The Teachings of Bhagavan
Sri Ramana Maharshi
in His Own Words
Edited by:
ARTHUR OSBORNE
B.: Man is sin. There is no feeling of being man is deep
sleep. The body-thought brings out the idea of sin. The birth of
thought itself is sin.
D.: The Bible says that the human soul may be lost.
B.: The ‘I’-thought is the ego and that is lost. The real ‘I’ is
‘I am that I am’.1
The doctrine of the Trinity was explained: God the Father is
equivalent to Ishwara, God the Son to the Guru, and God the
Holy Ghost to the Atman. Isvaro gururatmeti murti bheda vibhagine
vyomavad vyapta dehaya dakshinamurtaye namah, means that God
appears to His devotee in the form of a Guru (Son of God) and
points out to him the immanence of the Holy Spirit.
That is to say, that God is Spirit, that this Spirit is immanent
everywhere and that the Self must be realised, which is the same
as realising God.2
He protested against being satisfied with formal heavens,
whether Hindu or any other, because so long as there is form
there remains seer, sight and seen and not the One Self.
D.: There is a short account of the spiritual experiences of
St. Theresa, in the March number of Prabuddha Bharata. She
was devoted to a figure of the Madonna which became animated
to her sight and she was in bliss. Is this the same as saktipata?
B.: The animated figure indicates the depth of meditation
(dhyana bala). Saktipata prepares the mind for introversion.
There is a process of concentration of the mind on one’s own
shadow which in due course becomes animated and answers
questions put to it. That is due to strength of mind or depth of
meditation. Whatever is external is also transitory. Such
1 T., 164.
2 T., 90.
53
phenomena may produce joy for the time being, but abiding
peace (Shanti) does not result. That is got only by the removal
of avidya (ignorance).1
D.: Can’t we see God in concrete form?
B.: Yes. God is seen in the mind. A concrete form may be
seen but still it is only in the devotees’ mind. The form and
appearance in which God manifests are determined by the mind
of the devotee. But that is not the ultimate experience. There is
a sense of duality in it. It is like a dream or vision. After God is
perceived, Self-enquiry begins and that leads to Realisation of
the Self. Self-enquiry is the ultimate route.2
Sometimes his answers were cryptic and epigrammatical. The
same universal truth is to be found in them; their rather prickly
form may reflect the aggressive manner of the questioner.
Q.: What is the best of all religions? What is Bhagavan’s
method?
B.: All methods and religions are the same.
Q.: But different methods are taught for attaining
liberation.
B.: Why should you be liberated? Why not remain as you
are now?
Q.: I want to get rid of pain. To be rid of pain is said to be
liberation.
B.: That is what all Religions teach.
Q.: But what is the method?
B.: Go back the way you came.*
Q.: Where did I come from?
1 T., 393.
2 T., 251.
* Cf. Christ’s injunction to return to the mother’s womb and be born again.
54
B.: That is just what you have to find out. Did these
questions arise when you were asleep? And yet you existed then.
Were you not the same person?
Q.: Yes, I existed in sleep. So did the mind. But the senses
had merged so that I could not speak.
B.: Are you the individual? Are you the mind? Did the
mind announce itself to you when you were asleep?
Q.: No. But the authorities say that the individuality is
different from God.
B.: Never mind about God; speak for yourself.
Q.: What about myself? Who am I?
B.: That is just what you have to find out. Then you will
know everything. If you do not, it will be time enough to ask then.
Q.: When I wake, I see the world and I am not changed at all.
B.: But you do not know this when asleep. And yet you
exist in both states. Who has changed now? Is it your nature to
change or to remain unchanging?
Q.: What is the proof?
B.: Does one require proof of one’s own being? Only
remain aware of yourself and all else will be known.
Q.: Why then do the dualists and non-dualists quarrel
among themselves?
B.: If each would attend to his own business (of seeking
Realisation) there would be no quarrel.1
Spiritual experience may be differently expressed because some
form must be given to the Formless in order to express them
at all, but essentially they are the same.
D.: Is the experience of the highest state the same to all, or
is there any difference?
1 T., 479.
55
B.: The highest state is the same and the experience is the
same.
D.: But I find some difference in the interpretation given
of the highest truth.
B.: The interpretations are made with the mind. The minds
are different, so the interpretations also differ.
D.: I mean to say that the seers express themselves differently.
B.: Their modes of expression may differ according to the
nature of the seekers for whose guidance they are intended.
D.: One speaks in terms of Christianity, another of Islam,
a third of Buddhism, etc. Is that due to their upbringing?
B.: Whatever may be their upbringing, their experience is the
same. Only the modes of expression differ according to circumstances.1
So also with different paths or schools within a religion.
D.: Different teachers have set up different schools and
proclaimed different truths and so confused people. Why?
B.: They have all taught the same truth but from different
standpoints. Such differences were necessary to meet the needs
of different minds differently constituted, but they all reveal
the same truth.
D.: Since they have recommended different paths, which
is one to follow?
B.: You speak of paths as if you were somewhere and the
Self somewhere else and you had to go and attain it. But in fact
the Self is here and now and you are It always. It is like being
here and asking people the way to Ramanasramam and then
complaining that each one shows a different path and asking
which to follow.2
1 T., 595.
2 D. D., p. 270.
56
While confirming the various religions, Bhagavan at the same
time urged people to get beyond them to the One Self. Paul
Brunton, author of A Search In Secret India asked him about
the various doctrines of heaven and hell.
D.: Why do religions speak of gods, heaven, hell etc?
B.: Only to make people realise that they are on a par with
this world and that the Self alone is real. The religions are
according to the viewpoint of the seeker. (Take the Bhagavad
Gita for instance; when Arjuna said that he would not fight
against his own relations 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’ and so on.
Later, as he developed the theme and declared that He had given
the same instruction to the Sun, through him to Ikshvaku, etc.
Arjuna raised the doubt: ‘How can that be? You were born a
few years ago. They lived ages ago’. Then Sri Krishna,
understanding Arjuna’s standpoint, said: ‘Yes, there have been
many incarnations of myself and yourself; I know them all, but
you do not’). Such statements appear contradictory, but still
both are right according to the point of view of the questioner.
Christ also declared “Before Abraham was, I am.”
D.: What is the purpose of such descriptions in religion?
B.: Only to establish the reality of the Self.
D.: Bhagavan always speaks from the highest standpoint.
B.: (smiling): People will not understand the bare and simple
truth – the truth of their everyday, ever-present and eternal
experience. That is the truth of the Self. Is there any one not aware
of the Self? Yet, they do not even like to hear of it, whereas they are
eager to know what lies beyond – heaven and hell and reincarnation.
Because they love mystery and not the plain truth, religions pamper
57
them – only to bring them round to the Self in the end. Moreover,
much as you may wander you must return ultimately to the Self;
so why not abide in the Self here and now?1
A passage was quoted above in which the questioner was
recommended to read the Gita or the Bible constantly; and
yet on other occasions people were reminded that their
scriptures also have to be superseded.
All the scriptures are meant only to make a man retrace
his steps to his original source. He need not acquire anything
new. He only has to give up false ideas and useless accretions.
Instead of doing this, however, he tries to grasp something strange
and mysterious because he believes his happiness lies elsewhere.
That is the mistake.2
All scriptures without exception proclaim that for attaining
salvation, the mind should be subdued. And once one knows
that control of the mind is their final aim, it is futile to make an
interminable study of them. What is required for such control is
actual enquiry into oneself by self-interrogation – ‘Who am I?’
How can this enquiry in quest of the Self be made by means of
a studying of the scriptures?3
One should realise the Self by the Eye of wisdom. Does
Rama need a mirror to recognise himself as Rama?4 That to
which ‘I’ refers is within the five sheaths, whereas the scriptures
are outside them. Therefore, it is futile to seek by means of the
study of the scriptures, the Self that has to be realised by
summarily rejecting even the five sheaths.5
1 T., 145.
2 T., 252.
3 W., § 23.
4 Ibid., § 20.
5 W., § 23
58
To enquire ‘who am I that is in bondage?’ and to know
one’s real nature alone is Liberation. To keep the mind constantly
turned within and to abide thus in the Self is alone Atmavichara
(Self-enquiry), whereas dhyana (meditation) consists in fervent
contemplation of the Self as Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-
Consciousness-Bliss).1 Indeed, at some time, one will have to
forget everything that has been learnt.2
The Realised Man stands forth as That to which all the
attributes enumerated by the scriptures refer. To him therefore,
these sacred texts are of no use whatever.3
1 W., § 27.
2 Ibid., § 23.
3 S.I., Chap. IV, § 9.
59
CHAPTER TWO
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
As was shown in the previous chapter, the theory that the
Maharshi taught was intended only to serve as a basis for
practice. However, the demand for practice brought in another
branch of theory, that of free-will or predestination, since people
were not lacking who asked why they should make any effort
if everything was predestined, or if all men returned to their
Source in any case.
A visitor from Bengal said: Shankara says that we are all
free, not bound, and that we shall all return to God from whom
we came, like sparks from a fire. If that is so, why should we not
commit all sorts of sins?
Bhagavan’s reply showed him that that cannot be the point of
view of the ego.
B.: It is true that we are not bound. That is to say, the real
Self has no bondage. And it is true that you will eventually return
to your Source. But meanwhile, if you commit sins, as you call
them, you have to face the consequences. You cannot escape them.
If a man beats you, can you say: ‘I am free. I am not affected by
the beating and feel no pain. Let him continue beating’? If you
can really feel that, then you can do what you like, but what is
the use of just saying in words that you are free?1
Bhagavan did sometimes make pronouncements which seemed
superficially like affirmations of complete predestination. When
1 D. D., p. 298-9.
60
he left home in his youth, already established in Self-realisation,
his mother sought and at last found him. He was maintaining
silence at that time; therefore, on her request to return home
with her, he wrote out his reply instead of replying verbally:
The Ordainer controls the fate of souls in accordance with
their prarabdhakarma (destiny to be worked out in this life, resulting
from the balance sheet of actions in past lives). Whatever is destined
not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined
to happen will happen, do what you may to prevent it. This is
certain. The best course, therefore, is to remain silent.1
He sometimes also made such statements to devotees.
All the activities that the body is to go through are
determined when it first comes into existence. It does not rest
with you to accept or reject them. The only freedom you have
is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there.2
With reference to Bhagavan’s reply to Mrs. Desai on the
evening of January 3, 1946, I asked him: Are only the important
events in a man’s life, such as his main occupation or profession,
predetermined, or are trifling acts also, such as taking a cup of
water or moving from one part of the room to another?
B.: Everything is predetermined.
I: Then what responsibility, what free will has man?
B.: Why does the body come into existence? It is designed
for the various things that are marked out for it in this life.... As
for freedom, a man is always free not to identify himself with
the body and not to be affected by the pleasures and pains
consequent on its activities.3
1 R. M., p. 41.
2 D. D., p. 245.
3 D. D., pp. 91-2.
61
Actually, however, the question of free will or predestination
does not arise at all from the point of view of non-duality. It
is as though a group of people who had never heard of radio
were to stand round a wireless set arguing whether the man in
the box has to sing what the transmitting station tells him to
or whether he can change parts of the songs. The answer is
that there is no man in the box and therefore the question
does not arise. Similarly, the answer to the question of whether
the ego has free will or not is that there is no ego and therefore
the question does not arise. Therefore Bhagavan’s usual
response to the question would be to bid the questioner find
out who it is that has free will or predestination.
D.: Has man any free will or is everything in his life
predetermined?
The same question as above, but the answer differs according
to the needs of the questioner. In fact, if one does not bear in
mind what has just been said about the unreality of the ego it
seems to be quite contradictory.
B.: Free will exists together with the individuality. As long as the
individuality lasts, so long is there free will. All the scriptures are
based on this fact and advise directing the free will in the right channel.
Is this really a contradiction of the reply given earlier? No, because,
according to Bhagavan’s teaching, individuality has only an illusory
existence. So long as one imagines that one has a separate
individuality, so long does one also imagine its free will. The two
exist together inevitably. The problem of predestination and free
will has always plagued philosophers and theologians and will
always continue to do so, because it is insoluble on the plane of
duality, that is on the supposition of one being who is the Creator
and a lot of other, separate beings who are created. If they have
free will, then he is not omnipotent and omniscient – he does
not know what will happen, because it depends on what they
decide; and he cannot control all happenings because they have
the power to change them. On the other hand, if he is omniscient
and omnipotent he has fore-knowledge of all that will happen
62
and controls everything, and therefore they can have no power of
decision, that is to say no free will. But on the level of advaita or
non-duality the problem fades out and ceases to exist. In truth
the ego has no free will, because there is no ego; but on the level
of apparent reality the ego consists of free will – it is the illusion
of free will that creates the illusion of the ego. That is what
Bhagavan meant by saying that “as long as the individuality lasts,
so long is there free will.” The next sentence in his answer turns
the questioner away from theory to practice.
Find out who it is who has free will or predestination and
abide in that state. Then both are transcended. That is the only
purpose in discussing these questions. To whom do such
questions present themselves? Discover that and be at peace.1
The only path of karma (action), bhakti (devotion), yoga
and jnana (knowledge) is to enquire who it is who has the karma,
vibhakti (lack of devotion), viyoga (separation) and ajnana
(ignorance). Through this investigation, the ego disappears and
the state of abidance in the Self, in which none of these negative
qualities ever existed, remains as the Truth.2
As long as a man is the doer he also reaps the fruits of his
deeds, but as soon as he realises the Self through enquiry as to who
the doer is, his sense of being the doer falls away and the triple
karma (destiny) is ended. This is the state of eternal liberation.3
Bhagavan said: “We are all really Sat-chit-ananda (Being-
Knowledge-Bliss) but we imagine that we are bound (by destiny)
and have all this suffering.”
I asked him why we imagine this, why this state of ignorance
(ajnana) comes over us.
Bhagavan said: “Ask yourself to whom this ignorance has
come and you will discover that it never came to you and that
1 T., 426.
2 F. V. S., 14.
3 F. V., 38.
63
you always have been Sat-chit-ananda. One goes through all
sorts of austerities to become what one already is. All effort is
simply to get rid of the mistaken impression that one is limited
and bound by the woes of samsara (this life).1
D.: Is there predestination? And if what is destined to
happen will happen, is there any use in prayer or effort or should
we just remain idle?
This is a concise form of the question which Bhagavan was so
often asked, and the reply is typical in that it does not expound
theory but prescribes what to do.
B.: There are only two ways in which to conquer destiny
or be independent of it. One is to enquire who undergoes this
destiny and discover that only the ego is bound by it and not
the Self, and that the ego is non-existent. The other way is to
kill the ego by completely surrendering to the Lord, by realising
one’s helplessness and saying all the time: ‘Not I, but Thou, Oh,
my Lord’, and giving up all sense of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ and leaving
it to the Lord to do what he likes with you. Surrender can
never be regarded as complete so long as the devotee wants this
or that from the Lord. True surrender is love of God for the
sake of love and for nothing else, not even for the sake of
salvation. In other words, complete effacement of the ego is
necessary to conquer destiny, whether you achieve this
effacement through Self enquiry or through bhakti-marga.2
This mode of reply is common to spiritual teachers. I
remember once reading the life of a Sufi saint, Abu Said, by
Professor Nicholson, in which the learned author concluded
that he seems to have taught predestination in theory but free
will in practice. Puzzling as it may be for the philosopher, this
1 D. D., pp. 48-9.
2 D. D., p. 266.
64
is the attitude of all spiritual teachers, just as Christ affirmed
that not even a sparrow can fall without the will of God, and
that the very hairs on one’s head are numbered, just as the
Quran affirms that all knowledge and power are with God
and that He leads aright whom He will and leads astray whom
He will; and yet both Christ and the Quran exhort men to
right effort and condemn sin. Bhagavan was quite categorical
that effort is necessary. In actual life everyone realises this,
whatever theoretical view he may hold. A man makes the
physical effort of putting the food in his mouth and eating;
he does not say: What is the use of eating if I am predestined
to die of starvation? He makes the mental effort of earning
the money to buy food to eat. Why should he, then, apply a
different logic when it comes to spiritual effort?
A young man from Colombo, Ceylon, said to Bhagavan:
J. Krishnamurthi teaches the method of effortless and choiceless
awareness as distinct from that of deliberate concentration.
Would Sri Bhagavan be pleased to explain how best to practise
meditation and what form the object of meditation should take?
B.: Effortless and choiceless awareness is our real nature. If we
can attain that state and abide in it, that is all right. But one cannot
reach it without effort, the effort of deliberate meditation. All the
age-old vasanas (inherent tendencies) turn the mind outwards to
external objects. All such thoughts have to be given up and the
mind turned inwards and that, for most people, requires effort. Of
course, every teacher and every book tells the aspirant to keep
quiet, but it is not easy to do so. That is why all this effort is necessary.
Even if we find somebody who has achieved this supreme state of
stillness, you may take it that the necessary effort had already been
made in a previous life. So effortless and choiceless awareness is
attained only after deliberate meditation. That meditation can take
whatever form most appeals to you. See what helps you to keep
out all other thoughts and adopt that for your meditation.
65
In this connection Bhagavan quoted some verses from the
great Tamil poet and saint, Thayumanavar, the gist of which is
as follows: Bliss will ensue if you keep still, but however much
you tell your mind this truth, it will not keep still. It is the
mind that tells the mind to be still in order for it to attain bliss,
but it will not do it. Though all the scriptures have said it and
though we hear it daily from the great ones and even from our
Guru, we are never quiet but stray into the world of Maya
(illusion) and sense objects. That is why conscious, deliberate
effort is needed to attain that effortless state of stillness.1
Indeed, until the supreme, effortless state is attained, it is
impossible for a man not to make effort. His own nature
compels him to, just as Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita told
Arjuna that his own nature would compel him to fight.
D.: I want to be further enlightened. Should I try to make
no effort at all?
B.: Now it is impossible for you to be without effort. When
you go deeper, it is impossible for you to make effort.2
D.: What is the difference between meditation and samadhi
or absorption in the Self?
B.: Meditation is initiated and sustained by a conscious effort
of the mind. When such effort entirely subsides, it is called samadhi.3
B.: If you can keep still without engaging in any other
pursuits, well and good. But if that cannot be done, what is the
use of remaining inactive only with regard to realisation? So
long as you are obliged to be active, do not give up the attempt
to realise the Self.4
1 D. D., p. 104.
2 S. D. B., iv.
3 S. I.,Chap.II, § 15.
4 T., 255.
66
Meditation is a fight. As soon as you begin meditation,
other thoughts will crowd together, gather force and try to
overwhelm the single thought to which you try to hold. This
thought must gradually gain strength by repeated practice. When
it has grown strong, the other thoughts will be put to flight.
This is the battle always going on in meditation.1
So long as the ego lasts, effort is necessary. When the ego
ceases to exist, actions become spontaneous.2
No one succeeds without effort. Mind control is not your
birthright. The few who succeed owe their success to their
perseverence.3
Sometimes glimpses of Realisation are attained before it
becomes permanent, and in such cases effort still continues to
be necessary.
Effort is necessary up to the state of Realisation. Even then,
the Self should spontaneously become evident; otherwise
happiness will not be complete. Up to that state of spontaneity
there must be effort in some form or another.4
Sometimes right effort is referred to as a duty.
D.: Why should I try to get Realisation? I shall emerge from
this state of illusion just as I wake up from a dream. We do not
make any effort to get out of a dream when we are asleep.
B.: In a dream you have no inkling that it is a dream, and
therefore no obligation to make an effort to get out of it. But in
this life you have some intuition based on your experience of
sleep and on what you hear and read, that it is a sort of dream,
1 T., 371.
2 T., 467.
3 T., 398.
4 T., 78.
67
and this intuition imposes on you the duty of making an effort
to get out of it. However, who wants you to realise the Self if you
don’t want to? If you prefer to be in this dream, stay as you are.1
Sometimes, however, as in the following very similar
conversation, the seeker was reminded that even the effort is a
part of the illusion of individual being.
D.: It is said that our waking life is also a dream, similar to our
dream during sleep. But in our dreams we make no conscious effort
to get rid of the dream and to wake up; the dream itself comes to an
end without any effort on our part and we become awake. Similarly,
why shouldn’t the waking state, which in reality is only another sort
of dream, come to an end of its own accord without any effort on
our part, and land us in Realisation or real awakening?
B.: Your thinking that you have to make an effort to get
rid of this dream of a waking state and your making efforts to
attain Realisation or real awakening are all parts of the dream.
When you attain Realisation you will see there was neither the
dream during sleep nor the waking state, but only yourself and
your real state.2
Sometimes the question took the form of apparent conflict
not between effort and destiny but between effort and grace,
for there were those who asked what use effort was if Realisation
was dependent on the grace of God or Guru. In one form or
another this doubt tends to arise in any religion, as in the
Christian dispute whether salvation is due to grace or good
works. Really, as the following quotations show, there is no
conflict between the two.
V.: It is said that only those who are chosen for Selfrealisation
obtain it. That is rather discouraging.
1 D. D., pp. 89-90.
2 D. D., p. 16.
68
B.: That only means that we cannot attain realisation of
the Self by our own mind, unaided by God’s grace.
I interposed: “Bhagavan also says that even that grace does
not come arbitrarily but because one has deserved it by one’s
own efforts either in this life or in previous ones.”
V.: But human effort is said to be useless; so what incentive
has a man to improve himself?
I asked where it was said that you should make no effort
or that effort was useless; and the visitor pointed to the passage
in ‘Who am I?’ where it says that, since the indefinable power
of the Lord ordains, sustains and controls everything we need
not worry what we shall do.1
I pointed out that what is deprecated there is not human
effort but the feeling ‘I-am-the-doer’. I asked Bhagavan whether
my explanation was not right and he approved of it.2
D.: Grace is necessary for the removal of ignorance.
B.: Certainly. But Grace is there all along. Grace is the
Self. It is not something to be acquired. All that is necessary is
to know its existence. In the same way, the sun is pure brightness;
it does not know darkness, although others speak of darkness
fleeing away on its approach. Like darkness, ignorance is a
phantom, not real. Because of its unreality, it is said to be
removed when its unreality is discovered.
The sun is there and shines and you are surrounded by
sunlight; still, if you would know the sun you must turn your
eyes in its direction and look at it. Similarly, Grace is only to be
found by effort, although it is here and now.
D.: By the desire to surrender, increasing grace is
experienced, I hope?
1&2 D. D., p. 4.
69
B.: Surrender once and for all and be done with the desire.
So long as the sense of being the doer remains, desire does also.
Therefore the ego remains. But once this goes the Self shines
forth in its purity. The sense of being the doer is the bondage,
not the actions themselves. ‘Be still and know that I am God.’
Here, stillness is total surrender without a vestige of individuality.
Stillness will prevail and there will be no agitation of the mind.
Agitation of mind is the cause of desire, of the sense of being
the doer, of personality. If that is stopped, there is quiet. In this
sense, ‘knowing’ means ‘being’. It is not relative knowledge
involving the triads of knower, knowledge and known.1
D.: But one may not be quite sure of God’s grace.
B.: If the unripe mind does not feel God’s grace, it does
not mean that this is absent, for that would imply that God is at
times not gracious, that is to say, ceases to be God.
D.: Is that the same as the saying of Christ: According to
thy faith be it done unto thee?
B.: Quite so.
D.: The Upanishads say, I am told, that he alone knows
the Atman whom the Atman chooses. Why should the Atman
choose at all? If it chooses, why some particular person?
B.: When the sun rises some buds blossom, not all. Do
you blame the sun for that? Nor can the bud blossom of itself;
it requires the sunlight to enable it to do so.
D.: May we not say that the help of the Atman is needed
because it is the Atman that drew over itself the veil of Maya?
B.: You may say so.
D.: If the Atman has drawn the veil over itself, should it
not itself remove the veil?
1 T., 354.
70
B.: It will. But who complains of being veiled? Ask yourself
that.
D.: Why should I? Let the Atman itself remove the veil.
B.: If the Atman complains about the veil, then the Atman
will remove it.1
D.: If the Supreme Being is omnipresent, as He is said to
be, His realisation ought to be an easy thing. The scriptures,
however, declare that without His grace the Lord cannot even
be worshipped, much less realised. So then, how can the
individual by his own effort realise the Self, or the Supreme
Being, except through His grace?
B.: There was never a time when the Supreme Being was
unknown or unrealised, because He is one and identical with the
Self. His grace or anugraha is the same as the conscious immediacy
of His Divine Presence, Prasannata, in other words, Enlightenment
or Revelation. One’s ignorance of this self-revealing immediacy of
Divine Grace is no proof to the contrary. If the owl does not see
the sun that illumines the whole world, is that the fault of the sun?
Is it not due to the defectiveness of the bird’s sight? Similarly, if the
ignorant man is unaware of the ever-luminous Atman or Self, can
that be attributed to the nature of the Atman itself? Is it not the
result of his own ignorance? The Supreme Lord is eternal grace.
Therefore, there is really no such individual act as bestowing Grace;
and, being ever present, the manifestation of Grace is not confined
to any particular period or occasion.2
Turning to God and desiring His grace is itself grace.
D.: Doubts keep arising. That is why I ask how it is to
be done.
1 M. G., pp. 43-4.
2 S. I., Chap. II. § 7.
71
B.: A doubt arises and it is cleared. Another arises and that
is cleared, only to make way for another, and so it goes on. So
there is no possibility of clearing away all doubts. Find out
instead to whom the doubts come. Go to their source and stay
there. Then they cease to arise. That is how doubts are to be
cleared away.
D.: Only grace can help me do it.
B.: Grace is not something outside you. In fact your very
desire for grace is due to grace that is already working in you.1
Grace is represented alike as the grace of God or Guru.
D.: Isn’t success dependent on the grace of the Guru?
B.: Yes, but isn’t your practice itself due to such grace? Its
fruits spring from it automatically. There is a stanza in Kaivalya
which runs: ‘O Guru, you have always been with me, watching
over me, one incarnation after another, and have shaped my
course until I was Liberated.’ The Self manifests externally as
the Guru when occasion demands; otherwise he always remains
within, doing what is required.2
V.: In actual practice, I find I cannot succeed in my efforts
unless Bhagavan’s grace descends on me.
B.: The Guru’s Grace is always there. You imagine it to be
something somewhere high up in the sky that has to descend,
but really it is inside you, in your heart, and the moment you
effect the subsidence or merging of the mind into its Source,
by whatever method, the Grace rushes forth, spouting as from
a spring within you.3
1 T., 618.
2 T., 425.
3 D. D., p. 28.
72
CHAPTER THREE
LIFE IN THE WORLD
Once anyone decided to proceed from theory to practice on the
basis of Bhagavan’s teachings, the question was apt to arise how
that affected his life in the world. Hinduism does not necessarily
enjoin physical renunciation for active spiritual seekers, as did,
for instance, the original teaching of Christ or Buddha. On the
contrary, the state of the householder is honoured and the path
of right action is a legitimate path. In fact, the classical system
in ancient India was that a man should retire into the homeless
state only after he had fulfilled his duties as a householder and
had an adult son or sons to replace him.
However, the doctrine of non-duality, together with the
path of Self-enquiry (to be described in a later chapter), which
is based on it, has been traditionally recognised as suitable to
the world-renouncer. It was therefore natural that Bhagavan’s
followers often asked him whether they should renounce the
world. At the same time, it was a remarkable indication of the
amount of spiritual determination which still remains in
modern India, for renouncing the world does not mean living
a solitary life in a little house and garden of one’s own, as it
might in the West, or even retiring to the austere security of a
monastery, but going forth homeless and penniless, depending
on the charitable for food and clothing and sleeping in a cave
or temple or wherever possible. It does sometimes happen in
modern times that a sadhu accepts a small grant from his
family – enough to buy food and the simplest clothing; but
even so, it is a bare, hard life. Nevertheless, there were constant
requests to be allowed to take this life and constantly Bhagavan
withheld permission. The work was internal and had to be
done in the mind, whatever the conditions of life.
73
B.: Why do you think you are a householder? The similar
thought that you are a sannyasi will haunt you even if you go
forth as one. Whether you continue in the household or
renounce it and go to live in the forest, your mind haunts you.
The ego is the source of thought. It creates the body and the
world and makes you think of being a householder. If you
renounce, it will only substitute the thought of renunciation
for that of the family and the environment of the forest for that
of the household. But the mental obstacles are always there for
you. They even increase greatly in the new surroundings. Change
of environment is no help. The one obstacle is the mind, and
this must be overcome whether in the home or in the forest. If
you can do it in the forest why not in the home? So why change
the environment? Your efforts can be made even now, whatever
be the environment.
D.: Is it possible to enjoy samadhi while busy with worldly
work?
B.: It is the feeling ‘I work’ that is the hindrance. Ask
yourself: ‘Who works?’ Remember who you are. Then the work
will not bind you. It will go on automatically. Make no effort
either to work or to renounce; your effort is the bondage. What
is destined to happen will happen. If you are destined to work,
you will not be able to avoid it; you will be forced to engage in
it. So leave it to the Higher Power. It is not really your choice
whether you renounce or retain.1
When women carrying jars of water on their heads, stop
to talk, they are very careful, keeping their mind on the water
jars. Similarly, when a sage engages in activity, his mind remains
fixed in the Self and his activity does not distract him.2
1 M. G., p. 4-5.
2 T., 231.
74
D.: I believe celibacy is necessary even for a householder if
he is to succeed in Self-enquiry. Am I right?
B.: First find out who the wife and husband are. Then the
question will not arise.1
D.: Isn’t Brahmacharya (celibacy) necessary for realisation
of the Self?
B.: Brahmacharya means ‘living in Brahman’; it has no
connection with celibacy as commonly understood. A real
Brahmachari is one who lives in Brahman and finds bliss in
Brahman, which is the same as the Self. Why, then, should he
look for other sources of happiness? In fact, it is emergence
from the Self that is the cause of all misery.
D.: But isn’t celibacy necessary for yoga?
B.: It is one aid to realisation among many others.
D.: Then is it not indispensable? Can a married man realise
the Self?
B.: Certainly. It is a question of fitness of mind. Married or
unmarried, a man can realise the Self, because the Self is here and
now. If it were not, but were obtainable by some effort at some
future time, if it were something new to be acquired, it would not
be worth seeking, because what is not natural cannot be permanent.
What I say is that the Self is here and now and that IT alone is.2
D.: Is it necessary to take sannyasa (a vow of renunciation)
in order to attain Self-realisation?
B.: ‘Sannyasa’ means renouncing one’s individuality, not
shaving one’s head and putting on ochre robes. A man may be a
householder but if he does not think he is one he is a sannyasin.
On the other hand, he may wear ochre robes and wander about,
but so long as he thinks he is a sannyasin he is not one. To think
about one’s renunciation defeats the purpose of renouncing.3
1 T., 484.
2 T., 17.
3 T., 427.
75
What do you mean by ‘taking sannyasa’? Do you think
it means leaving your home or wearing robes of a certain
colour? Wherever you go, even if you fly up into the air, will
your mind not go with you? Or, can you leave it behind you
and go without it?1
Why should your occupation or duties in life interfere
with your spiritual effort? For instance, there is a difference
between your activities at home and in the office. In your office
activities, you are detached and so long as you do your duty
you do not care what happens or whether it results in gain or
loss to the employer. Your duties at home, on the other hand,
are performed with attachment and you are all the time anxious
whether they will bring advantage to you and your family. But
it is possible to perform all the activities of life with detachment
and regard only the Self as real. It is wrong to suppose that if
one is fixed in the Self, one’s duties in life will not be properly
performed. It is like an actor. He dresses and acts and even feels
the part he is playing, but he knows really that he is not that
character but someone else in real life. In the same way, why
should the body consciousness or the feeling ‘I-am-the-body’
disturb you, once you know for certain that you are not the
body but the Self? Nothing that the body does should shake
you from abidance in the Self. Such abidance will never interfere
with the proper and effective discharge of whatever duties the
body has any more than an actor’s being aware of his real status
in life interferes with his acting a part on the stage.2
D.: It has been definitely stated that so long as there is the
least trace of the ‘I-am-the-doer’ idea, there can be no realisation,
1 D. D., p. 232.
2 D. D., pp. 244-5.
76
but is it possible for a householder who earnestly desires
Liberation to fulfil his duties without this idea?
B.: There is no principle that actions can be performed
only on the basis of the ‘I-am-the-doer’ idea, and therefore there
is no reason to ask whether they can be performed and the
duties discharged without that idea. To take a common example,
an accountant working all day in his office and scrupulously
attending to his duties might seem to the spectator to be
shouldering all the financial responsibilities of the institution.
But, knowing that he is not personally affected by the intake or
outgoings, he remains unattached and free from the ‘I-am-thedoer’
feeling in doing his work, while at the same time he does
it perfectly well. In the same way, it is quite possible for the wise
householder who earnestly seeks liberation to discharge his duties
in life (which, after all, are his destiny) without any attachment,
regarding himself merely as an instrument for the purpose. Such
activity is not an obstacle on the path of Knowledge nor does
Knowledge prevent a man from discharging his duties in life.
Knowledge and activity are never mutually antagonistic and
the realisation of one does not impede performance of the other,
nor performance of one the realisation of the other.
D.: What is the significance of the life of a spirituallyminded
householder who has to devote all his time merely to
earning a living and supporting his family and what mutual
benefit do they get?
B.: The discharge of his duties by a householder such as
this, who works for the support of his family, quite unmindful
of his own physical comforts in life, should be regarded as selfless
service rendered to his family, whose needs it is his destiny to
meet. It may, however, be asked what benefit such a householder
derives from the family. The answer is that there is no benefit
77
for him from the family as such, since he has made the discharge
of his duties to them a means of spiritual training and since he
finally obtains perfect contentment by realising the supreme
Bliss of Liberation, which is the ultimate goal of every path and
the supreme reward. He therefore stands in need of nothing
from the members of his family or from his family life.
D.: How can a householder who is constantly engaged in
the active discharge of his domestic duties, which should naturally
impel him to still greater activity, obtain the supreme peace of
withdrawal and freedom from the urge to such activity even
while thus busily engaged?
B.: It is only to the spectator that the enlightened
householder seems to be occupied with his domestic duties; for
even though apparently engaged in domestic duties, he is not
really engaged in any activity at all. His outer activity does not
prevent him from realising the perfect peace of withdrawal,
and he is free from the restless urge to activity even in the midst
of his activities.1
Visitor: Should I retire from business and take to reading
books on Vedanta?
B.: If objects have an independent existence, that is if they
exist somewhere apart from you, then it may be possible for
you to retire from them. But they do not. They owe their
existence to you, to your thought, so where can you retire from
them? As for reading books on Vedanta, you can go on reading
any number but they can only tell you to realise the Self within
you. The Self cannot be found in books. You have to find it for
yourself, in yourself.2
1 S. I., Chap. II, § 23, 24, 25.
2 D. D., p. 1.
78
D.: Is a vow of silence useful?
B.: The inner silence is self-surrender. And that means living
without the sense of ego.
D.: Is solitude necessary for a sannyasin?
B.: Solitude is in the mind of a man. One man may be in
the thick of the world and yet maintain perfect serenity of mind.
Such a person is always in solitude. Another may live in the
forest but still be unable to control his mind. He cannot be said
to be in solitude. Solitude is an attitude of the mind. A man
attached to the things of life cannot get solitude, wherever he
may be, whereas a detached man is always in solitude.1
As this implies, Bhagavan did not approve of a vow of silence,
such as people sometimes take in order to create a sort of
solitude in society. The real silence, he taught, is a still mind.
If the mind is active, there is no benefit in not speaking.
What is needed is to control both thought and speech.
The silence of solitude is forced. Restrained speech in society
is equivalent to silence, for then a man controls his speech.
There must be a speaker before there can be speech. If the mind
of the speaker is engaged otherwise, speech is restrained. When
the mind is turned inwards it is active in a different way and is
not anxious to speak. The purpose of a vow of silence is to limit
the mental activities provoked by speech but if the mind is
controlled, this is unnecessary and silence becomes natural.2
Until the mind is ripe to do so, it is not even possible to give
up activity.
D.: How does activity help? Doesn’t it simply increase the
already heavy load upon us that we have to get rid of?
1 M. G., p. 10.
2 T., 60.
79
B.: Action performed unselfishly purifies the mind and
helps it to fix itself in meditation.
D.: But suppose one were to meditate constantly without activity?
B.: Try and see. Your inherent tendencies will not let you.
Meditation only comes step by step with their gradual
weakening, by the grace of the Guru.1
Even in the case of one who had fulfilled his destiny as a
householder and, having grown-up children to take his place,
could have renounced the world according to the classical Indian
tradition, Bhagavan still did not give his sanction.
D.: I have no pleasure in my family. There remains nothing
for me to do there. I have done what has to be done and now
there are grandsons and granddaughters in the house. Should I
remain there or should I leave it and go away?
B.: You should stay just where you are now. But where are
you now? Are you in the house or is the house in you? Is there
any house apart from you? If you become established in your
own place, you will find that all things have merged into you
and such questions will become unnecessary.
D.: Then it seems I am to remain at home?
B.: You are to remain in your true state.2
Sometimes the Maharshi was asked why he himself renounced
the world and went forth to the homeless life, if he did not
approve of that path for his followers; and he replied merely that
such was his destiny. It is to be remembered that the path he
taught, the use of Self-enquiry in the life of the world, combined
with harmonious action, is a new path created by him to meet
the needs of our time. He himself had to be established in
Realisation before he could establish the path thereto.
1 T., 80.
2 T., 634.
80
D.: Can I engage in spiritual practice even while remaining
in the life of the world?
B.: Yes, certainly; one ought to do so.
D.: Isn’t life in the world a hindrance? Don’t all the books
advocate renunciation?
B.: The world is only in the mind. It does not speak out, saying:
‘I am the world’. If it did, it would have to be always present even in
your sleep. Since it is not present in sleep, it is impermanent. Being
impermanent, it has no reality. Having no reality, it is easily subdued
by the Self. The Self alone is permanent. Renunciation is nonidentification
of the Self with the non-self. On the disappearance of
ignorance, the non-self ceases to exist. That is true renunciation.
D.: Why then did you leave your home in your youth?
B.: That was my prarabdha (destiny). One’s course of
conduct in this life is determined by one’s prarabdha. My
prarabdha lies this way; yours lies that way.
D.: Should I not also renounce?
B.: If that had been your prarabdha, the question would
not have arisen.
D.: Then I take it that I should remain in the world and
engage in spiritual practice. But if I do so, can I obtain realisation
in this life?
B.: This has already been answered. You are always the
Self. Earnest efforts never fail. Success is bound to result.1
With many European and some Indian visitors, it was the
opposite question that arose – not whether they should
renounce the world but what they could do to help it. Being
‘in the world but not of it’, following the inner spiritual quest
while outwardly conforming to the conditions of life, seemed
to them too much of a withdrawal, not too little. To some
1 T., 251.
81
extent, Bhagavan’s answers varied according to the
understanding of the questioner. If the latter was capable of
spiritual understanding he would turn him inwards.
D.: Why is the world enveloped in ignorance?
B.: Look after yourself and let the world look after itself.
What is your Self? If you are the body there is a physical world
also, but if you are the Spirit, there is only Spirit.1
Visitor: What do you think about social reform?
B.: Self-reform automatically results in social reform.
Attend to self-reform and social reform will take care of itself.2
However, people who raised this sort of objection were more
often of a devotional temperament, such as requires worship
and a dualistic religion; and in such cases, Bhagavan would
enjoin submission to God. All that is required is to submit to
God and do one’s duty, play one’s part in life, with full
confidence. That is all that is asked of one. One is not
responsible for the outcome.
B.: Now, I will ask you a question. When a man gets into
a train, where does he put his luggage?
D.: Either in the compartment or in the luggage van.
B.: He doesn’t carry it on his head or in his lap while in the
train?
D.: Only a fool would do so.
B.: It is a thousand times more foolish to bear your own
burden once you have undertaken the spiritual quest, whether
by the path of knowledge or devotion.
D.: But can I relinquish all my responsibilities, all my
commitments?
1 T., 363.
2 T., 282.
82
B.: You remember the temple tower? There are many statues
on it, aren’t there? Well, there are four big ones at the base, one
at each corner. Have you seen them?
D.: Yes.
B.: Well, I tell you that the huge tower is supported by
these four statues.
D.: How is that possible? What does Bhagavan mean?
B.: I mean that to say that is no more foolish than saying
that you bear all the cares, burdens and responsibilities of life.
The Lord of the universe bears the whole burden. You only
imagine that you do. You can hand over all your burdens to
Him. Whatever you have to do, you will be made an instrument
for doing it at the right time. Do not imagine that you cannot
do it unless you have the desire to. It is not desire that gives you
the necessary strength. The strength is the Lord’s.1
Sometimes there was a more pressing anxiety about the state
of the world and a desire to assume responsibility.
D.: Will Bhagavan give his opinion on the future of the
world, as we are living in critical times?
B.: Why should you worry about the future? You don’t
even know the present properly. Take care of the present and
the future will take care of itself.
D.: Will the world soon enter a new era of friendliness
and mutual help or will it go down in chaos and war?
B.: There is One who governs the world and it is His task
to look after it. He who has given life to the world knows how
to look after it also. He bears the burden of this world, not you.
D.: Yet, if one looks round with unprejudiced eyes, it is
hard to see where this benevolent care comes in.
1 S. D. B., p. xxvi, xxvii.
83
B.: As you are, so is the world. Without understanding
yourself, what is the use of trying to understand the world? This
is a question that seekers after Truth need not worry about. People
waste their energy over all such questions. First find out the Truth
behind yourself, then you will be in a better position to understand
the Truth behind the world of which you are a part.1
Another visitor asked Bhagavan for a benedictory
foreword to a book he had written, called The Destiny of the
Freedom or something of that sort. He said that someone else
had already agreed to write an introduction but he would be
grateful if Bhagavan would write a few words conveying his
message and blessing. Bhagavan explained to him that he had
never done such a thing and therefore should not be expected
to now. The visitor persisted, and I went to some trouble to
convince him that all his persuasion would be in vain. Then
he began saying that the world badly needs a spiritual message
and that the youth of India and of the world are not properly
brought up, since religion is not instilled into them, and so
forth. I had to tell him that Bhagavan holds that before a man
tries to reform the world he should first know himself, and
then he can go about reforming the world if he still feels so
inclined. I believe the visitor was for continuing the argument,
but fortunately it was time for the Parayanam (recital of the
Vedas) and he was effectively stopped thereby.2
D.: Should I try to help the suffering world?
B.: The Power that created you created the world as
well. If God created the world it is His business to look after
it, not yours.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)
0 comments:
Post a Comment