


Commentary by Sri Muruganar:

Through this verse, Sri Bhagavan disproves the saying, ‘The reality has no form’. How? Since the Sage [sahaja nishtha] who has known the reality as it is, is none other than the reality, He Himself is the very form of that reality. This is what is meant by saying, ‘Jnani Himself is Self’. Sri Muruganar here refers to the Bhagavad Gita, chapter 7, verse 18, in which Sri Krishna says that the Jnani is Atma.

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj: in self-realisation there is no perception of a body, mind or world | Ajata | Advaita Vedanta | Maya and illusion

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

The following quotes are all from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM), taken from the book ‘I Am That’ by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj.

NM gave many different teachings, depending on the level of the seeker and the context. The ego-mind often clings to the lower teachings for safety and security – here only the higher teachings are included, so please only read the following if you have a deep and sincere interest in liberation.

If you read carefully, you will see the following themes stated and expounded by NM:

  1. The self-realised jnani has no consciousness of having a body.
  2. The self-realised jnani has no consciousness of a world or phenomena arising.
  3. The apparent consciousness of the world is only due to ignorance, also known as the ‘I thought’ or the ‘I am the body sense’. This ignorance is also known as ‘imagination’, ‘illusion’, ‘ego’ or ‘the mind’.
  4. Ignorance of what you truly are projects the (false) appearance of a world, which includes the appearance of the body-mind and world. These do not appear to a jnani.
  5. All conversation, teachings, words and thoughts are in illusion only, as are all teachers. Similarly, birth and death only (appear to) exist for the ignorant.

These are of course the Ajata teachings, and you can read about them here in this article and also in the introductory articles on the tomdas.com homepage.

Some may say that this notion of liberation is not appealing at all (for the ego-mind), but of course it is actually everything you are looking for and more. It is the treasure found within, this is the ‘kingdom of God’ within us. Anything less and the seeking, the doubts and the sense of ego will not end, and so suffering and duality will continue; hence the value of these teachings in reminding us to continue to go further with our sadhana until all objective phenomena have dissolved rather than stop prematurely.

Many of these quotes below are also found in the wonderful book The Seven Steps to Awakening, one of the best books ever written on self-realisation and liberation. This book goes much further than this article and clearly describes other aspects of the teaching including the method by which self-realisation can be attained.

Here are the quotes from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj:

The body and mind are only symptoms of ignorance, of misapprehension.

——-

He who knows the state in which there is neither the world nor the thought of it, he is the Supreme Teacher.

——-

What do you know of me, when even my talk with you is in your world only?

——-

NM: The body appears in your mind; in my mind nothing is.
Q: Do you mean to say you are quite unconscious of having a body?
NM: On the contrary, I am conscious of not having a body.
Q: I see you smoking!
NM: Exactly so. You see me smoking. Find out for yourself how did you come to see me smoking, and you will easily realize that it is your ‘I am the body’ state of mind that is responsible for this ‘I see you smoking’ idea.

——-

Nothing dies. The body is just imagined. There is no such thing.

——-

In my world nothing happens

——-

Without imagination there is no world.

——-

If you seek real happiness, unassailable and unchangeable, you must leave the world with its pains and pleasures behind you.

——-

You are neither the body nor in the body – there is no such thing as body

——-

NM: My world is real, while yours is made of dreams
Q: Yet we are talking.
NM: The talk is in your world. In mine – there is eternal silence. My silence sings, my emptiness is full, I lack nothing. You cannot know my world until you are there.

——-

It is not at all as you imagine and I am not bound by your imaginings.

——-

Q. If all that passes has no being, then the universe has no being either
NM: Who ever denies it? Of course the universe has no being.

——-

In reality, nothing ever happens.

——-

No doubt imagination is richly creative. Universe within universe are built on it. Yet they are all in space and time, past and future, which just do not exist.

——-

In pure consciousness nothing ever happens

——-

The moment you allow your imagination to spin, it at once spins out a universe.

——-

There is no body, nor a world to contain it; there is only a mental condition, a dreamlike state, easy to dispel by questioning its reality.

——-

All experience is born of imagination; I do not imagine, so no birth or death happens to me.

——-

To take appearance for reality is a grievous sin and the cause of all calamities

——-

It is by your consent that the world exists. Withdraw your belief in its reality and it will dissolve like a dream.

——-

What is real is nameless and formless.

——-

Do understand that what you think to be the world is your own mind

——-

I take my stand where no difference exists, where things are not, nor the minds that create them. There I am at home.

——-

All thinking is in duality. In identity [Tom: ie. self realisation] no thought surives

——-

Now go within, into a state in which you may compare to a state of waking sleep, in which you are aware of yourself, but not of the world. In that state you will know, without the least trace of doubt, that at the root of your being you are free and happy.

——-

To know yourself, turn your attention away from the world and turn it within.

——-

The world appears to you so overwhelmingly real, because you think of it all the time; cease thinking of it and it will dissolve into thin mist.

——-

To see what Sri Ramana Maharshi thought of the same Ajata teachings please see this article here.

This article here also goes into what Shankara wrote on these Ajata teachings.

Does the body give rise to consciousness or consciousness give rise to the body? | Advaita Vedanta | Non-Duality

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Fact: as long as the body continues to appear in your experience, you will never be 100% sure if it is the body that gives rise to consciousness, or (eternal unchanging) consciousness that gives rise to the body.

This is why all the great sages have advocated the need to turn inwards, away from all sense objects thoughts and phenomena, for deep and total silence of mind and thoughts, so the true nature of what you are can be intuited (without the mind or body or sense objects/world being present), and in this way the birthless deathless eternal and changing self can be realised (again, without the mind. Realisation is not for the mind or by the person).

🙏

Shankara: the body and mind are symptoms of ignorance | Advaita Vedanta | Nisargadatta Maharaj

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

Sri Shankara, both in his commentaries and in his shorter works, often writes that the body and mind are symptoms (or effects) of ignorance, and when ignorance goes, the symptoms or effects of ignorance also go.

He also writes that the body, mind and world can never have any connection whatsoever with What You Truly Are, the Self, Pure Consciousness – and that only through ignorance can a connection between the two appear to be there.

eg. In Vivekachudamani Shankara writes:

195. But for delusion there can be no connection of the Self – which is unattached, beyond activity and formless – with the objective world, as in the case of blueness etc., with reference to the sky.

196. The Jivahood of the Atman, the Witness, which is beyond qualities and beyond activity, and which is realised within as Knowledge and Bliss Absolute – has been superimposed by the delusion of the Buddhi, and is not real. And because it is by nature an unreality, it ceases to exist when the delusion is gone.

197. It exists only so long as the delusion lasts, being caused by indiscrimination due to an illusion. The rope is supposed to be the snake only so long as the mistake lasts, and there is no more snake when the illusion has vanished. Similar is the case here.

198-199. Avidya or Nescience and its effects are likewise considered as beginningless. But with the rise of Vidya or realisation, the entire effects of Avidya, even though beginningless, are destroyed together with their root – like dreams on waking up from sleep. It is clear that the phenomenal universe, even though without beginning, is not eternal – like previous non-existence.

200-201. Previous non-existence, even though beginningless, is observed to have an end. So the Jivahood which is imagined to be in the Atman through its relation with superimposed attributes such as the Buddhi, is not real; whereas the other (the Atman) is essentially different from it. The relation between the Atman and the Buddhi is due to a false knowledge.

202. The cessation of that superimposition takes place through perfect knowledge, and by no other means. Perfect knowledge, according to the Shrutis, consists in the realisation of the identity of the individual soul and Brahman.

205. When the unreal ceases to exist, this very individual soul is definitely realised as the eternal Self. Therefore one must make it a point completely to remove things like egoism from the eternal Self.

Here Sri Nisargadatta also says the same:


Does the liberated Jnani or Sage see the body, the mind, the world or the 3 states of deep sleep, waking and dream according to Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Adi Shankara? | Advaita Vedanta Essential teachings| Picture quotes

~ Tom Das ~ 8 Comments

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):

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

Q. Is it really true that I am not this body? Physical pain & liberation, How to elminate wordly attachment? Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana book excerpt | Advaita Vedanta

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

The following is a teaching excerpt from a large unedited manuscript, well over 1000 pages long, called ‘Aham Sphurana’.

Aham Sphurana [‘I Shining’ or ‘I vibration’ or ‘I Am shining’ or ‘Shining of the I AM’] claims to contain a collection of previously unpublished talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi as apparently recorded by a visitor to Sri Ramana Ashrama, Sri Gajapathi Aiyyer, in 1936.

The authenticity of the teachings as being genuinely from Sri Ramana Maharshi cannot be confirmed, a fact acknowledged in the manuscript preamble itself, but I share these teachings here in case they are of interest to you.

17th July 1936

Questioner: Is it really true that I am not this body?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

Questioner: If so, when some damage is suffered by the body, why do I feel pain? If, say, a piece of burning coal falls on somebody near me, I do not feel anything, but that person alone feels the pain. Likewise if a thorn pricks my foot I alone feel the pain, but not the one walking by my side.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Does the body cry out, saying, ‘I am feeling pain!’? You associate yourself with your body and speak of it as your “I”. The body is only in the mind. All pain apparently suffered by the body is as imaginary as the body itself. The body cannot know anything. It is insentient flesh and bone. Notions of pain spring from our own imagination only. Thus, in deep slumber, the mind being inactive, there is no pain.

Questioner: Suppose I have a piece of metal wire in my hand. If I cut it into pieces, the metal cannot be aware that it is being cut, because it is insentient. Whereas, if a living body were to so much as be scratched, it explodes with agony. In what sense, therefore, does Bhagavan mean that the body is insentient?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: True, the body experiences the physical stimulus of pain if it is injured, but why should that fact create a thought in the mind, “I am feeling pain.”?

Physical pain creates mental agony because of the following reason – the mind assumes itself to be the body and appropriates to itself the bodily identity, because in the absence of such false self-objectification it cannot survive or thrive. If the idea “I am the body” is abandoned, everything, including pain suffered by the body, is only Bliss.

Questioner: But I am aware of the pain if the body is injured!

Sri Ramana Maharshi: When the body is injured, in the case of the unenlightened one, the following happens – his body feels the physical stimulus of pain, and his mind spontaneously manifests the thought, “I am injured”, causing him to become mentally agitated; the reason for the manifestation of such thought is the underlying erroneous idea “I am the body”. In one who is free from the mistaken idea of accepting the body for the Self, injury of the body causes no disturbance to his peace. Each one is indeed the Self, but absurdly confounds himself with the not-Self and so needlessly suffers on account of such dehatma-buddhi.

Questioner: The question still remains – if, as postulated by Sri Bhagawan, the body is insentient, how can it and why does it feel pain at all?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The word “pain” is employed because there is a prejudice in the mind against such stimuli. When the mind is dissolved in Pure Consciousness, its prejudices also disappear. For the enlightened one, therefore, pain and pleasure are physical stimuli that stand on an equal footing. He does not covet the one and abhor the other; nor does he abhor the one and covet the other. Mind gone, there remains no yardstick by means of which one sensation is to be regarded as pain and another as pleasure.

Questioner: Sri Bhagavan seriously means to say he is unable to tell the difference between the sensation that ensues when an insect bites his leg and the one that ensues when someone is massaging it?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: That they are different sensations is self-evident; that the one is abhorrent and the other agreeable is mere mental judgement from which the Jnani is quite free. He himself seeks out neither pain nor pleasure, but accepts what comes his way without resisting; in Jnana only automatic acceptance remains.

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

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

Questioner: How could that be?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: 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.

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

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

Questioner: How to eliminate worldly attchment?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: By turning the mind inwards.

Questioner: Really!

Sri Ramana Maharshi: 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.

Questioner: Which comes first?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The sadhaka 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.

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

Sri Ramana Maharshi: 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.

Questioner: 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.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: 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?

Questioner: At least is the present real?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: 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.

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

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

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

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Exactly!

Questioner: I do not understand.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Remaining as you are is the loftiest Sadhana.

Questioner: How can remaining in ignorance be sadhana?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: 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 [Tom: ‘Be Still’]. 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, ie. liberation or self-realisation] without requirement for further effort.

Questioner: Is even desire for Liberation an obstacle to Liberation?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes

Shankara: Absolute separation from the body is liberation | Bliss (Ananda) and the Self | Advaita Vedanta | Commentary on Upanishads

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Tom: Shankara writes the following in his commentary of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.29.7. My comments are interspersed in italicised red with Shankara’s writings in black.

Here Shankara is making the point that strictly speaking there is no knowing or knowledge in Self-Knowledge/Self-Realisation/The Self, meaning there is no existence of or involvement of the mind in Self. He gives the analogy of water being thrown into a larger tank of water – that initial water does not retain its separateness by which it can know the larger body of water into which it was thrown. Self-knowledge is just a phrase used to point to That which cannot be put into words.

If there was an entity that could know Brahman or know of Brahman, then that would imply 2 entities, Brahman and and knower of Brahman. Or it would imply differentiation of Brahman. Either of these would contradict shruti (revealed scripture/revealed knowledge).

Similarly, Shankara states that bliss is not cognised in Self-Realisation for the same reasons. Rather Bliss is the nature of Self, not something experienced by the Self or by some self-realised entity or person (which is another illusion).

Incidentally, Shankara also reveals just how radical liberation is, stating that in liberation there is no body, no organs, no mind, no knowledge:

Also see: What exactly is Jnana (knowledge) according to Shankara and Gaudapada and the scriptures?

[Shankara:] Absolute separation from the body is liberation, and when there is no body there can be no organs, for they will have no support . Hence too there will be no knowledge, there being no body and organs. If knowledge could arise even in the absence of the body and organs, there would be no necessity for any one to possess them. Moreover (if Brahman as Knowledge Absolute cognises the bliss in liberation), it will contradict the oneness of Brahman.

Tom: Shankara clearly states in liberation there is total or absolute separation from Body, and then says there is no body in liberation. Without a body, there can be no mind and without a mind there can be no cognition or knowledge (in the ordinary sense of these words).

We see similar teachings from Sri Ramana Maharshi: in Ulladu Narpadu verse 12, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

True Knowledge is Being, devoid of knowledge as well as ignorance of objects. Knowledge of objects is not true knowledge. Since the Self shines self-luminous, with nothing else for It to know, with nothing else to know It, the Self is Knowledge. Nescience [ignorance] It is not.

In Upadesa Saram verse 27, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

That is true knowledge which transcends
Both knowledge and ignorance,
For in pure knowledge
Is no object to be known.

OBJECTION: Suppose we say that the Supreme Brahman, being eternal Knowledge, ever knows Itself as Bliss Absolute?

REPLY: No, (this has just been answered). Even the person under bondage, when freed from relative existence, would regain one’s real nature (Brahman). (So the same argument would apply also) .

Like a quantity of water thrown into a tank, one does not retain a separate existence so as to know the blissful Brahman. Hence, to say that the liberated person knows the blissful Self is meaningless. If, on the other hand, the liberated one, being different from Brahman, knows the bliss of Brahman and the individual self as, “I am the Bliss Absolute”, then the oneness of Brahman is contradicted, which would be against all Srutis; and there is no third alternative.

Tom: See my explanation in the introduction above

Moreover, if Brahman ever knows Its own bliss, it is superfluous to distinguish between awareness and unawareness. If It is constantly aware of this bliss, then that is Its nature; hence there is no sense in maintaining that It cognises Its own bliss.

Tom: the point here is that if Brahman is ‘constantly aware of it’s own bliss’, then this bliss is simply the nature of the Self, as Self is One, and it doesn’t make sense to think of an entity that cognises or perceives bliss in some way in Self-Realisation.

Such a view would be tenable if ever there was the possibility of Its not knowing that bliss, as for instance one knows oneself and another (by an act of will). There is certainly no sense in distinguishing between a state of awareness and one of unawareness in the case of one whose mind is uninterruptedly absorbed in making an arrow, for instance.

Tom: Shankara’s argument here is saying that to speak of ‘constantly knowing bliss’ during self-realisation would only make sense if there would be a possibility of not knowing bliss during self-realisation, which is not possible, so again, bliss is the nature of Self and not a cognised object.

If, on the other hand, Brahman or the Self is supposed to be knowing Its bliss interruptedly, then in the intervals when It does not cognise Itself, It must know something else; and the Self would become changeful, which would make It non-permanent.

Tom: If the bliss of Brahman came and went, or increased and decreased, then that would mean the Self is subject to change (which it isn’t) and is therefore impermanent (which it isn’t).

Hence the text, ” Knowledge , Bliss “, etc, must be interpreted as setting forth the nature of Brahman, and not signifying that the bliss of the Self is cognised.

Tom: Regarding the initial statement of Shankara’s above, namely that there is no body in Liberation, here are some quotes of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s that say the same, taken from Guru Vachaka Kovai:

86 Don’t ask, “How did this error rise,
Why this ignorance that the Self
Itself is as the world transformed?”
Seek rather and find out to whom
This happened, and the error [Tom: of the world appearance] will
Persist no more.

87 What is the Self’s self-transformation
As the world? A coil of straw
Appearing as a snake? Look hard,
You see no snake at all. There is
No transformation, no creation, none,
No world at all. [Tom: ie. ajata vada]

97 Only the mind, by maya’s might
Deluded, and looking outward sees
The body. The true Self knows no body.
To call the Self of Pure Awareness
The body’s owner or indweller
Is an error.

[Tom: This is reference to Chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna states the Self is the knower of the body, and various other scriptures which advise that the Self is somewhere deep within the body, dwelling in each and everyone’s body, here Bhagavan Ramana is saying even this is not true, pointing us to a deeper teaching]

1230 The things you think of as existing
Do not exist. But That of which
You know not if it does exist
Or does not [Tom: ie. the supreme birthless deathless unchanging ever-pure blissful Self], That alone exists.

Liberation has nothing to do with the body or mind

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

If liberation or self-knowledge was something to do with the mind, then a firm and swift blow to the head could put an end to that liberation.

Luckily, liberation has nothing to do with the body or the mind.

It is beyond time and space.

🙏❤️