The Teachings of Bhagavan
Sri Ramana Maharshi
in His Own Words
Edited by:
ARTHUR OSBORNE
ASANAS
It was usual for devotees of Bhagavan to sit crosslegged in
meditation before him; but the more elaborate yogic postures
or asanas were not practised. As explained in the previous
chapter, such postures are less important in Self-enquiry than
on a yogic path.
1 D. D., p. 228.
2 D. D., p. 221-2
149
D.: A number of asanas are mentioned. Which of them is
the best?
B.: One-pointedness of mind is the best posture.1
HATHA YOGA
B.: The hatha yogis claim to keep the body fit so that the
enquiry may be effected without obstacles. They also say that life
must be prolonged so that the enquiry may be carried to a
successful end. Furthermore there are those who use various drugs
(kayakalpa) to that end. Their favourite example is that the canvas
must be perfect before the painting is begun. Yes, but which is the
canvas and which the painting? According to them the body is
the canvas and the inquiry into the Self the painting. But isn’t the
body itself a picture on the canvas of the Self?
D.: But hatha yoga is much spoken of as an aid.
B.: Yes. Even great pandits well-versed in Vedanta continue
the practice of it. Otherwise their minds will not subside. So you
may say it is useful for those who cannot otherwise still the mind.2
LIGHT-GAZING
D.: Why should one not adopt other means, such as gazing
at a light?
B.: Light-gazing stupefies the mind and produces catalepsy
of the will for the time being, but it produces no permanent
benefit.3
1 T., 557.
2 T., 619.
3 T., 27.
150
CONCENTRATION ON SOUND
There are those who concentrate on the hearing of a sound –
not any physical sound but sound from the subtle plane. The
Maharshi did not disapprove of this but reminded them to
hold on to the Self and find out who it is that hears the
sound. The concentration achieved is good but does not in
itself lead far enough. Enquiry also is needed.
A Gujarati gentleman said that he was concentrating on
sound (nada) and desired to know if the method was right.
B.: Meditation on nada is one of the various approved
methods. Its adherents claim a very special virtue for it. According
to them it is the easiest and most direct method. Just as a child is
lulled to sleep by lullabies, so nada soothes one to the state of
samadhi. Again, just as a king sends his state musicians to
welcome his son on his return from a long journey, so also
nada takes the devotee into the Lord’s abode in a pleasing manner.
Nada helps concentration, but after it begins to be felt, the
practice should not be made an end in itself. Nada is not the
objective; the subject should firmly be held. Otherwise a blank
will result. Though the subject is there even in the blank one
must remember his own Self. Nada Upasana (meditation on
sound) is good; it is better if associated with Self-enquiry.1
CONCENTRATION ON THE HEART OR
BETWEEN THE EYEBROWS
Concentration on the point between the eye-brows is a
yogic practice. Bhagavan recognised its efficacy, especially
1 T., 148.
151
when combined with incantation, but recommended
concentration on the heart on the right side as being both
safer and more effective.
A Maharashtra lady of middle age, who had studied
Jnaneswari and Vichara Sagara, and was practising concentration
between the eyebrows, had felt shivering and fear and did not
progress. She required guidance. The Maharshi told her not to
forget the seer. The sight is fixed between the eyebrows, but the
seer is not kept in view. If the seer be always remembered it will
be all right.1
A visitor said: We are asked to concentrate on the spot in
the forehead between the eyebrows. Is that right?
B.: Everyone is aware that he exists. Yet one ignores that
awareness and goes about in search of God. What is the use of
fixing one’s attention between the eyebrows? The aim of such
advice is to help the mind to concentrate. It is one of the forcible
methods of checking the mind and preventing its dissipation.
The mind is forcibly directed into one channel and this is a
help to concentration. But the method of realisation is the
enquiry ‘Who am I?’. The present trouble affects the mind and
it can only be removed by the mind.2
D.: Sri Bhagavan speaks of the Heart as the seat of
Consciousness and as identical with the Self. What exactly does
the word ‘Heart’ signify?
B.: The question about the Heart arises because you are
interested in seeking the source of Consciousness. To all deep
thinking minds, the enquiry about the ‘I’ and its nature has an
irresistible fascination. Call it by any name, God, Self, the Heart
or the seat of Consciousness, it is all the same. The point to be
1 T., 162.
2 T., 557.
152
grasped is this: that Heart means the very core of one’s being,
the centre without which there is nothing whatever.
D.: But Sri Bhagavan has specified a particular place for
the Heart within the physical body – that is in the chest, two
digits to the right of the median.
B.: Yes, that is the centre of spiritual experience according to
the testimony of Sages. The spiritual heart-centre is quite different
from the blood-propelling, muscular organ known by the same
name. The spiritual heart-centre is not an organ of the body. All
that you can say of the heart is that it is the core of your being, that
with which you are really identical (as the word in Sanskrit literally
means) whether you are awake, asleep or dreaming, whether you
are engaged in work or immersed in samadhi.
D.: In that case, how can it be localised in any part of the
body? Fixing a place for the Heart would imply setting
physiological limitations to That which is beyond space and time.
B.: That is right. But the person who puts the question
about the position of the Heart considers himself as existing
with or in the body. While putting the question now, would
you say that your body alone is here but that you are speaking
from somewhere else?
No, you accept your bodily existence. It is from this point
of view that any reference to a physical body comes to be made.
Truly speaking, pure Consciousness is indivisible; it is without
parts. It has no form or shape, no within or without. There is
no right or left... Pure Consciousness – which is the Heart –
includes all; and nothing is outside or apart from it. That is the
ultimate truth.
D.: How shall I understand Sri Bhagavan’s statement that
the experience of the heart-centre is at that particular place in
the chest?
153
B.: Pure Consciousness wholly unrelated to the physical
body and transcending the mind is a matter of direct experience.
Sages know their bodiless, eternal existence, just as an unrealised
man knows his bodily existence. But the experience of
Consciousness can be with bodily awareness as well as without
it. In the bodiless experience of Pure Consciousness the Sage is
beyond time and space, and no question about the position of
the Heart can arise at all. Since, however, the physical body can
not subsist (with life) apart from Consciousness, bodily awareness
has to be sustained by pure Consciousness. The former, by nature,
is limited and can never be co-extensive with the latter which is
Infinite and Eternal. Body-consciousness is merely a miniature
reflection of the pure Consciousness with which the Sage has
realised his identity. For him, therefore, body-consciousness is
only a reflected ray, as it were, of the self-effulgent, infinite
Consciousness which is himself. It is in this sense alone that the
Sage is aware of his bodily existence.
D.: For men like me, who have neither the direct experience
of the Heart nor the consequent recollection, the matter seems
to be somewhat difficult to grasp. About the position of the
Heart itself, perhaps, we must depend upon some sort of guesswork.
B.: If the determination of the position of the Heart is to
depend on guess-work even in the case of the unrealised, the
question is surely not worth much consideration. No, it is not
on guess-work that you have to depend, it is an unerring
intuition.
D.: Who has the intuition?
B.: All people.
D.: Does Bhagavan credit me with an intuitive knowledge
of the Heart?
154
B.: No, not of the Heart, but of the position of the Heart
in relation to your identity.
D.: Sri Bhagavan says that I intuitively know the position
of the Heart in the physical body?
B.: Why not?
D.: (Pointing to himself) It is to me personally that Bhagavan
is referring?
B.: Yes. That is the intuition! How did you refer to yourself
by gesture just now? Did you not put your finger on the right
side of the chest? That is exactly the place of the heart-centre.
D.: So then, in the absence of direct knowledge of the
heart-centre, I have to depend on this intuition?
B.: What is wrong with it? When a schoolboy says: ‘It is I
that did the sum correctly’, or when he asks you: ‘Shall I run
and get the book for you’, would he point to the head that did
the sum correctly or to the legs that will swiftly get you that
book? No, in both cases, his finger is pointed quite naturally
towards the right side of the chest, thus giving innocent
expression to the profound truth that the source of ‘I’-ness in
him is there. It is an unerring intuition that makes him refer
to himself, to the Heart which is the Self, in that way. The act
is quite involuntary and universal, that is to say, it is the same
in the case of every individual. What stronger proof than this
do you require about the position of the Heart-centre in the
physical body?
D.: But the question is: which is the correct view of the
two, namely: (1) that the centre of spiritual experience is the
place between the eyebrows, or (2) that it is the Heart.
B.: For the purpose of practice you may concentrate
between the eyebrows if you like; it would then be bhavana or
imaginative contemplation of the mind; whereas the supreme
155
state of anubhava or Realisation, with which you become
wholly identified and in which your individuality is completely
dissolved, transcends the mind. Then, there can be no
objectified centre to be experienced by you as a subject distinct
and separate from it.
D.: I would like to put my question in slightly different
words. Can the place between the eyebrows be said to be the
seat of the Self?
B.: You agree that the Self is the ultimate source of
Consciousness and that it subsists equally during all the three
states of mind. But see what happens when a person in meditation
is overcome by sleep. As the first symptom of sleep his head begins
to nod; but this could not happen if the Self were situated between
the eyebrows, that centre cannot be called its seat without implying
that the Self often forsakes its own place, which is absurd. The
fact is that the sadhaka may have his experience at any centre or
chakra on which he concentrates his mind, but that does not
make such a centre the seat of the Self...
D.: Since Bhagavan says that the Self may function at any
of the centres or chakras while its seat is in the Heart, is it not
possible that by the practice of intense concentration or dhyana
between the eyebrows, this centre may itself become the seat of
the Self?
B.: As long as it is merely the stage of practice of
concentration in order to control your attention at one spot,
any consideration about the seat of the Self would merely be
theorising. You consider yourself the subject, the seer, and the
place whereon you fix the attention becomes the object seen.
This is merely bhavana. When, on the contrary, you see the
Seer himself, you merge in the Self, you become one with it;
that is the Heart.
156
D.: Then, is the practice of concentration between the
eyebrows advisable?
B.: The final result of the practice of any kind of dhyana is
that the object on which the aspirant fixes his mind ceases to
exist as distinct and separate from the subject. Subject and object
become one Self, and that is the Heart. The practice of
concentration on the centre between the eyebrows is one of the
methods of training, and thereby thoughts are effectively
controlled for the time being. The reason is that all thought is
an outer activity of the mind; and thought, in the first instance,
follows sight, physical or mental. It is important, however, that
this practice of fixing one’s attention between the eyebrows
should be accompanied by incantations. Because next in
importance to the eye of the mind is the ear of the mind (that is
mental visualisation of speech), either to control and thereby
strengthen the mind, or to distract and thereby dissipate it.
Therefore, while fixing the mind’s eye on a centre, as for instance,
between the eyebrows, you should also practise the mental
articulation of a Divine Name or incantation. Otherwise you
will soon lose hold on the object of concentration. This kind of
practice leads to the identification of the Name, Word or Self –
whatever you may call it – with the centre selected for the purpose
of meditation. Pure Consciousness, the Self or the Heart is the
final Realisation.1
THE SAHASRARA
Tantric paths teach the gradual uncoiling of the Kundalini or
spiritual current in a man. As it uncoils and rises upwards, it
1 M. G., pp. 54-9, 61-2.
157
enfranchises a series of chakras or spiritual centres in the body,
each bestowing its own powers and perceptions until it culminates
in the Sahasrara or thousand-petalled lotus in the brain or the
crown of the head. When asked about this, Bhagavan replied
that, whatever the experience may be, the ultimate seat of the
Self, and therefore of Realisation, is the Heart.
D.: Why doesn’t Sri Bhagavan direct us to practise
concentration on some particular centre or chakra?
B.: The Yoga Sastras say that the Sahasrara or brain is the
seat of the Self. The Purusha Sukta declares that the Heart is its
seat. To enable the aspirant to steer clear of any possible doubt,
I tell him to take up the thread or the clue of ‘I’-ness and follow
it to its source. Because, firstly it is impossible for anybody to
entertain any doubt about this ‘I’ notion; secondly, whatever
be the means adopted, the final goal is Realisation of the source
of I-am-ness, which is what you begin from in your experience.
If you, therefore, practise Self-enquiry, you will reach the Heart
which is the Self.1
D.: Does the Jivanadi (subtle nerve column) really exist
or is it a figment of the imagination?
B.: The yogis say that there is a nadi called the jivanadi,
atmanadi or paranadi. The Upanishads speak of a centre from
which thousands of nadis branch off. Some locate this in the
brain and others in other places. The Garbhopanishad traces the
formation of the foetus and the growth of the child in the womb.
The ego is considered to enter the child through the fontanelle
in the seventh month of its growth. In evidence thereof it is
pointed out that the fontanelle is tender in a baby and is also
seen to pulsate. It takes some months for it to ossify. Thus the
ego comes from above, enters through the fontanelle and works
1 M. G., p. 62.
158
through thousands of nadis which are spread over the whole
body. Therefore the seeker of truth must concentrate on the
sahasrara, that is the brain, in order to regain his source. Breathcontrol
is said to help the yogi to rouse the Kundalini-Shakti
which lies coiled in the solar plexus. The Shakti rises through a
nerve called the sushumna, which is embedded in the core of
the spinal cord and extends to the brain.
If one concentrates on the sahasrara there is no doubt that
the ecstasy of samadhi ensues. The vasanas, that is the latencies,
are however, not destroyed. The yogi is therefore bound to wake
up from samadhi because the release from bondage is not yet
accomplished. He must still try to eradicate the vasanas in order
that the latent tendencies yet inherent in him may not disturb
the peace of his samadhi. So he passes down from the sahasrara
to the heart through what is called the jivanadi, which is only a
continuation of the sushumna. The sushumna is thus a curve. It
starts from the solar plexus, rises through the spinal cord to the
brain and from there bends down and ends in the heart. When
the yogi has reached the heart, samadhi becomes permanent.
Thus we see that the heart is the final centre.
Some Upanishads also speak of a hundred and one nadis
which spread from the heart, one of them being the vital nadi.
If the ego descends from above and is reflected in the brain, as
the yogis say, there must be a reflecting surface. This must also
be capable of limiting the Infinite Consciousness to the limits
of the body. In short, the Universal Being becomes limited as
an ego. Such a reflecting medium is furnished by the aggregate
of vasanas of the individual. It acts like the water in a pot which
reflects an object. If the pot is drained of its water there will be
no reflection. The object will remain without being reflected.
The object here is the Universal Being-Consciousness which is
159
all-pervading and therefore immanent in all. It need not be
cognised by reflection alone. It is self-resplendent. Therefore,
the seeker’s aim must be to drain away the vasanas from the
heart and let no reflecting medium obstruct the light of the
Eternal Consciousness. This is achieved by the search for the
origin of the ego and by diving into the heart. This is the direct
path to Self-realisation. One who adopts it need not worry about
nadis, brain, sushumna, kundalini, breath-control and the six
yogic centres.
The Self does not come from anywhere nor does it enter the
body through the crown of the head. It is as it is, ever shining, ever
steady, unmoving and unchanging. The changes which are noticed
are not inherent in the Self, for the Self abides in the heart and is
self-luminous like the sun. The changes are seen in Its light. The
relationship between the Self and the body or the mind may be
compared to that of a clear crystal and its background. If the crystal
is placed against a red flower it shines red, if against green it shines
green, and so on. The individual confines himself to the limits of
the changeable body or of the mind which derives its existence
from the unchanging Self. All that is necessary is to give up this
mistaken identity and, that done, the ever shining Self will be seen
to be the single, non-dual Reality.1
SILENCE
On the whole, the Maharshi did not approve of vows of silence.
If the mind is controlled, useless speech will be avoided; but
abjuring speech will not quieten the mind. The effect cannot
produce the cause.
1 T., 616.
160
D.: Isn’t a vow of silence helpful?
B.: A vow is only a vow. It may help meditation to some
extent; but what is the use of keeping the mouth shut and letting
the mind run riot? If the mind is engaged in meditation, what
need is there for speech? Nothing is as good as meditation. What
is the use of a vow of silence if one is engrossed in activity?1
DIET
In general, although attaching little importance to physical
aids to meditation, the Maharshi was insistent on the
advantages of limiting oneself to sattvic, that is vegetarian and
non-stimulating food.
Regulation of diet, restricting it to sattvic food, taken in
moderate quantities, is the best of all rules of conduct and the
most conducive to the development of sattvic (pure) qualities
of mind. These in turn help one in the practice of Self-enquiry.2
The following is the conclusion of ‘Self-enquiry’, the first book
that he wrote.
It is within our power to adopt a simple and nutritious
diet and, with earnest and incessant endeavour, to eradicate the
ego – the cause of all misery – by stopping all mental activity
born of the ego.
Can obsessing thoughts arise without the ego, or can there
be illusion apart from such thoughts?3
He also confirmed this when asked by devotees.
1 T., 371.
2 W., § 12.
3 Words of Grace, p. 40.
161
D.: Are there any aids to (1) concentration, and (2) casting
off distractions?
B.: Physically, the digestive and other organs are to be kept
free from irritation. Therefore food is regulated both in quantity
and quality. Non-irritants are eaten, avoiding chillies, excess of
salt, onions, wine, opium, and so on. Avoid constipation,
drowsiness and excitement and all foods which induce them.
Mentally, take interest in one thing and fix the mind on it. Let
that interest be self-absorbing to the exclusion of everything
else. This is dispassion (vairagya) and concentration.1
Mrs. Pigott returned from Madras for a further visit and
asked questions concerning diet.
Mrs. P.: What diet is suitable for a person engaged in
spiritual practice?
B.: Sattvic food in moderate quantities.
Mrs. P.: What food is sattvic?
B.: Bread, fruit, vegetables, milk and such things.
Mrs. P.: Some people in the North eat fish. Is that
permissible?
To this question Bhagavan did not reply. He was always
reluctant to criticise others and this question was inviting
him either to do so or to change what he had said.
Mrs. P.: We Europeans are accustomed to a particular diet
and change of diet affects the health and weakens the mind.
Isn’t it necessary to keep up physical health?
B.: Quite necessary. The weaker the body, the stronger the
mind grows.
Mrs. P.: In the absence of our usual diet our health suffers
and the mind loses strength.
1 T., 28.
162
It will be noticed that Bhagavan and Mrs. Piggot were using
the term ‘strength of mind’ in different meanings. By ‘strong’
Bhagavan was meaning ‘ungovernable’, whereas Mrs. Piggot
was meaning ‘powerful’. Therefore the next question, which
enabled her to put her point of view.
B.: What do you mean by ‘strength of mind’?
Mrs. P.: The power to eliminate worldly attachment.
B.: The quality of one’s food influences the mind. The
mind feeds on the food consumed.
Mrs. P.: Really! But how can Europeans accommodate
themselves to sattvic food?
B.: (turning to Mr. Evans-Wentz) You have been taking
our food. Does it inconvenience you at all?
E.W.: No, because I am accustomed to it.
B.: Custom is only an adjustment to environment. It is
the mind that matters. The fact is that the mind has been trained
to find certain foods good and palatable. The necessary food
value is obtainable in vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food;
only the mind desires the sort of food that it is used to and
which it considers palatable.
Mrs. P.: Do these restrictions apply to the realised man
also?
B.: He is stabilised and not influenced by the food he takes.1
It was very characteristic of Bhagavan that, although he would
answer questions about diet quite firmly when asked, he would
not enjoin a vegetarian diet on any devotee who did not ask
him. It was also characteristic that, under his silent influence,
it would sometimes happen that one who did not ask would
gradually begin to feel an aversion to meat-food and an
inclination to change over to a purer diet.
1 T., 22.
163
Just as Bhagavan disapproved of all extremes, so he disapproved
of fasting.
D.: Can fasting help towards Realisation?
B.: Yes, but it is only a temporary help. It is mental fasting
that is the real aid. Fasting is not an end in itself. There must be
spiritual development at the same time. Absolute fasting weakens
the mind too and leaves you without sufficient strength for the
spiritual quest. Therefore eat in moderation and continue the quest.
D.: They say that ten days after breaking a month’s fast the
mind becomes pure and steady and remains so forever.
B.: Yes, but only if the spiritual quest has been kept up
right through the fast.1
CELIBACY
There is no need to say much about celibacy, since it has been
dealt with in an earlier chapter. It is normal in India that all
those who do not renounce the world to become sadhus marry.
Bhagavan always insisted that brahmacharya is living constantly
in Brahman. He did not encourage formal adoption of the
saffron garb (external sannyasa). He neither enjoined nor
discouraged celibacy, though occasionally he did evince interest
in births and marriages among the devotees.
BHAKTI
We come now to bhakti marga, the path of love and devotion,
worship and surrender. This is usually considered the very
antithesis of Self-enquiry, since it is based on the presumption
of duality, of worshipper and worshipped, lover and beloved,
1 T., 170.
164
whereas Self-enquiry presumes non-duality. Therefore theorists
are apt to presume that if one is based on truth the other must
be based on error, and in expounding one they only too often
condemn the other. Bhagavan not only recognised both these
paths but guided his followers on them both. He often said:
“There are two ways; ask yourself, ‘Who am I?’ or surrender.”
Many of his followers chose the latter way.
D.: What is unconditional surrender?
B.: If one surrenders completely, there will be no one left
to ask questions or to be considered. Either the thoughts are
eliminated by holding on to the root thought, ‘I’, or one
surrenders unconditionally to the Higher Power. These are the
only two ways to Realisation.1
Self-enquiry dissolves the ego by looking for it and finding it to
be non-existent, whereas devotion surrenders it; therefore both
come to the same ego-free goal, which is all that is required.
B.: There are only two ways to conquer destiny or to be
independent of it. One is to enquire whose this destiny is and to
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, realising one’s helplessness and saying all
the time: ‘Not I, but Thou, oh Lord!’, 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 the love of God
for the sake of love and 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
1 T., 321.
2 D. D., p. 266.
165
The spark of spiritual knowledge (Jnana) will consume all
creation like a mountain-heap of cotton. Since all the countless
worlds are built upon the weak or non-existent foundations of
the ego, they all disintegrate when the atom-bomb of knowledge
falls on them. All talk of surrender is like stealing sugar from a
sugar image of Ganesha and then offering it to the same Ganesha.
You say that you offer up your body and soul and all your
possessions to God, but were they yours to offer? At best you
can say: ‘I wrongly imagined till now that all these, which are
Yours, were mine. Now I realise that they are Yours and I shall
no longer act as though they were mine.’ And this knowledge
that there is nothing but God or the Self, that ‘I’ and ‘mine’ do
not exist and that only the Self exists, is Jnana.1
He often explained however, that true devotion is devotion
to the Self and therefore it comes to the same as Self-enquiry.
It is enough that one surrenders oneself. Surrender is giving
oneself up to the original cause of one’s being. Do not delude
yourself by imagining this source to be some God outside you.
One’s source is within oneself. Give yourself up to it. That means
that you should seek the source and merge in it. Because you
imagine yourself to be out of it, you raise the question, ‘Where
is the source?’ Some contend that just as sugar cannot taste its
own sweetness for there must be someone to taste and enjoy it,
so an individual cannot both be the Supreme and also enjoy
the Bliss of that State; therefore the individuality must be
maintained separate from the Godhead in order to make
enjoyment possible. But is God insentient like sugar? How can
one surrender oneself and yet retain one’s individuality for
1 D. D., p. 49.
166
supreme enjoyment? Furthermore they also say that the soul,
on reaching the divine region and remaining there, serves the
supreme Being. Can the sound of the word ‘service’ deceive the
Lord? Does He not know? Is He waiting for these people’s
services? Would He not – Pure Consciousness – ask in turn:
‘Who are you apart from Me that presume to serve Me?’
If, on the other hand, you merge in the Self there will be no
individuality left. You will become the Source itself. In that case
what is surrender? Who is to surrender, and to whom? This
constitutes devotion, wisdom and Self-enquiry. Among the
Vaishnavites, too, Saint Nammalwar says: “I was in a maze, clinging
to ‘I’ and ‘mine’; I wandered without knowing myself. On
realising myself I understand that I myself am You and that ‘mine’
(that is, my possessions) is only Yours.” Thus, you see, devotion is
nothing more than knowing oneself. The school of qualified
monism also admits it. Still, adhering to their traditional doctrine,
they persist in affirming that individuals are part of the Supreme
– his limbs as it were. Their traditional doctrine says also that the
individual soul should be made pure, and then surrendered to
the Supreme; then the ego is lost and one goes to the region of
Vishnu after death; then finally there is the enjoyment of the
Supreme (or the Infinite). To say that one is apart from the primal
source is itself a pretension; to add that one divested of the ego
becomes pure and yet retains individuality only to enjoy or serve
the Supreme is a deceitful stratagem. What duplicity this is – first
to appropriate what is really His, and then pretend to experience
or serve Him! Is not all this known to Him?1
It is obvious that surrender in the total uncompromising sense
in which Bhagavan demands it is not easy.
1 T., 208.
167
As often as one tries to surrender, the ego raises its head
and one has to try to suppress it. Surrender is not an easy thing.
Killing the ego is not an easy thing. It is only when God Himself
by His Grace draws the mind inwards that complete surrender
can be achieved.1
Dr. Syed asked Bhagavan: Doesn’t total or complete
surrender imply that even desire for liberation or God should
be given up?
B.: Complete surrender does imply that you should have
no desire of your own, that God’s will alone is your will and
you have no will of your own.
Dr. S.: Now that I am satisfied on that point, I want to
know what are the steps by which I can achieve surrender?
B.: There are two ways; one is looking into the source of
the ‘I’ and merging into that source; the other is feeling ‘I am
helpless by myself. God alone is all-powerful and except for
throwing myself completely on Him there is no other means of
safety for me,’ and thus gradually developing the conviction
that God alone exists and the ego does not count. Both methods
lead to the same goal. Complete surrender is another name for
Jnana or Liberation.2
However, partial surrender can come first and gradually become
more and more complete.
D.: I find surrender impossible.
B.: Complete surrender is impossible in the beginning but
partial surrender is possible for all. In course of time that will
lead to complete surrender.3
1 D. D., p. 263.
2 D. D., pp. l62-3.
3 T., 244.
168
The dualists may however object that the devotional path
approved by Bhagavan is not that which they have in mind,
since theirs presupposes the permanent duality of God and
worshipper. In such cases, as in the last sentence of the following
dialogue, Bhagavan would raise the discussion above theory,
bidding them first achieve the surrender to a separate God, of
which they spoke, and then see whether they had any further
doubts.
The state we call realisation is simply being oneself, not
knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realised,
then he is That which alone is and which alone has always
been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of
course we talk loosely of Self-realisation for want of a better
term, but how is one to realise or make real that which alone
is real? What we all are doing is ‘realising’ or regarding as real,
that Which is unreal. This habit has to be given up. All spiritual
effort under all systems is directed only to this end. When we
give up regarding the unreal as real, then Reality alone will
remain and we shall be That.
The Swami replied: ‘This exposition is all right in the
framework of non-duality, but there are other schools which do
not insist on the disappearance of the triad of knower, knowledge
and known as the condition for Self-realisation. There are schools
which believe in the existence of two and even three eternal
entities. There is the bhakta, for instance. In order that he may
worship there must be a God’.
B.: Whoever objects to his having a separate God to
worship so long as he needs one? Through devotion he develops
until he comes to feel that God alone exists, and that he himself
does not count. He comes to a stage when he says. ‘Not I but
Thou; not my will, but Thine’. When that stage is reached,
which is called complete surrender in bhakti marga, one finds
169
that effacement of the ego is the attainment of the Self. We
need not quarrel whether there are two entities or more or
only one. Even according to dualists and according to bhakti
marga, complete surrender is necessary. Do that first and then
see for yourself whether the one Self alone exists or whether
there are two or more.
Bhagavan further added: ‘Whatever may be said to suit
the different capacities of different men, the truth is that the
state of Self-realisation must be beyond the triad of knower,
knowledge and known. The Self is the Self; that is all that can
be said of it.’
The Swami then asked whether a Jnani could retain his
body after attaining Self-realisation. He added: ‘It is said that
the impact of Self-realisation is so forceful that the weak physical
body cannot bear it for more than twenty-one days at the
longest.’ Bhagavan replied: ‘What is your idea of a Jnani? Is he
the body or something different? If he is something apart from
the body, how can he be affected by the body? Books speak of
different kinds of Liberation: videhamukti (without body) and
jivanmukti (with body). There may be different stages on the
path but there are no degrees of Liberation.1
Sometimes Bhagavan was asked how the paths of love and
knowledge could be the same since love postulates duality.
D.: Love postulates duality. How can the Self be the object
of love?
B.: Love is not different from the Self. Love of an object is
of a lower type and cannot endure, whereas the Self is Love.
God is Love.2
1 D. D., pp. 181-2.
2 T., 433.
170
For those whose temperament and state of development
demanded it, the Maharshi approved of ritualistic worship,
which usually accompanies a devotional path.
A visitor said to Bhagavan: ‘Priests prescribe various rituals
and forms of worship and people are told that it is a sin not to
observe them. Is there any need for such ritual and ceremonial
worship?
B.: Yes, such worship is also necessary. It may not help
you, but that does not mean that it is necessary for no one and
is no good at all. What is necessary for the infant is not necessary
for the graduate. But even the graduate has to make use of the
alphabet he learnt in the infant class. He knows its full use and
significance.1
Worship might also take the form of concentration on one of
the Hindu gods, that is one of the modes in which Hindus
conceive of God.
D.: What are the steps of practical training?
B.: It depends on the qualifications and nature of the seeker.
D.: I worship an idol.
B.: Go on doing so. It leads to concentration of mind.
Get one-pointed. All will come right in the end. People think
that Liberation (moksha) is somewhere outside them to be sought
for. They are wrong. It is only knowing the Self in you.
Concentrate, and you will get it. It is your mind that is the
cycle of births and deaths (samsara).
D.: My mind is very unsteady. What should I do?
B.: Fix your attention on any single thing and try to hold
on to it. Everything will come right.
D.: I find concentration difficult.
1 D. D., p. 93.
171
B.: Keep on practising and your concentration will come
to be as easy as breathing. That will be the crown of your
achievement.1
However he did not approve of the desire to see visions – or
in fact, any desire at all, even the desire for rapid realisation.
Miss Uma Devi, a Polish lady who has become a Hindu,
said to Sri Bhagavan: Once before I told Sri Bhagavan how I
had a vision of Siva at about the time I became a Hindu. A
similar experience occurred to me at Courtallam. These visions
are momentary, but they are blissful. I want to know how they
can be made permanent and continuous. Without Siva there is
no life in what I see around me. I am so happy when I think of
Him. Please tell me how I can make the vision of Him
continuous.
B.: You speak of a vision of Siva, but a vision always
presumes an object. That implies the existence of a subject. The
value of the vision is the same as that of the seer. That is to say,
the nature of the vision is on the same plane as that of the seer.
Appearance implies disappearance also. Therefore a vision can
never be eternal. But Siva is eternal. The vision of Siva implies
the existence of the eyes to see it, of the intellect behind the
sight and finally of Consciousness underlying the seer. This
vision is not as real as one imagines it to be, because it is not
intimate and inherent; it is not first hand. It is the result of
several successive phases of Consciousness. Consciousness alone
does not vary. It is eternal. It is Siva. A vision implies someone
to see it, but this someone cannot deny the existence of the
Self. There is no moment when the Self as Consciousness does
1 T., 31.
172
not exist, nor can the seer remain apart from Consciousness.
This Consciousness is the Eternal Being and is only Being. The
seer cannot see himself. Does he deny his existence because he
cannot see himself as he sees a vision? No; so the true vision
does not mean seeing but BE-ing. TO BE is to realise – Hence
‘I AM THAT I AM’. I AM is Siva. Nothing else can be without
Him. Everything has its being in Siva, because of Siva. Therefore
enquire: ‘Who am I?’ Sink deep within and abide as the Self.
That is Siva as BE-ing. Do not expect to have visions of Him
repeated. What is the difference between the objects you see
and Siva? He is both subject and object. You cannot be without
Siva. Siva is always realised, here and now. If you think you
have not realised Him you are wrong. That is the obstacle to
realising Him. Give up that thought also and realisation is there.
D.: Yes, but how shall I effect it as quickly as possible?
B.: That is another obstacle to Realisation. Can there be
an individual without Siva? Even now He is you. There is no
question of time. If there were a moment of non-realisation,
the question of realisation could arise. But you cannot be without
Him. He is already realised, ever realised and never non-realised.
Surrender to Him and abide by His will, whether He appears
or vanishes; await His pleasure. If you ask Him to do as you
please, it is not surrender but command. You cannot have Him
obey you and yet think you have surrendered. He knows what
is best and when and how. Leave everything entirely to Him.
The burden is His.
You have no longer any cares. All your cares are His. That
is surrender. That is bhakti.1
D.: A vision of God is something glorious.
1 T., 450.
173
B.: A vision of God is only a vision of the Self objectified
as the God of your particular faith. What you have to do is to
know the Self.1
Bhagavan was often heard to say: ‘To know God is to love
God, therefore the paths of jnana and bhakti (knowledge and
devotion) come to the same.’
JAPA
Japa, that is the use of incantations and invocations of a Divine
Name, is one of the most widely practised techniques of
spiritual training. It has particular affinity with the bhakti
paths of love and devotion. The Maharshi approved of it,
subject, of course, to the condition illustrated in the story of
the king and his minister on page 93, that the person who
practised any incantation had been duly authorised to do so
by a qualified guru. He himself occasionally authorised the
use of invocations, but very seldom.
The point is to keep out all other thoughts except the one
thought of OM or Ram or God. All incantations and
invocations help to do that.2
The more devotion there is behind the words the better this is
accomplished, and therefore the more effective is the incantation.
D.: When I invoke the Divine Name for an hour or more
I fall into a state like sleep. On waking up I recollect that my
invocation has been interrupted, so I try again.
B.: ‘Like sleep’, that is right. It is the natural state. Because
you now identify yourself with the ego, you look upon the natural
state as something which interrupts your work. So you must have
the experience repeated until you realise that it is your natural
state. You will then find that the invocation is extraneous, but
still it will go on automatically. Your present doubt is due to false
identification of yourself with the mind that makes the invocation.
Invocation really means ‘clinging to one thought to the exclusion
of all others’. That is the purpose of it. It leads to absorption
which ends in Self-realisation or Jnana.
D.: How should I practise invocation?
B.: One should not use the name of God mechanically
and superficially without a feeling of devotion. When one uses
the name of God one should call on Him with yearning and
unreservedly surrender oneself to Him. Only after such
surrender is the name of God constantly with you.1
In its early stages an incantation may even be accompanied by
visualisation of the form of a Guru or of a mythological form
of God.
D.: My practice has been continuous invocation of the
names of God while breathing in and of the names of Sai Baba
while breathing out. Simultaneously with this I see the form of
Baba always. Even in Bhagavan I see Baba. The external
appearances are also much alike. Bhagavan is thin. Baba was a
little stout. Should I continue this method or change it?
Something within tells me that if I stick to name and form I
shall never get beyond them but I can’t understand what further
to do if I gave them up. Will Bhagavan please enlighten me?
B.: You may continue with your present method. When
the japa becomes continuous, all other thoughts cease and one
is in one’s real nature which is invocation or absorption. We
1 M. G., p. 17-8.
175
turn our minds outwards to things of the world and are therefore
not aware that our real nature is always invocation. When by
conscious effort, or invocation, or meditation as we call it, we
prevent our minds from thinking of other things, then what
remains is our real nature, which is invocation. So long as you
think you are name and form, you can’t escape name and form
in invocation. When you realise that you are not name and
form, name and form will drop off themselves. No other effort
is necessary. Invocation or meditation will lead to it naturally
and as a matter of course. Invocation which is now regarded as
the means, will then be found to be the goal. There is no
difference between God and His name.1
As the above passage indicates, incantation merges with dhyana,
which, for want of a better word, is translated ‘meditation’.
For this reason, silent incantation is better than vocal, being
more inward.
D.: Isn’t mental invocation better than oral?
B.: Oral incantation consists of sounds. The sounds arise
from thoughts, for one must think before one expresses one’s
thoughts in words. The thoughts form the mind. Therefore
mental invocation is better than oral.
D.: Shouldn’t we contemplate the invocation and repeat
it orally also?
B.: When the invocation becomes mental, where is the
need for sound? On becoming mental, it becomes
contemplation. Meditation, contemplation and mental
invocation are the same. When thoughts cease to be promiscuous
and one thought persists to the exclusion of all others, it is said
to be contemplation. The object of invocation or meditation is
1 D. D., pp. 170-1.
176
to exclude varied thoughts and confine oneself to one thought.
Then that thought too vanishes into its source, which is pure
Consciousness or the Self. The mind first engages in invocation
and then sinks into its own source.1
This is certain: worship, incantations and meditation are
performed respectively with the body, the voice and the mind
and in this they are of ascending order of value.
One can regard this eight-fold universe as a manifestation
of God; and whatever worship is performed in it is excellent as
worship of God.
The repetition aloud of His name is better than praise.
Better still is its faint murmur. But the best is repetition with
the mind – and that is meditation, above referred to.
Better than such broken thoughts (meditation) is its steady
and continuous flow like the flow of oil or of a perennial stream.2
KARMA MARGA
Little need be said here about karma marga, the path of action,
since it has been dealt with in an earlier chapter. The Maharshi
discouraged unnecessary activities on the one hand and the
attempt to renounce activity on the other, enjoining
performance of the necessary routine activities of life in a
detached manner, simultaneously with the practice of enquiry
or devotion.
D.: Swami, how can the grip of the ego be loosened?
B.: By not adding new vasanas (innate tendencies) to it.3
1 T., 328.
2 E. I., vv. 4-7.
3 T., 173.
177
D.: How does activity help? Will it not add to the already
heavy load that has to be removed?
B.: Actions performed with no thought of the ego purify
the mind and help to fix it in meditation.
D.: But suppose one were to meditate incessantly without
activity?
B.: Try and see. Your innate tendencies will not let you.
Meditation (dhyana) comes only step by step with the weakening
of innate tendencies by the Grace of the Guru.1
METHODS GRADED
Although the Maharshi recognised all methods, he graded them
as more or less direct and effective, as is shown in the above
quotation of verses 4 - 7 of the Essence of Instruction. The
following exposition also makes this clear.
Examination of the ephemeral nature of external things leads
to dispassion (vairagya). Hence enquiry is the first and most important
step. When it becomes automatic, it results in indifference to wealth,
fame, ease, pleasure and so on. The ‘I’-thought is traced to the source
of the ‘I’ in the Heart, which is the final goal.
However, if the aspirant is temperamentally unsuited for
Self-enquiry, he must develop devotion. It may be to God or
Guru or mankind in general or ethical laws or even an ideal of
beauty. As any of these takes possession of him, other attachments
grow weaker and dispassion develops. Attachment to the object
of devotion grows until it dominates him completely, and with
it grows concentration (ekagrata) with or without visions and
direct aids.
1 T., 80.
178
If neither enquiry nor devotion appeals to him, he can
gain tranquillity by breath-control. This is the way of yoga. If a
man’s life is in danger, all his interest centres round the one
point of saving it. If the breath is held, the mind cannot afford
to jump out at its beloved outer objects, and it does not do so.
Therefore there is peace of mind as long as the breath is held.
Since all one’s attention is concentrated on the breath, other
interests are abandoned. Then also, any passion results in
irregular breathing. A paroxysm of joy is in fact as painful as
one of grief, and both result in disturbed breathing. Real peace
is happiness, and pleasures do not produce happiness.
If the aspirant is unsuited to the first two methods by
temperament and to the third on account of age or health, he
must try karma marga, the path of good deeds and social service.
His nobler instincts are thus developed and he derives personal
happiness from his actions. His ego becomes less assertive and
its good side is enabled to develop. He thus in course of time
comes to be suited for one of the three former paths. Or his
intuition may be developed by karma marga alone.1
1 T., 27.
179
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE GOAL
D.: What is the purpose of Self-realisation?
B.: Self-realisation is the final goal and is itself the purpose.
D.: I mean, what use is it?
B.: Why do you ask about Self-realisation? Why don’t you
rest content with your present state? It is evident that you are
discontented and your discontent will come to an end if you realise
the self.1
The above question was seldom asked, because those who
came to the Maharshi usually understood at least that the
state of spiritual ignorance (or, as Christianity puts it, of ‘fallen
man’) is undesirable and that Self-realisation is the supreme
goal. In the following dialogue the purpose is asked with more
understanding and therefore the answer also goes deeper.
D.: What is the goal of this process?
B.: Realising the Real.
D.: What is the nature of Reality?
B.: (a) Existence without beginning or end – eternal.
(b) Existence everywhere, endless – infinite.
(c) Existence underlying all forms, all changes, all
forces, all matter and all spirit.
The many change and pass away, whereas the One always endures.
(d) The one displaces the triads such as knower,
knowledge and known. The triads are only
appearances in time and space, whereas the Reality
1 T., 487.
180
lies beyond and behind them. They are like a mirage
over the Reality. They are the result of delusion.
D.: If ‘I’ am also an illusion, who casts off the illusion?
B.: The ‘I’ casts off the illusion of ‘I’ and yet remains ‘I’.
Such is the paradox of Self-realisation. The Realised do not see
any contradiction in it.1
It is surprising how many philosophers and theologians have
failed to understand what is implied by Self-realisation and
have misrepresented and even attacked or belittled it. All that
it means, as Bhagavan explains in the passage just quoted, is
realising Reality, realising what is. And Reality remains the
same, eternal and unchanging, whether one realises it or not.
One can, of course, understand the annoyance and frustration
of philosophers who wish to grasp everything with the mind
on being told that Reality lies beyond and behind the triad of
knower-knowledge-known, which is like a mirage over it; for
obviously the mirage cannot penetrate to that which underlies
it. That is why no easy answer can be given to them. Indeed,
Bhagavan did not on the whole approve of questions about
the meaning and nature of Realisation, because his purpose
was to help the questioner and not to satisfy mental curiosity.
He usually reminded people that what is needed is effort to
attain Self-knowledge; and when that is attained, the questions
will not arise.
Some people who come here don’t ask me about themselves
but about the Jivanmukta, liberated while still embodied. Does he
see the world? Is he subject to destiny? Can one be liberated only
after leaving the body or while yet alive? Should the body of a Sage
resolve itself into light or disappear from sight in a miraculous way?
Can one who leaves a corpse behind at death be liberated? Their
questions are endless. Why worry about all these things? Does
Liberation consist in knowing the answer to these questions? So I
1 T., 28.
181
tell them, ‘Never mind about Liberation. First find out whether
there is such a thing as bondage. Examine yourself first.’1
He sometimes pointed out that even to speak of Self-realisation
is a delusion – an illusory escape from an illusory prison.
B.: In a sense, speaking of Self-realisation is a delusion. It
is only because people have been under the delusion that the
non-Self is the Self and the unreal the Real, that they have to be
weaned out of it by the other delusion called Self-realisation;
because actually the Self always is the Self and there is no such
thing as realising it. Who is to realise what, and how, when all
that exists is the Self and nothing but the Self?2
One thing which impedes understanding, especially in theologians,
is the contrast between Self-realisation and sainthood and the
mistaken idea that it may represent a difference between various
religious traditions, one striving for sainthood and another for
Realisation. This idea is quite ungrounded. There have been saints
in every religion, Hinduism as well as others. They differ very
much among themselves, both in individual characteristics, from
the rapturous to the serene, from the austere to the benign, from
the subtle philosopher to the simple minded, and also in degree of
attainment; some of them possess supernatural powers, some are
swept away in ecstatic bliss, some consume themselves in loving
service to mankind; all have a purity beyond that of ordinary men.
Their state may be called heavenly even while on earth. And yet all
this falls short of Self-realisation. All this is in the state of duality,
where God or Self is the Other, where prayer is necessary, and
revelation possible. In strict theory they are as far removed as the
ordinary man from Self-realisation, since there is no common
measure between the Absolute and the conditioned, the Infinite
and the limited. A million is no nearer to Infinity than a hundred.
This complete gulf is illustrated by the Buddhist story of the man
1 T., 578.
2 D. D., p. 269.
182
who wanders about the earth seeking for a lost jewel which all the
time is on his brow. When at last it is pointed out to him, all his
years of search and wandering have done nothing to bring him
nearer to it. And yet, in actual fact, if he had not gone searching he
would not have found it. And in actual fact the saint can be
considered nearer to Realisation than ordinary men, just as it is
easier for an ordinary man to attain Realisation than for a dog,
although both alike are limited to the illusion of individual being.
There are stages of attainment of the saints, just as there is a
hierarchy of heavens; and both of these correspond to the degrees
of initiation in indirect spiritual paths. Bhagavan would answer
questions about this when specifically asked, but did not usually
speak of it, since his purpose was not to raise his followers from
grade to grade of apparent reality but to direct them towards the
one, eternal, universal, Reality.
D.: Do we go to Svarga (heaven) as a result of our actions here?
B.: Heaven is as real as your present life. But if we ask who
we are and discover the Self, what need is there to think of heaven?1
D.: Is Vaikunta (heaven) in the Supreme Self?
B.: Where is the Supreme Self or heaven unless in you?
D.: But heaven may appear to one involuntarily.
B.: Does this world appear voluntarily?2
Similarly he would briefly acknowledge grades of development
in the individual but would not dwell on them.
The yogic centres counting from the bottom upwards, are
a series of centres in the nervous system, each having its own
kind of power or knowledge.3
When someone told him about a present-day saint who was
said to be constantly inspired by an Incarnation of God and
(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