The Teachings of Bhagavan
Sri Ramana Maharshi
in His Own Words
Edited by:
ARTHUR OSBORNE
The Teachings of Bhagavan
Sri Ramana Maharshi
in His Own Words
Edited by:
ARTHUR OSBORNE
to speak only as divinely directed, and he asked him whether
this was true or not, he replied:
As true as all this that you see around you.
For, as compared with the Self, neither this physical world nor
any higher world is inherently real, just as, compared with
infinity, a big number has no more meaning than a small one.
A saint may attain a lofty grade without even conceiving of
the ultimate Reality of Oneness or having only brief ecstatic
intimations of it. That does not matter; the power of his
purity and aspiration will eventually sweep him onwards either
in this life or beyond.
For one who envisages the ultimate Goal and strives towards
it there are no stages; either he is realised or he is not. About
this Bhagavan spoke willingly and explicitly, because this was
the path he enjoined.
There are no stages in Realisation or Mukti. There are no
degrees of Liberation.1
D.: There must be stage after stage of progress before
attaining the Absolute. Are there different levels of Reality?
B.: There are no levels of Reality; there are only levels of
experience for the individual, not of Reality. If anything can be
gained which was not there before, it can also be lost, whereas
the Absolute is eternal, here and now.2
However, although there are no stages of Self-realisation there
are what might be called ‘previews’, glimpses which are not yet
stabilised or made permanent. Sometimes, indeed, these occur
to people who, in this lifetime, have had no spiritual training at
all. As the opacity of the aspirant’s ego lessens with training in
abnegation he becomes more liable to them. Even great mystic
philosophers such as Plotinus or Meister Eckhart have, by their
1 D. D., p. 102.
2 T., 132.
184
own admission, been dependent on them, not having attained
to the permanent state of identity from which Bhagavan taught.
Can a man become a high official merely by seeing one?
He may become one only if he strives and equips himself for
the position. Similarly, can the ego, which is in bondage as the
mind, become the Divine Self simply because it has once
glimpsed that it is the Self? Is this not impossible without the
destruction of the mind? Can a beggar become a king by merely
visiting a king and declaring himself to be one?1
D.: Can Self-realisation be lost again after once being attained?
B.: Realisation takes time to steady itself. The Self is certainly
within the direct experience of everyone but not in the way people
imagine. One can only say that it is as it is. Just as incantations or
other devices can prevent fire from burning a man when otherwise
it would do so, so vasanas (inherent tendencies impelling one to
desire one thing and to shun another) can veil the Self when
otherwise it would be apparent. Owing to the fluctuations of the
vasanas, Realisation takes time to steady itself. Spasmodic Realisation
is not enough to prevent re-birth, but it cannot become permanent
as long as there are vasanas. In the presence of a great master,
vasanas cease to be active and the mind becomes still so that samadhi
(absorption in Realisation) results, just as in the presence of various
devices fire does not burn. Thus the disciple gains true knowledge
and right experience in the presence of a master. But if this is to be
established further effort is necessary. Then he will know it to be his
real Being and thus be liberated while still living.2
Some arm-chair critics have claimed that the quest of Selfrealisation
is arrogant or presumptuous or does not involve
the humility and self-effacement of sainthood. If, instead of
1 S. E., 37.
2 T., 141.
185
theorising, they undertook the eradication of the vasanas,
which are the roots of the ego, they would soon see. Actually
it is beyond both arrogance and humility, beyond all pairs of
opposites; it is simply what is. It involves not merely the
humbling of the ego but its complete dissolution.
You are the Self even now, but you confuse your present
consciousness or ego with the Absolute Consciousness or Self.
This false identification is due to ignorance, and ignorance
disappears together with the ego. Killing the ego is the only
thing to be done. Realisation already exists; no attempt need be
made to attain it. For it is not anything external or new to be
acquired. It is always and everywhere – here and now, too.1
D.: This method seems to be quicker than the usual one of
cultivating the virtues alleged to be necessary for Realisation.
B.: Yes. All vices centre round the ego. When the ego is
gone Realisation results naturally.2
Having spoken of the saint and the mystic philosopher, mention
should also be made of the occultist, that is the person who
seeks Realisation for the sake of the supernatural powers it
may bring. This Bhagavan always discouraged. Realisation may
bring powers with it, as the higher includes the lower, but
desire for powers will impede Realisation, as the quest for the
lower state negates the higher. If the objective is the endowment
of the ego with new powers, how can it at the same time be
the liquidation of the ego? Such a person has not understood
what Realisation means.
D.: What are the powers of supermen?
B.: Whether the powers are high or low, whether of the
mind or what you call the supermind, they exist only with
reference to him who possesses them. Find out who that is.3
1 T., 174.
2 T., 146.
3 D. D., p. 269.
186
B.: He that would abide in the Self should never swerve
from his one-pointed attention to the Self or the pure Being
that He is. If he slips or swerves away from that state, several
kinds of vision conjured up by the mind may be seen; but one
should not be misled by such visions – which may be of light or
space – nor by the nada or subtle sounds that may be heard,
nor by the visions of a personified God, seen either within oneself
or outwardly, as if they had an objective reality. One should not
mistake any of these things for the Reality. When the principle
of intellection by which these visions and so on are cognised or
perceived is itself false or illusory, how can the objects thus
cognised, much less the visions perceived, be real?1
There are some foolish persons who, not realising that
they themselves are moved by the Divine Power, seek to attain
all supernatural power of action. They are like the lame man
who said: ‘I can dispose of the enemy if some one will hold me
up on my legs.’
Since peace of mind is permanent in Liberation, how can
they who yoke their mind to powers – which are unattainable
except through the activity of the mind – become merged in
the Bliss of Liberation which subdues the agitation of the mind?2
D.: Can a yogi know his past lives?
B.: Do you know the present life so well that you wish to
know the past? Find the present, then the rest will follow. Even
with your present limited knowledge, you suffer much. Why
should you burden yourself with more knowledge? Is it so as to
suffer more?
D.: Does Bhagavan use occult powers to make others realise
the Self or is the mere fact of Bhagavan’s Realisation enough for that?
1 S. I., Chap. II, § 16.
2 F. V. S., 15 & 16.
187
B.: The spiritual force of Realisation is far more powerful
than the use of all occult powers. Inasmuch as there is no ego in
the Sage there are no ‘others’ for him. What is the highest benefit
that can be conferred on you? It is happiness, and happiness is
born of peace. Peace can reign only where there is no
disturbance, and disturbance, is due to thoughts that arise in
the mind. When the mind is itself absent, there will be perfect
peace. Unless a person has annihilated the mind, he cannot
gain peace and be happy. And unless he himself is happy, he
cannot bestow happiness on ‘others’. Since, however, there are
no ‘others’ for the Sage, who has no mind, the mere fact of his
Self-realisation is itself enough to make the ‘others’ happy too.1
When asked if occult powers (siddhis) can be achieved with
the divine state (Isvaratva) as mentioned in the last verse of
Dakshinamurthi Stotra, the Maharshi said:
‘Let the divine state be achieved first, and then the other
questions may be raised’.2
No powers can extend into Self-realisation, so how can
they extend beyond it? People who desire powers are not content
with their idea of Pure Consciousness. They are inclined to
neglect the supreme happiness of Realisation for the sake of
powers. In search of these they follow by-lanes instead of the
highroad and so risk losing their way. In order to guide them
aright and keep them on the highroad, they are told that powers
accompany Realisation. In fact Realisation comprises everything
and the Realised Man will not waste a thought on powers. Let
people first get Realisation and then seek powers if they still
want to.3
1 M. G., p. 30.
2 T., 7.
3 T., 57.
188
Powers may accrue before or after attaining Realisation, or
they may not, according to the nature of the person, but they
are not to be valued or sought after, nor is their absence or the
absence of visions or other such experiences to be taken as a
cause for discouragement on the path.
D.: Is it not necessary or at least advantageous to render
the body invisible in one’s spiritual progress?
B.: Why do you think of that? Are you the body?
D.: No, but advanced spirituality must effect a change in
the body, mustn’t it?
B.: What change do you desire in the body, and why?
D.: Isn’t invisibility evidence of advanced wisdom (Jnana)?
B.: In that case all those who spoke and wrote and passed
their lives in the sight of others must be considered ignorant
(ajnanis).
D.: But the sages Vasishta and Valmiki possessed such powers.
B.: It may have been their destiny (prarabdha) to develop
such powers (siddhis) side by side with their wisdom (jnana).
Why should you aim at that which is not essential but is apt to
prove a hindrance to wisdom (jnana)? Does the Sage (jnani)
feel oppressed by his body being visible?
D.: No.
B.: A hypnotist can suddenly render himself invisible. Is
he therefore a Sage?
D.: No.
B.: Visibility and invisibility refer to him who sees. Who is
that? Solve that question first. Other questions are unimportant.1
An American visitor was discouraged at having attained no
powers.
1 T., 30.
189
D.: I have been interesting myself in meta-physics for over
twenty years, but I have not gained any novel experiences as so
many others claim to. I have no powers of clairvoyance,
clairaudience, and so on. I feel locked up in this body, nothing
more.
B.: That is all right. Reality is only one and that is the Self.
All other things are mere phenomena in it, of it and by it. Seer,
sight and seen are all the Self only. Can any one see or hear
without the Self? What difference does it make if you see or hear
any one close up or at a great distance? The organs of sight and
hearing are needed in both cases. So is the mind. None of them
can be dispensed with. In either case you are dependent on them.
Why then should there be any glamour about clairvoyance or
clairaudience? Moreover, what is acquired will also be lost in due
course. It can never be permanent. The only permanent thing is
Reality and that is the Self. You say, ‘I am’, ‘I am going’, ‘I am
speaking’, ‘I am working’, and so on. Hyphenate the ‘I-am’ in all
of them. Thus: ‘I-AM’. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality.
This truth was taught by God to Moses: ‘I-AM that
I-AM’; ‘Be still and know that I-AM GOD’, so ‘I-AM’ is God.1
From what has been said up to here it will be seen that Self-
Realisation is the most simple and natural thing, in fact the
only simple and natural thing, simply the state of being that
which is, and yet it is a state most rare, unknown to the
saints, glimpsed briefly by the mystics. ‘Among thousands there
is perhaps one who strives to be perfect. Among thousands
who strive to be perfect there is perhaps one who knows Me
as I-am’. (Bhagavad Gita, VII-3). Unfortunately it is a sign of
our times that attainment of this supreme state is falsely claimed
for many. The aspirant needs to discriminate.
1 T., 503.
190
Once attained, the Supreme State must be the same by
whatever path and whatever religion it was approached, being,
by its very nature, beyond differentiation.
Once attained, the state of Self-realisation is the same by
whatever path and in whatever religion it may be approached.
There are three aspects of God, according to one’s approach to
Realisation. They are: Sat (Being), Chit (Consciousness), Ananda
(Bliss).
The aspect of Being is emphasised by jnanis who are said
to repose in the Essence of Being after incessant search and to
have their individuality lost in the Supreme.
The Consciousness aspect is approached by yogis who exert
themselves to control their breath in order to steady the mind
and are then said to see the Glory (Consciousness of Being) of
God as the one Light radiating in all directions.
The Beatitude aspect is approached by devotees who
become intoxicated with the nectar of love of God and lose
themselves in Blissful experience. Unwilling to leave this, they
remain for ever merged in God.
The four margas, Karma, Bhakti, Yoga and Jnana are not
exclusive of one another. They are described separately in classical
works only to convey an idea of the appropriate aspect of God
to appeal readily to the aspirant according to his predisposition.1
Experience of Realisation is known as samadhi. It is often
supposed that samadhi implies trance, but that is not
necessarily so. It is also possible to be in a state of samadhi
while retaining full possession of human faculties. In fact, a
Self-realised Sage such as the Maharshi dwells permanently in
this state. Even the pre-glimpses of Realisation spoken of earlier
do not necessarily imply trance.
1 From the editorial commentary on Five Stanzas to Sri Arunachala.
191
The sannyasi visitor, Swami Lokesananda, asked about
samadhi:
B.: 1. Holding on to Reality is samadhi.
2. Holding on to samadhi with effort is savikalpa
samadhi.
3. Merging in Reality and remaining unaware of the
world is nirvikalpa samadhi.
4. Merging in ignorance and remaining unaware of
the world is sleep.
5. Remaining in the primal, pure, natural state without
effort is sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi.1
Sleep Kevala Sahaja
1. mind alive 1. mind alive 1. mind dead
2. sunk in oblivion 2. sunk in light 2. resolved into the
Self.
3. like a bucket 3. like a river
with a rope left discharged into
lying in the water the ocean and
in the well. its identity lost.
4. to be drawn out 4. a river cannot be
by the other end redirected from
of the rope. the ocean.2
The old gentleman asked Bhagavan whether it was not
necessary to go through nirvikalpa samadhi first before attaining
to sahaja samadhi. Bhagavan replied: ‘When we have tendencies
1 T., 391.
2 T., 187.
192
that we are trying to give up, that is to say when we are still
imperfect and have to make conscious efforts to keep the mind
one-pointed or free from thought, the thoughtless state which we
thus attain is nirvikalpa samadhi. When, through practice, we are
always in that state, not going into samadhi and coming out
again, that is the sahaja state. In the sahaja state one sees only the
Self and one sees the world as a form assumed by the Self.1
The question of the nature of samadhi brings with it the
question of activity. Uselessly trying to imagine what samadhi
is or what Realisation implies, instead of striving to attain it,
people form theories as to whether the Realised man can be
active or not.
D.: Can a man who has attained Realisation move about
and act and speak?
B.: Why not? Do you suppose Realisation means being
inert like a stone, or becoming nothing?
D.: I don’t know, but they say that the highest state is
withdrawal from all sense activities, thoughts and experiences;
in fact; cessation of activity.
B.: Then how would it differ from deep sleep? Besides, it
would be a state which, however exalted, comes and goes and
would therefore not be the natural and normal state, so how
could it represent the eternal presence of the Supreme Self, which
persists through all states, and survives them? It is true that there
is such a state and that in the case of some people it may be
necessary to go through it. It may be a temporary phase of the
quest or it may persist to the end of a man’s life, if it be the
Divine Will or the man’s destiny, but in any case, you cannot call
it the highest state. If it were, you would have to say that not only
1 D. D., p. 56.
193
the Sages, but God Himself has not attained the highest state,
since not only are the Realised Sages very active but the Personal
God (Isvara) himself is obviously not in this supremely inactive
state, since He presides over the world and directs its activities.1
D.: What is samadhi?
B.: In yoga the term is used to indicate some kind of trance
and there are various kinds of samadhi. But the samadhi I speak
to you about is different. It is sahaja samadhi. In this state you
remain calm and composed during activity. You realise that you
are moved by the deeper Real Self within and are unaffected by
what you do or say or think. You have no worries, anxieties or
cares, for you realise that there is nothing that belongs to you as
ego and that everything is being done by something with which
you are in conscious union.2
After Realisation, a man may continue a life of worldly activity
or he may not; it makes no difference to his state.
A visitor said: Realised men generally withdraw from active
life and abstain from worldly activity.
B.: They may or they may not. Some, even after
Realisation, carry on trade or business or rule a kingdom. Some
withdraw to solitary places and abstain from all activity more
than the minimum necessary to keep life in the body. We cannot
make any general rule about it.3
Inability to understand the apparent inactivity of the Sage is
one of the difficulties of many Western writers. Firmly
convinced that Christ was mistaken in saying that Mary had
chosen the better part, modern Christians are apt to represent
1 S. D. B., x.
2 S. D. B., xi.
3 D. D., p. 86.
194
Martha, the outwardly active one, as superior and to criticise
the Sage for what they consider inaction.
When asked by an aspirant whether his Realisation, if
attained, would help others, Bhagavan has been known to reply:
Yes, and it is the best help you possibly can give them.
But then he added:
‘But in fact there are no others to help.’1
The same paradox is proclaimed in Buddhism where, for instance
in the Diamond Sutra, after speaking of compassion, the Buddha
explains that in reality there are no others to be compassionate
to. The Lord Buddha continued: “Do not think, Subhuti, that
the Tathagata (i.e., the Buddha) would consider within himself: I
will deliver human beings. That would be a degrading thought.
Why? Because there are really no sentient beings to be delivered
by the Tathagata. Should there be any sentient beings to be
delivered by the Tathagata, it would mean that the Tathagata was
cherishing within his mind arbitrary conceptions of phenomena
such as one’s own self, other selves, living beings and a universal
self. Even when the Tathagata refers to himself, he is not holding
within his mind any such arbitrary thought. Only terrestrial human
beings think of selfhood as being a personal possession. Subhuti,
even the expression ‘terrestrial beings’ as used by the Tathagata
does not mean that there are any such beings. It is only used as a
figure of speech.”*
People often say that a Realised Man should go about
preaching his message. They ask how a man can remain quiet
in Realisation when there is misery also existing. But what is a
Realised Man? Does he see misery outside himself? They want
to determine his state without themselves realising it. From his
1 M.G., p. 24.
* From A Buddhist Bible by Dwight Goddard, quoted in Buddhism and
Christianity in the light of Hinduism by Arthur Osborne, p. 114.
195
standpoint their contention amounts to this: a man has a dream
in which he sees a number of persons. On waking up he asks,
‘Have the people in the dream also woken up?’ It is ridiculous!
Again, some good man says, ‘It does not matter even if I don’t
get Realisation. Let me be the last man in the world to get it so
that I can help all the others to become Realised before I do.’
That is just like the dreamer saying: ‘Let all these people in the
dream wake up before I do.’ He would be no more absurd than
this amiable philosopher.1
And yet, paradoxically, the Sage is intensely active, although
he may apparently be inactive.
A saying of Laotse from the Tao Te Ch’ing was read out in
the hall: ‘By his non-action, the Sage governs all.’ Sri Bhagavan
remarked: ‘Non-action is unceasing activity. The Sage is
characterised by eternal and incessant activity. His stillness is like
the apparent stillness of a fast rotating top. It is moving too fast
for the eye to see, so it appears to be still. Yet it is rotating. So is
the apparent inaction of the Sage. This has to be explained because
people generally mistake his stillness for inertness. It is not so.2
Similar to this preoccupation with action was the question of
whether the Realised Man is bound by destiny. Really the
question has no meaning. His body is bound by destiny but,
since he does not identify himself with the body, its destiny
cannot bind him. Being one with the Eternal Self within which
this body, his life, this world, passes like an appearance; he
cannot be bound by anything.
This morning a visitor said to Bhagavan: ‘The Realised
Man has no karma; he is not bound by destiny, so why should
he still retain a body?’
1 T., 498.
2 T., 599.
196
B.: Who asks this question – a Realised Man or an
unrealised man? Why worry about what the Realised Man does
or why he does anything? Better think about yourself.
He was then silent. After a while, however, he explained
further, ‘You are under the impression that you are the body, so
you think the Realised Man also has a body. Does he say that he
has one? He may seem to you to have one, and to do things
with it, as others do. The charred ashes of a rope look like a
rope but they are of no use to tie anything with. So long as one
identifies oneself with the body, all this is hard to understand.
That is why it is sometimes said in answer to such questions that
the body of the Realised Man continues to exist until his destiny
has worked itself out, and then it falls away. An example of this
that is sometimes given is that an arrow which has been loosed
from the bow (destiny) must continue its course and hit the
mark, even though the animal that stood there has moved away
and another has taken its place (i.e., Realisation has been
achieved). But the truth is that the Realised Man has transcended
all destiny and is bound neither by the body nor by its destiny.1
Equally beside the point is the question of whether the Realised
Man can feel pain or pleasure (if pleasure, then pain also,
because the two go together; they are a pair of opposites).
The sensation is common both to the Realised Man and
the unrealised Man. The difference is that the unrealised man
identifies himself with the body that feels it, whereas the Realised
Man knows that all this is Self, all this is Brahman. If there is
pain, let it be; it is also a part of the Self and the Self is perfect.2
1 D. D., pp. 341-2.
2 T., 383.
197
Or whether he can commit sins. The very raising of this
question implies failure to understand what is meant by ‘Self-
Realisation’. Sin is the action of the ego or the individual
being in its own interests against the universal harmony or
the Will of God. But where there is no ego, where there is
only the Universal Self, who is to act against whom?
An unrealised man sees one who is Realised and identifies
him with the body. Because he does not know the Self and
mistakes the body for the Self, he extends the same mistake to
the body of the Realised Man. The latter is therefore considered
to be the physical form. Again, the unrealised man, though in
fact not the originator of his actions, imagines himself to be so,
and he considers the actions of the body as his own actions, and
therefore he thinks that the Realised Man is acting in the same
way, because his body is active. But the latter knows the truth
and is not deceived. His state cannot be understood by the
unrealised and therefore the question of his actions troubles the
latter although it does not arise for himself.1
All good or divine qualities are included in Jnana (spiritual
Enlightenment) and all bad or satanic qualities in ajnana (spiritual
darkness). When jnana comes all ajnana goes, so that all divine
qualities come automatically. If a man is a jnani he cannot utter
lies or commit any sin.2
The saying that there is no ego or that the mind is dead
sometimes leads to misunderstandings. What is meant is simply
that the mind or ego as apparent creator or originator of
policies, plans and ideas, is dead. Understanding remains, and
pure radiant Consciousness.
D.: Can we think without the mind?
1 T., 499.
2 D. D., p. 276.
198
B.: Thoughts can continue like other activities. They do
not disturb the Supreme Consciousness.1
People surmise the existence of the pure mind in the
jivanmukta and the personal God. They ask how he could
otherwise live and act. But this is only a concession to argument.
The pure mind is in fact Absolute Consciousness. The object to
be witnessed and the witness finally merge together and Absolute
Consciousness alone remains. It is not a state of blank or
ignorance but it is the Supreme Self.2
The mind of the Realised Man is sometimes compared to the
moon in daytime.
The moon shines by reflecting the light of the sun. When
the sun has set, the moon is useful for displaying objects. When
the sun has risen, no one needs the moon, although its disc is
visible in the sky. So it is with the mind and the Heart. The
mind is made useful by its reflected light. It is used for seeing
objects. When turned inwards, it merges into the source of
illumination which shines by itself and the mind is then like the
moon in daytime.3
Sometimes people expressed fear at the thought of giving up
the ego, but Bhagavan reminded them that they do so every
time they go to sleep.
People are afraid that when the ego or the mind is killed,
the result may be a mere blank and not happiness. What really
happens is that the thinker, the object of thought and thinking
all merge in the one Source which is Consciousness and Bliss
itself, and thus that state is neither inert nor blank. I don’t
1 T., 43.
2 T., 68.
3 M. G., p. 12.
199
understand why people should be afraid of a state in which all
thoughts cease to exist and the mind is killed. They daily
experience it in sleep. There is no mind or thought in sleep. Yet
when one rises from sleep one says, ‘I slept well’.1
Moreover, in sleep they surrender the ego in order to lapse
into a mere blank, whereas Realisation is merging into pure
Consciousness which is the uttermost Bliss.
In answer to a visitor, Bhagavan made the following
remark: You can have, or rather you will yourself be, the
highest imaginable kind of happiness. All other kinds of
happiness which you have spoken of as ‘pleasure’, ‘joy’,
‘happiness’, ‘bliss’, are only reflections of the Ananda which,
in your true nature, you are.2
It is impossible to describe samadhi since it transcends the
mind. It can only be experienced.
An American lady asked Bhagavan what his experiences of
samadhi were. When it was suggested that she should relate her
experiences and ask if they were right, she replied that Sri
Bhagavan’s experiences ought to be correct and should be known
whereas her own were unimportant. She wanted to know
whether Sri Bhagavan felt his body hot or cold in samadhi,
whether he spent the first three and a half years of his stay in
Tiruvannamalai in prayer, and so on.
B.: Samadhi transcends mind and speech and cannot be
described. The state of deep sleep cannot be described; the state
of samadhi even less.
D.: But I know that I was unconscious in deep sleep.
1 D. D., pp. 76-7.
2 D. D., p. 231.
200
B.: Consciousness and unconsciousness are modes of the
mind. Samadhi transcends the mind.
D.: Still, you can tell me what it is like.
B.: You will know only when you are in samadhi.1
Sometimes he referred to the cinema screen as an illustration.
D.: If the Realised and the unrealised alike perceive the
world, where is the difference between them?
B.: When the Realised Man sees the world, he sees the Self
that is the substratum of all that is seen. Whether the unrealised
man sees the world or not, he is ignorant of his true being, the
Self. Take the example of a film on a cinema screen. What is
there in front of you before the film begins? Only the screen.
On that screen you see the entire show, and to all appearances
the pictures are real. But go and try to take hold of them and
what do you take hold of? The screen on which the pictures
appear so real. After the play, when the pictures disappear, what
remains? The screen again. So it is with the Self. That alone
exists; the pictures come and go. If you hold on to the Self, you
will not be deceived by the appearance of the pictures. Nor
does it matter at all whether the pictures appear or disappear.2
Once permanent, unwavering sahaja samadhi has been obtained,
this is the state of Mukti or Liberation. People speak of jivanmukti
and videhamukti, that is Liberation while still living and Liberation
after death, but Bhagavan explained that the difference is only
from the point of view of the observer; to the Realised Man
himself it makes no difference whether he wears a body or not.
Mr. Bannerjee asked Bhagavan what is the difference
between jivanmukti and videhamukti.
1 T., 110.
2 M. G., p. 47.
201
B.: There is no difference. For those who ask it is said that
a Realised Man with a body is a jivanmukta and that he attains
videhamukti when he sheds the body, but this difference exists
only for the onlooker, not for him. His state is the same before
shedding the body, and after. We think of him as a human form
or as in that form, but he knows that he is the Self, the One
Reality, both inner and outer, which is not bound by any form.
There is a verse in the Bhagavata (Bhagavan here quoted the
verse in Tamil) which says that just as a drunken man does not
notice whether he is wearing his shawl or whether it has fallen
off, so the Realised Man is hardly aware of his body and it
makes no difference to him whether it remains or drops off.1
There are no stages in Realisation or Mukti. There are no
degrees of Liberation. So there cannot be one stage of Liberation
with the body and another when the body has been shed. The
Realised Man knows that he is the Self and that nothing, neither
his body nor anything else, exists but the Self. To such a one
what difference could the presence or absence of a body make?2
Sometimes Realisation is called Turiya, the ‘Fourth State’,
because it underlies the three states of waking, dream and
deep sleep.
When I entered the hall Bhagavan was answering some
questions and was saying: ‘There is no difference between the
dream, and waking states except that the former is short and the
latter long. Both are the product of the mind. Because the waking
state lasts longer we imagine it to be our real state; but actually
our real state is what is sometimes called the Fourth State, which
is always as it is, and is unaffected by waking, dream or sleep.
1 D. D., p. 101.
2 D. D., p. 102.
202
Because we call these three ‘states’ we call that a state also; however,
it is really just the natural state of the Self. A ‘fourth’ state would
imply something relative, whereas this is transcendent.1
In truth, there is no bondage.
Our real nature is Liberation, but we imagine that we are
bound and we make strenuous efforts to get free, although all the
while we are free. This is understood only when we reach that
state. Then we shall be surprised to find that we were frantically
striving to attain something that we always were and are. An
illustration will make this clear. A man goes to sleep in this hall.
He dreams he has gone on a world-tour and is travelling over hill
and dale, forest and plain, desert and sea, across various continents,
and after many years of weary and strenuous travel, he returns to
this country, reaches Tiruvannamalai, enters the Ashram and walks
into the hall. Just at that moment he wakes up and finds that he
has not moved at all but has been sleeping where he lay down.
He has not returned after great efforts to this hall, but was here
all the time. It is exactly like that. If it is asked why, being free, we
imagine ourselves bound, I answer, ‘why, being in the hall, did
you imagine you were on a world-tour, crossing hill and dale,
desert and sea?’ It is all mind or maya.2
8. Under whatever name and form one may worship the
Absolute Reality, it is only a means for Realising it which is
without name and form. That alone is true Realisation, wherein
one knows oneself in relation to that Reality, attains peace and
realises one’s identity with it.
1 D. D., p. 92.
2 D. D., pp. 93-4.
203
9. The duality of subject and object, the trinity of seer,
sight and seen, can exist only if supported by the One. If one
turns inwards in search of that One Reality, they fall away. Those
who see this are those who see Wisdom. They are never in doubt.
21. What is the truth of the scriptures which declare that if
one sees the Self, one sees God? How can one see one’s Self? If,
since one is a single being, one cannot see one’s Self, how can
one see God? Only by becoming a prey to Him.
22. The Divine gives light to the mind and shines within
it. Except by turning the mind inward and fixing it in the
Divine, there is no other way to know Him through the mind.
30. If one enquires ‘Who am I?’ within the mind, the
individual ‘I’ falls down abashed as soon as one reaches the
Heart and immediately Reality manifests itself spontaneously
as ‘I-I’. Although it reveals itself as the ‘I’, it is not the ego but
the Perfect Being, the Absolute Self.
31. For him who is immersed in the Bliss of the Self, arising
from the extinction of the ego, what remains to be accomplished?
He is not aware of anything other than the Self. Who can
comprehend his state?
32. Although the scriptures proclaim ‘Thou art That’, is
only a sign of weakness of mind to meditate, ‘I am That, not
this’, because you are eternally That. What has to be done is to
investigate what one really is and remain as That.
33. It is ridiculous either to say ‘I have not realised the
Self ’ or ‘I have realised the Self ’; are there two selves for one to
be the object of the other’s realisation? It is a truth within the
experience of everyone that there is only one Self.
34. It is due to illusion born of ignorance that men fail to
recognise That which is always and for everybody the inherent
Reality dwelling in its natural Heart-centre and to abide in it,
204
and that instead they argue that it exists or it does not exist, that
it has form or does not have form, or is non-dual or dual.
35. To seek and abide in the Reality that is always attained
is the only Attainment. All other attainments (siddhis) are such
as are acquired in dreams. Can they that are established in the
Reality and are free from maya, be deluded by them?
38. 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 is the doer, his sense of being the doer falls away and the
triple karma is ended. This is the state of eternal Liberation.
39. Only so long as one considers oneself bound, do
thoughts of bondage and Liberation continue. When one
enquires ‘who is bound?’ the Self is realised, eternally attained,
eternally free. When thoughts of bondage comes to an end,
can thoughts of Liberation survive?
40. If it is said that Liberation is of three kinds, with form,
without form, or with and without form, then let me tell you
that the extinction of the ego that asks which form of Liberation
is true, is the only true Liberation.
(F. V.)
End
End
(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