The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words -1

The Teachings of Bhagavan

Sri Ramana Maharshi

in His Own Words

Edited by:

ARTHUR OSBORNE

PREFACE

During the half century and more of his life at

Tiruvannamalai, Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi was visited

by a constant stream of people from all parts of India, and by

many from the West, seeking spiritual guidance, or consolation

in grief, or simply the experience of his presence. He wrote

very little all these years, but a number of records of his talks

with visitors were kept and subsequently published by his

Ashram. These are mostly in diary form, with little arrangement

according to subject. The purpose of the present book is to

build up a general exposition of the Maharshi’s teachings by

selecting and fitting together passages from these dialogues and

from his writings (published as The Collected Works of Sri Ramana

Maharshi, by Messrs. Rider & Co., in England and by Sri

Ramanasramam in India). The editor’s comments have been

kept to a minimum and are printed in smaller type to

distinguish them clearly from the Maharshi’s own words.

No distinction is made between the periods at which the

Maharshi made any statement, and none is needed, for he

was not a philosopher working out a system but a Realised

Man speaking from direct knowledge. It sometimes happens

that one who is on a spiritual path, or even who has not yet

begun consciously seeking, has a glimpse of Realisation during

which, for a brief eternity, he experiences absolute certainty

of his divine, immutable, universal Self. Such an experience

came to the Maharshi when he was a lad of sixteen. He himself

has described it:

It was about six weeks before I left Madurai for good that the

great change in my life took place. It was quite sudden. I was

iv

sitting alone in a room on the first floor of my uncle’s house.

I seldom had any sickness, and on that day there was nothing

wrong with my health, but a sudden violent fear of death

overtook me. There was nothing in my state of health to

account for it, and I did not try to account for it or to find

out whether there was any reason for the fear. I just felt ‘I am

going to die’ and began thinking what to do about it. It did

not occur to me to consult a doctor, or my elders or friends; I

felt that I had to solve the problem myself, there and then.

The shock of the fear of death drove my mind inwards and

I said to myself mentally, without actually framing the words:

‘Now death has come; what does it mean? What is it that is

dying? The body dies.’ And I at once dramatised the occurrence

of death. I lay with my limbs stretched out stiff as though

rigor mortis had set in, and imitated a corpse so as to give

greater reality to the enquiry. I held my breath and kept my

lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape, so that neither

the word ‘I’ nor any other word could be uttered. ‘Well then,’

I said to myself, ‘this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to

the burning ground and there burnt and reduced to ashes.

But with the death of this body am I dead? Is the body I? It is

silent and inert but I feel the full force of my personality and

even the voice of the “I” within me, apart from it. So I am

Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the Spirit

that transcends it cannot be touched by death. That means I

am the deathless Spirit.’ All this was not dull thought; it flashed

through me vividly as living truth which I perceived directly,

almost without thought-process. ‘I’ was something very real,

the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious

activity connected with my body was centred on that ‘I’. From

that moment onwards the ‘I’ or Self, focused attention on

Itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death had vanished

once and for all. Absorption in the Self continued unbroken

from that time on.1

1 R. M., pp. 8-10.

v

It is the last sentence that is the most remarkable, because

usually such an experience soon passes, although the impression

of certainty that it leaves on the mind is never afterwards

forgotten. Very rare are the cases when it remains permanent,

leaving a man thenceforth in constant identity with the

Universal Self. Such a one was the Maharshi.

Soon after this change occurred, the youth who was later

to be known as ‘the Maharshi’ left home as a sadhu. He made

his way to Tiruvannamalai, the town at the foot of the holy hill

of Arunachala, and remained there for the rest of his life.

For a while he sat immersed in Divine Bliss, not speaking,

scarcely eating, utterly neglecting the body he no longer needed.

Gradually, however, devotees gathered around him and, for their

sake, he returned to an outwardly normal life. Many of them,

craving instruction, brought him books to read and expound,

and he thus became learned almost by accident, neither seeking

nor valuing learning. The ancient teaching of non-duality that

he thus acquired merely formalised what he had already realised.

He has explained this himself:

I had read no books except the Periapuranam, The Bible and

bits of Thayumanavar or Thevaram. My conception of Ishwara

was similar to that found in the Puranas; I had never heard of

Brahman, samsara and so forth. I did not yet know that there

was an essence or impersonal Real underlying everything, and

that Ishwara and I were both identical with It. Later at

Tiruvannamalai, as I listened to the Ribhu Gita and other

sacred books, I learned all this and found that the books were

analysing and naming what I had felt intuitively without

analysis or name.1

1 R. M., p. 16.

Perhaps something should be said about the Maharshi’s

way of answering questions. There was nothing heavy or

pontifical about it. He spoke freely and his replies were often

given with laughter and humour. If the questioner was not

satisfied, he was free to object or ask further questions. It has

been said that the Maharshi taught in silence, but this does not

mean that he gave no verbal expositions, only that these were

not the essential teaching. That was experienced as a silent

influence in the Heart. The power of his presence was

overwhelming and his beauty indescribable, and yet, at the same

time, he was utterly simple, utterly natural, unassuming,

unpretentious, unaffected.

For the sake of uniformity, the questioner has been referred

to in the dialogues in this book as ‘D’, standing for devotee,

except in cases where the name is given or where for some

reason, the word ‘devotee’ would not apply. The Maharshi has

been referred to as ‘B’, standing for Bhagavan, since it was usual

to address him by this name and in the third person. Actually, it

is a word commonly used to mean ‘God’ but it is used also in

those rare cases where a man is felt to be, as Christ put it, ‘One

with the Father’. It is the same as the name for the Buddha,

commonly translated into English as the ‘Blessed One’.

So far as is possible, Sanskrit words have been avoided,

and it usually has been possible. The purpose of this is to make

the book easier to read, and also to avoid giving the false

impression that the quest of Self-Realisation is some intricate

science, which can be understood only with a knowledge of

Sanskrit terminology. It is true that there are spiritual sciences

which have a necessary technical terminology, but they are more

indirect. The clear and simple truth of non-duality which

Bhagavan taught, and the direct path of Self-enquiry which he

vi

vii

enjoined, can be expounded in simple language; and indeed,

he himself expounded them so to Western visitors, without

having recourse to Sanskrit terminology. In the rare cases where

a Sanskrit term has seemed necessary or useful in this book, its

approximate meaning has been indicated in brackets, so that

no glossary is necessary. It may also be remarked that the English

words – Enlightenment, Liberation, and Self-Realisation have

all been used with the same meaning, to correspond with the

Sanskrit words Jnana, Moksha and Mukti.

In places where the English of the source quoted seemed

infelicitous, it has been altered. This implies no infidelity to the

texts since the replies were mostly given in Tamil or other South

Indian languages, and later rendered into English. The meaning

has not been changed.

ARTHUR OSBORNE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

T. : Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi

D.D. : Day by Day with Bhagavan by A. Devaraja Mudaliar

(5th Edition, 2002)

M.G. : Maharshi’s Gospel (12th Edition, 2000)

S.D.B. : Sat Darshana Bhashya

R.M. : Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-knowledge

by Arthur Osborne (2nd Edition, 2002)

W. : Who am I?

S.E. : Self-Enquiry

S.I. : Spiritual Instruction

E.I. : Essence of Instruction

F.V. : Forty Verses

F.V.S. : Supplementary Forty Verses

Reference numbers refer to page numbers except with

Essence of Instruction, Forty Verses, and Supplement, in which

they refer to the number of the verses, and Talks with Sri Ramana

Maharshi, in which they refer to the serial number of the Talks.

CHAPTER ONE

THE BASIC THEORY

Readers of a philosophical turn of mind may find it strange to

see the first chapter of this work entitled “The Basic Theory”.

It may appear to them that the whole work should be devoted

to theory. In fact, however, the Maharshi, like every spiritual

master, was concerned rather with the practical work of

training aspirants than with expounding theory. The theory

had importance, but only as a basis for practice.

D.: Buddha is said to have ignored questions about God.

B.: Yes, and because of this he has been called an agnostic.

In fact Buddha was concerned with guiding the seeker to realise

Bliss here and now, rather than with academic discussions about

God and so forth.1

D.: Is the study of science, psychology, physiology, etc.,

helpful for attaining Yoga-liberation or for intuitive understanding

of the unity of Reality?

B.: Very little. Some theoretical knowledge is needed

for Yoga and may be found in books, but practical application

is what is needed. Personal example and instruction are the

most helpful aids. As for intuitive understanding, a person

may laboriously convince himself of the truth to be grasped

by intuition, of its function and nature, but the actual

intuition is more like feeling and requires practical and

personal contact. Mere book learning is not of any great

2

1 T., 28.

2 F. V. S., 35, 36

3 F. V., 34.

use. After Realisation all intellectual loads are useless burdens

and are to be thrown overboard.1

Pre-occupation with theory, doctrine and philosophy can

actually be harmful, insofar as it distracts a man from the

really important work of spiritual effort, by offering an easier

alternative which is merely mental, and which therefore cannot

change his nature.

What use is the learning of those who do not seek to wipe

out the letters of destiny (from their brow) by enquiring:

‘Whence is the birth of us who know the letters?’ They have

sunk to the level of a gramophone. What else are they,

O Arunachala?

It is those who are not learned that are saved rather than

those whose ego has not yet subsided in spite of their learning.

The unlearned are saved from the relentless grip of the devil of

self-infatuation; they are saved from the malady of a myriad

whirling thoughts and words; they are saved from running after

wealth. It is from more than one evil that they are saved.2

Similarly he had no use for theoretical discussions.

It is due to illusion born of ignorance that men fail to

recognise that which is always and for everybody the inherent

Reality dwelling in its natural heart-centre and to abide in it,

and that instead they argue that it exists or does not exist, that it

has form or has not form, or is non-dual or is dual.3

Can anything appear apart from that which is eternal and

perfect? This kind of dispute is endless. Do not engage in it.

3

Instead turn your mind inward and put an end to all this. There

is no finality in disputations.1

Ultimately, even the scriptures are useless.

The scriptures serve to indicate the existence of the Higher

Power or Self and to point the way to It. That is their essential

purpose. Apart from that they are useless. However, they are

voluminous, in order to be adapted to the level of development of

every seeker. As a man rises in the scale he finds the stages already

attained to be only stepping stones to higher stages, until finally

the goal is reached. When that happens, the goal alone remains

and everything else, including the scriptures, become useless.2

Sometimes, it is true, he expounded philosophy in all its

intricacies, but only as a concession to weakness, to those

addicted to much thinking’, as he put it in Self-Enquiry. I

had thought of quoting such an explanation here, but found

that it contained the passage:

The intricate maze of philosophy of the various schools is

said to clarify matters and to reveal the Truth, but in fact it

creates confusion where none need exist. To understand

anything there must be the Self. The Self is obvious, so why not

remain as the Self? What need to explain the non-self?

And of himself he adds:

I was indeed fortunate that I never took to it (i.e. philosophy).

Had I taken to it I would probably be nowhere; but my inherent

tendencies led me directly to inquire ‘Who am I?’ How fortunate!3

1 T., 132.

2 T., 63.

3 T., 392.

4

THE WORLD – REAL OR ILLUSION?

Nevertheless, some theoretical teaching is necessary as the basis

for the practical work of spiritual training. With the Maharshi

this took the form of non-duality, in complete accordance

with the teachings of the great Sage, Shankara. The agreement

does not, however, mean that Bhagavan was, as a philosopher

would put it, ‘influenced by’ Shankara, merely that the

recognised Shankara’s teaching as a true exposition of what he

had realised and knew by direct knowledge.

D.: Is Bhagavan’s teaching the same as Shankara’s?

B.: Bhagavan’s teaching is an expression of his own

experience and realisation. Others find that it tallies with

Sri Shankara’s.1

D.: When the Upanishads say that all is Brahman, how

can we agree with Shankara that this world is illusory?

B.: Shankara also said that this world is Brahman or the

Self. What he objected to is one’s imagining that the Self is

limited by the names and forms that constitute the world. He

only said that the world has no reality apart from Brahman.

Brahman or the Self is like a cinema screen and the world like

the pictures on it. You can see the picture only so long as there

is a screen. But when the observer himself becomes the screen

only the Self remains.2

Shankara has been criticised for his philosophy of Maya

(illusion) without understanding his meaning. He made three

statements: that Brahman is real, that the universe is unreal,

and that Brahman is the Universe. He did not stop with the

second. The third statement explains the first two; it signifies

1 T., 189.

2 D. D., p. 238.

5

that when the Universe is perceived apart from Brahman, that

perception is false and illusory. What it amounts to is that

phenomena are real when experienced as the Self and illusory

when seen apart from the Self.1

The Self alone exists and is real. The world, the individual

and God are, like the illusory appearance of silver in the motherof-

pearl, imaginary creations in the Self.2 They appear and

disappear simultaneously. Actually, the Self alone is the world,

the ‘I’ and God. All that exists is only a manifestation of the

Supreme.3

D.: What is reality?

B.: Reality must always be real. It has no names or forms

but is what underlies them. It underlies all limitations, being

itself limitless. It is not bound in any way. It underlies unrealities,

being itself Real. It is that which is. It is as it is. It transcends

speech and is beyond description such as being or non-being.4

He would not be entangled in apparent disagreements due

merely to a different viewpoint or mode of expression.

D.: The Buddhists deny the world whereas Hindu

philosophy admits its existence but calls it unreal, isn’t that so?

B.: It is only a difference of point of view.

D.: They say that the world is created by Divine Energy

(Shakti). Is the knowledge of unreality due to the veiling by

illusion (Maya)?

1 R. M., p. 92.

2 As will appear later, this does not in fact imply ‘atheism’ any more than

the previous quotation implies ‘pantheism’. In fact, labels are not much

use in trying to understand what is not a system of philosophy but a

theoretical basis for spiritual effort.

3 W., § 16.

4 T., 140.

6

B.: All admit creation by the Divine Energy, but what is

the nature of this energy? It must be in conformity with the

nature of its creation.

D.: Are there degrees of illusion?

B.: Illusion itself is illusory. It must be seen by somebody

outside it, but how can such a seer be subject to it? So, how can

he speak of degrees of it?

You see various scenes passing on a cinema screen: fire

seems to burn buildings to ashes; water seems to wreck ships;

but the screen on which the pictures are projected remains

unburnt and dry. Why? Because the pictures are unreal and

the screen real.

Similarly, reflections pass through a mirror but it is not

affected at all by their number or quality.

In the same way, the world is a phenomenon upon the

substratum of the single Reality which is not affected by it in

any way. Reality is only One.

Talk of illusion is due only to the point of view. Change

your viewpoint to that of Knowledge and you will perceive the

Universe to be only Brahman. Being now immersed in the world,

you see it as a real world; get beyond it and it will disappear and

Reality alone will remain.1

As the last excerpt shows, the postulate of one universal Reality

calls for the conception of a process either of illusion or

creation to explain the apparent reality of the world.

The world is perceived as an apparent objective reality

when the mind is externalised, thereby abandoning its identity

with the Self. When the world is thus perceived the true nature

1 T., 446.

7

of the Self is not revealed; conversely, when the Self is realised

the world ceases to appear as an objective reality.1

That is illusion which makes one take what is ever present

and all pervasive, full to perfection and self-luminous and is

indeed the Self and the core of one’s Being, for non-existent

and unreal. Conversely, that is illusion which makes one take

for real and self-existent what is non-existent and unreal, namely

the trilogy of world, ego and God.2

The world is indeed real, but not as an independent, selfsubsistent

reality, just as a man you see in a dream is real as a

dream-figure but not as a man.

To those who have not realised the Self as well as to those

who have, the world is real. But to the former, Truth is adapted

to the form of the world whereas to the latter Truth shines as

the formless Perfection and the Substratum of the world. This

is the only difference between them.3

As I recalled Bhagavan saying sometimes that unreal

(mithya, imaginary) and real (satyam) mean the same, but did

not quite understand, I asked him about it. He said, ‘Yes, I do

sometimes say that. What do you mean by real? What is it that

you call real?’

I answered: “According to Vedanta, only that which is

permanent and unchanging can be called real. That is the

meaning of Reality.”

Then Bhagavan said: “The names and forms which

constitute the world continually change and perish and are

therefore called unreal. It is unreal (imaginary) to limit the Self

1 W., § 8.

2 S. I., Chap. II, § 5.

3 F. V., 18.

8

to these names and forms and real to regard all as the Self. The

non-dualist says that the world is unreal, but he also says, ‘All

this is Brahman’. So it is clear that what he condemns is,

regarding the world as objectively real in itself, not regarding it

as Brahman. He who sees the Self sees the Self alone in the

world also. It is immaterial to the Enlightened whether the world

appears or not. In either case, his attention is turned to the Self.

It is like the letters and the paper on which they are printed.

You are so engrossed in the letters that you forget about the

paper, but the Enlightened sees the paper as the substratum

whether the letters appear on it or not.1

This is still more succinctly stated as follows:

The Vedantins do not say that the world is unreal. That is

a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of

the Vedantic text: ‘All this is Brahman’? They only mean that

the world is unreal as world but real as Self. If you regard the

world as non-self, it is not real. Everything, whether you call it

illusion (Maya) or Divine Play (Lila) or Energy (Shakti) must

be within the Self and not apart from it.2

Before leaving the theory of the world as a manifestation of

the Self, devoid of objective reality, it must be stressed once

again that theory had importance for the Maharshi only

insofar as it helped a man’s spiritual development, not for its

own sake. Cosmology as understood in modern physical

science simply did not concern him.

D.: The Vedas contain conflicting accounts of

cosmogony. Ether is said to be the first creation in one place,

vital energy in another, water in another, something else in

1 D. D., pp. 307-8.

2 D. D., p. 269.

9

another; how can all this be reconciled? Does it not impair

the credibility of the Vedas?

B.: Different seers saw different aspects of truth at different

times, each emphasising some viewpoint. Why do you worry

about their conflicting statements? The essential aim of the Vedas

is to teach us the nature of the imperishable Self and show us

that we are That.

D.: About that part I am satisfied.

B.: Then treat all the rest as auxiliary arguments or as

expositions for the ignorant who want to know the origin of

things.1

Major Chadwick was copying out the English translation

of the Tamil Kaivalya Navaneetha, when he came across some

of the technical terms in it which he had difficulty in

understanding. He accordingly asked Bhagavan about them,

and Bhagavan replied. “These portions deal with theories of

creation. They are not essential because the real purpose of the

scriptures is not to set forth such theories. They mention the

theories casually, so that those readers who wish to, may take

interest in them. The truth is that the world appears as a passing

shadow in a flood of light. Light is necessary even to see the

shadow. The shadow is not worth any special study, analysis or

discussion. The purpose of the book is to deal with the Self and

what is said about creation may be omitted for the present.”

Later, Sri Bhagavan continued: “Vedanta says that the

cosmos springs into view simultaneously with him who sees it

and there is no detailed process of creation. It is similar to a

dream where he who experiences the dream arises simultaneously

with the dream he experiences. However, some people cling so

1 T., 30.

10

fast to objective knowledge that they are not satisfied when told

this. They want to know how sudden creation can be possible

and argue that an effect must be preceded by a cause. In fact

they desire an explanation of the world that they see about them.

Therefore the scriptures try to satisfy their curiosity by such

theories. This method of dealing with the subject is called the

theory of gradual creation, but the true spiritual seeker can be

satisfied with instantaneous creation.”1

THE NATURE OF MAN

We come now to the very essence of theory, the nature of man

himself. For whatever a man may think of the reality of the

world or of God he knows that he himself exists. And it is in

order to understand and at the same time to perfect himself

that he studies and seeks guidance.

The individual being which identifies its existence with

that of the life in the physical body as ‘I’ is called the ego. The

Self, which is pure Consciousness, has no ego-sense about it.

Neither can the physical body, which is inert in itself, have this

ego-sense. Between the two, that is between the Self or pure

Consciousness and the inert physical body, there arises

mysteriously the ego-sense or ‘I’ notion, the hybrid which is

neither of them, and this flourishes as an individual being. This

ego or individual being is at the root of all that is futile and

undesirable in life. Therefore it is to be destroyed by any possible

means; then That which ever is alone remains resplendent. This

is Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-Realisation.2

1 T., 651.

2 S. I., Chap. 1, § 12.

11

D.: Bhagavan often says: ‘The world is not outside you’,

or ‘everything depends on you’, or ‘what is there outside you?’ I

find all this puzzling. The world existed before I was born and

will continue to exist after my death, as it has survived the death

of so many who once lived as I do now.

B.: Did I ever say that the world exists because of you? I

have only put to you the question ‘what exists apart from

yourself?’ You ought to understand that by the Self neither the

physical body nor the subtle body is meant.

What you are told is that if you once know the Self within

which all ideas exist, not excluding the idea of yourself, of others

like you and of the world, you can realise the truth that there is

a Reality, a Supreme Truth which is the Self of all the world you

now see, the Self of all the selves, the one Real, the Supreme,

the eternal Self, as distinct from the ego or individual being,

which is impermanent. You must not mistake the ego or the

bodily idea for the Self.

D.: Then Bhagavan means that the Self is God?

And in his next reply Bhagavan, as was his way, turned the

discussion from theory to practice. Although the present

chapter is, on the whole, devoted to theory, it seems

appropriate to continue the dialogue so as to show how the

theory was put to practical use.

B.: You see the difficulty. Self-enquiry, ‘Who am I?’ is a

different technique from the meditation – ‘I am Siva’, or ‘I

am He’. I rather emphasise Self-Knowledge, for you are first

concerned with yourself before you proceed to know the world

or its Lord. The ‘I am He’ or ‘I am Brahman’, meditation is

more or less mental, but the quest for the Self of which I

speak is a direct method and is superior to it. For, the moment

you get into the quest for the Self and begin to go deeper, the

12

real Self is waiting there to receive you and then whatever is

to be done is done by something else and you, as an individual,

have no hand in it. In this process all doubts and discussions

are automatically given up, just as one who sleeps forgets all

his cares for the time being.

The further discussion illustrates the freedom of argument that

Bhagavan allowed to those who were not convinced by a reply.

D.: What certainty is there that something awaits there to

receive me?

B.: When a person is sufficiently mature he becomes

convinced naturally.

D.: How is this maturity to be attained?

B.: Various ways are prescribed. But whatever previous

development there may be, earnest Self-enquiry hastens it.

D.: That is arguing in a circle. I am strong enough for the

quest if I am mature and it is the quest that makes me mature.

This is an objection that was often raised in one form or

another and the reply to it again emphasises that it is not

theory that is needed, but practice.

B.: The mind does have this sort of difficulty. It wants a fixed

theory to satisfy itself with. Really, however, no theory is necessary

for the man who seriously strives to approach God or his true Self.1

Everyone is the Self and indeed, is infinite. Yet each person

mistakes his body for his Self. In order to know anything,

illumination is necessary. This can only be of the nature of Light;

however, it lights up both physical light and physical darkness.

That is to say, that it lies beyond apparent light and darkness. It

is itself neither, but it is said to be light because it illumines

1 S. D. B., viii, ix.

13

both. It is infinite and is Consciousness. Consciousness is the

Self of which everyone is aware. No one is ever away from the

Self and therefore everyone is in fact Self-realised; only – and

this is the great mystery – people do not know this and want to

realise the Self. Realisation consists only in getting rid of the

false idea that one is not realised. It is not anything new to be

acquired. It must already exist or it would not be eternal and

only what is eternal is worth striving for.

Once the false notion ‘I am the body’ or ‘I am not realised’

has been removed, Supreme Consciousness or the Self alone

remains and in people’s present state of knowledge they call this

‘Realisation.’ But the truth is that Realisation is eternal and

already exists, here and now.1

Consciousness is pure knowledge. The mind arises out of

it and is made up of thoughts.2

The essence of the mind is only awareness or consciousness.

However, when the ego overclouds it, it functions as reasoning,

thinking or perceiving. The universal mind, not being limited

by the ego, has nothing outside itself and is therefore only aware.

This is what the Bible means by ‘I am that I am.’3

The ego-ridden mind has its strength sapped and is too

weak to resist distressing thoughts. The egoless mind is happy,

as we see in deep, dreamless sleep. Clearly, therefore, happiness

and distress are only modes of the mind.4

D.: When I seek the ‘I’, I see nothing.

B.: You say that because you are accustomed to identify

yourself with the body and sight with the eyes, but what is there

1 T., 482.

2 T., 589.

3 Exodus III, 14.

4 T., 188.

14

to be seen? And by whom? And how? There is only one

Consciousness and this, when it identifies itself with the body,

projects itself through the eyes and sees the surrounding objects.

The individual is limited to the waking state; he expects to see

something different and accepts the authority of his senses. He

will not admit that he who sees, the objects seen, and the act of

seeing are all manifestations of the same Consciousness – the

‘I-I’. Meditation helps to overcome the illusion that the Self is

something to see. Actually there is nothing to see. How do you

recognise yourself now? Do you have to hold a mirror up in

front of your self to recognise yourself? The awareness is itself

the ‘I’. Realise it and that is the truth.

D.: When I enquire into the origin of thoughts, there is

the perception of the ‘I’ but it does not satisfy me.

B.: Quite right. Because this perception of ‘I’ is associated

with a form, perhaps with the physical body. Nothing should be

associated with the pure Self. The Self is the pure Reality in

whose light the body, the ego and all else shine. When all

thoughts are stilled, pure Consciousness remains over.1

D.: How did the ego arise?

Here is a question that gives rise to endless philosophising,

but Bhagavan, holding rigorously to the truth of non-duality,

refused to admit its existence.

B.: There is no ego. If there were, you would have to admit

of two selves in you. Therefore there is no ignorance. If you

enquire into the Self, ignorance, which is already non-existent,

will be found not to exist and you will say that it has fled.2

1 T., 196.

2 T., 363.

15

Sometimes it seemed to the listener that absence of thought

must mean a mere blank, and therefore Bhagavan specifically

guarded against this.

Absence of thought does not mean a blank. There must

be someone to be aware of that blank. Knowledge and ignorance

pertain only to the mind and are in duality, but the Self is

beyond them both. It is pure Light. There is no need for one

Self to see another. There are no two selves. What is not the

Self is mere non-self and cannot see the Self. The Self has no

sight or hearing; it lies beyond them, all alone, as pure

Consciousness.1

Bhagavan often cited man’s continued existence during deep,

dreamless sleep as a proof that he exists independent of the

ego and the body-sense. He also referred to the state of deep

sleep as a body-free and ego-free state.

D.: I don’t know whether the Self is different from the ego.

B.: In what state were you in deep sleep?

D.: I don’t know.

B.: Who doesn’t know? The waking self? But you don’t

deny that you existed while in deep sleep?

D.: I was and am, but I don’t know who was in deep sleep.

B.: Exactly. The waking man says that he did not know

anything in the state of deep sleep. Now he sees objects and knows

that he exists but in deep sleep there were no objects and no spectator.

And yet the same person who is speaking now existed in deep sleep

also. What is the difference between the two states? There are objects

and the play of the senses now, while in deep sleep there were not.

A new entity, the ego, has arisen. It acts through the senses, sees

objects, confuses itself with the body and claims to be the Self. In

1 T., 245.

16

reality, what was in deep sleep continues to be now also. The Self is

changeless. It is the ego which has come between. That which rises

and sets is the ego. That which remains changeless is the Self.1

Such examples sometimes gave rise to the mistaken idea that

the state of Realisation or abidance in the Self which Bhagavan

prescribed was a state of nescience like physical sleep and

therefore he guarded against this idea also.

B.: Waking, dream and sleep are mere phases of the mind,

not of the Self. The Self is the witness of these three states. Your

true nature exists in sleep.

D.: But we are advised not to fall asleep during meditation.

B.: It is stupor which you must guard against. That sleep

which alternates with waking is not the true sleep. That waking

which alternates with sleep is not the true waking. Are you awake

now? No. What you have to do is to wake up to your true state.

You should neither fall into false sleep nor remain falsely awake.2

B.: Though present even in sleep, the Self is not then perceived.

It cannot be known in sleep straightaway. It must first be realised

in the waking state for it is our true nature underlying all the three

states. Effort must be made in the waking state and the Self realised

here and now. It will then be understood to be the continuous Self

uninterrupted by the alteration of waking, dream and deep sleep.3

In fact, one name for the true state of realised being is the

‘Fourth State’ existing eternally beyond the three states of

waking, dream and deep sleep. It is compared with the state

of deep sleep since, like this, it is formless and non-dual;

however, as the above quotation shows, it is far from being

the same. In the Fourth State the ego merges in Consciousness,

as in sleep it does in unconsciousness.

1 T., 143.

2 T., 495.

3 T., 307.

17

DEATH AND RE-BIRTH

In nothing did Bhagavan show more clearly that theory has to

be adapted to the understanding of the seeker than in the

question of death and re-birth. For those who were capable of

grasping pure, non-dual theory, he explained merely that the

question does not arise, for if the ego has no real existence,

now, it has none after death either.

D.: Do a person’s actions in this life affect him in future

births?

B.: Are you born now? Why do you think of future births?

The truth is that there is neither birth nor death. Let him who is

born think of death and palliatives for it.1

D.: Is the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation right?

B.: No definite answer is possible. Even the present

incarnation is denied, for instance in the Bhagavad Gita.

D.: Isn’t our personality beginningless?

B.: Find out first whether it exists at all and after you have

solved that problem, ask the question. Nammalwar says: “In

ignorance, I took the ego to be the Self, but with right

knowledge the ego is not and only you remain as the Self ”.

Both the non-dualists and the dualists agree on the necessity for

Self-realisation. Attain that first and then raise other questions.

Nondualism or dualism cannot be decided on theoretical

grounds alone. If the Self is realised, the question will not arise.2

Whatever is born must die; whatever is acquired must be

lost; but were you born? You are eternally existent. The Self can

never be lost.3

1 T., 17.

2 T., 491.

3 T., 20.

18

Bhagavan, indeed, discouraged preoccupation with such

questions since they merely distract one from the real task of

realising the Self here and now.

D.: They say that we have the choice of enjoying merit or

demerit after our death, that it depends on our choice which

comes. Is that so?

B.: Why raise questions of what happens after death? Why

ask whether you were born, whether you are reaping the fruits

of your past karma, and so on? You will not raise such questions

in a little while when you fall asleep. Why? Are you a different

person now from the one you are when asleep? No, you are

not. Find out why such questions do not occur to you when

you are asleep.1

On occasion, however, Bhagavan did admit of a lower,

contingent point of view for those who could not hold to the

doctrine of pure non-dualism.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna first says to Arjuna in

Chapter II, that no one was born and then in Chapter IV, ‘there

have been numerous incarnations both of you and me. I know

them but you do not.’ Which of these two statements is true? The

teaching varies according to the understanding of the listener.2

When Arjuna said that he would not fight against his

relatives and elders in order to kill them and gain the kingdom,

Sri Krishna said: ‘Not that these, you or I, were not before, are

not now, nor will be hereafter. None was born, none has died,

nor will it be so hereafter’. He further developed this theme,

saying that he had given instructions to the Sun and through

him to Ikshvaku; and Arjuna queried how that could be, since

1 T., 242.

2 T., 436.

19

he had been born only a few years back, while they lived ages

ago. Then Sri Krishna saw his point of view and said: ‘Yes, there

have been many incarnations of me and you. I know them all

but you do not.’

Such statements appear contradictory, but they are true

according to the viewpoint of the questioner. Christ also said

“Before Abraham was, I am.”1

Just as in dreams, you wake up after several new experiences,

so after death another body is found.2

Just as rivers lose their individuality when they discharge

their waters into the ocean, and yet the waters evaporate and

return as rain on the hills and back again through the rivers to

the ocean, so also individuals lose their individuality when they

go to sleep but return again according to their previous innate

tendencies. Similarly, in death also, being is not lost.

D.: How can that be?

B.: See how a tree grows again when its branches are cut

off. So long as the life source is not destroyed, it will grow.

Similarly, latent potentialities withdraw into the heart at death

but do not perish. That is how beings are re-born.3

Nevertheless, from the higher viewpoint he would say:

In truth there is neither seed nor tree, there is only Being.4

He would occasionally explain in more detail, but still with

the reservation that in reality there is only the changeless Self.

D.: How long is the interval between death and re-birth?

1 T., 145.

2 T., 144.

3 T., 108.

4 T., 439.

20

B.: It may be long or short, but a Realised Man undergoes

no such change; he merges into the Infinite Being, as is said in

the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad. Some say that those who, after

death, take the path of light are not re-born; whereas those who

take the path of darkness are born after they have reaped their

karma (self-made destiny) in their subtle bodies.

If a man’s merits and demerits are equal, he is re-born

immediately on earth; if the merits outweigh the demerits, his

subtle body goes first to heaven, while if the demerits outweigh

the merits it goes first to hell. But in either case he is later reborn

on earth. All this is described in the scriptures, but in fact

there is neither birth nor death; one simply remains what one

really is. That only is the truth.1

Again, he would explain in terms of God’s mercy.

B.: God in His mercy withholds this knowledge from

people. If they knew that they had been virtuous they would

grow proud, and in the other case they would be despondent.

Both are bad. It is enough to know the Self.2

He did, however, refer sometimes to a person’s preparedness

or maturity as being due to the achievements of a previous

incarnation.

A competent person who has already, perhaps in a previous

incarnation, qualified himself realises the truth and abides in

peace as soon as he hears it told to him just once, whereas one

who is not so qualified has to pass through the various stages

before attaining samadhi (direct, pure consciousness of being).3

1 T., 573.

2 T., 553.

3 T., 21.

21

That is to say that a lifetime may be regarded as a day’s journey

upon the pilgrimage to Self-realisation. How far from the

goal one starts depends on the effort or lack of effort made on

the previous days; how far forward one advances depends on

the effort of today.

A Science lecturer from a university asked whether the

intellect survives a man’s death and was told:

“Why think of death? Consider what happens in your sleep.

What is your experience of that?”

D.: But sleep is transient, whereas death is not.

B.: Sleep is intermediate between two waking states, and

in the same way death is intermediate between two births. Both

are transient.

D.: I mean when the spirit is disembodied, does it carry

the intellect with it?

B.: The spirit is not disembodied; the bodies differ. If not a

gross body it will be a subtle one, as in sleep, dream or day-dream.1

Bhagavan would never admit that differences in mode of

expression or formulation of doctrine between the various

religions signified real contradiction, since the Truth to which

they point is One and Immutable.

D.: Is the Buddhist view that there is no continuous entity

answering to the idea of the individual soul right or not? Is this

consistent with the Hindu doctrine of a reincarnating ego? Is

the soul a continuous entity which reincarnates again and again,

according to the Hindu doctrine, or is it a mere conglomeration

of mental tendencies?

B.: The real Self is continuous and unaffected. The

reincarnating ego belongs to a lower plane, that of thought. It

is transcended by Self-realisation.

1 T., 206.

22

Reincarnations are due to a spurious offshoot of Being

and are therefore denied by the Buddhists. The human state is

due to a mingling of the sentient with the insentient.1

Sometimes it was not a question of reincarnation but grieving

over the death of a loved one. A lady who had come from

North India asked Bhagavan whether it was possible to know

the posthumous state of an individual.

B.: It is possible, but why try. Such facts are only as real as

the person who seeks them.

L.: The birth of a person and his life and death are real

to us.

B.: Because you wrongly identify yourself with the body,

you think of the other also as a body. Neither you nor he is

the body.

L.: But from my own level of understanding, I regard

myself and my son as real.

B.: The birth of the ‘I’-thought is a person’s birth and its

death is his death. After the ‘I’-thought has arisen, the wrong

identification with the body arises. Identifying yourself with

the body makes you falsely identify others also with their bodies.

Just as your body was born and grows and will die, so you think

the other also was born, grew and died. Did you think of your

son before he was born? The thought came after his birth and

continues even after his death. He is your son only insofar as

you think of him. Where has he gone? To the source from which

he sprang. So long as you continue to exist, he does too. But if

you cease to identify yourself with the body and realise the true

Self, this confusion will vanish. You are eternal and others also

will be found to be eternal. Until this is realised there will always

1 T., 136.

23

be grief due to false values which are caused by wrong knowledge

and wrong identification.1

On the death of King George V, two devotees were

discussing the matter in the hall and seemed upset. Bhagavan

said: What is it to you who dies or is lost? Die yourself and be

lost, becoming one with the Self of all (on the ego’s extinction).2

And finally, about the importance of death. Religions stress

the importance of the frame of mind in which a person dies

and his last thoughts at death. But Bhagavan reminded people

that it is necessary to be well prepared beforehand; if not,

undesirable tendencies will rise up at death, too powerful to

be controlled.

D.: Even if I cannot realise in my lifetime, let me at least

not forget on my death-bed. Let me have a glimpse of Reality

at least at the moment of death, so that it may stand me in good

stead in the future.

B.: It is said in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter VIII, that

whatever is a person’s last thought at death determines his next

birth. But it is necessary to experience Reality now, in this life,

in order to experience it at death. Consider whether this present

moment is any different from the last one at death and try to

be in the desired state.3

(Continued  ...)


(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Bhagavan Sree Ramana Maharshi
and also gratitude to great philosophers and others     for the collection)