VII
Ramana, Jivan‐mukti
When you dream at night, you are a tiger.
Have you ever stopped being a human being?
Jivan‐mukti
Ramaṇa was a Sage, a jñāni, a jīvan-mukta, an embodiment of the one non-dual Self. This is the mystery and the wonder, that a person can be both beyond and seemingly within duality at the same time. A Sage is thus, in what appears to be, two mutually contradictory states at the same time.
Critics say that the concept of being-liberated-while-living is a contradiction in terms. How can the individual, who is embodied, coexist with freedom, which, by definition, is free from embodiment? How can the body, which is due to prārabdha-karma, continue after the attainment of knowledge when it is acknowledged that ignorance and all karmas are dissolved with the attainment of knowledge? Critics have raised a number of doubts regarding whether Śaṅkara and post-Śaṅkara Advaitins who willingly embrace this concept have the conceptual structure capable of supporting it, and truly understand its implications. To delineate but three of these conundrums: (1) If liberation is the destruction of ignorance, how does the physical body continue to exist and function (since it is the effect of ignorance)? (2) If liberation is an accomplished fact, then why speak of the destruction of bondage and the attainment of liberation? 3) Why is a distinction made between liberation-with-form (jīvan-mukti), without-form (videha-mukti), and with-and-without-form (adhikārika-mukti), as well as between immediate-liberation (sadyo-mukti), and gradual-liberation (krama-mukti), between liberation-for-the-individual (mukti) and liberation-for-all (sarva-mukti)?
Śaṅkara, as well as Ramaṇa, reply that upon realization, all karmas are destroyed. The liberated individual need not wait until his prārabdha-karma is exhausted (through enjoyment or suffering) before freedom occurs. Whether the physical body persists or not is of no consequence to the liberated individual. One who is free appears, for all outward appearances, to act in terms of agency and purpose. But, such a one is no longer subject to this delusion. Having no desires, such as individual does not act in the common sense of the term. Latent impressions impel actions, but there is “no one home” to whom such actions can be attributed. Like a fan that has been switched off, momentum continues to impel the blades around until their previous impetus has exhausted itself. When a jīvan-mukta’s karmas have been exhausted, the physical body will drop. But to attribute actions to a jīvan-mukta is to misunderstand their position.
The concept of liberation-while-living (jīvan-mukti) is certainly one of the most original and inspirational ideas that India has contributed to the world. Of all the Indian philosophical systems that propound this concept of jīvan-mukti, Advaita Vedānta is unique in that it is the only school that must necessarily embrace the concept. That is, doctrinally, Advaita’s metaphysics has a built-in necessity that demands the concept. If one grants Advaita’s presuppositions, jīvan-mukti is not only a logical consequence, but necessarily so. It is a debatable question as to exactly when and how the term “jīvan-mukti” originated. The most commonly accepted designation has post- Śaṅkara Advaita Vedānta propounding the concept with Sāṅkhya-Yoga, Śaiva Siddhānta, and Kasmiri Śaivism following thereafter. However, the concept itself, if not the term, has ancient roots.
The word “jīvan-mukti” itself does not occur in the canonical texts of Vedānta. It is not found in the Vedas or in the earlier Upaniṣads, the Bhagavad-Gītā, or the Brahmasūtras.
However, the concept of liberated-while-living can be found scattered throughout the literature that either directly or indirectly point to the idea. To mention but a few references:
While I (Vāmadeva) was in the womb I realized (the Self and subsequently lived a long and productive life). (AitUp 2.1.5-6)
Verily, while we are here we may know this. (BU 4.4.14)
A mortal becomes immortal, attains Brahman, even here, when the knots of the heart are destroyed. (KU 2.3.14)
He who knows that which is set in the cave of the heart, he, here on earth, cuts the knot of ignorance. (MuU 2.1.10)
When, to one who knows, all beings have, verily, become one with his own Self, then what delusion and what sorrow can be to him who has seen the oneness? (ĪśaU 1.7)
The man free from desires realizes Brahman even here. (Śaṅkara’s comm. on BU 4.4.6)
Brahman-knowledge takes place even in this life. (BS 3.4.51)
This being said, the final position of Ramaṇa states that the Self and liberation (mukti) have the same meaning. This implies that the term “jīvan-mukti” is both relative and redundant. The qualifier “jīvan” is unnecessary. A mukta is a mukta, with or without a body. It has been said that a knower of the Self with a body is a jīvan-mukta and when that person sheds the body, such a one attains videha-mukti. But this difference exists only for the onlooker, not the mukta. As Ramaṇa remarked, “Mukti is synonymous with the Self. jīvan-mukti and videha-mukti are all for the ignorant. The jñāni is not conscious of mukti or bandha. Bondage, liberation, and orders of mukti are all said for an ajñāni in order that ignorance might be shaken off. There is only mukti and nothing else.” [384]
The distinctive insight of Ramaṇa is simple to state and even more devastating in its implications: “Liberation is our very nature. We are That.” [385] To unpack this sūtra-like insight is to make explicit what is implied. In other words, the individual is the Absolute, the seeker is the sought—not sometime later, in a place above and beyond, but here and now. Thus, the concept of liberation-while-living (jīvan-mukti) is spoken of to an ajñāni, but in actual fact there is only the Self and all such designations are but for those who do not know and experience this. Any seeking obviously manifests a denial of the presence of the sought and necessarily implies ignorance of what-is. As the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi says, “It can be neither thrown away nor taken up.” [386]
The Bhagavad-gītā gives a description of a jīvan-mukta—the person who is liberated while living in a physical body. Such a person is one who has gained steady wisdom; who has transcended the three qualities (guṇas); who is free from desires; who has no sense of agency or enjoyership—for he has ceased to identify with the mind-body organism; who is beyond the dual extremes of pleasure and pain, heat and cold. Such individuals are spontaneous expressions of innate goodness and their very presence is a blessing to the world.[387]
The Uddhava-gītā, the quintessence of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, records the lives and behavior of several Sages and their teachings in order to explain the attitude of the jīvan-mukta. The author cites the incident of the avadhūta Dattātreya and his twenty-four teachers. It reveals at once both the means to the attainment of freedom and the end achieved. That the human body is the best instrument for the attainment of freedom is indicated in the avadhūta’s teachings:
The wise man, after many births, obtained this extremely rare human body which though frail is yet conducive to man’s supreme welfare, should quickly strive for liberation before the body which is always subject to death chances to fail for sense-enjoyment is obtainable to any body. [388]
This passage goes on to describe the jīvan-mukta: “The wise one, even though in the body, is not of it like a man awakened from a dream.” [389]
The Aṣṭāvakra-gītā describes the jīvan-mukta as: “He realizes that the worlds are but the waves of the boundless ocean that he is—their rise and fall do not affect him.” [390]
There are sixteen verses [391] in the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi describing the characteristics of the jīvan-mukta. Here are some of them:
Completely freed from all awareness of external senseobjects on account of always remaining established in the Absolute; only consuming what is necessary for bodily sustenance, as provided by others, like one asleep or like a child; perceiving this world as one seen in a dream, this rare person enjoys infinite merit. Such is to be honored on earth.
This spiritual aspirant, whose mind has merged in the Absolute, enjoys eternal bliss, is changeless, and free from all activity, is a person established in wisdom.
One is said to be liberated-while-living-in-a-body who, while having one's mind merged in the Absolute, is nevertheless awake yet at the same time free from the characteristics of the waking state, and whose awareness is free from residual tendencies.
The mark of one liberated-while-living-in-a-body is an absence of any sense of “I” and “mine” in this body, though it follows like a shadow.
The mark of one liberated-while-living-in-a-body is seeing with an eye of equality everything, though its nature is otherwise, being qualified by auspicious and inauspicious characteristics.
The mark of one liberated-while-living-in-a-body is being changeless in respect of both the favorable and the unfavorable due to seeing everything with an eye of equality.
The mark of one liberated-while-living-in-a-body is an absence of all ideas of interior and exterior because their mind is completely engrossed in experiencing the ambrosial bliss of the Absolute.
One is said to be liberated-while-living-in-a-body who is free from all sense of "I" and "mine" with regard to the actions of the body and its sense organs, and so on, and remains indifferent to them.
One is said to be liberated-while-living-in-a-body who never again has a sense of "I" with regard to the body, the sense organs, nor the sense of "this" in other things.
One is said to be liberated-while-living-in-a-body who has perfect equality whether adored by the good or tormented by the wicked.
Accumulated-past-actions which have now begun to fructify are very strong indeed. For the wise, they are destroyed only by enjoying them. Of the accumulatedpast-actions-which-have-not-begun-to-fructify and of actions-yet-to-come, their destruction takes place in the fire of perfect knowledge. But none of these three affect those who realize their identity with the Absolute, and who are always established in it. They are verily the attributeless Absolute.
Similarly, one absorbed in the Absolute remains forever established in that Self and does not see anything other. Like a remembrance of objects seen in a dream, so are the reactions of the wise regarding eating, expulsion, and so on.
The body is created out of an accumulation-of-pastactions which may be imagined with reference to it. But such is not appropriate with reference to the beginning-less Self, for the Self is never the outcome of an accumulation-of-past-actions.
Accumulated-past-actions-which-have-begun-to-fructify are meaningful only so long as there is an identification with the body. But the sense of the body being the Self is not valid, hence the accumulated-pastactions-which-have-begun-to-fructify has to be rejected. Attributing accumulated past actions which have begun to fructify to the body, too, is a delusion.
When the limiting adjunct moves, the movement of its reflection is ascribed by fools to the original, like the sun which is unmoving. Likewise, one thinks “I am the doer”, “I am the enjoyer”, “I am lost”, alas!
The Great-One, who has perfectly realized the Truth, whose mental modifications have been rendered ineffective, does not depend upon place, time, posture, direction, abstentions, and so on. What disciplines can there be in knowing one's own Self?
What more is there to say? Both Advaita and Ramaṇa have described the state of the mukti in such glowing terms time and again.
Some people believe that a jīvan-mukta must live in two states or planes of existence at the same time: the empirical plane and the trans-empirical plane. People observe that a mukta moves about in the world and observe that the mukta sees the same objects others see, i.e. other individuals, tables, chairs, monkeys, etc. It is not as if the mukta does not see them. Thus, they conclude, since he sees both the world and objects therein, as well as the Self, must not he dwell on two planes at once? Ramaṇa replied: “You say that the jñāni sees the path, treads it, comes across obstacles, avoids them, etc. In whose eye-sight is all this, in the jñāni’s or yours? He sees only the Self and all in the Self. For instance, you see a reflection in the mirror and the mirror. You know the mirror to be the reality and the picture in it a mere reflection. Is it necessary that in order to see the mirror, we should cease to see the reflection in it?” [392] What a wonderful analogy and yet numerous are the individuals who asked such questions. Intellectual curiosity is a hard habit to break and instead of asking what is really important, one’s own Self, people ask about others. Ramaṇa said:
Coming here, some people do not ask about themselves. They ask, “Does the jīvan-mukta see the world? Is he affected by karma? What is liberation after being disembodied? Is one liberated only after being disembodied or even while alive in the body? Should the body of the Sage resolve itself in light or disappear from view in any other manner? Can he be liberated though the body is left behind as a corpse? Their questions are endless. Why worry oneself in so many ways? Does liberation consist in knowing these things? Therefore, I say to them, “Leave liberation alone. Is there bondage? Know this. See yourself first and foremost. [393]
When asked what the difference between jīvan-mukti and videha-mukti, Ramaṇa replied:
There is no difference. For those who ask, it is said, “A jñāni with a body is a jīvan-mukta and he attains videha-mukti when he sheds the body. But this difference exists only for the onlooker, not for the jñāni. His state is the same before and after the body is dropped. We think of the jñāni 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 Bhāgavatam 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 jñāni is hardly conscious of his body, and it makes no difference to him whether the body remains or has dropped off.” [394]
Ramaṇa once said to a seeker asking such questions: “What is your idea of a jñāni? Is he the body or something different? If he is something apart from the body, how can he be affected by the body?” [395] Hence, these two, bondage and liberation, are imaginations of māyā. They do not pertain to the Self. How can there be any imaginations of the partless, actionless, peaceful, defectless, taintless, non-dual supreme reality that is like the sky? The ultimate Truth is that there is no death, no birth, no bondage and no spiritual aspirant, no seeker with a burning-desire-for-liberation, none liberated.
Some may contend that there is activity even for the liberated, that is, a jīvan-mukta may seem to be engaged in various activities. However, this contention is based on a mistaken view. Since ignorance, which is the cause of bondage, has been destroyed, the embodied state of the liberated one and the so-called activities in which he is supposed to be engaged from the standpoint of others, do not bind him anymore. Since the root cause of activity has been destroyed, the residual karmas that account for the continuance of his body have already been made ineffective. What one sees in not action but a semblance of activity. In reply to the fools who asked how the body continues to live if the effects of ignorance, along with their root, are destroyed by knowledge, the scripture speaks of accumulated-past-actions-which-have-begun-to-fructify from an empirical point of view. But the purport of the scripture relates only to the Absolute. Ramaṇa remarked: “People surmise the existence of the pure mind in the jīvan-mukta and the personal God. They ask how he could otherwise live and act. But this is only a concession to argument. The pure mind is in fact the Absolute Consciousness. The object to be witnessed and the witness finally merge together and Absolute Consciousness alone remains. It is not a state of blank or ignorance but is the Supreme Self.” [396]
Ramana once told a story of a King with three wives. When the King dies, do only two of the wives become widows? No, all three are widows. Likewise, not only one’s sañcita karma (residual actions produced in this or previous lives) and one’s āgāmi karma (results of acts performed in this life), but also one’s prārabdha karma (residue of acts working themselves out during the present life are all destroyed.
The Aṣṭhāvakra-gītā ends:
What need is there for striving or stillness? What is freedom or bondage? What are holy books or teachings? What is the purpose of life? Who is the disciple, and who is the master? Nothing arises in me in whom nothing is single, nothing is double. Nothing is, nothing is not. What more is there to say?
Sadguru
The term “Sadguru” means a “true teacher, a perfect Master, a Self-realized spiritual guide”. The term comes from sat = true, real + guru = teacher. [397] Such an individual is one with the Self. The term “guru” literally means “weighty”, “large”, “heavy”, “great”. [398] In other words, a Guru is great; a Guru is one who is extremely great within; a Guru is one who is large enough to contain the entire universe, a Guru is the greatest of the great. For this reason such a one is called “mahān” (great). There are gurus and gurus in India. The term, when applied in everyday discourse, usually refers to a “teacher” and thus there is the music guru, the dance guru, the school-teacher guru, and even the spiritual guru, and so on. When the term “guru” is qualified by the prefix “sat”, it refers to a Self-realized Guru. However, in Ramaṇa’s vocabulary, he generally used the term “Guru”, but by it he meant “the true Guru”, someone who has realized the Self and who is able to use his power to assist others towards the goal of Self-realization. In various places he said, “The Guru is the Self… God takes the form of a Guru and appears to the devotee and teaches him the Truth, and moreover, purifies his mind by association… a true Guru is one who is endowed with tranquility, patience, forgiveness, and other virtues, is capable of attracting others even with his eyes, who has a feeling of equality towards all.”
We may note that Śaṅkara describes the Guru as: “One who by their Self-realization is to be equated with Truth”. [399] In this verse Śaṅkara speaks of such a one as “sat”. He continues to describe the Guru, “That person who desires to know the truth of the Self and possessed of the above-mentioned qualifications should approach the Guru, a knower of the Self, who confers freedom from bondage. The Guru is one who is well-versed in the (inner meaning of the) scriptures, taintless, desireless, a perfect knower of the Absolute, continually established in the Absolute, calm like the flame when its fuel is consumed, a boundless ocean of spontaneous compassion for which there is no reason, a friend to all good people who surrender to him.” [400]
The most oft-quoted “creative” etymology of the word “guru” derives the word from the two syllables “gu” (which means darkness) and “ru” (remover). Thus the Guru is that one who removes the darkness of (the disciple’s) ignorance. [401] Another etymology of the word says, “The first syllable gu represents the principle of illusion and the second syllable ru the supreme knowledge that destroys the illusion.” [402] Other “creative” etymologies include “gu” (beyond the qualities) and “ru” (devoid of form). The Guru is the one who bestows the formless state that transcends the qualities. [403] Or again, “gu” (to sound or speak) and “ru” (declaring the way to behave). Thus, the Guru is the one who speaks the truth.
The Guru tattva or Guru principle is often spoken of as existing on two levels in the Advaita tradition. In a similar fashion, according to Ramaṇa, the Guru is both inner and outer. The outer Guru is God in human form and simultaneously, the inner Guru is the Self in the Heart of each devotee. The outer Guru gives instructions and by his power enables the devotee to keep his attention on the Self while the inner Guru pulls the devotee’s mind back to its source, absorbs it in the Self, and finally destroys it. Ramaṇa said: “The Guru is both external and internal. From the exterior he gives a push to the mind to turn it inwards. From the interior he pulls the mind towards the Self and helps in the quieting of the mind. That is the Guru’s grace. There is no difference between God, Guru, and the Self.” [404]
As noted earlier, a basic teaching of Ramaṇa was that a Guru is absolutely indispensable for virtually everyone who is striving for Self-realization. Ramaṇa said, “The Guru is absolutely necessary. The Upaniṣads say that none but a Guru can take a man out of the jungle of the intellect and sense-perceptions. So there must be a Guru.” [405] Which raises the question in many seeker’s minds, “but you never had a Guru (at least in human form)”.
That depends on what you all a Guru. He need not necessarily be in the human form. Dattātreya had twenty-four Gurus, the elements, etc. That means that every form in the world was his Guru. A Guru is absolutely necessary… I might have had a Guru sometime or other. And didn’t I sing hymns on Aruṇācala? What is a Guru? God appears to a seeker in some form or other, human or non-human, to guide as Guru in answer to his prayer. [406]
History has recorded a few cases where there was no Guru, i.e. Vāmadeva, Śuka, the Buddha—but such instances are so extremely rare that they validate the saying, “the exception proves the rule”.
This necessity of a Guru is very subtle. According to Advaita, as long as the seeker regards him or herself as a separate individual and the Guru as also separate, no matter what one does, it will not help liberation and in fact, will only tighten one’s bonds. “Although in absolute truth the state of the Guru is that of oneself (the Self), it is very hard for the self which has become the individual (jīva) through ignorance to realize its true state or nature without the grace of the Guru.” The seeker will only go round and round like a dog chasing its own tail or like individuals pulling on their own bootstraps in an attempt to rise into the air. Remember, the individual is not really a “seeker” and the “Guru” is not really someone separate who “knows”. Still, the Guru provides a strange sort of help. The Guru has no power to bring about Self-realization in another. On the one hand, since Reality is non-dual, what could anyone give? There is no giver, no gifts, and no process of giving. On the other hand, if an individual seeker makes an ardent attempt to discover the Self, then the grace and power of the Guru automatically begins to flow. If no such attempt is made, the Guru is helpless.
According to Advaita, as well as Ramaṇa, destruction of ignorance alone is liberation (avidyā-nāśa). White cloth is white. Dirt on it makes it look black. To make it white, all one need do is to wash it. It is not necessary to add whiteness to it.
The Guru’s help is negative in the sense that nothing is given; only the non-existent delusion of the seeker is removed. It is like a person that wakes up on seeing a lion in their dream. Even as the person wakes up at the mere sight of the lion, so too will a person wake up from the sleep of ignorance into the wakefulness of true knowledge through the Guru’s benevolent look of grace. Ramaṇa remarked: “Yes, the Guru does not bring about Self-realization. He simply removes the obstacles to it. The Self is always realized.” A devotee once remarked: “All books say that the guidance of a Guru is necessary.” Ramaṇa responded:
The Guru will say only what I am saying now. He will not give you anything you have not already. It is impossible for anyone to get what he has not got already. Even if he gets any such thing, it will go as it came. What comes will also go. What always is will alone remain. The Guru cannot give you anything new, which you have not already. Removal of the notion that we have not realized the Self is all that it is required. We are always the Self. Only, we don’t realize it. [407]
If the Guru is the grace-bestowing power of the Absolute, what the Guru bestows is darśan; it provides the seeker with a direct personal experience or glimpse of the Self, embodied. It is the Guru’s spiritual power which radiates from, and is transmitted by the Guru and which awakens the disciple’s own inner power. Obviously, as both tradition and the texts reveal, the Guru plays a major role in both Ramaṇa’s teaching and Vedānta. And yet, even if one intellectually understands that one is the Self, the senses still lead one astray. One needs some instrument, some device, whereby one can overcome the pull, the tyranny of the senses. That instrument is the Guru.
For the Guru to awaken the disciple there must be a link between the two. This link is called, in Advaita, grace (anugraha). It is like the wire that connects the powerhouse with the light bulb that shines in one’s home. Or, it is like the original flame that can then light an infinite number of candles without diminishing itself. The Taittirīya Upaniśad says, “The teacher is the first letter; the student is the last letter; knowledge is the meeting place; instruction is the link.” [408]
According to Advaita, what has a name must have a form, and vice-versa. Every appearance in the universe partakes of these two characteristics. The wonder and power of the physical guru-paramparā is in the special qualities inherent in its names and forms. The Guru’s name and form is filled with Bliss. The Guru’s name and form possess a special power. [409] Somehow the mind must be made to sink into the Heart. How to do this? Attach the name and form of the Guru to the mind and it will automatically begin sinking, for, the word “guru” literally means “heavy”, “weighty”, and thus it will enable the mind to sink, to journey from the name to the Nameless, from the form to the Formless, from the relative to the Absolute.
A disciple finds that spiritual disciplines are many and varied. Much will depend upon the capacity of a seeker to understand the guidance that the Guru provides. While grace is pulling the disciple from within, the Guru is pushing the disciple from without. According to Advaita, and I am sure Ramaṇa wouldn’t disagree, in order to turn one’s mind within and discover the inner Self, the Guru may be said to provide three gifts to assist the spiritual seeker. These three gifts (even if they don’t directly involve the direct path of Self-enquiry) are: the name of the Guru; the form of the Guru; and the life/sport (līla) of the Guru.
The human Guru, like every physical entity, has five characteristics: existence, cognizability, attractiveness, name, and form (asti, bhāti, priyam, nāma, rūpa). The first three we earlier observed under the names sat-cit-ānanda and are but terms for the nameless, formless Self. In addition, the Guru also possesses a name and form. The name is pure and auspicious, e.g., Bhagavān Sri Ramaṇa Maharshi. “Bhagavān” = “possessor or Master of splendor”; “he who possesses the six divine attributes of wisdom, strength, lordship, power, heroism, splendor”. “Śrī” = “holiness, glory, prosperity”. “Ramaṇa” = “the dear darling”, “one who revels in the Self, “one who is the Self”. “Mahāṛṣi” = “the great seer”. The name contains power when thought of, spoken or chanted. Hanumān leapt across the ocean using only Rāma’s name (while Rāma had to build a bridge!). Instances of the power of the Guru’s name are legion. As Muruganar said: “The Name. It will be doing its job of ripening one to be rid of the dross, so that the inner pull of the Self would be felt strongly. Nurturing and protecting it watches over loving devotees whose delusion is immolated, in the vast fullness of final realization.” [410] Constant repetition of the name has a wonderfully purifying effect. The Guru’s form is a special form. It fills the devotee with bliss. It has a universal appeal (people from all over the world are attracted to it). His eyes were glittering, unblinking, full of overflowing love for all creation, firmly fixed in the Self alone. His body radiant, wearing but a kaupina or loin-cloth. Finally, in order to give the naturally unstable mind that is forever craving variety something to occupy itself with, the life, the sport of the Guru. If a seeker is not mature enough to dive deep into Self-enquiry, meditating on the various events in the life of the Guru provides it with ample variety, variety that is pure and auspicious and full of wisdom.
These three gifts of the Guru are given in order to assist the devotee in seeking Self-realization. One should accept them with reverence, respect them, and utilize them. Once there was a wife of a fisherman. One day she found herself in the house of a gardener who raised flowers as the guest of his daughter. She had come with her empty fish basket and was asked to sleep in a room where many fragrant flowers were kept. Because of their fragrance, she couldn’t get to sleep. She tossed and turned. Finally, in a stroke of insight, she asked for her fish basket. As soon as it was brought into the room, she fell asleep. Individuals have become so accustomed to the smell of the fish basket of the world that the fragrance of the divine Self makes them restless. These three gifts of the Guru help a seeker to develop the capacity to withstand the fragrance of the Self as well as to begin to seek it, to cultivate it, and to eventually realize it.