The Teachings of Bhagavan
Sri Ramana Maharshi
in His Own Words
Edited by:
ARTHUR OSBORNE
HEART AND HEAD
This seems a suitable place to set forth the Maharshi’s teaching
about heart and head. He taught that the heart, not the head,
is the true seat of Consciousness; but by this he did not mean
1 T., 276.
2 T., 236.
3 T., 62l.
24
the physical organ at the left side of the chest but the heart at
the right, and by ‘consciousness’ he did not mean thought but
pure awareness or sense of being. He had found this from his
own experience to be the centre of spiritual awareness and
then found his experience confirmed in some ancient texts.
When his devotees were instructed to concentrate on the heart,
it was this spiritual heart on the right that was referred to;
and they also found it the centre of an actual, almost physical
vibration of awareness. However, he would also speak of the
Heart as equivalent to the Self and remind them that in truth
it is not in the body at all, but is spaceless.
D.: Why do you say that the heart is on the right when
biologists have found it to be on the left? What authority have you?
B.: No one denies that the physical organ is on the left; but
the heart of which I speak is on the right. That is my experience
and I require no authority for it; still you can find confirmation
of it in a Malayali book on Ayurveda and in the Sita Upanishad.1
Saying this, Bhagavan showed the quotation from the latter
and quoted the text from the former. Sometimes, when asked,
he referred also to the Biblical text from Ecclesiastes: “The wise
man’s heart is at the right hand and a fool’s heart is at the left.”2
D.: Why do we have a place such as the heart to concentrate
on for meditation?
B.: Because you seek true Consciousness. Where can you
find it? Can you attain it outside yourself? You have to find it
internally. Therefore you are directed inward. The Heart is the
seat of Consciousness or Consciousness itself.3
I ask you to observe where the ‘I’ arises in your body, but
it is not really quite correct to say that the ‘I’ arises from and
1 T., 4.
2 Ecclesiastes X, 2.
3 T., 205.
25
merges in the chest at the right side. The Heart is another name
for Reality and this is neither inside nor outside the body. There
can be no in or out for it, since it alone is. I do not mean by
‘heart’ any physiological organ or any plexus or nerves or
anything like that; but so long as a man identifies himself with
the body or thinks he is in the body, he is advised to see where
in the body the ‘I’-thought arises and merges again. It must be
the heart at the right side of the chest since every man of whatever
race and religion and in whatever language he may be speaking,
points to the right side of the chest to indicate himself when he
says ‘I’. This is so all over the world, so that must be the place.
And by keenly watching the emergence of the ‘I’-thought on
waking and its subsidence on going to sleep, one can see that it
is in the heart on the right side.1
When a room is dark you need a lamp to light it, but
when the sun rises there is no need for a lamp; objects are seen
without one. And to see the sun itself no lamp is needed because
it is self-luminous. Similarly with the mind. The reflected light
of the mind is necessary to perceive objects, but to see the heart
it is enough for the mind to be turned towards it. Then the
mind loses itself and the Heart shines forth.2
It is a tantric practice to concentrate on one of the chakras or
spiritual centres of the body, very often on the point between
the eyebrows. As will be shown in a later chapter, the heart on
the right side is not one of these chakras; nevertheless, in the
following passage, Bhagavan explains concisely his teaching
that concentration on the heart-centre is more effective than
on any other point but less effective than pure enquiry.
1 D. D., p. 234.
2 T., 99.
26
D.: There are said to be six (subtle) organs of different
colours in the chest, of which the spiritual heart is said to be the
one situated two fingers’ breadth, to the right from the centre!
But the heart is also said to be formless. Does that mean that we
should imagine it to have a form and meditate on this?
B.: No; only the quest – ‘Who am I?’ is necessary. That
which continues to exist throughout sleep and waking is the same
being in both; but while waking there is unhappiness and therefore
the effort to remove it. When asked who awakes from sleep, you
say ‘I’. Hold fast to this ‘I’. If that is done the Eternal Being
reveals itself. The most important thing is the investigation of the
‘I’ and not concentration on the heart centre. There is no such
thing as the ‘inner’ and the ‘outer’. Both words mean the same or
nothing at all. Nevertheless, there is also the practice of
concentration on the heart-centre, which is a form of spiritual
exercise. Only he who concentrates on the heart can remain aware
when the mind ceases to be active and remains still, with no
thoughts, whereas those who concentrate on any other centre
cannot retain awareness without thought but only infer that the
mind was still after it has become active again.1
In the following passage an English lady remarks on this
awareness without thought and Bhagavan approves.
D.: Thoughts suddenly cease and ‘I-I’ rises up equally
suddenly and continues. It is only a feeling, not a thought. Can
it be right?
B.: Yes, it is quite right. Thoughts have to cease and reason
to disappear for the ‘I-I’ to rise up and be felt. Feeling is the
main thing, not reason.
1 T., 131.
27
D.: Moreover, it is not in the head, but at the right side of
the chest.
B.: That is where it should be, because the heart is there.
D.: When I look outwards it disappears. What should I do?
B.: Hold fast to it.1
This does not mean that thought is impossible during the state
of ‘I’ consciousness, as indeed one can see from the example of
Bhagavan himself, who was permanently in that state. For the
ignorant person, thought is like a dense cloud overhead, shutting
him off from the illumination of the sun. When the ceiling of
cloud has been broken and rolled back, letting in the light, he
can use thought without being imprisoned by it. To change the
metaphor, Bhagavan sometimes compared the mind of the
Realised Man to the moon in the sky in day-time – it is there
but its light is not needed – because one can see without it by
the direct light of the sun.
SUFFERING
One of the problems about which Bhagavan was often asked
was suffering. The questions were usually personal rather than
academic, since it was often the experience of grief which
drove people to seek solace from him. The real solace came as
a silent influence, but he did also answer theoretical questions.
The usual answer was to bid the questioner find out who it is
that suffers, just as he would bid the doubter find who it is
that doubts; for the Self is beyond suffering as it is beyond
doubt. Sometimes, however, on a more contingent level, he
would point out that whatever makes a person dissatisfied
with his state of ignorance and turns him to the quest of the
Self is beneficial and that it is often suffering which is the
means of doing this.
1 T., 24.
28
B.: The Bliss of Self is always yours and you will find it if
you seek it earnestly. The cause of your misery is not in your
outer life; it is in you, as your ego. You impose limitations on
yourself and then make a vain struggle to transcend them. All
unhappiness is due to the ego. With it comes all your trouble.
What does it avail you to attribute the cause of misery to the
happenings of life when that cause is really within you? What
happiness can you get from things extraneous to yourself? When
you get it, how long will it last?
If you would deny the ego and scorch it by ignoring it,
you would be free. If you accept it, it will impose limitations on
you and throw you into a vain struggle to transcend them.
That was how the ‘thief ’ sought to ruin King Janaka.
To be the Self that you really are is the only means to
realise the Bliss that is ever yours.1
A very devoted and simple devotee had lost his only son, a
child of three. The next day he arrived at the Asramam with his
family. Referring to them Bhagavan said: “Training of mind
helps one to bear sorrows and bereavements with courage; but
the loss of one’s children is said to be the worst of all griefs.
Grief only exists as long as one considers oneself to have a
definite form; if the form is transcended, one knows the One
Self to be eternal. There is neither death nor birth. What is
born is only the body and this is the creation of the ego. But the
ego is not ordinarily perceived without the body and so is
identified with it. It is thought that matters. Let the sensible
man consider whether he knew his body while in deep sleep.
Why, then, does he feel it in the waking state? Although the
body was not felt in sleep, did not the Self exist? What was his
1 M. G., pp. 38-9.
29
state when in deep sleep and what is it now when awake? What
is the difference? The ego rises up and that is waking.
Simultaneously thoughts arise. Find out who has the thoughts.
Where do they come from? They must arise from the conscious
self. Apprehending this even vaguely helps towards the extinction
of the ego. The realisation of the One Infinite Existence becomes
possible. In that state there are no individuals but only Eternal
Being. Hence there is no thought of death or grieving.
“If a man thinks that he is born he cannot escape the fear
of death. Let him find out whether he was ever born or whether
the Self takes birth. He will discover that the Self always exists
and that the body which is born resolves itself into thought,
and that the emergence of thought is the root of all mischief.
Find where thought comes from, and then you will abide in the
ever-present inmost Self and be free from the idea of birth and
fear of death.”1
D.: If some one we love dies, it causes grief. Should we
avoid such grief by either loving all alike or not loving at all?
B.: If someone we love dies, it causes grief to the one who
continues living. The way to get rid of grief is not to continue
living. Kill the griever, and who will then remain to grieve? The
ego must die. That is the only way. The two alternatives you
suggest amount to the same. When all are realised to be the one
Self, who is there to love or hate?2
Sometimes, however, the questions were impersonal, referring
not to some private tragedy but to the evil and suffering in
the world. In such cases they were usually by visitors who did
not understand the doctrine of non-duality or follow the path
of Self-enquiry.
1 T., 80.
2 T., 252.
30
Visitor : Widespread distress, such as famine and pestilence,
spreads havoc through the world. What is the cause of this state
of affairs?
B.: To whom does all this appear?
V.: That won’t do. I see misery all round.
B.: You were not conscious of the world and its sufferings
while asleep, but you are now that you are awake. Continue in
the state in which you are not affected by such things. When
you are not aware of the world, that is to say when you remain
as the Self in the state of sleep, its sufferings do not affect you.
Therefore turn inwards and seek the Self and there will be an
end both of the world and of its miseries.
V.: But that is selfishness.
B.: The world is not external to you. Because you wrongly
identify yourself with the body, you see the world outside you
and its suffering becomes apparent to you; but the world and
its sufferings are not real. Seek the reality and get rid of this
unreal feeling.
This the visitor was unwilling to do, but instead referred again
to suffering and to those who strive vainly to remove it.
V.: There are great men and public workers who cannot
solve the problem of suffering in the world.
B.: That is because they are based on the ego. If they
remained in the Self it would be different.
Still, presuming the absolute reality of the objective world,
the visitor now asked in an indirect way how it would be
different, demanding that those who abide in the Self should
accept the unreal as Real.
V.: Why don’t Mahatmas help?
For the moment, Bhagavan answers on the visitor’s own level.
31
B.: How do you know that they don’t? Public speeches,
outer activity and material help are all outweighed by the silence
of the Mahatmas. They accomplish more than others.
Now, the visitor comes to the practical point: outer activity
instead of inner quest; and Bhagavan rejects that viewpoint
no less categorically.
V.: What can we do to ameliorate the condition of the
world?
B.: If you remain free from pain there will be no pain
anywhere. The trouble now is due to your seeing the world
outside yourself and thinking there is pain in it. But both the
world and the pain are within you. If you turn inwards there
will be no pain.
V.: God is perfect. Why did he create the world imperfect?
A work partakes of the nature of its author, but in this case it is
not so.
B.: Are you something separate from God that you should
ask this question? So long as you consider yourself the body,
you see the world as external to you. It is to you that the
imperfection appears. God is perfection and his work is also
perfection, but you see it as imperfect because of your wrong
identification with the body or the ego.
V.: Why did the Self manifest as this miserable world?
B.: In order that you might seek it. Your eyes cannot see
themselves but if you hold a mirror in front of them they see
themselves. Creation is the mirror. See yourself first and then
see the whole world as the Self.
V.: Then what it amounts to is that I should always turn
inwards?
B.: Yes.
V.: Shouldn’t I see the world at all?
32
B.: You are not told to shut your eyes to the world, but only
to see yourself first and then see the whole world as the Self. If
you consider yourself as the body, the world appears to be external;
if you are the Self, the world appears as Brahman manifested.1
The trouble is that it is extremely difficult to regard the body
or the objective world as unreal. Bhagavan admitted that in
the following dialogue.
D.: I have a toothache; is that only a thought?
B.: Yes.
D.: Then why can’t I think that there is no toothache, and
so cure myself?
B.: One does not feel the toothache when one is absorbed
in other thoughts or when asleep.
D.: But still it remains.
B.: So strong is man’s conviction of the reality of the world
that it is not easily shaken off. But the world is no more real
than the individual who sees it.
Then a humorous exchange which illustrates the difficulty of
the concept.
D.: At present there is a Sino-Japanese war going on. If it
is only in the imagination, can or will Sri Bhagavan imagine it
not to be going on and so put an end to it?
B.: (laughing) The Bhagavan of the questioner (whom the
questioner sees as an external being) is as much a thought of his
as the Sino-Japanese War!2
Finally, a quotation which shows how Bhagavan sometimes
answered on a more contingent plane, pointing out that it is
1 T., 272.
2 T., 451.
33
suffering that makes a man discontented with the life of the
ego and spurs him on to seek Self-realisation.
D.: But why should there be suffering now?
B.: If there were no suffering, how could the desire to be
happy arise? If that desire did not arise, how could the quest of
the Self arise?
D.: Then is all suffering good?
B.: Yes. What is happiness? Is it a healthy and handsome body,
regular meals and so on? Even an emperor has endless troubles
although he may be in good health. So all suffering is due to the
false notion ‘I am the body’. Getting rid of this is knowledge.1
SIN
Sin and evil of every kind are the result of egoism unrestrained
by consideration for the injury caused to others or the
deleterious effect on the sinner’s own character. Religions guard
against them by moral and disciplinary codes and emotional
appeals, seeking to keep the ego within bounds and prevent
its trespassing into forbidden places. However, a spiritual path
that is so radical and direct as to deny the ego itself does not
need to attend specifically to the various excesses of egoism.
All egoism has to be renounced. Therefore, non-duality turns
the attack of the ego itself, not on its specific manifestations.
However sinful a person may be, if he would stop wailing
inconsolably: ‘Alas, I am a sinner: how shall I attain liberation?’
and, casting away even the thought that he is a sinner, if he
would zealously carry on meditation on the Self, he would most
assuredly get reformed.2
1 T., 633.
2 W., § 14.
34
Similarly, a discipline which aims at transcending thought
completely, in realisation of the super-rational Self, does not
need to inveigh specifically against evil thoughts. All thoughts
are distractions. An European lady asked whether good thoughts
were not helpful in seeking Realisation, at any rate in the early
stages, like the lower rungs of the ladder and was told:
Yes, insofar as they keep off bad thoughts; but they
themselves must disappear before the state of Realisation.1
Because the quality of purity (Sattva) is the real nature of the
mind, clearness like that of the unclouded sky is the characteristic
of the mind-expanse. Being stirred up by the quality of activity
(rajas) the mind becomes restless and, influenced by darkness
(tamas), manifests as the physical world. The mind thus becoming
restless on the one hand and appearing as solid matter on the other,
the Real is not discerned. Just as fine silk threads cannot be woven
with the use of a heavy iron shuttle, or the delicate shades of a work
of art be distinguished in the light of a lamp flickering in the wind,
so is Realisation of Truth impossible with the mind rendered gross
by darkness (tamas) and restless by activity (rajas). Because truth is
exceedingly subtle and serene. Mind will be cleared of its impurities
only by a desireless performance of duties during several births,
getting a worthy Master, learning from him and incessantly
practising meditation on the Supreme. The transformation of the
mind into the world of inert matter due to the quality of darkness
(tamas) and its restlessness due to the quality of activity (rajas) will
cease. Then the mind regains its subtlety and composure. The Bliss
of the Self can manifest only in a mind rendered subtle and steady
by assiduous meditation. He who experiences that Bliss is liberated
even while still alive.2
1 T., 341.
2 S. E., § 11.
35
He did, of course, insist on the need for purity. Sometimes a
visitor would complain that he was too weak to resist his
lower tendencies and would simply be told to try harder.
According to his temperament he might be told to find who
it is that has the lower tendencies, or to trust in God.
D.: I am a sinner and do not perform any religious duties.
Shall I have a painful rebirth because of that?
B.: Why do you say you are a sinner? Faith in God is
enough to save you from rebirth. Cast all your burden on Him.
In the Tiruvachakam it is said: ‘Though I am worse than a dog,
You have graciously undertaken to protect me. The delusion of
death and birth is maintained by You. Is it for me to sit and
judge? Am I the Lord here? Almighty God, it is for You to roll
me through many bodies, or keep me fixed at Your feet.’
Therefore have faith and that will save you.1
D.: There is more pleasure in meditation than in sensual
enjoyment and yet the mind seeks the latter and not the former.
Why is that?
B.: Pleasure and pain are only aspects of the mind. Our
essential nature is happiness, but we have forgotten the Self and
imagine that the body or the mind is the Self. It is this wrong
identification that gives rise to misery. What is to be done? This
tendency is very deep-rooted and has continued for many past
births and so has grown strong. It will have to go before the
essential nature, which is happiness, can be realised.2
And above all, not to create new vasanas or latent tendencies.
D.: Swami, how can the grip of the ego be loosened?
B.: By not adding new vasanas (bad habits) to it.3
1 T., 30.
2 T., 540.
3 T., 173.
36
If the objective reality of the world be an illusion then the evil
in it is also an illusion and the remedy is to turn inwards to
the Reality of the Self. An American visitor, the secretary of
Swami Yogananda, asked why there are good and evil in the
world and was told:
They are relative terms. There must be a subject to know
the good and evil. That subject is the ego. It ends in the Self.
Or, you can say that the source of the ego is God. This definition
is probably more definite and understandable for you.1
GOD
Superficially, it might seem that the Maharshi’s statements
about God were inconsistent, since he would sometimes enjoin
complete faith and submission to God and sometimes speak
of God as unreal; but actually there was no inconsistency. It
must always be remembered that the purpose of his exposition
was not to propound a philosophy but to give practical
guidance on the spiritual path. Someone who could conceive
of the non-dual Self could understand that it was his own Self
and the Self of God and of the world also, whereas one who
clung to the apparent reality of his ego could understand the
Self only as the God who had created him. According to their
needs he explained. In this, as in other matters, he pointed
out the uselessness of discussion. Following either path was
useful; theorising about them was not.
All religions postulate the three fundamentals: the world,
the soul and God; but it is the One Reality that manifests itself
as these three. One can say: ‘The three are really three’ only so
long as the ego lasts. Therefore to inhere in one’s own Being,
when the ego is dead is the perfect state.
1 T., 106.
37
‘The world is real’, ‘No, it is mere illusory appearance’, ‘The
world is conscious,’ ‘No’, ‘The world is happiness’, ‘No,’ – What
use is it to argue thus? That state is agreeable to all wherein, having
given up the objective outlook, one knows one’s Self and loses all
notions either of unity or duality, of oneself and the ego.
If one has form oneself, the world and God will also appear
to have form; but if one is formless, who is to see these forms,
and how? Without the eye can any object be seen? The seeing
Self is the Eye, and that Eye is the Eye of Infinity.1
Brahman is not to be seen or known. It is beyond the
three fold relationship of seer, sight and seen, or knower,
knowledge and known. The Reality remains ever as it is. The
existence of ignorance or the world is due to our illusion. Neither
knowledge nor ignorance is real; what lies beyond them, as
beyond all other pairs of opposites, is the Reality. It is neither
light nor darkness but beyond both, though we sometimes speak
of it as light and of ignorance as its shadow.2
When there was genuine search for understanding, Bhagavan
would explain in some details, always leading the seeker back
to the doctrine of the One Self.
Mr. Thompson, a very quiet young gentleman who has
been staying in India for some years and studying Hindu
philosophy as an earnest student, asked: Srimad Bhagavad Gita
says: ‘I am the prop for Brahman’. In another place it says: ‘I
am in the Heart of each one’. Thus the different aspects of the
Ultimate Principle are revealed. I take it that there are three
aspects, namely: (1) the transcendental, (2) the immanent, and
(3) the cosmic. Is Realisation to be in any of these or in all of
1 F. V., 2-4.
2 D. D., p. 250.
38
them? Coming to the transcendental from the cosmic, Vedanta
discards the names and forms as being maya. Again Vedanta
also says that the whole is Brahman, as illustrated by gold and
ornaments of gold. How are we to understand the truth?
B.: The Gita says: Brahmano hi pratishtaham. If that aham
is known, the whole is known.
D.: That is the immanent aspect only.
B.: You now think that you are an individual; outside you
there is the universe and beyond the universe is God. So there
is the idea of separateness. The idea must go. For God is not
separate from you or the cosmos. The Gita also says:
‘I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the heart of all beings;
I am the beginning and the middle and also the end of all beings.’1
Thus God is not only in the heart of all, He is the prop of
all. He is the source of all, their abiding place and their end. All
proceed from Him, have their stay in Him, and finally resolve
into Him. Therefore He is not separate.
D.: How are we to understand the line in the Gita: ‘This
whole cosmos forms a particle of me.’
B.: It does not mean that a small particle of God separates
from Him and forms the universe. His shakti is acting; and as a
result of one phase of such activity the cosmos has become
manifest. Similarly the statement in Purusha Sukta: Padosya viswa
bhutani (All beings form one of His parts) does not mean that
Brahman is in four parts.
D.: I understand that. Brahman is certainly not divisible.
B.: So the fact is that Brahman is all and remains
indivisible. He is ever realised. However, man does not know
this; and it is just what he has to know. Knowledge means
overcoming the obstacles which obstruct the revelation of the
1 Bhagavad Gita: X., 20.
39
Eternal Truth that the Self is the same as Brahman. The obstacles
taken altogether form your idea of separateness as an individual.
Therefore the present attempt will result in the truth being
revealed that the Self is not separate from Brahman.1
Christians, except for the greatest mystics, cling to the idea of
a permanently real and separate ego. Sri Bhagavan had a
discussion on this point with a Jesuit Father, but it remained
inconclusive, Bhagavan trying to turn the Father’s mind
inwards to Self-enquiry and the Father demanding a theoretical
exposition instead.
Dr. Emile Gathier, S. J., Professor of Philosophy at the
Sacred Heart College, Shenbaganur, Kodaikanal, asked: Can
you kindly give me a summary of your teachings?
B.: They are found in the booklets, particularly in Who am I?
D.: I shall read them. But may I have the central point of
your teaching from your own lips?
B.: The central point is just the thing.
D.: It is not clear to me what you mean by that.
B.: That you should find the centre.
D.: I come from God. Isn’t God distinct from me?
B.: Who asks this question? God does not. You do. So find
who you are and then you may find out whether God is distinct
from you.
D.: But God is perfect and I am imperfect. How can I
ever know Him fully?
B.: God does not say so. It is you who ask the question.
After finding out who you are, you may know what God is.
D.: But you have found your Self. Please let us know if
God is distinct from you.
1 T., 649.
40
B.: It is a matter of experience. Each one must experience
it for himself.
D.: Oh! I see. God is infinite and I am finite. I have a
personality which can never merge into God. Isn’t that so?
B.: Infinity and perfection do not admit of parts. If a finite
being is apart from Infinity, the perfection of Infinity is marred.
Thus your statement is a contradiction in terms.
D.: No, see, there is both God and creation.
B.: How are you aware of your personality?
D.: I have a soul. I know it by its activities.
B.: Did you know it in deep sleep?
D.: The activities are suspended in deep sleep.
B.: But you exist in sleep and you do now too. Which of
these two is your real state?
D.: Sleep and waking are mere accidents. I am the substance
behind the accidents.
(He looked up at the clock and said that it was time for
him to catch the train. He left after thanking Sri Bhagavan. So
the conversation ended abruptly).1
The following talk takes up various problems which plague
philosophers and theologians – Divine Omniscience and
freewill; natural laws and divine activity; personal God and
impersonal; and yet the tone of the answer shows that Bhagavan
considers it of rather secondary importance.
D.: What is the relation between my freewill and the overshadowing
might of the Omnipotent? (a) Is the Omnipotence
of God consistent with the ego’s free-will? (b) Is the Omniscience
of God consistent with the ego’s freewill? (c) Are natural laws
consistent with God’s freewill?
1 T., 602.
41
B.: Yes. Freewill is the present appearing to a limited faculty
of sight and will. That same ego sees its past activity as falling
into a course of ‘law’ or rules – its own freewill being one of the
links in the course of law. The Omnipotence and Omniscience
of God are then seen by the ego to have acted through the
appearance of his own freewill. So he comes to the conclusion
that the ego must go by appearances. Natural laws are
manifestations of God’s will and they have been laid down.1
The following dialogue is characteristic as showing refusal to
discuss theory and insistence on the need for practice.
D.: Is God personal?
B.: Yes, He is always the first person, the I, ever standing
before you. Because you give precedence to worldly things, God
appears to have receded to the background. If you give up all
else and seek Him alone, He will remain as the ‘I’, the Self.
D.: The final state of Realisation is said, according to Advaita,
to be absolute union with the Divine, and according to Visishtadvaita
a qualified union, while Dvaita maintains that there is no union at
all. Which of these should be considered the correct view?
B.: Why speculate about what will happen at some time in
the future? All are agreed that the ‘I’ exists. To whichever school
of thought he may belong, let the earnest seeker first find out
what the ‘I’ is. Then it will be time enough to know what the
final state will be, whether the ‘I’ will get merged in the Supreme
Being or stand apart from Him. Let us not forestall the
conclusion, but keep an open mind.
D.: But will not some understanding of the final state be a
helpful guide even to the aspirant?
1 T., 28.
42
B.: No purpose is served by trying to decide now what the
final state of Realisation will be. It has no intrinsic value.
D.: Why not?
B.: Because you proceed on a wrong principle. Your
conclusion is arrived at by the intellect which shines only by the
light it derives from the Self. Is it not presumptuous on the part
of the intellect to sit in judgement over that from which it derives
its little light? How can the intellect, which can never reach the
Self, be competent to ascertain and much less decide the nature
of the final state of Realisation? It is like trying to measure the
sunlight at its source by the standard of the light given by a candle.
The wax will melt down before the candle comes anywhere near
the sun. Instead of indulging in mere speculation, devote yourself
here and now to the search for the Truth that is ever within you.1
Sometimes questions were also asked about the multiple gods
of Hinduism. In this connection it should be explained that
Hindus, like Christians or Muslims worship the One God.
Some of the questions about God recorded above were put by
Hindus. However, they also worship God manifested in various
forms, one possibility or name or form or viewpoint not
negating another.
D.: Why are so many gods mentioned?
B.: The body is only one, but how many functions are
performed by it! The source of all these functions is one. It is
the same with the gods.2
It would sometimes be asked whether the various gods and
their heavens were real. But such a question starts from the
presumption of the reality of this physical world and the
questioner’s body – a presumption which Bhagavan would
1 M. G., pp. 44-5.
2 T., 371.
43
not admit. Instead, he would turn this question, like all others,
to the quest for Reality.
D.: Are the Gods, Ishvara and Vishnu, and their heavens,
Kailas and Vaikuntha, real?
B.: As real as you are in this body.
D.: I mean, have they got a phenomenal existence like my
body, or are they pure fictions like the horns of a hare?
B.: They do exist.
D.: If so, they must be somewhere; where are they?
B.: In you.
D.: Then they are only my idea; something which I create
and control?
B.: Everything is.
D.: But I can create a pure fiction like the horns of a hare,
or a partial truth, like a mirage; while there are also facts which
exist irrespective of my imagination. Do the gods, Ishvara and
Vishnu, exist like that?
B.: Yes.
D.: Is God subject to cosmic dissolution at the end of a cycle?
B.: Why should He be? A man who realises the Self
transcends cosmic dissolution and is liberated; why should not
Ishvara (God) who is infinitely wiser and abler than a man?
D.: Do gods and devils also exist?
B.: Yes.
D.: How are we to conceive of Supreme Divine Consciousness?
B.: As that which is.1
Particularly interesting are the questions asked by a Muslim
professor about the hymns which Bhagavan wrote to God in
the form of Arunachala.
1 T., 30
44
D.: I have been reading the Five Hymns. I find that the
hymns are addressed by you to Arunachala. But you are a nondualist,
so how can you address God as a separate Being?
B.: The devotee, God and the hymns are all the Self.
D.: But you are addressing God. You are specifying this
Arunachala Hill as God.
B.: You can identify the Self with the body, so why shouldn’t
the devotees identify the Self with Arunachala?
D.: If Arunachala is the Self, why should it be specifically
picked out among so many other hills? God is everywhere. Why
do you specify Him as Arunachala?
B.: What has attracted you from Allahabad to this place?
What has attracted all these people around?
D.: Sri Bhagavan.
B.: How was I attracted here? By Arunachala. The Power
cannot be denied. Again Arunachala is within and not without.
The Self is Arunachala.
D.: Several terms are used in the holy books. Atman,
Paramatman, Para, etc. What is the gradation among them?
B.: They mean the same to the user of the words but they
are understood differently by various persons according to their
development.
D.: But why do you use so many words to mean the same thing?
B.: It depends on the circumstances. They all mean the
Self. Para means not relative, or beyond the relative, that is to
say the Absolute.1
Bhagavan would often make remarks, which the superficial
critic might take to be agnostic or atheistic, just as has been
done by superficial critics of the Buddha. For instance he
might say:
1 T., 273.
45
Why worry about God? We do not know whether God
exists but we know that we exist, so first concentrate on yourself.
Find out who you are.
There was no agnosticism, since Bhagavan, like the Buddha,
spoke from perfect knowledge. He was simply placing himself
in the position of the questioner and advising him to
concentrate rather on what he knew than what he merely
believed in. Sometimes he would tell people not to trouble
whether there is God or whether Realization implies unity
with God or not but simply to strive to realise the Self, and
when that was achieved they would know. Theorising about
it would not help them.
The Malayalam version of Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses)
was read out by a devotee for the benefit of a visitor. After
hearing it, the latter asked: What about the reference to duality
during one’s effort and unity at the end?1
B.: It refers to people who think one must begin one’s
spiritual striving with a dualistic idea. They say that there is
God and that one must worship and meditate until ultimately
the individual merges into God. Others say that the individual
and the Supreme Being always remain separate and never merge.
But let’s not worry now about what happens at the end. All
agree that the individual exists now. So let a man discover it –
that is discover his Self. There will be time enough afterwards
to find out whether the Self is to merge in the Supreme or is a
part of it or remains separate. Let us not forestall the conclusion.
Keep an open mind, dive within and find the Self. The truth
will dawn upon you all right, so why try to decide beforehand
whether it is absolute or qualified unity or duality? There is no
meaning in doing so. Your decision would have to be made by
1 F. V., 37.
46
logic and intellect, but the intellect derives its light from the
Self (the Highest Power) so how can its reflected and partial
light envisage the entire and original light? The intellect cannot
attain to the Self, so how can it ascertain its nature?1
While explaining to an American lady, Bhagavan said:
The Self alone is Real. All else is unreal. The mind and
intellect have no existence apart from you. The Bible says: ‘Be
still and know that I am God’. Stillness is the only thing needed
to realise that ‘I am’ is God.
Later he added:
The whole Vedanta is contained in the two Biblical statements
‘I am that I am’ and ‘Be still and know that I am God’.2
For one who found Self-enquiry too difficult, he would
recommend worship and submission.
D.: What should one think of when meditating?
B.: What is meditation? It is the suspension of thoughts.
You are perturbed by thoughts which rush one after another. Hold
on to one thought so that others are expelled. Continuous practice
gives the necessary strength of mind to engage in meditation.
Meditation differs according to the degree of advancement of
the seeker. If one is fit for it one can hold directly to the thinker;
and the thinker will automatically sink into his source, which is
Pure Consciousness. If one cannot directly hold on to the thinker,
one must meditate on God; and in due course the same individual
will have become sufficiently pure to hold on to the thinker and
sink into the absolute Being.3
1 T., 63.
2 T., 338.
3 T., 453.
47
In case the path of worship was chosen, he demanded absolute
surrender.
D.: God is described as manifest and unmanifest. As the
former, He is said to include the world as a part of His Being. If
that is so, we, as part of the world, should find it easy to know
Him in His manifested form.
B.: Know yourself before you seek to know the nature of
God and the world.
D.: Does knowing myself imply knowing God?
B.: Yes, God is within you.
D.: Then, what stands in the way of my knowing myself or God?
B.: Your wandering mind and perverted ways.
D.: I am a weak creature. But why does not the superior
power of the Lord within remove the obstacles?
B.: Yes, He will, if you have the aspiration.
D.: Why should He not create the aspiration in me?
B.: Then surrender yourself.
D.: If I surrender myself, is no prayer to God necessary?
B.: Surrender itself is a mighty prayer.
D.: But is it not necessary to understand His nature before
one surrenders oneself?
B.: If you believe that God will do all the things that you
want Him to do, then surrender yourself to Him. Otherwise
let God alone, and know yourself.1
If there be true surrender, there can be no complaint or frustration.
D.: We are worldly people and are afflicted by some grief
that we cannot get over. We pray to God and are still not
satisfied. What should we do?
B.: Trust God.
1 M. G., pp. 42-3.
48
D.: We surrender but still there is no help.
B.: But if you have surrendered, it means that you must
accept the will of God and not make a grievance of what may
not happen to please you. Things may turn out differently from
what they appear. Distress often leads people to faith in God.
D.: But we are worldly people. We have wife, children,
friends and relations. We cannot ignore them and resign ourselves
to the Divine will without retaining some trace of individuality.
B.: That means that you have not really surrendered, as
you say you have. All you need to do is to trust God.1
Following the path of devotion, one should leave everything
to God.
The Lord bears the burden of the world. Know that the
spurious ego which presumes to bear that burden is like a
sculptured figure at the foot of a temple tower which appears to
sustain the tower’s weight. Whose fault is it if the traveller, instead
of putting his luggage in the cart which bears the load anyway,
carries it on his head, to his own inconvenience?2
There cannot even be impatience for speedy realisation. To
one who was so afflicted, he replied:
Surrender to Him and accept His will whether He appears
or vanishes. Await His pleasure. If you want Him to do as you
want, it is not surrender but command. You cannot ask Him to
obey you and yet think you have surrendered. He knows what
is best and when and how to do it. Leave everything entirely to
Him. The burden is His and you have no more cares. All your
cares are His. That is what is meant by surrender.3
1 T., 43.
2 F. V. S., 17.
3 T., 450.
49
Even prayer can betoken a lack of trust and Bhagavan did not
normally encourage prayer in the sense of petition.
They pray to God and finish with: ‘Thy will be done’. If
His will be done, why do they pray at all? It is true that the
Divine will prevails at all times and under all circumstances.
Individuals cannot act of their own accord. Recognise the force
of the Divine will and keep quiet. Everyone is looked after by
God. He created all. You are only one among two thousand
millions. When He looks after so many, will He omit you?
Even common sense dictates that one should accept His will.
There is no need to tell Him your requirements. He knows
them Himself and will look after them.1
On other occasions, however, he would confirm the efficacy
of prayer. As in other matters, he would put the viewpoint
which would best help the spiritual development of the
particular questioner.
D.: Are our prayers granted?
B.: Yes, they are granted. No thought will ever go in vain.
Every thought will produce its effect some time or other.
Thought force will never go in vain.2
It will be seen that this hints at a doctrine far wider than
personal response by an anthropomorphic God. It indicates
the general power of thought for good or evil and its
repercussions on the thinker. Understanding of this involves a
great responsibility for thoughts no less than for actions, just
as Christ indicated that to look at a woman lustfully was a
sin, the same as committing adultery with her. The following
passage shows how far this teaching was from any humanised
conception of a God.
1 T., 594.
2 D. D., p. 266-7.
50
Not from any desire, resolve, or effort on the part of the
rising sun, but merely due to the presence of his rays, the lens
emits heat, the lotus blossoms, water evaporates, and people
attend to their various duties in life. In the proximity of the
magnet the needle moves. Similarly, the soul or jiva subjected
to the threefold activity of creation, preservation and destruction,
which takes place merely due to the unique Presence of the
Supreme Lord, performs acts in accordance with its karma, and
subsides to rest after such activity. But the Lord Himself has no
resolve; no act or event touches even the fringe of His Being.
This state of immaculate aloofness can be likened to that of the
sun, which is untouched by the activities of life, or to that of the
all-pervasive ether, which is not affected by the interaction of
the complex qualities of the other four elements.1
RELIGIONS
It should be clear from what we said in previous section that
Bhagavan’s teaching was not opposed to any religion. If
philosophers or theologians wished to argue whether the human
soul was permanently and essentially separate from the Divine
Being, he would refuse to join issue with them but try to turn
them to spiritual effort instead, as, for instance, in his talk
with a Jesuit priest on page 39. When they attained Realisation
they would know, and theoretical knowledge without
Realisation would not help them anyway.
Strictly speaking, Bhagavan was not exclusively a Hindu or
subject to Hindu ritual, since Hinduism recognises that one
who is established in constant, conscious identity with the Self
is above all religions; he is the mountain peak towards which
1 W., § 17.
51
the various paths converge. Bhagavan had many followers who
were not Hindus – Christians, Muslims, Parsis and others –
and none was ever recommended to change his religion.
A religion involves two modes of activity; what might be
called the horizontal and the vertical. Horizontally it
harmonises and controls the life of the individual and society
in conformity with its faith and morality, giving opportunity
and incentive for a good life leading to a good death. Vertically
it provides spiritual paths for those who strive to attain a
higher state or realise the ultimate truth during this life on
earth. Horizontally, religions are mutually exclusive, but not
really contradictory. Bhagavan was concerned rather with the
vertical mode, the paths to realisation, and therefore his teaching
clashed with no religion. He guided those who would follow
him on the most direct and central path, the quest of the Self;
and for this any religion could serve as a foundation. He
approved of every religion and if some devotees came to him
who followed no formal religion, he did not insist they should
do so. When asked about the different religious practices, he
would stress their deeper meaning, and about different religions
their basic unity.
D.: What is yoga?
B.: Yoga (union) is necessary for one who is in a state of
viyoga (separation). But really there is only one. If you realise
the Self there will be no difference.
D.: Is there any efficacy in bathing in the Ganges?
B.: The Ganges is within you. Bathe in this Ganges; it will
not make you shiver with cold.
D.: Should we sometimes read the Bhagavad Gita?
B.: Always.
D.: May we read the Bible?
B.: The Bible and the Gita are the same.
D.: The Bible teaches that man is born in sin.
(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Bhagavan Sree Ramana Maharshi
and also gratitude to great philosophers and others for the collection)
0 comments:
Post a Comment