Maharshi's Gospel

The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi
Book 1

Work and Renunciation

D. The work may suffer if I do not attend to it.

M. Attending to the Self means attending to the work. Because you identify yourself with the body, you think that work is done by you. But the body and its activities, including that work, are not apart from the Self. What does it matter whether you attend to the work or not? Suppose you walk from one place to another: you do not attend to the steps you take. Yet you find yourself after a time at your goal. You see how the business of walking goes on without your attending to it. So also with other kinds of work.

D. It is then like sleep-walking

M. Like somnambulism? Quite so. When a child is fast asleep, his mother feeds him: the child eats the food just as well as when he is fully awake. But the next morning he says to the mother, "Mother, I did not take any food last night''. The mother and others know that he did, but he says that he did not; he was not aware. Still the action had gone on.

A traveller in a cart has fallen asleep. The bulls move, stand still or are unyoked during the journey. He does not know these events but finds himself in a different place after he wakes up. He has been blissfully ignorant of the occurrences on the way, but the journey has been finished. Similarly with the Self of a person. The ever-wakeful Self is compared to the traveller asleep in the cart. The waking state is the moving of the bulls; Samadhi is their standing still (because Samadhi means Jagrat-Sushupti, that is to say, the person is aware but not concerned in the action; the bulls are yoked but do not move); sleep is the unyoking of the bulls, for there is complete stopping of activity corresponding to the relief of the bulls from the yoke.

Or again, take the instance of the cinema. Scenes are projected on the screen in the cinema-show. But the moving pictures do not affect or alter the screen. The spectator pays attention to them, not to the screen. They cannot exist apart from the screen, yet the screen is ignored. So also, the Self is the screen where the pictures, activities etc. are seen going on. The man is aware of the latter but not aware of the essential former. All the same the world of pictures is not apart from the Self. Whether he is aware of the screen or unaware, the actions will continue.

The distinction between sleep, Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi can be clearly put in a tabular form as given by Sri Bhagavan:

The mind of the Sage who has realized the Self is wholly destroyed. It is dead. But to the onlooker, he may seem to possess a mind just like the layman. Hence the 'I' in the Sage has merely an apparent 'objective' 'reality'; in fact, however, it has neither a subjective existence nor an objective reality.

Mind-Control

D. Other thoughts arise more forcibly when one attempts meditation!

M. 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, as it were, but only to be extinguished in due course, thus strengthening the mind.

D. How can the rebellious mind be made calm and tranquil?

M. Either see its source so that it may disappear, or surrender yourself so that it may be struck down. Self-surrender is the same as Self-knowledge, and either of them necessarily implies self-control. The ego submits only when it recognizes the Higher Power.

D.How is Guru found?

M. 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 the error of his ways and guides him in the right path until he realizes the Self within.

D.How can I obtain Grace?

M. Grace is the Self. That also is not to be acquired; you only need to know that it exists.

The sun is brightness only. It does not see darkness. Yet you speak of darkness fleeing on the sun's approach. So also the devotee's ignorance, like the phantom of darkness, vanishes at the look of the Guru. You are surrounded by sun-light; yet if you would see the sun, you must turn in its direction and look at it. So also Grace is found by the proper approach you make, though it is here and now.

D. Cannot Grace hasten ripeness in the seeker?

M. Leave it all to the Master. Surrender to Him without reserve.

One of two things must be done; either surrender yourself, because you realize your inability and need a Higher Power to help you; or investigate into the cause of misery, go into the Source and so merge in the Self. Either way, you will be free from misery. God or Guru never forsakes the devotee who has surrendered himself.

....

Self and Indiviuality

D: Does not death dissolve the individuality of a person, so that there can be no rebirth, just as the rivers discharged into the ocean lose their individualities?

M: But when the waters evaporate and return as rain on the hills, they once more flow in the form of rivers and fall into the ocean; so also the individualities during sleep lose their separateness and yet return as individuals according to their samskaras or past tendencies. Even so it is in death; and the individuality of the person with samskaras is not lost.

D: How can that be?

M: See how a tree whose branches have been cut, grows again. So long as the roots of the tree remain unimpaired, the tree will continue to grow. Similarly, the samskaras which have merely sunk into the heart on death, but have not perished for that reason, occasion rebirth at the right time; and that is how jivas are reborn.

D: How could the innumerable jivas and the wide universe whose existence is correlative to that of the jivas, sprout up from such subtle samskaras sunk in the heart?

M: Just as the big banyan tree sprouts from a tiny seed, so do the jivas and the whole universe with name and form sprout up from the subtle samskaras.

D: How does individuality emanate from the Absolute Self, and how is its return made possible?

M: As a spark proceeds from fire, individuality emanates from the Absolute Self. The spark is called the ego. In the case of the ajnani, the ego identifies itself with some object simultaneously with its rise. It cannot remain without such association with objects.

M: You exist in sushupti without being associated with the body and the mind, but in the other two states you are associated with them. If you were one with the body, how could you exist without the body in sushupti? You can separate yourself from what is external to you but not from that which is one with you. Hence the ego cannot be one with the body. This must be realised in the waking state. The three states are studied in order to gain this knowledge.

D: How can the ego which is confined to two of the states endeavour to realise That which comprises all the three states?

M: The ego in its purity is experienced in the intervals between two states or between two thoughts. The ego is like the worm which leaves one hold only after it catches another. Its true nature is known when it is out of contact with objects or thoughts. You should realise this interval as the abiding, unchangeable Reality, your true Being, through the conviction gained by the study of the three states, jagrat, svapna and sushupti.

D: Can I not remain in sushupti as long as I like and also be in it at will, just as I am in the waking state? What is the jnani’s experience of these three states?

M: Sushupti does exist in your waking state also. You are in sushupti even now. That should be consciously entered into and reached in this very waking state. There is no real going in and coming out of it. To be aware of sushupti in the jagrat state is jagrat- sushupti and that is samadhi.

The ajnani cannot remain long in sushupti, because he is forced by his nature to emerge from it. His ego is not dead and it will rise again and again. But the jnani crushes the ego at its source. It may seem to emerge at times in his case also as if impelled by prarabdha. That is, in the case of the jnani also, for all outward purposes prarabdha would seem to sustain or keep up the ego, as in the case of the ajnani; but there is this fundamental difference, that the ajnani’s ego when it rises up (really it has subsided except in deep sleep) is quite ignorant of its source; in other words, the ajnani is not aware of his sushupti in his dream and waking states; in the case of the jnani, on the contrary, the rise or existence of the ego is only apparent, and he enjoys his unbroken, transcendental experience in spite of such apparent rise or existence of the ego, keeping his attention (lakshya) always on the Source. This ego is harmless; it is merely like the skeleton of a burnt rope — though with a form, it is useless to tie up anything. By constantly keeping one’s attention on the Source, the ego is dissolved in that Source like a salt-doll in the sea.

Book 2

Self-Enquiry

D. But is it not funny that the 'I' should be searching for the 'I'? Does not the enquiry, 'Who am I?' turn out in the end an empty formula? Or, am I put the question to myself endlessly, repeating it like some mantra?

M. Self-enquiry is certainly not an empty formula; it is more than repetition of any mantra. If the enquiry, "Who am I?'' were a mere mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The very purpose of Self-enquiry is to focus the entire mind at its Source. It is not, therefore, a case of one 'I' searching for another 'I'.

Much less is Self-enquiry an empty formula, for it involves an intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in pure Self-awareness.

Self-enquiry is the one, infallible means, the only direct one, to realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are.

The Heart is the Self

D. Sri Bhagavan speaks of the Heart as the seat of Consciousness and as identical with the Self. What does the Heart exactly signify?

M. 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 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 it is in the chest, two digits to the right from the meridian.

M. 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 very Core of your being, that 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 localized 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.

M. 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 inp, it is without parts. It has no form and shape, no 'within' and 'without'. There is no 'right' or 'left' for it. Pure Consciousness, which is the Heart, includes all; and nothing is outside or apart from it. That is the ultimate Truth.

From this absolute standpoint, the Heart, Self or Consciousness can have no particular place assigned to it in the physical body. What is the reason? The body is itself a mere projection of the mind, and the mind is but a poor reflection of the radiant Heart. How can That in which everything is contained, be itself confined as a tiny part within the physical body which is but an infinitesimal, phenomenal manifestation of the one Reality?

But people do not understand this. They cannot help thinking in terms of physical body and the world. For instance, you say "I have come to this Asramam all the way from my country beyond the Himalayas''. But that is not the truth. Where there is a 'coming' or 'going' or any movement whatever, for the one, all-pervading Spirit which you really are? You are where you have always been. It is your body that moved or was conveyed from place to place till it reached this Asramam. This is the simple truth, but to a person who considers himself a subject living in an objective world, it appears as something altogether visionary!

It is by coming down to the level of the ordinary understanding that a place is assigned to the Heart in the physical body.

D. How then shall I understand Sri Bhagavan's statement that the experience of the Heart-centre is at the particular place in the chest?

M. Once you accept that from the true and absolute standpoint, the Heart as pure Consciousness is beyond space and time, it will be easy for you to understand the rest in its correct perspective.

D. It is only on that basis that I have put the question about the position of the Heart. I am asking about Sri Bhagavan's experience.

M. 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 the layman 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 then at all arise.

Since, however, the physical body cannot subsist (with life) apart from Consciousness, bodily awareness has to be sustained by pure Consciousness. The former, by its nature, is limited and can never be co-extensive with the latter, which is infinite and eternal. Body-consciousness is merely a monad- like, miniature reflection of the pure Consciousness with which the Sage has realized 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.

Since, during the bodiless experience of the Heart as pure Consciousness, the Sage is not at all aware of the body, that absolute experience is localized by him within the limits of the physical body by a sort of feeling-recollection made while he is with bodily awareness.

The Place of the Heart

D: But I have heard it said by a Saint that his spiritual experience is felt at the place between the eyebrows.

M: As I said previously, that is the ultimate and perfect Realization which transcends subject-object relation. When that is achieved, it does not matter where the spiritual experience is felt.

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, (2) that it is the heart.

M: For purposes of practice you may concentrate between the eyebrows, it would then be bhavana or imaginative contemplation of the mind; whereas the supreme state of anubhava or Realization, 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?

M: You accept that the Self is the ultimate source of consciousness and that it subsists equally during all the three states of the 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, which however cannot happen if the Self were situate between the eyebrows or at any other place in the head. If during sleep the experience of the Self is not felt 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 the sadhaka may have his experience at any centre or chakra on which he concentrates his mind. But, for that reason that particular place of his experience does not become ipso facto the seat of the Self.

There is an interesting story about Kamal, the son of Saint Kabir, which serves as an illustration to show that the head (and a fortiori the place between the eyebrows) cannot be considered the seat of the Self.

Kabir was intensely devoted to Sri Rama, and he never failed to feed those who sang the praise of the Lord of his devotion. On one occasion, however, it so happened that he had not the wherewithal to provide food for such a gathering of devotees. For him, however, there could be no alternative except that he must somehow make every necessary arrangement before next morning. So, he and his son set out at night to secure the required provisions.

The story goes that after the father and son had removed the provisions from a merchant’s house through a hole they made in the wall, the son went in again just to wake up the household and tell them, as a matter of principle, that their house had been burgled. When, having roused the household, the boy tried to make good his escape through the hole and join his father on the other side, his body stuck up in the aperture. To avoid being identified by the pursuing household (because, if detected, there would be no feeding at all of the devotees the next day), he called out to his father and told him to sever his head and take it away with him. That done, Kabir made good his escape with the stolen provisions and the son’s head which on reaching home, was hidden away from possible detection. The next day Kabir gave a feast to the bhaktas, quite unmindful of what had happened the previous night. “If it is Rama’s will” said Kabir to himself, “that my son should die, may it prevail!” In the evening Kabir with the party set out as usual in procession into the town with bhajana etc.

Meanwhile, the burgled householder made report to the king, producing the truncated body of Kamal, which gave them no clue. In order to secure its identification, the king had the body tied up prominently on the highway so that whoever claimed or took it away (for, no dead body is forsaken without the last rites being given to it by the kith and kin) might be interrogated or arrested by the police who were posted secretly for the purpose.

Kabir and his party with the bhajana in full swing came by the highway, when, to the astonishment of all, Kamal’s truncated body (which was considered dead as a door-nail) began to clap its hands marking time to the tune sung by the bhajana party. This story disproves the suggestion that the head or the place between the eyebrows is the seat of the Self. It may also be noted that when in the battlefield the head of a soldier in action is severed from the body by a sudden and powerful stroke of the sword, the body continues to run or move its limbs as in a mock fight, just for a while, before it finally falls down dead.

D: But Kamal’s body was dead hours before?

M: What you call death is really no extraordinary experience for Kamal. Here is the story of what had happened when he was younger still.

As a boy Kamal had a friend of equal age with whom he used to play games of marbles etc. A general rule they observed between themselves was that if one of them owed the other a game or two, the same should be redeemed the next day. One evening they parted with a game to the credit of Kamal. Next day, in order to claim ‘the return of the game’, Kamal went to the boy’s house, where he saw the boy laid on the verandah, while his relatives were weeping beside him.

“What is the matter”? Kamal asked them, “he played with me last evening and also owes me a game”. The relatives wept all the more saying that the boy was dead. “No”, said Kamal, “he is not dead but merely pretends to be so, just to evade redeeming the game he owes me”. The relatives protested, asking Kamal to see for himself that the boy was really dead, that the body was cold and stiff. “But all this is a mere pretension of the boy, I know; what if the body be stiff and cold? I too can become like that”. So saying Kamal laid himself down, and in the twinkling of an eye was dead.

The poor relatives, who were weeping till then for the death of their own boy, were distressed and dismayed, and now began to weep for Kamal’s death also. But up rose Kamal on his back, declaring “Do you see it now? I was as you would say dead, but I am up again, alive and kicking. This is how he wants to deceive me, but he cannot elude me like this with his pretensions”.

In the end, the story goes, Kamal’s inherent saintliness gave life to the dead boy, and Kamal got back the game that was due to him. The moral is that the death of the body is not the extinction of the Self. Its relation to the body is not limited by birth and death, and its place in the physical body is not circumscribed by one’s experience felt at a particular place, as for instance between the eyebrows, due to practice of dhyana made on that centre. The supreme state of Self-awareness is never absent; it transcends the three states of the mind as well as life and death.

D: Since Sri 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?

M: As long as it is merely the stage of practice of concentration by fixing a place of controlling your attention, any consideration about the seat of the Self would merely be a theorisation. You consider yourself as the subject, the seer, and the place whereon you fix your 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.

D: Then, is the practice of concentration between the eyebrows advisable? <

M: The final result of the practice of any kind of dhyana is that the object, on which the sadhaka fixes his mind, ceases to exist as distinct and separate from the subject. They (the subject and object) become the one Self, and that is the heart.

The practice of concentration on the centre between the eyebrows is one of the methods of sadhana, and thereby thoughts are effectively controlled for the time being. The reason is this. All thought is an extroverted activity of the mind; and thought, in the first instance, follows ‘sight’, physical or mental.

It should however be noted, that this sadhana of fixing one’s attention between the eyebrows must be accompanied by japa. Because next in importance to the physical eye is the physical ear, either for controlling or distracting the mind. Next in importance to the eye of the mind (that is, mental visualisation of the object) is the ear of the mind (that is, mental articulation 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 nama (name) or mantra (sacred syllable or syllables). Otherwise you will soon lose your hold on the object of concentration..

Sadhana as described above leads to identification of the Name, Word or Self — whatever you may call it — with the centre selected for purposes of dhyana. Pure Consciousness, the Self or the heart is the final Realization.

D: Why does not Sri Bhagavan direct us to practise concentration on some particular centre of chakra?

M: Yoga sastras say that the sahasrara or the brain is the seat of the Self. Purushasukta declares that the heart is its seat. To enable the sadhaka to steer clear of possible doubt, I tell him to take up the ‘thread’ or the clue of ‘I’-ness or ‘I-am’-ness and follow it up its source. Because, firstly it is impossible for anybody to entertain any doubt about his ‘I’-notion; secondly whatever be the sadhana adopted, the final goal is the realization of the source of ‘I-am’- ness which is the primary datum of your experience.

If you, therefore, practise atma vichara you will reach the heart which is the Self.

Aham and Aham Vritti

D. How can any enquiry initiated by the ego reveal its own unreality?

M. The ego's phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive into the Source wherefrom arises the Aham vritti.

D. But is not the Aham-vritti only one of the three forms in which the ego manifests itself? Yoga Vasiṣṭha and other ancient texts describe the ego as having a threefold form.

M. It is so. The ego is described as having three bodies, the gross, the subtle and the causal, but that is only for the purposes of analytical exposition. If the method of enquiry were to depend on the ego's form, you may take it that any enquiry would become altogether impossible, because the forms the ego may assume are legion. Therefore, for purposes of Jnana-vichara, you have to proceed on the basis that the ego has but one form, namely that of Aham-vritti.

D. But it may prove inadequate for realizing Jnana.

M. Self-enquiry by following the clue of Aham-vritti is just like the dog tracing its master by his scent. The master may be at some distant, unknown place, but that does not at all stand in the way of the dog tracing him. The master's scent is an infallible clue for the animal, and nothing else, such as the dress he wears, or his build and stature etc., counts. To that scent the dog holds on undistractedly while searching for him, and finally it succeeds in tracing him.

Likewise in your quest for the Self, the one infallible clue is the Aham-vritti, the 'I-am'-ness which is the primary datum of your experience. No other clue can lead you direct to Self-realization.

D. The question still remains why the quest for the Source of Aham-vritti, as distinguished from other vrittis, should be considered the direct means to Self-realization.

M. The word 'Aham' is itself very suggestive. The two letters of the word, namely (A) and (HA), are the first and the last letters of the Sanskrit alphabet. The suggestion intended to be conveyed by the word is that it comprises all. How? Because Aham signifies existence itself.

Although the concept of 'I'-ness or 'I-am'-ness is by usage known as Aham-vritti, it is not really a vritti like the other vrittis of the mind. Because unlike the other vrittis which have no essential inter-relation, the Aham-vritti is equally and essentially related to each and every vritti of the mind. Without the Aham-vritti there can be no other vritti, but the Aham-vritti can subsist by itself without depending on any other vritti of the mind. The Aham-vritti is therefore fundamentally different from other vrittis.

So then, the search for the Source of the Aham-vritti is not merely the search for the basis of one of the forms of the ego but for the very Source itself from which arises the 'I-am'-ness. In other words, the quest for and the realization of the Source of the ego in the form of Aham-vritti necessarily implies the transcendence of the ego in every one of its possible forms.

D. Conceding that the Aham-vritti essentially comprises all the forms of the ego, why should that vritti alone be chosen as the means for Self-enquiry?

M. Because it is the one irreducible datum of your experience; because seeking its Source is the only practicable course you can adopt to realize the Self. The ego is said to have a casual body, but how can you make it the subject of your investigation? When the ego adopts that form, you are immersed in the darkness of sleep.

D. But is not the ego in its subtle and casual forms too intangible to be tackled through the enquiry into the Source of Aham-vritti conducted while the mind is awake?

M. No. The enquiry into the Source of Aham-vritti touches the very existence of the ego. Therefore the subtlety of the ego's form is not a material consideration.

D. While the one aim is to realize the unconditioned, pure Being of the Self, which is in no way dependent on the ego, how can enquiry pertaining to the ego in the form of Aham-vritti be of any use?