The Teachings of Bhagavan
Sri Ramana Maharshi
in His Own Words
Edited by:
ARTHUR OSBORNE
Nevertheless, this does not mean that Bhagavan’s teaching
condoned coldness or callousness to human suffering. Those
who were in distress had to be helped; only they had to be
helped in a spirit of humanity. What was forbidden was only
the self-importance inherent in trying to act the part of
providence. This is made very clear in the following passage:
D.: But we see pain in the world. A man is hungry. It is a
physical reality. It is very real to him. Are we to call it a dream
and remain unmoved by his suffering?
B.: From the point of view of jnana or Reality, the suffering
you speak of is certainly a dream, as is the world of which that
suffering is an infinitesimal part. In a dream you have when
you are asleep you yourself feel hunger and see others also
suffering from hunger. You feed yourself and, moved by pity,
feed the others who are hungry. So long as the dream lasted, all
this suffering was quite as real as the suffering you see in the
world is to you now. It was only when you woke up that you
discovered it to be unreal. You might have eaten heartily before
going to sleep, but you still dreamt that you had been working
hard in the hot sun all day and were tired and hungry. Then
you woke up and found that your stomach was full and that
you had not stirred from your bed. But all this is not to say that
while you are in the dream you can act as if the suffering you
feel in it is not real. The hunger in the dream has to be appeased
by dream food. The fellow beings you find hungry in the dream
have to be provided with dream food. You can never mix the
two states, the dream and the waking state. Similarly, till you
attain the state of Realisation and thus wake out of this illusory,
phenomenal world, you must do social service by relieving
suffering whenever you see it. But even so you must do it without
ahankara that is without the sense of: ‘It-is-I-who-am-doing-it’.
Instead you should feel: ‘I am the Lord’s instrument.’ Similarly
85
you must not be conceited and think: ‘I am helping a man who
is below me. He needs help and I am in a position to give it. I
am superior and he is inferior’. You must help him as a means
of worshipping God in him. All such service is serving the Self,
not anybody else. You are not helping anybody else, but only
yourself.1
In general, Bhagavan discouraged political activity among those
dedicated to the quest.
D.: Is it not our duty to be patriots?
B.: It is your duty to BE and not to be this or that, ‘I am
that I am’ sums up the whole of the Truth. The method is
summarised in ‘Be still.’2
However, when people who were engaged in political life
approached him, he would simply advise them to carry on in
a spirit of service and surrender, seeking to eliminate all egoism
from their work.
D.: Is the desire for swaraj (independence) right?
B.: Such desire no doubt begins with self-interest. Yet
practical work for the goal gradually widens the outlook so that
the individual becomes merged in the country. Such merging
of the individuality is desirable and the karma in question is
nishkama (unselfish).
D.: If self-government for India is granted after a long
struggle and terrible sacrifice, is one not justified in being pleased
with the result and elated by it?
B.: In the course of one’s work one must have surrendered
oneself to the higher Power whose might must be kept in mind
and never lost sight of. How then can one be elated? One should
1 D. D., p. 94.
2 M. G., p. 25.
86
not even care for the result of one’s action. Then alone the
karma becomes unselfish.1
Gandhiji has surrendered himself to the Divine and works
accordingly with no self interest. He does not concern himself
with the results but accepts them as they turn up. That must be
the attitude of national workers.
Q.: Will the work be crowned with success?
B.: This question arises because the questioner has not
surrendered himself.
Q.: Should we then not think of and work for the welfare
of the country?
B.: First take care of yourself and the rest will naturally
follow.
Q.: I am not speaking individually but for the country.
B.: First surrender and then see. Doubts arise because of
the absence of surrender. Acquire strength by surrender and
then your surrounding will be found to have improved to the
degree of strength acquired by you.2
Persons whose temperament drew them to activity and who
found it hard to understand that spiritually there are no others,
queried whether there was not some egoism in seeking their
own realisation, not understanding that the very expression
‘their own’ did not apply and that not merely egoism but the
ego itself had to be renounced. Bhagavan himself was asked
why he did not go about preaching to the people.
D.: Why doesn’t Sri Bhagavan go about preaching the
truth to the people at large?
B.: How do you know that I don’t? Does preaching consist
in mounting a platform and haranguing the people around?
1 T., 502.
2 T., 521.
87
Preaching is simple communication of knowledge and can be
done in silence too. What do you think of a man listening to a
harangue for an hour and going away without being impressed
by it so as to change his life? Compare him with another who
sits in a holy presence and leaves after some time with his outlook
on life totally changed. Which is better: to preach loudly without
effect or to sit silently sending forth intuitive force to act on
others? Again, how does speech arise? First, there is abstract
knowledge (unmanifest). From this there arises the ego which
gives rise to thoughts and words successively. So then:
Abstract Knowledge
↓
Ego
↓
Thoughts
↓
Words
Words therefore are the great-grandsons of the original
source. If words can produce an effect, consider how much
more powerful preaching through silence must be.1
Bhagavan answered those who doubted its utility that
Realisation was the greatest help they could possibly render to
others. Indeed, Bhagavan himself was the standing proof of
this, as one saw from the numbers of people helped to the
very depth of their being, lifted out of confusion and sorrow
on to a firm path of peace and understanding, by the silent
influence of his grace. And yet, at the same time, he reminded
them that, from the point of view of knowledge, there are no
others to help.
1 T., 285.
88
D.: Does my Realisation help others?
B.: Yes, certainly. It is the best possible help. But really
there are no others to help, for a Realised Being sees only the
Self just as a goldsmith estimating the gold in various jewels sees
only the gold. Separate forms and beings exist only as long as
you identify yourself with the body. When you transcend the
body, others disappear along with your body-consciousness.
D.: Is it so with plants and trees also?
B.: Do they exist at all apart from the Self? Find out. You
think that you see them. The thought is projected from yourself.
Find out wherefrom it arises. Then thoughts will cease to rise
and the Self alone will remain.
D.: I understand theoretically, but they are still there.
B.: Yes, it is like a cinema show. There is the light on the
screen and the shadows flitting across impress the audience as
the acting of some story. Now suppose that in this film story an
audience is also shown on the screen. The seer and the seen will
then both be on the screen. Apply this to yourself. You are the
screen, the Self has created the ego, the ego has its accretions of
thoughts, which are displayed as the world, trees, plants, etc.,
about which you are asking. In reality all these are nothing but
the Self. If you see the Self it will be found to be all, everywhere
and always. Nothing but the Self exists.1
The same was explained to Mr. Evans-Wentz, the well-known
writer about Tibet.
E.W.: They say that there are many saints in Tibet who
remain in solitude and are still very helpful to the world. How
can that be?
1 T., 13
89
B.: It can be so. Realisation of the Self is the greatest help
that can be rendered to humanity. Therefore saints are said to
be helpful even though they remain in the forests. But it should
not be forgotten that solitude is not to be found in forests only.
It can be had even in town in the thick of worldly occupation.
E.W.: Isn’t it necessary that saints should mix with people
and be helpful to them?
B.: The Self alone is the Reality; the world and the rest of
it are not. The Realised Being does not see the world as different
from himself.
E.W.: Then does that mean that a man’s Realisation leads
to the uplift of mankind without their being aware of it?
B.: Yes; the help is imperceptible but it is still there. A
Realised Man helps the whole of mankind, although without
their knowledge.
E.W.: Wouldn’t it be better if he mixed with others?
B.: There are no others to mix with. The Self is the one
and only Reality.
E.W.: If there were a hundred Self-realised men, wouldn’t
it be to the greater benefit of the world?
B.: When you say ‘Self ’ you refer to the unlimited, but
when you add ‘men’ to it, you limit the meaning. There is only
one Infinite Self.
E.W.: Yes, I see. Sri Krishna said in the Gita, that work
must be performed without attachment and such work is better
than idleness. Is that Karma Yoga?
B.: What is said is adapted to the temperament of the
listener.
E.W.: In Europe people do not understand that a man
can be helpful in solitude. They imagine that only men who
work in the world can be useful. When will this confusion cease?
90
Will the European mind continue wading in the morass or will
it realise the Truth?
B.: Never mind about Europe or America. Where are they
but in the mind? Realise your Self and then all is realised. If you
see a number of men in a dream and then wake up and recall
your dream, do you try to find out whether the persons of your
dream-creation are also awake?1
A self-realised being cannot help benefitting the world.
His very existence is the highest good.2
1 T., 20.
2 T., 210.
91
CHAPTER FOUR
THE GURU
It has always been taught that in order to attain Realisation,
not only practice but also a guide is needed. In this, as in all
things, Bhagavan gave the doctrine its deepest meaning. In
fact, it became essentially the same as the Christian doctrine
of ‘the Christ in you’ or the Buddhist doctrine of the ‘Buddhamind’
which is to be realised in oneself.
D.: Bhagavan has said that without the grace of the Guru
one cannot attain the Self. What precisely does he mean by
this? What is this Guru?
B.: From the standpoint of the path of knowledge, it is the
supreme state of the Self. It is different from the ego which you
call yourself.
D.: Then, if it is the supreme state of my own self, in what
sense does Bhagavan mean that I cannot reach it without the
grace of the Guru?
B.: The ego is the individuality and is not the same as the
Lord of all. When it approaches the Lord with sincere devotion,
He graciously assumes name and form and takes it to Himself.
Therefore they say that the Guru is none other than the Lord.
He is the human embodiment of Divine Grace.
This would seem to mean, then, that the Guru is the Lord or
the Self manifested outwardly in human form and that this
outward manifestation is necessary. But the questioner, in the
present instance, was not convinced of this, since he knew
that Bhagavan himself had had no human Guru and that there
are other cases on record also, especially among the founders
of religions. He therefore continued:
92
D.: But there are some who seem to have had no human
Guru at all?
B.: True. In the case of certain great souls, God reveals
Himself as the Light of the Light from within.1
It occasionally happened that some questioner would openly
raise the objection that Bhagavan himself had not a Guru and
in such cases, his reply would be that the Guru need not
necessarily take human form.
Some who knew his teaching at second hand suggested
that he did not hold it necessary to have a Guru and explained
the lack of explicit initiation in that way, but he rejected this
suggestion unequivocally. S.S. Cohen has recorded a
conversation on this subject with Dilip Kumar Roy, the
celebrated musician of Sri Aurobindo Ashram:
Dilip.: Some people report Maharshi to deny the need of
a Guru. Others say the reverse. What does Maharshi say?
B.: I have never said that there is no need for a Guru.
Dilip: Sri Aurobindo often refers to you as having had no
Guru.
B.: That depends on what you call Guru. He need not
necessarily be in human form. Dattatreya had twenty-four Gurus
– the elements, and so on. That means that any form in the
world was his Guru. Guru is absolutely necessary. The
Upanishads say that none but a Guru can take a man out of the
jungle of mental and sense perceptions, so there must be a Guru.
Dilip: I mean a human Guru. The Maharshi didn’t have one.
B.: I might have had at some time or other. And didn’t I sing
hymns to Arunachala? What is a Guru? Guru is God or the Self.
First a man prays to God to fulfil his desires, then a time comes
1 S. D. B. v, vi.
93
when he does not pray for the fulfilment of a desire, but for God
Himself. So God appears to him in some form or other, human or
non-human, to guide him as a Guru in answer to his prayer.
It was only when some visitor brought up the subject that
Sri Bhagavan himself had not had a Guru that he explained
that the Guru need not necessarily take on a human form, and
it was understood that this referred to very rare cases.1
I shall return to this question later, but wish immediately to
consider the implication of the saying that God, Guru and Self
are the same. In the ordinary sense of the word, a Guru is one
who has been invested with the right to initiate disciples and
prescribe a spiritual discipline for them; and in this sense, a
proper investiture is necessary to validate his actions as a Guru,
just as proper ordination is necessary to validate the religious
rites performed by a priest. A mass said by a duly ordained
priest would be valid, whereas one said by a man of greater
moral integrity and intellectual power who was not an ordained
priest, would not; and in exactly the same way, the genuineness
of a Guru and validity of his initiation and discipline is normally
dependent rather on his legitimate investiture as the successor
to a line of Gurus than on his own inherent attainments.
Bhagavan was little interested in this interpretation of the word
Guru, but he did accept it when asked.
D.: Can one derive any benefit from repeating
incantations picked up casually, without being initiated into
them?
B.: No. One must be initiated into them and authorised
to use them.
Bhagavan then illustrated this saying by the following story:
A king once visited his minister at the latter’s house. There he
was told that the minister was busy with his incantations. The
1 R. M., p. 169-70.
94
king accordingly waited for him, and when he was free to meet
him, asked him what incantation it was. The minister told him
that it was the Gayatri. The king then asked the minister to
initiate him into the use of it, but the latter declared that he was
unable to. Thereupon the king learnt it from someone else and
the next time he met the minister he repeated it to him and
asked him whether it was right. The minister replied that the
incantation was right but that it was not right for him to say it.
The king asked why; the minister called an attendant who was
standing nearby and told him to arrest the king. The order was
not obeyed. The minister repeated it and still it was not obeyed.
The king then flew into a temper and ordered the attendant to
arrest the minister, which he immediately did. The minister
laughed and said that that was the explanation the king had
asked for.
‘How?’ the king asked.
‘Because the order was the same, and the executive was the
same but the authority was different. When I pronounced the
order there was no effect; but when you did it, the effect was
immediate. It is the same with incantation.’1
Normally, however, when Bhagavan said ‘Guru’ he meant
something far greater than this, something different not in degree
but in kind; he meant Sat-Guru, or Guru-deva, and that too in
its highest meaning as nothing less than one who has realised his
identity with the Self and abides therein constantly.
D.: What are the distinctive characteristics of a Guru by
which one can recognise him?
B.: The Guru is one who at all times abides in the profound
depths of the Self. He never sees any difference between himself
1 T., 8.
95
and others and is quite free from the idea that he is the Enlightened
or the Liberated One, while those around him are in bondage or
the darkness of ignorance. His self-possession can never be shaken
under any circumstances and he is never perturbed.
D.: What is the essential nature of upadesa or spiritual
instruction given by the Guru?
B.: The word upadesa literally means ‘restoring an object
to its proper place’. The mind of the disciple, having become
differentiated from its true and primal state of Pure Being, which
is the Self and which is described in the scriptures as Sat-chitananda
(Being-Consciousness-Bliss), slips away therefrom and,
assuming the form of thought, constantly pursues objects of
sense-gratification. Therefore it is assailed by the vicissitudes of
life and becomes weak and dispirited. Upadesa consists in the
Guru restoring it to its primal state and preventing it from
slipping away from the state of Pure Being, of absolute identity
with the Self or, in other words, the Being of the Guru.
The word can also be understood as meaning ‘to present
an apparently distant object to close view’; that is to say, it
consists in the Guru showing the disciple what he had considered
as distant and different from himself to be immediate and
identical with himself.
D.: If, as this implies, the real being of the Guru is identical
with that of the disciple, why have the scriptures categorically
declared that, however great powers one may attain, he cannot
attain Self-realisation without the grace of the Guru?
B.: It is true that the being of the Guru is identical with
that of the disciple; however, it is very seldom that a person can
realise his true Being without the grace of the Guru.1
1 S. I., Chap. I, § 1-4.
96
It is not really the bodily individual that is the Guru.
B.: What is your idea of a Guru? You think of him in
human shape as a body of certain dimensions, complexion, and
so on. A disciple, after Realisation once said to his Guru: ‘I now
realise that you dwelt in my innermost heart as the one Reality
in all my countless births and have now come before me is
human shape and lifted this veil of ignorance. What can I do
for you in return for such a great benefit?’ And the Guru replied:
‘You need not do anything. It is enough if you remain as you
are in your true state. That is the truth about the Guru.1
Bhagavan often explained that the Divine Guide, the true
Guru, is in one’s heart as well as being manifested outwardly.
While the outward Guru turns one’s mind inwards, the inner
Guru pulls from within. Even one’s environment does not
happen by accident. The Guru creates the conditions necessary
for one’s quest.
D.: What is the Grace of the Guru?
B.: The Guru is the Self. At some time a man grows dissatisfied
with his life and, not content with what he has, seeks the satisfaction
of his desires through prayer to God. His mind is gradually purified
until he longs to know God, more to obtain His Grace than to
satisfy worldly desires. Then God’s grace begins to manifest. God
takes the form of a Guru and appears to the devotee, teaches him
the Truth and, moreover, purifies his mind by association with
him. The devotee’s mind thus gains strength and is then able to
turn inward. By meditation it is further purified until it remains
calm without the least ripple. That calm Expanse is the Self.
The Guru is both outer and inner. From outside he gives
a push to the mind to turn inward while from inside he pulls
1 D. D., p. 88.
97
the mind towards the Self and helps in quieting it. That is the
Grace of the Guru. There is no difference between God, Guru
and Self.
D.: In the Theosophical Society they meditate in order to
seek masters to guide them.
B.: The master is within; meditation is meant to remove the
ignorant idea that he is only external. If he were some stranger
whom you awaited, he would be bound to disappear also. What
would be the use of a transient being like that? But as long as you
think you are separate or that you are the body, so long is the
outer master also necessary and He will appear as if with a body.
When the wrong identification of yourself with the body ceases,
the master will be found to be none other than the Self.
D.: Will the Guru help us to know the Self through
initiation, and so on?
B.: Does the Guru hold you by the hand and whisper in
your ear? You may imagine him to be what you are yourself.
Because you think you have a body, you think that he has also
and that he will do something tangible to you. His work lies
within, in the spiritual realm.
D.: How is the Guru found?
B.: God, who is immanent, in His Grace takes pity on the
loving devotee and manifests Himself according to the devotee’s
development. The devotee thinks that he is a man and expects a
relationship as between two physical bodies. But the Guru who
is God or the Self incarnate, works from within, helps the man
to see his mistakes and guides him in the right path until he
realises the Self within.
D.: What should the devotee do then?
B.: He has only to act according to the words of the master
and work inwardly. The master is both ‘within’ and ‘without’,
98
so he creates conditions to drive you inward and at the same
time prepares the ‘interior’ to drag you to the Centre. Thus he
gives a push from ‘without’ and exerts a pull from ‘within’ so
that you may be fixed at the Centre.
You think that the world can be conquered by your own
efforts. When you are frustrated externally and are driven
inwards you feel, ‘Oh, there is a power higher than man.’ The
ego is a very powerful elephant which cannot be brought under
control by any creature less powerful than a lion, which, in
this instance, is none other than the Guru, whose very looks
make the elephant-like ego tremble and die. You will know in
due course that your glory lies where you cease to exist. In
order to gain that state, you should surrender yourself. Then
the master sees that you are in a fit state to receive guidance
and He guides you.1
What is the significance of saying that the Guru is the
manifestation of God or Self? Bhagavan spoke always from
the point of view of non-duality, and from this point of view
the disciple is also guided thus. The only difference is that the
Guru has realised it and the disciple has not.
B.: So long as you seek Self-realisation, the Guru is
necessary. Guru is the Self. Take Guru to be the real Self, and
yourself to be the individual self. The disappearance of this sense
of duality is the removal of ignorance. So long as duality persists
in you, the Guru is necessary. Because you identify yourself
with the body, you think the Guru too is the body. You are not
the body, nor is the Guru. You are the Self and so is the Guru.
This knowledge is gained by what you call Self-realisation.2
1 M. G., pp. 26-7.
2 T., 282.
99
You mistake the body for the Guru. But the Guru himself
does not make that mistake. He is the formless Self. That is
within you. He appears outwardly only to guide you.1
A curious paradox arises with the perfect Guru, the Self-realised
man in constant, conscious identity with the Self. For the very
reason that he is the complete and perfect Guru he will not call
himself a Guru or call any his disciples, since that would be an
affirmation of relationship and therefore of duality.
Though he instructs his disciples, yet he does not call himself
their Guru, realising as he does that Guru and disciple are mere
conventions born of maya (total illusion).2
And indeed, Bhagavan initiated his disciples through silence,
or in a dream when at a distance, or by look when they were
in his bodily presence; but he did not call them his disciples
or give the formal initiation that postulates duality. He watched
over them constantly, prescribed a discipline for them verbally
or guided them to it by the power of his silent grace. But he
did not call himself their Guru.
D.: Isn’t grace the gift of the Guru?
B.: God, Grace and Guru are all synonymous and are
both eternal and immanent. Isn’t the Self already within? Is it
for the Guru to bestow it by his look? If a Guru thinks so, he
does not deserve that name. The books say there are many kinds
of initiation. They also say that the Guru performs various rites
with fire, water, incantations and so on, and call such fantastic
performances initiation, as if the disciple became ripe only after
such processes were gone through by the Guru.
If the individual is sought, he is nowhere to be found.
Such is the Guru. Such is Dakshinamurthi. What did he do?
1 T., 499.
2 T., 449.
100
He sat silent. The disciples appeared before him. He maintained
silence, and their doubts were dispelled, which means they lost
their individual identities. Jnana (spiritual knowledge) is that
silent understanding and not the verbal definitions that are
usually given for it. Silence is the most potent form of work.
However vast and emphatic the scriptures may be, they fail in
their effect. The Guru is quiet and peace prevails in all. His
silence is vaster and more emphatic than all the scriptures put
together. These questions arise because of the feeling that, in
spite of having been here so long, heard so much, striven so
hard, you have not gained anything. The process that goes on
inside you is not apparent to you. In fact, the Guru is always
within you.1
Not all felt the grace, the power of silent initiation,
immediately, but Bhagavan reassured them.
D.: It is said that one look of a Mahatma is enough; that
idols, pilgrimages, and so on, are not so effective; but I have
been here for three months and still do not know how I have
been benefitted by the look of the Maharshi.
B.: The look has a purifying effect. Purification cannot be
visualised. Just as a piece of coal takes a long time to ignite and
a piece of charcoal a shorter time, while a heap of gunpowder is
ignited instantaneously, so it is with different types of men
coming in contact with a Mahatma.2
Incidentally, the devotee who raised this question stayed on
and became one of the staunchest and most devoted of all.
Complete faith in the Guru was necessary but, as explained in
the previous chapter, effort was also necessary.
1 T., 398.
2 T., 155.
101
D.: After leaving this Asramam in October, I was aware of
Bhagavan’s peace enfolding me for about ten days. All the time,
while busy with work, there was an undercurrent of that peace
of unity; it was almost like the dual consciousness while half
asleep in a dull lecture. Then it faded out entirely and the old
stupidities came instead.
Work leaves no time for separate meditation. Is the constant
reminder ‘I am’ and trying to feel this while actually at work
enough?
B.: It will become constant when the mind is strengthened.
Repeated practice strengthens the mind, and such a mind is
capable of holding on to the current.
Then, whether you are engaged in work or not, the
current remains unaffected and uninterrupted.1
It often happened that the disciple saw no improvement in
himself despite the effort, but he was told to have faith in the
Guru. The process might not be visible to himself and
improvement might be the greatest when least apparent.
He evoked no spectacular changes in the devotees, for such
changes may be a superstructure without foundation and collapse
later. Indeed, it sometimes happened that a devotee would grow
despondent, seeing no improvement at all in himself and would
complain that he was not progressing at all. In such cases
Bhagavan might offer consolation or might retort, ‘How do
you know there is no progress?’ And he would explain that it is
the Guru, not the disciple, who sees the progress made; it is for
the disciple to carry on perserveringly with his work even though
the structure being raised may be out of sight of the mind.2
1 T., 310.
2 R. M., p. 198.
102
There were some who desired a definite statement that
Bhagavan was a Guru, but this he would not make.
Mr. Evans-Wentz, the well-known writer on Tibetan Yoga,
asked whether Bhagavan initiated disciples, but Bhagavan sat
silent, giving no reply.
Then one of the devotees took it on himself to answer
that the Maharshi does not regard any as being outside himself
and therefore none can be disciples to him. His grace is allpervading
and is bestowed in silence on any deserving
individual.1
Bhagavan heard the explanation and did not reject it. Sometimes
he would explain that the Guru-disciple relationship was
necessary from the point of view of the disciple, since the latter
viewed things from the stand-point of duality; and therefore
the disciple could affirm that so-and-so was his Guru, although
the Guru would not affirm that the other was his disciple.
D.: Bhagavan says he has no disciples?
B.: Yes.
D.: He also says that a Guru is necessary if one wishes to
attain liberation.
B.: Yes.
D.: What then must I do? Has my sitting here all these
years been just a waste of time? Must I go and look for some
Guru in order to receive initiation, seeing that Bhagavan says
he is not a Guru?
B.: What do you think brought you here such a long
distance and made you remain here so long? Why do you doubt?
If there had been any need to seek a Guru elsewhere, you would
have gone away long ago. The Guru or Jnani (Enlightened
1 T., 23.
103
One) sees no difference between himself and others. For him
all are Jnanis, all are one with himself, so how can a Jnani say
that such-and-such is his disciple? But the unliberated one sees
all as multiple, he sees all as different from himself, so to him
the Guru-disciple relationship is a reality. For him there are
three ways of initiation: by touch, look and silence. (Sri
Bhagavan here gave the disciple to understand that his way was by
silence, as he has to many on other occasions.)
D.: Then Bhagavan does have disciples?
B.: As I said, from Bhagavan’s point of view there are no
disciples, but from that of the disciple, the Grace of the Guru is
like an ocean. If he comes with a cup he will get only a cupful.
It is no use complaining of the niggardliness of the ocean; the
bigger the vessel the more he will be able to carry. It is entirely
up to him.1
When the devotee pressed him once more for a confirmation,
he turned to the attendant and said humorously, ‘Let him get
a document from the sub-registrar and take it to the office
and get the office stamp on it.’
In the following conversation, he implied clearly enough
that he was to be regarded as the visible Guru.
D.: Can Sri Bhagavan help us to realise the Truth?
B.: Help is always there.
D.: Then, there is no need to ask questions. I do not feel
the ever-present help.
B.: Surrender and you will find it.
D.: I am always at your feet. Will Bhagavan give me some
upadesa to follow? Otherwise how can I get the help, living six
hundred miles away?
B.: The Sad-Guru is within.
1 R. M., pp. 167-8.
104
D.: The Sad-Guru is necessary to guide me to understand
that fact.
B.: The Sad-Guru is within you.
D.: I want a visible Guru.
B.: That visible Guru says that he is within.
It was in keeping with the purely spiritual nature of Bhagavan’s
initiation and guidance that he was averse to touching his
disciples or being touched by them. In the further part of the
talk just quoted the devotee requests:
D.: Will the Sad-Guru place his hand on my head to assure
me of his help? Then I shall have the consolation of knowing
that his promise will be fulfilled.
In such cases Bhagavan was apt either to remain silent or to
turn it into a joke. On this occasion he took the latter course.
B.: Next you will be asking me for a bond and filing a suit
if you imagine that the help is not forthcoming.1
It may be said by some readers of this book that this doctrine
of God manifested as Guru was all right for those who had
the good fortune to meet Bhagavan in his lifetime, but what
of those who seek a Guru now? There are Gurus to be found,
although the appearance on earth of a perfect Sad-Guru such
as Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, a Jivanmukta living in
constant conscious identity with the Self, is a very rare thing.
D.: How can one know whether a particular person is
competent to be a Guru?
B.: By the peace of mind you feel in his presence and by
the respect you feel for him.
D.: And if it turns out that he is not competent, what will
be the fate of the disciple who has implicit faith in him?
1 T., 434.
105
B.: The fate of each one will be according to his merit.1
But if the Guru has not attained the Supreme State, can he be
regarded as a manifestation of God or the Self? In a way, he
can. The disciple himself is the Self, although ignorant of his
true identity. The entire outer world manifests tendencies and
possibilities in himself and among these the person who
functions as Guru for him manifests the possibility of divine
guidance, even without full awareness.
There is, however, another possibility also, and that is
continued guidance by Bhagavan. It will be recalled that
Bhagavan confirmed that the Guru need not necessarily take
human form. He sometimes added that this happened only in
rare cases. He himself had no human Guru. Just as, with Selfenquiry,
he created a new path suitable to the conditions of
the modern world, a path that can be followed without any
outward forms, invisibly, while conforming to the outer
conditions of modern life, so also he brought to men the
possibility of silent, formless initiation, requiring no physical
Guru. In his life-time initiation was by look or silence. He
often confirmed that the truest upadesa or spiritual instruction
was by silence.
The highest form of grace is silence. It is also the highest
spiritual instruction... All other modes of instruction are derived
from silence and are therefore secondary. Silence is the primary
form. If the Guru is silent the seeker’s mind gets purified by itself.2
The disciples of Bhagavan have found that the silent instruction
continues as before. Others who have never met him in his
lifetime have been drawn to him and begun to follow the
guidance. If this seems strange to anyone, it means that he has
not understood what Bhagavan was in his lifetime, that he
identifies the Guru with the body. It is sometimes asked how
a Jivanmukta continues to guide disciples after death, when
1 T., 282.
2 T., 518.
106
he has merged in the Absolute, the Self of all. But the Jivanmukta
is already consciously one with the Absolute, the Self of all,
while still embodied. If this is not incompatible with initiation
and guidance while he wears a body it is not afterwards. Death
makes no difference to him, no change in his state. There is
nothing more to be acquired, because he is that now; there is
nothing to be lost, because he has already completely
surrendered the ego.
P. Bannerjee asked Bhagavan what is the difference between
Jivanmukti (Realisation while in the body) and Videhamukti
(Realisation after death).
B.: There is no difference. For those who ask, it is said: A Jnani
with a body is a Jivanmukta and he attains Videhamukti when he
sheds the body. But this difference exists only for the onlooker, not
for the Jnani. His state is the same before and after the body is dropped.
We think of the Jnani as a human form or as being in that form; but
he knows that he is the Self, the one reality which is both inside and
out, and which is not bounded by any form or shape. There is a verse
in the Bhagavata (here Bhagavan quoted the verse in Tamil) which
says: Just as a man who is drunk is not conscious whether his upper
cloth is on his body or has slipped away from it, the Jnani is hardly
conscious of his body, and it makes no difference to him whether the
body remains or has dropped off.1
He did not encourage curiosity and seldom answered questions
about the state of the Jnani or the Realised Man, but when
asked whether the Jnani continues to perform a function after
the death of the body, I have heard him reply briefly that in
some cases he may. Also he himself confirmed what his disciples
know now from experience, that the Guru may continue to
give guidance after the death of the body, when no longer in
human form.
1 D. D., p. 101.
107
Dr. Masalawala, retired Chief Medical Officer of Bhopal, who
has been here for over a month and is in temporary charge of the
Asramam hospital in the absence of Dr. K. Shiva Rao, put the
following questions to Bhagavan and received the following answers:
D.: Bhagavan says: ‘The influence of the Jnani steals into
the devotee in silence’. Bhagavan also says: ‘Contact with great
men, exalted souls, is one efficacious means of realising one’s
true being.’
B.: Yes. What is the contradiction? Jnani, great men, exalted
souls – does he differentiate between them?
Thereupon I said ‘no’.
B.: Contact with them is good. They will work through
silence. By speaking, their power is reduced. Speech is always
less powerful than silence. So silent contact is the best.
D.: Does the contact continue even after the dissolution
of the physical body of the Jnani or only so long as he is in flesh
and blood?
B.: The Guru is not in the physical form. So contact will
remain even after his physical form vanishes.1
He declared that one who has obtained the grace of the Guru
would never be abandoned.
He who has earned the grace of the Guru will undoubtedly
be saved and never forsaken, just as the prey that has fallen into
the tiger’s jaw will never be allowed to escape.2
Remembering this, perhaps, some devotees complained, when
the death of his body was imminent, that he was abandoning
them and asked what they could do without his continued
guidance. He answered briefly:
1 D. D., pp. 168-9.
2 W., § 20.
108
You attach too much importance to the body.1
The implication was clear. The Guru is the same whether he wears
a body or not. And his devotees have since found it to be so.
Having dealt with the need to pass from theory to practice,
the possibility of practising in the conditions of the modern
world without any outward observances, and the necessity for a
Guru, the next two chapters will deal with the forms of practice
that Bhagavan prescribed. His prescribing them openly is in
itself remarkable. In their public writings and utterances the
spiritual masters of all religions have dealt mainly with theory
and said little or nothing about the practical discipline they
enjoined. The reason for this is obvious. It is that, as Bhagavan
explains in the story of the king and his minister quoted earlier
in this chapter, a technique of spiritual training can be legitimately
used and be effective for good only when the use of it has been
authorised by one duly qualified. And yet Bhagavan himself
openly expounded the methods he enjoined, both in speech
and writing. Most of the books on which the present exposition
is based were written and published during his lifetime, and he
always showed interest in them and often recommended a
questioner to turn to one of them for his answer. Even when it
became clear that the life of his body was approaching its end,
he continued to show interest, in their editing and publication.
Why did he permit this, when he was insistent that no technique
is valid without the authorisation of the Guru? The only answer
is the one given above. Physical death made no difference. If
the Mukta can be a Guru before death, so can he also after
death. He becomes no more a Mukta by dying. The path that
had been made open by his Grace to those who turn to him
was not for his lifetime only or for those few only who could
approach him physically. He said:
They say that I am dying, but I am not going away. Where
could I go? I am here.2
1 & 2 R. M., p. 222.
109
CHAPTER FIVE
SELF-ENQUIRY
Although refraining, for the reason given in the previous chapter,
from describing himself as a Guru, Sri Bhagavan did in fact
constantly act as such. When any visitor came with questions,
he would turn the trend of them from theory to practice; and
in explaining and enjoining methods of spiritual training he
was as forthcoming as he was reluctant to expound mere theory.
He often said that the true teaching was in silence; but this did
not mean that verbal expositions also were not given. They
indicated to the seeker in what way he should make an effort,
while the silent influence on his heart helped him to do so.
As will be shown in the next chapter, Sri Bhagavan authorised
many different methods; however, he laid the greatest emphasis
on Self-enquiry and constantly recommended it, and therefore
his method will be dealt with first.
It is not a new method. Indeed, being the most direct method
of all, it must be the most ancient. However, in ancient times it
had been a path reserved for the heroic few who could strive in
solitude, withdrawn from the world in constant meditation. In
recent times, as might be expected, it had become increasingly
rare. What Bhagavan did was to restore it in a new form combined
with karma marga (the path of action), in such a way that it could
be used in the conditions of the modern world. Since it requires no
ritual or outer form, it is in fact the ideal method for the needs of
our times. And yet it is not weakened or diluted by being adapted
to the modern conditions of life, but remains central and direct.
For the subsidence of the mind there is no other means
more effective than Self-enquiry. Even though the mind subsides
by other means, that is only apparently so; it will rise again.1
1 W., § 12.
110
This is the direct method. All other methods are practised
while retaining the ego and therefore many doubts arise and
the ultimate question still remains to be tackled in the end. But
in this method the final question is the only one and is raised
from the very beginning.1
Self-enquiry leads directly to Self-realisation by removing the
obstacles which make you think that the Self is not already realised.2
Meditation requires an object to meditate on, whereas in
Self-enquiry there is only the subject and no object. That is the
difference between them.3
D.: Why should Self-enquiry alone be considered the direct
path to Realisation?
B.: Because every kind of path except Self-enquiry
presupposes the retention of the mind as the instrument for
following it, and cannot be followed without the mind. The
ego may take different and more subtle forms at different stages
of one’s practice but it is never destroyed. The attempt to destroy
the ego or the mind by methods other than Self-enquiry is like
a thief turning policeman to catch the thief that is himself. Selfenquiry
alone can reveal the truth that neither the ego nor the
mind really exists and enable one to realise the pure,
undifferentiated Being of the Self or the Absolute.4
This statement that the mind is not used by the method of
Self-enquiry was not always understood, and therefore
Bhagavan, when asked, explained that it means that the mind
is not taken for granted as a real entity but its very existence is
questioned, and that this is the easiest way to dispel the illusion
of its existence.
1 T., 146.
2 T., 298.
3 T., 390.
4 M. G., p. 38.
111
B.: To ask the mind to kill the mind is like making the
thief the policeman. He will go with you and pretend to catch
the thief, but nothing will be gained. So, you must turn inward
and see where the mind rises from and then it will cease to
exist. (In reference to this answer, Sri Thambi Thorai of Jaffna,
who has been living as a sadhu in Pelakothu for over a year, asked
me whether asking the mind to turn inward and seek its source is
not also employing the mind. I put this doubt before Bhagavan.)
B.: Of course, we are employing the mind. It is well known
and admitted that only with the help of the mind, can the mind
be killed. But instead of setting about saying there is a mind
and I want to kill it, you begin to seek its source, and then you
find it does not exist at all. The mind turned outwards results in
thoughts and objects. Turned inwards it becomes itself the Self.1
It can be said that the mind ceases to exist or that it becomes
transformed into the Self; the meaning is really the same. It
does not mean that a person becomes mindless, like a stone,
but that the Pure Consciousness of the Self is no longer
confined within the narrow limits of an individualised mind
and that he no longer sees through a glass darkly, but with
clarity and radiant vision.
By steady and continuous investigation into the nature of the
mind, the mind is transformed into That to which ‘I’ refers; and
that is in fact the Self. The mind has necessarily to depend for its
existence on something gross; it never subsists by itself. It is the
mind that is otherwise called the subtle body, ego, jiva or soul.
That which arises in the physical body as ‘I’ is the mind. If
one enquires whence the ‘I’-thought arises in the body in the
first instance, it will be found that it is from the hrdayam or the
Heart. That is the source and stay of the mind. Or again, even
if one merely continuously repeats to oneself inwardly ‘I-I’ with
the entire mind fixed thereon, that also leads to the same source.
The first and foremost of all thoughts that arise in the
mind is the primal ‘I’-thought. It is only after the rise or origin
of the ‘I’-thought that innumerable other thoughts arise. In
other words, only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen,
do the second and third personal pronouns (you, he, etc.) occur
to the mind; and they cannot subsist without it.
Since every other thought can occur only after the rise of
the ‘I’-thought, and since the mind is nothing but a bundle of
thoughts, it is only through the enquiry, ‘Who am I?’ that the
mind subsides. Moreover, the integral ‘I’-thought implicit in
such enquiry, having destroyed all other thoughts, itself finally
gets destroyed or consumed, just as a stick used for stirring the
burning funeral pyre gets consumed.1
It must already be apparent from these indications that Selfenquiry
as taught by Bhagavan is something very different from
the introversion of psychologists. In fact, it is not really a mental
process at all. Introversion means studying the composition
and contents of the mind, whereas this is an attempt to probe
behind the mind to the Self from which it arises.
When the mind or ego has to be discarded in any case,
why waste time analysing it?
To enquire: ‘Who am I that am in bondage?’ and thus
know one’s real nature is the only Liberation. To keep the mind
constantly turned inwards and to abide thus in the Self is the
only Self-enquiry. Just as it is futile to examine the rubbish that
has to be swept up only to be thrown away, so it is futile for him
who seeks to know the Self to set to work enumerating the
tattvas that envelop the Self and examining them instead of
casting them away. He should consider the phenomenal world,
with reference to himself, as merely a dream.1
Similarly Self-enquiry differs fundamentally from psychoanalysis
or any other kind of psychiatric treatment. Such treatment
can only aim at producing a normal, healthy, integrated human
being but not at transcending the bounds of the individual
human state, since those who conduct it have themselves not
done this and cannot open a road they have not trod. One
thing, however, that Self-enquiry in its initial stages has in
common with psychiatric treatment is that it serves to bring
up hidden thoughts and impurities from the depths of the
mind.
D.: Other thoughts arise more forcibly when one attempts
meditation.
B.: Yes, all kinds of thoughts arise in meditation. That is
only right; for what lies hidden in you is brought out. Unless it
rises up, how can it be destroyed?
Thoughts rise up spontaneously but only to be extinguished
in due course, thus strengthening the mind.2
D.: When I concentrate, all sorts of thoughts arise and
disturb me. The more I try, the more thoughts rise up. What
should I do?
B.: Yes, that will happen. All that is inside will try to come
out. There is no other way except to pull the mind up each time
it wants to go astray and fix it in the Self.3
D.: Bhagavan has often said that one must reject other
thoughts when one begins the quest; but thoughts are endless.
If one thought is rejected another comes up and there seems to
be no end at all.
(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