D.: Which method is the best?
B.: That depends on the temperament of the individual. Every person is born with the samskaras (characteristics or tendencies) from his past lives. One method will prove easy to one person and another to another. There can be no general rule.1
In the following passage, Bhagavan indicates the purpose of all the methods, the goal they aim at.
‘There are many methods. You may practise Self-enquiry, asking yourself “Who am I?”; or if that does not appeal to you, you may meditate on “I am Brahman”, or some other theme; or you may concentrate on an incantation or invocation. The object in every case is to make the mind one-pointed, to concentrate it on one thought and thereby exclude the many other thoughts. If we do this, the one thought also eventually goes and the mind is extinguished at its source.’2
‘Dr. Masalawala placed in Bhagavan's hands a letter he had received from his friend V. K. Ajgaonkar, a gentleman of about 35 (a follower of Jnaneswar Maharaj), who is said to have attained Jnana in his 28th year. The letter said: “You call me purna. Who is not purna in this world?”. Bhagavan agreed and continuing in the vein in which he discoursed this morning (15-3-46), said: “We first limit ourselves and then seek to become unlimited as in fact we always are. All our effort is only directed to giving up the notion that we are limited . . .”
‘The letter went on to say: “Ramana Maharshi is an exponent of the Ajata doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. Of course it is a bit difficult.” Bhagavan remarked on this: “Somebody has told him so. I do not teach only the Ajata doctrine. I approve of all schools. The same truth has to be expressed in different ways to suit the capacity of the hearer. The Ajata doctrine says: ‘Nothing exists except the one Reality. There is no birth or death, no projection or drawing in, no sadhaka, no mumukshu, no mukta, no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists for ever. ‘To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth and who ask: ‘How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?’ the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, ‘All that you see depends upon the seer. Apart from the seer, there is no seen.’ This is called drishtisrishti vada or the argument that one first creates out of his mind and then sees what his mind has created. To such as cannot grasp even this and who further argue: ‘The dream experience is so short, while the world always exists. The dream experience was limited to me, but the world is felt and seen not only by me, but by so many, and we cannot call such a world non-existent,’ the argument called srishti-drishti vada is addressed and they are told: ‘God first created such and such a thing, out of such and such an element, and then something else and so forth.’ That alone will satisfy this class. Their mind is otherwise not satisfied and they ask themselves: ‘How can all geography, all maps, all sciences, stars, planets and the rules governing or relating to them all be totally untrue?’ To such it is best to say: ‘Yes, God created all this and so you see it.’”
‘Dr. Masalawala objected: “But all these teachings cannot be true. Only one doctrine can be true.”
‘Bhagavan said: “All these viewpoints are only to suit the capacity of the learner. The absolute can only be one.”’3
However, although Bhagavan approved of other paths for those who could not follow Self-enquiry, he said to the present writer: ‘All other methods lead up to Self-enquiry.’ If a devotee of his found that some other, less direct path served him better, Bhagavan would guide him on this until he could gradually bring him to Self-enquiry.
‘Talking of the innumerable ways of different seekers after God, Bhagavan said: “Each should be allowed to go his own way, the way for which alone he may be built. It will not do to convert him to another path by violence. The Guru will go with the disciple along his own path and then gradually turn him into the supreme path when the time is ripe. Suppose a car is going at top speed. To stop it and to turn it at once would lead to a crash.”’4
Other methods are not necessarily exclusive of Self-enquiry; in fact some of them may very well be combined with it.
The greatest of all aids to Self-realization is the presence of a Realized Man. This is called Sat Sang, which means literally fellowship with Being. Even here Bhagavan would sometimes explain that the real ‘Being’ is the Self and therefore no physical form is needed for Sat Sang. Nevertheless, he often dwelt on its benefits.
‘Association with Sages who have realized the Truth removes material attachments; on these attachments being removed, the attachments of the mind are also destroyed. Those whose attachments of mind are thus destroyed become one with That which is Motionless. They attain Liberation while yet alive. Cherish association with such Sages.
‘That Supreme State which is obtained here and now as a result of association with Sages, and realized through the deep meditation of Self-enquiry in contact with the Heart, cannot be gained with the aid of a guru or through knowledge of the scriptures, or by spiritual merit, or by any other means.
‘If association with Sages is obtained, to what purpose are the various methods of self-discipline? Tell me, of what use is a fan when the cool, gentle south wind is blowing? The heat of mental and bodily excitement is allayed by (the rays of) the moon; want and misery are removed by the kalpaka tree; sins are washed away by the sacred waters of the Ganges. All these afflictions are altogether banished by the mere darshan of the peerless Sage.
‘Neither the holy waters of pilgrimage nor the images of gods made of earth and stone can stand comparison with the benign look of the Sage. These purify one only after countless days of grace, but no sooner does the Sage bestow his gracious glance than he purifies one.’5
It should be mentioned that these five verses were not actually composed by Bhagavan but translated from Sanskrit for inclusion in his Supplementary Forty Verses. The statement in the second verse that such grace cannot be gained with the aid of a guru is using the word ‘guru’ in its lower sense of ‘teacher’; otherwise it would have the same meaning as ‘Sage’ and the comparison would be pointless.
Breath control can have various meanings. It can be retention of breath, or regulation of breathing according to a definite rhythm, or merely watching the breathing and remaining attentive to it. The Maharshi often authorized the use of breath control, but did not as a rule specify what form it was to take—perhaps because those who asked his authorization were usually practising a form of it prescribed by some guru and merely wished to know whether they could continue to do so. He himself, although competent to authorize any practice, did not teach or prescribe the more technical forms of breath control.
‘As there are elaborate treatises on the elements of ashtanga yoga only as much as is necessary is written here. Anyone who desires to know more must resort to a practising yogi with experience and learn from him in detail.’6
When he did specify what kind of breath control was to be practised, it was usually just watching the breathing, the type that is least likely to be harmful if practised without guidance from a guru who specializes in this kind of technical, indirect path.
‘Mr. Prasad asked whether the regular form of breath control is not better, in which breathing in, holding the breath, and breathing out are to the rhythm of 1 : 4 : 2. Bhagavan replied: “All such rhythms, sometimes regulated not by counting but by incantations, are helps for controlling the mind; that is all. Watching the breathing is also one form of breath control. Holding the breath is more violent and may be harmful when there is no proper guru to guide the practiser at every step; but merely watching the breathing is easier and involves no risk’7
The Maharshi was careful in authorizing breath control to explain why it was used—that it was helpful simply as a step towards mind control.
‘The principle underlying the system of yoga is that the source of thought is also the source of breath and the vital force; therefore if one of them is effectively controlled the other is also automatically brought under control.8
‘The source of the mind is the same as that of the breath and vital forces. It is really the multitude of thoughts that constitute the mind; and the I thought is the primal thought of the mind and is itself the ego. But breath too has its origin at the same place whence the ego rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, breath and the vital forces also subside; and conversely when the latter subside, the former also subsides.
‘Breath and vital forces are also described as the gross manifestations of the mind. Till the hour of death the mind sustains and supports these forces in the physical body; and when life becomes extinct, the mind envelops them and carries them away. During sleep, however, the vital forces continue to function, although the mind is not manifest. This is according to the divine law and is intended to protect the body and to remove any possible doubt as to whether it is alive or dead while one is asleep. Without such arrangement by nature, sleeping bodies would often be cremated alive. The vitality apparent in breathing is left behind by the mind as a “watchman”. But in the wakeful state and in samadhi, when the mind subsides, breath also subsides. For this reason (because the mind has the sustaining and controlling power over breath and vital forces and is therefore ulterior to both of them) the practice of breath control is merely helpful in subduing the mind but cannot bring about its final extinction.’9
It follows from this that breath control, as authorized by Sri Bhagavan, is necessary only for those who cannot control the mind directly.
D.: Is it necessary to control one's breath?
B.: Breath control is only an aid for diving inwards. One can as well dive down by controlling the mind. On the mind being controlled, the breath is automatically controlled. There is no need to practise breath control; mind control is enough. Breath control is recommended for the person who cannot control his mind directly.10
This implies that Sri Bhagavan did not authorize breath control as an independent technique but only as an approach towards mind control. In itself he warned that its effects were impermanent.
‘For the subsidence of the mind there is no other means more effective and adequate than Self-enquiry. Even though by other means the mind subsides, that is only apparently so; it will rise again.
‘For instance, the mind subsides by means of breath control; yet such subsidence lasts only so long as the control of breath and vital forces continues; and when they are released, the mind also gets released and immediately, being externalized, it continues to wander through the force of subtle tendencies.’11
Therefore, those who use it on the path prescribed by the Maharshi should also know when to give it up.
B.: Breath control is a help in controlling the mind and is advised for such as find they cannot control the mind without some such aid. For those who can control their mind and concentrate, it is not necessary. It can be used at the beginning until one is able to control the mind but then it should be given up.12
Another reason for caution in the use of breath control is that it may lead to subtle experiences that can distract the seeker from his true goal. As will be shown in the next chapter, Bhagavan always warned against interest in powers and experiences or desire for them; he sometimes specifically connected this warning with the use of breath control.
B.: Breath control is also a help. It is one of the various methods that are intended to help us attain ekagratha or one-pointedness of mind. Breath control can also help to control the wandering mind and attain this one-pointedness and therefore it can be used. But one should not stop there. After obtaining control of the mind through breath control one should not rest content with any experiences which may accrue therefrom but should harness the controlled mind to the question, ‘Who am I?’ till the mind merges in the Self.13
It was usual for devotees of Bhagavan to sit cross-legged in meditation before him; but the more elaborate yogic postures or asanas were not practised. As explained in the previous chapter, such postures are less important in Self-enquiry than on a yogic path.
D.: A number of asanas (postures) are mentioned. Which of them is the best?
B.: One-pointedness of mind is the best posture.14
B.: The hatha yogis claim to keep the body fit so that the enquiry may be effected without obstacles. They also say that life must be prolonged so that the enquiry may be carried to a successful end. Furthermore there are those who use various drugs (kayakalpa) to that end. Their favourite example is that the canvas must be perfect before the painting is begun. Yes, but which is the canvas and which the painting? According to them the body is the canvas and the enquiry into the Self the painting. But isn't the body itself a picture on the canvas of the Self?
D.: But hatha yoga is much spoken of as an aid.
B.: Yes. Even great pandits well versed in Vedanta continue the practice of it. Otherwise their minds will not subside. So you may say it is useful for those who cannot otherwise still the mind.15
D.: Why should one not adopt other means, such as gazing at a light?
B.: Light-gazing stupefies the mind and produces catalepsy of the will for the time being but produces no permanent benefit.16
There are those who concentrate on the hearing of a sound—not any physical sound but sound from the subtle plane. The Maharshi did not disapprove of this but reminded them to hold on to the Self and find out who it is that hears the sound. The concentration achieved is good but does not in itself lead far enough. Enquiry also is needed.
‘A Gujerati gentleman said that he was concentrating on sound (nada) and desired to know if the method was right.’
B.: Meditation on nada is one of the various approved methods. Its adherents claim a very special virtue for it.
According to them it is the easiest and most direct method. Just as a child is lulled to sleep by lullabies, so nada soothes one to the state of samadhi. Again, just as a king sends his state musicians to welcome his son on his return from a long journey, so also nada takes the devotee into the Lord's abode in a pleasing manner. Nada helps concentration, but after it begins to be felt, the practice should not be made an end in itself. Nada is not the objective; the subject should firmly be held. Otherwise a blank will result. Though the subject is there even in the blank, one must remember his own self. Nada Upasana (meditation on sound) is good; it is better if associated with Self-enquiry.17
Concentration on the point between the eyebrows is a yogic practice. Bhagavan recognized its efficacy, especially when combined with incantation, but recommended concentration on the heart on the right side as being both safer and more effective.
‘A Maharashtra lady of middle age, who had studied Jnaneswari and Vichara Sagara, and was practising concentration between the eyebrows, had felt shivering and fear and did not progress. She required guidance. The Maharshi told her not to forget the seer. The sight is fixed between the eyebrows, but the seer is not kept in view. If the seer be always remembered, it will be all right.’18
‘A visitor said: “We are asked to concentrate on the spot in the forehead between the eyebrows. Is that right?”’
B.: Everyone is aware that he is. Yet one ignores that awareness and goes about in search of God. What is the use of fixing one's attention between the eyebrows? The aim of such advice is to help the mind to concentrate. It is one of the forcible methods to check the mind and prevent its dissipation. The mind is forcibly directed into one channel and this is a help to concentration. But the method of realization is the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ The present trouble affects the mind and it can only be removed by the mind.19
D.: Sri Bhagavan speaks of the Heart as the seat of Consciousness and as identical with the Self. What exactly does the word ‘Heart’ signify?
B.: The question about the Heart arises because you are interested in seeking the source of Consciousness. To all deepthinking 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 is in the chest, two digits to the right of the median.
B.: Yes, that is the centre of spiritual experience according to the testimony of Sages. The spiritual heart-centre is quite different from the blood-propelling, muscular organ known by the same name. The spiritual heart-centre is not an organ of the body. All that you can say of the heart is that it is the core of your being. That with which you are really identical (as the word in Sanskrit literally means) whether you are awake, asleep or dreaming, whether you are engaged in work or immersed in samadhi.
D.: In that case, how can it be 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.
B.: That is right. But the person who puts the question about the position of the Heart considers himself as existing with or in the body. While putting the question now, would you say that your body alone is here but that you are speaking from somewhere else? No, you accept your bodily existence. It is from this point of view that any reference to a physical body comes to be made. Truly speaking, pure Consciousness is indivisible; it is without parts. It has no form or shape, no within or without. There is no right or left . . . Pure Consciousness—which is the Heart—includes all; and nothing is outside or apart from it. That is the ultimate truth.
D.: How shall I understand Sri Bhagavan's statement that the experience of the heart-centre is at that particular place in the chest?
B.: Pure Consciousness wholly unrelated to the physical body and transcending the mind is a matter of direct experience. Sages know their bodyless, eternal existence, just as an unrealized man knows his bodily existence. But the experience of Consciousness can be with bodily awareness as well as without it. In the bodyless experience of Pure Consciousness the Sage is beyond time and space, and no question about the position of the Heart can arise at all. Since, however, the physical body cannot subsist (with life) apart from Consciousness, bodily awareness has to be sustained by pure Consciousness. The former, by nature, is limited and can never be co-extensive with the latter, which is Infinite and Eternal. Body-consciousness is merely a miniature reflection of the pure Consciousness with which the Sage has 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.
D.: For men like me, who have neither the direct experience of the Heart nor the consequent recollection, the matter seems to be somewhat difficult to grasp. About the position of the Heart itself, perhaps, we must depend upon some sort of guesswork.
B.: If the determination of the position of the Heart is to depend on guesswork, even in the case of the unrealized, the question is surely not worth much consideration. No, it is not on guesswork that you have to depend, it is an unerring intuition.
D.: Who has the intuition?
B.: All people.
D.: Does Bhagavan credit me with an intuitive knowledge of the Heart?
B.: No, not of the Heart, but of the position of the Heart in relation to your identity.
D.: Sri Bhagavan says that I intuitively know the position of the Heart in the physical body?
B.: Why not?
D. (pointing to himself): It is to me personally that Bhagavan is referring?
B.: Yes. That is the intuition! How did you refer to yourself by gesture just now? Did you not put your finger on the right side of the chest? That is exactly the place of the heart-centre.
D.: So then, in the absence of direct knowledge of the heart-centre, I have to depend on this intuition?
B.: What is wrong with it? When a schoolboy says: ‘It is I who did the sum correctly,’ or when he asks you: ‘Shall I run and get the book for you?’, would he point to the head that did the sum correctly or to the legs that will swiftly get you that book? No, in both cases his finger is pointed quite naturally towards the right side of the chest, thus giving innocent expression to the profound truth that the source of ‘I’-ness in him is there. It is an unerring intuition that makes him refer to himself, to the Heart, which is the Self, in that way. The act is quite involuntary and universal, that is to say, it is the same in the case of every individual. What stronger proof than this do you require about the position of the Heart-centre in the physical body?
D.: But the question is which is the correct view of the two, namely: (1) that the centre of spiritual experience is the place between the eyebrows, (2) that it is the Heart.
B.: For the purpose of practice you may concentrate between the eyebrows if you like; it would then be bhavana or imaginative contemplation of the mind; whereas the supreme 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?
B.: You agree that the Self is the ultimate source of Consciousness and that it subsists equally during all the three states of mind. But see what happens when a person in meditation is overcome by sleep. As the first symptom of sleep, his head begins to nod; but this could not happen if the Self were situated between the eyebrows; that centre cannot be called its seat without implying that the Self often forsakes its own place, which is absurd. The fact is the sadhaka may have his experience at any centre or chakra on which he concentrates his mind, but that does not make such a centre the seat of the Self . . .
D.: Since Bhagavan says that the Self may function at any of the centres or chakras while its seat is in the Heart, is it not possible that by the practice of intense concentration or dhyana between the eyebrows this centre may itself become the seat of the Self?
B.: As long as it is merely the stage of practice of concentration in order to control your attention at one spot, any consideration about the seat of the Self would merely be theorization. You consider yourself the subject, the seer, and the place whereon you fix the attention becomes the object seen. This is merely bhavana. When, on the contrary, you see the Seer himself, you merge in the Self, you become one with it; that is the Heart.
D.: Then, is the practice of concentration between the eyebrows advisable?
B.: The final result of the practice of any kind of dhyana is that the object on which the aspirant fixes his mind ceases to exist as distinct and separate from the subject. Subject and object become one Self and that is the Heart. The practice of concentration on the centre between the eyebrows is one of the methods of training, and thereby thoughts are effectively controlled for the time being. The reason is that all thought is an outer activity of the mind; and thought, in the first instance, follows sight, physical or mental. It is important, however, that this practice of fixing one's attention between the eyebrows should be accompanied by incantations. Because next in importance to the eye of the mind is the ear of the mind (that is mental visualization of speech), either to control and thereby strengthen the mind, or to distract and thereby dissipate it. Therefore, while fixing the mind's eye on a centre, as, for instance, between the eyebrows, you should also practise the mental articulation of a Divine Name or incantation. Otherwise you will soon lose hold on the object of concentration. This kind of practice leads to the identification of the Name, Word or Self—whatever you may call it—with the centre selected for the purpose of meditation. Pure Consciousness, the Self or the Heart is the final Realization.20
Tantric paths teach the gradual uncoiling of the Kundalini or spiritual current in a man. As it uncoils and rises upwards, it enfranchises a series of chakras or spiritual centres in the body, each bestowing its own powers and perceptions until it culminates in the Sahasrara or thousand-petalled lotus in the brain or the crown of the head. When asked about this, Bhagavan replied that, whatever the experience may be, the ultimate seat of the Self, and therefore of Realization, is the Heart.
D.: Why doesn't Sri Bhagavan direct us to practise concentration on some particular centre or chakra?
B.: The Yoga Sastras say that the Sahasrara or brain is the seat of the Self. The Purusha Sukta declares that the Heart is its seat. To enable the aspirant to steer clear of any possible doubt, I tell him to take up the thread or the clue of ‘I’-ness and follow it to its source. Because, firstly it is impossible for anybody to entertain any doubt about this ‘I’ notion; secondly, whatever be the means adopted, the final goal is Realization of the source of I-am-ness, which is what you begin from in your experience. If you, therefore, practise Self-enquiry, you will reach the Heart, which is the Self.21
D.: Does the jivanadi (subtle nerve column) really exist or is it a figment of the imagination?
B.: The yogis say that there is a nadi called the jivanadi, atmanadi or paranadi. The Upanishads speak of a centre from which thousands of nadis branch off. Some locate this in the brain and others in other places. The Garbhopanishad traces the formation of the foetus and the growth of the child in the womb. The ego is considered to enter the child through the fontanelle in the seventh month of its growth. In evidence thereof it is pointed out that the fontanelle is tender in a baby and is also seen to pulsate. It takes some months for it to ossify. Thus the ego comes from above, enters through the fontanelle and works through thousands of nadis, which are spread over the whole body. Therefore the seeker of truth must concentrate on the sahasrara, that is the brain, in order to regain his source. Breath control is said to help the yogi to rouse the Kundalini-Shakti, which lies coiled in the solar plexus. The shakti rises through a nerve called the sushumna, which is embedded in the core of the spinal cord and extends to the brain.
‘If one concentrates on the sahasrara, there is no doubt that the ecstasy of samadhi ensues. The vasanas, that is the latencies, are, however, not destroyed. The yogi is therefore bound to wake up from samadhi because the release from bondage is not yet accomplished. He must still try to eradicate the vasanas in order that the latencies yet inherent in him may not disturb the peace of his samadhi. So he passes down from the sahasrara to the heart through what is called the jivanadi, which is only a continuation of the sushumna. The sushumna is thus a curve. It starts from the solar plexus, rises through the spinal cord to the brain and from there bends down and ends in the heart. When the yogi has reached the heart, the samadhi becomes permanent. Thus we see that the heart is the final centre.
‘Some Upanishads also speak of a hundred and one nadis, which spread from the heart, one of them being the vital nadi. If the ego descends from above and is reflected in the brain, as the yogis say, there must be a reflecting surface. This must also be capable of limiting the Infinite Consciousness to the limits of the body. In short, the Universal Being becomes limited as an ego. Such a reflecting medium is furnished by the aggregate of vasanas of the individual. It acts like the water in a pot, which reflects an object. If the pot is drained of its water, there will be no reflection. The object will remain without being reflected. The object here is the Universal Being-Consciousness, which is all-pervading and therefore immanent in all. It need not be cognized by reflection alone. It is self-resplendent. Therefore, the seekers' aim must be to drain away the vasanas from the heart and let no reflecting consciousness obstruct the light of the Eternal Consciousness. This is achieved by the search for the origin of the ego and by diving into the heart. This is the direct path to Selfrealization. One who adopts it need not worry about nadis, brain, sushumna, kundalini, breath control and the six yogic centres.
‘The Self does not come from anywhere or enter the body through the crown of the head. It is as it is, ever-shining, ever steady, unmoving and unchanging. The changes that are noticed are not inherent in the Self, for the Self abides in the heart and is self-luminous like the sun. The changes are seen in its light. The relation between the Self and the body or the mind may be compared to that of a clear crystal and its background. If the crystal is placed against a red flower it shines red, if against green it shines green, and so on. The individual confines himself to the limits of the changeable body or of the mind, which derives its existence from the unchanging Self. All that is necessary is to give up this mistaken identity and, that done, the ever-shining Self will be seen to be the single, non-dual Reality.’22
On the whole the Maharshi did not approve of vows of silence. If the mind is controlled, useless speech will be avoided; but abjuring speech will not quieten the mind. The effect cannot produce the cause.
D.: Isn't a vow of silence helpful?
B.: A vow is only a vow. It may help meditation to some extent; but what is the use of keeping the mouth shut and letting the mind run riot? If the mind is engaged in meditation, what need is there for speech? Nothing is as good as meditation. What is the use of a vow of silence if one is engrossed in activity?23
Although in general attaching little importance to physical aids to meditation, the Maharshi was insistent on the advantages of limiting oneself to sattvic, that is vegetarian and non-stimulating food.
‘Regulation of diet, restricting it to sattvic food, taken in moderate quantities, is the best of all rules of conduct and the most conducive to the development of sattvic (pure) qualities of mind. These in turn help one in the practice of Self-enquiry.’24
The following is the conclusion of ‘Self-enquiry’, the first book that he wrote:
‘It is within our power to adopt a simple and nutritious diet and, with earnest and incessant endeavour, to eradicate the ego—the cause of all misery—by stopping all mental activity born of the ego.
‘Can obsessing thoughts arise without the ego, or can there be illusion apart from such thoughts?’25
He confirmed this also when asked by devotees.
D.: Are there any aids to (1) concentration, and (2) casting off distractions?
B.: Physically, the digestive and other organs are to be kept free from irritation. Therefore food is regulated both in quantity and quality. Non-irritants are eaten, avoiding chillies, excess of salt, onions, wine, opium, etc. Avoid constipation, drowsiness and excitement and all foods which induce them. Mentally, take interest in one thing and fix the mind on it. Let that interest be self-absorbing to the exclusion of everything else. This is dispassion (vairagya) and concentration.26
‘Mrs. Piggot returned from Madras for a further visit and asked questions concerning diet.’
Mrs. P.: What diet is suitable for a person engaged in spiritual practice?
B.: Sattvic food in moderate quantities.
Mrs. P.: What food is sattvic?
B.: Bread, fruit, vegetables, milk and such things.
Mrs. P.: Some people in the North eat fish. Is that permissible?
To this question Bhagavan did not reply. He was always reluctant to criticize others and this question was inviting him either to do so or to change what he had said.
Mrs. P.: We Europeans are accustomed to a particular diet and change of diet affects the health and weakens the mind. Isn't it necessary to keep up physical health?
B.: Quite necessary. The weaker the body the stronger the mind grows.
Mrs. P.: In the absence of our usual diet our health suffers and the mind loses strength.
It will be noticed that Bhagavan and Mrs. Piggot were using the term ‘strength of mind’ in different meanings. By ‘strong’ Bhagavan was meaning ‘ungovernable’, whereas Mrs. Piggot was meaning ‘powerful’. Therefore the next question, which enabled her to put her point of view.
B.: What do you mean by ‘strength of mind’?
Mrs. P.: The power to eliminate worldly attachment.
B.: The quality of one's food influences the mind. The mind feeds on the food consumed.
Mrs. P: Really! But how can Europeans accommodate themselves to sattvic food?
B. (turning to Mr. Evans-Wentz): You have been taking our food. Does it inconvenience you at all?
E.W.: No, because I am accustomed to it.
B.: Custom is only an adjustment to environment. It is the mind that matters. The fact is that the mind has been trained to find certain foods good and palatable. The necessary food value is obtainable in vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food; only the mind desires the sort of food that it is used to and considers palatable.
Mrs. P.: Do these restrictions apply to the realized man also?
B.: He is stabilized and not influenced by the food he takes.27
It was very characteristic of Bhagavan that, although he would answer questions about diet quite firmly when asked, he would not enjoin a vegetarian diet on any devotee who did not ask him. It was also characteristic that, under his silent influence, it would sometimes happen that one who did not ask would gradually begin to feel an aversion to meat-food and an inclination to change over to a purer diet.
Just as Bhagavan disapproved of all extremes, he disapproved of fasting.
D.: Can fasting help towards Realization?
B.: Yes, but it is only a temporary help. It is mental fasting that is the real aid. Fasting is not an end in itself. There must be spiritual development at the same time. Absolute fasting weakens the mind too and leaves you without sufficient strength for the spiritual quest. Therefore eat in moderation and continue the quest.
D.: They say that ten days after breaking a month's fast the mind becomes pure and steady and remains so for ever.
B.: Yes, but only if the spiritual quest has been kept up right through the fast.28
There is no need to say much about celibacy, since it has been dealt with in an earlier chapter. It is normal in India that all those who do not renounce the world to become sadhus marry, and Bhagavan discouraged renunciation. He never enjoined celibacy and he showed interest in births and marriages among the devotees.
We come now to bhakti marga, the path of love and devotion, worship and surrender. This is usually considered the very antithesis of Self-enquiry, since it is based on the presumption of duality, of worshipper and worshipped, lover and beloved, whereas Self-enquiry presumes non-duality. Therefore theorists are apt to presume that if one is based on truth the other must be based on error, and in expounding one they only too often condemn the other. Bhagavan not only recognized both these paths but guided his followers on them both. He often said: ‘There are two ways: ask yourself, “Who am I?” or surrender.’ Many of his followers chose the latter way.
D.: What is unconditional surrender?
B.: If one surrenders completely there will be no one left to ask questions or to be considered. Either the thoughts are eliminated by holding on to the root thought, ‘I’, or one surrenders unconditionally to the Higher Power. These are the only two ways to Realization.29
Self-enquiry dissolves the ego by looking for it and finding it to be non-existent, whereas devotion surrenders it; therefore both come to the same ego-free goal, which is all that is required.
B.: There are only two ways to conquer destiny or to be independent of it. One is to enquire whose this destiny is and discover that only the ego is bound by it and not the Self, and that the ego is non-existent. The other way is to kill the ego by completely surrendering to the Lord, realizing one's helplessness and saying all the time: ‘Not I, but Thou, O Lord!’, giving up all sense of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ and leaving it to the Lord to do what he likes with you. Surrender can never be regarded as complete so long as the devotee wants this or that from the Lord. True surrender is the love of God for the sake of love and nothing else, not even for the sake of salvation. In other words, complete effacement of the ego is necessary to conquer destiny, whether you achieve this effacement through Self-enquiry or through bhakti marga.30
‘The spark of spiritual knowledge (Jnana) will consume all creation like a mountain of gunpowder. Since all the countless worlds are built upon the weak or non-existent foundations of the ego, they all disintegrate when the atom-bomb of knowledge falls on them. All talk of surrender is like stealing sugar from a sugar image of Ganesha and then offering it to the same Ganesha. You say that you offer up your body and soul and all your possessions to God, but were they yours to offer? At best you can say: “I wrongly imagined till now that all these, which are Yours, were mine. Now I realize that they are Yours, and shall no longer act as though they were mine.” And this knowledge that there is nothing but God or Self, that “I” and “mine” do not exist and that only the Self exists is Jnana.’31
He often explained, however, that true devotion is devotion to the Self and therefore comes to the same as Self-enquiry.
‘It is enough that one surrenders oneself. Surrender is giving oneself up to the original cause of one's being. Do not delude yourself by imagining this source to be some God outside you. One's source is within oneself. Give yourself up to it. That means that you should seek the source and merge in it. Because you imagine yourself to be out of it, you raise the question, “Where is the source?” Some contend that just as sugar cannot taste its own sweetness but there must be someone to taste and enjoy it, so an individual cannot both be the Supreme and also enjoy the Bliss of that State; therefore the individuality must be maintained separate from the Godhead in order to make enjoyment possible. But is God insentient like sugar? How can one surrender oneself and yet retain one's individuality for supreme enjoyment? Furthermore they also say that the soul, on reaching the divine region and remaining there, serves the Supreme Being. Can the sound of the word “service” deceive the Lord? Does He not know? Is He waiting for these people's services? Would He not—the Pure Consciousness—ask in turn: “Who are you apart from Me that presume to serve Me?”
‘If, on the other hand, you merge in the Self, there will be no individuality left. You will become the Source itself. In that case, what is surrender? Who is to surrender what and to whom? This constitutes devotion, wisdom and Self-enquiry. Among the Vaishnavites, too, Saint Nammalwar says: “I was in a maze, clinging to ‘I’ and ‘mine’; I wandered without knowing myself. On realizing myself I understand that I myself am You and that ‘mine’ (that is, my possessions) is only Yours.” Thus, you see, devotion is nothing more than knowing oneself. The school of qualified monism also admits it. Still, adhering to their traditional doctrine, they persist in affirming that individuals are part of the Supreme—his limbs as it were. Their traditional doctrine says also that the individual soul should be made pure and then surrendered to the Supreme; then the ego is lost and one goes to the region of Vishnu after death; then finally there is the enjoyment of the Supreme (or the Infinite). To say that one is apart from the primal source is itself a pretension; to add that one divested of the ego becomes pure and yet retains individuality only to enjoy or serve the Supreme is a deceitful stratagem. What duplicity this is—first to appropriate what is really His, and then pretend to experience or serve Him! Is not all this known to Him?’32
It is obvious that surrender in the total uncompromising sense in which Bhagavan demands it is not easy.
‘As often as one tries to surrender, the ego raises its head and one has to try to suppress it. Surrender is not an easy thing. Killing the ego is not an easy thing. It is only when God Himself by His Grace draws the mind inwards that complete surrender can be achieved.’33
‘Dr. Syed asked Bhagavan: “Doesn't total or complete surrender imply that even desire for liberation or God should be given up?”’
B.: Complete surrender does imply that you should have no desire of your own, that God's will alone is your will and you have no will of your own.
Dr. S.: Now that I am satisfied on that point, I want to know what are the steps by which I can achieve surrender?
B.: There are two ways; one is looking into the source of the ‘I’ and merging into that source; the other is feeling ‘I am helpless by myself, God alone is all-powerful and except for throwing myself completely on Him there is no other means of safety for me,’ and thus gradually developing the conviction that God alone exists and the ego does not count. Both methods lead to the same goal. Complete surrender is another name for Jnana or Liberation.34
However, partial surrender can come first and gradually become more and more complete.
D.: I find surrender impossible.
B.: Complete surrender is impossible in the beginning but partial surrender is possible for all. In course of time that will lead to complete surrender.35
The dualists may however object that the devotional path approved by Bhagavan is not that which they have in mind, since theirs presupposes the permanent duality of God and worshipper. In such cases, as in the last sentence of the following dialogue, Bhagavan would raise the discussion above theory, bidding them first achieve the surrender to a separate God, of which they spoke, and then see whether they had any further doubts.
‘The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is and which alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course we talk loosely of Self-realization for want of a better term, but how is one to realize or make real that which alone is real? What we all are doing is to realize or regard as real what is unreal. This habit has to be given up. All spiritual effort under all systems is directed only to this end. When we give up regarding the unreal as real, then Reality alone will remain and we shall be That.
‘The Swami replied: “This exposition is all right in the framework of non-duality, but there are other schools that do not insist on the disappearance of the triad of knower, knowledge and known as the condition for Self-realization. There are schools that believe in the existence of two and even three eternal entities. There is the bhakta, for instance. In order that he may worship there must be a God.”’
B.: Whoever objects to his having a separate God to worship so long as he needs one? Through devotion he develops until he comes to feel that God alone exists, and that he himself does not count. He comes to a stage when he says, ‘Not I but Thou; not my will but Thine.’ When that stage is reached, which is called complete surrender in bhakti marga, one finds that effacement of the ego is attainment of the Self. We need not quarrel whether there are two entities or more or only one. Even according to dualists and according to bhakti marga complete surrender is necessary. Do that first and then see for yourself whether the one Self alone exists or whether there are two or more.
‘Bhagavan further added: “Whatever may be said to suit the different capacities of different men, the truth is that the state of Self-realization must be beyond the triad of knower, knowledge and known. The Self is the Self; that is all that can be said of it.”
‘The Swami then asked whether a Jnani could retain his body after attaining Self-realization. He added: “It is said that the impact of Self-realization is so forceful that the weak physical body cannot bear it for more than twenty-one days at the longest.”
‘Bhagavan replied: “What is your idea of a Jnani? Is he the body or something different? If he is something apart from the body, how can he be affected by the body? Books speak of different kinds of Liberation, videhamukti (without body) and jivanmukti (with body). There may be different stages on the path but there are no degrees of Liberation.”’36
Sometimes Bhagavan was asked how the paths of love and knowledge could be the same since love postulates duality.
D.: Love postulates duality. How can the Self be the object of love?
B.: Love is not different from the Self. Love of an object is of a lower type and cannot endure, whereas the Self is Love. God is Love.37
For those whose temperament and state of development demanded it, the Maharshi approved of ritualistic worship, which usually accompanies a devotional path.
‘A visitor said to Bhagavan: “Priests prescribe various rituals and forms of worship and people are told that it is a sin not to observe them. Is there any need for such ritual and ceremonial worship?”’
B.: Yes, such worship is also necessary. It may not help you, but that does not mean that it is necessary for no one and is no good at all. What is necessary for the infant is not necessary for the graduate. But even the graduate has to make use of the alphabet he learnt in the infant class. He knows its full use and significance.38
Worship might also take the form of concentration on one of the Hindu gods, that is one of the modes in which Hindus conceive of God.
D.: What are the steps of practical training?
B.: It depends on the qualifications and nature of the seeker.
D.: I worship an idol.
B.: Go on doing so. It leads to concentration of mind. Get one-pointed. All will come right in the end. People think that Liberation (moksha) is somewhere outside them to be sought for. They are wrong. It is only knowing the Self in you. Concentrate and you will get it. It is your mind that is the cycle of births and deaths (samsara).
D.: My mind is very unsteady. What should I do?
B.: Fix your attention on any single thing and try to hold on to it. Everything will come right.
D.: I find concentration difficult.
B.: Keep on practising and your concentration will come to be as easy as breathing. That will be the crown of your achievement.39
However, he did not approve of the desire to see visions—or, in fact, any desire at all, even the desire for rapid realization.
‘Miss Uma Devi, a Polish lady who had become a Hindu, said to Sri Bhagavan: “Once before I told Sri Bhagavan how I had a vision of Siva at about the time I became a Hindu. A similar experience occurred to me at Courtallam. These visions are momentary, but they are blissful. I want to know how they can be made permanent and continuous. Without Siva there is no life in what I see around me. I am so happy to think of Him. Please tell me how I can make the vision of Him continuous.”’
B.: You speak of a vision of Siva, but a vision always presumes an object. That implies the existence of a subject. The value of the vision is the same as that of the seer. That is to say, the nature of the vision is on the same plane as that of the seer. Appearance implies disappearance also. Therefore a vision can never be eternal. But Siva is eternal. The vision of Siva implies the existence of the eyes to see it, of the intellect behind the sight and finally of Consciousness underlying the seer. This vision is not as real as one imagines it to be, because it is not intimate and inherent; it is not first hand. It is the result of several successive phases of Consciousness. Consciousness alone does not vary. It is eternal. It is Siva. A vision implies someone to see it, but this someone cannot deny the existence of the Self. There is no moment when the Self as Consciousness does not exist nor can the seer remain apart from Consciousness. This Consciousness is the Eternal Being and is only Being. The seer cannot see himself. Does he deny his existence because he cannot see himself as he sees a vision? No; so the true vision does not mean seeing but BE-ing. TO BE is to realize—Hence ‘I AM THAT I AM’. I AM Siva. Nothing else can be without Him. Everything has its being in Siva, because of Siva. Therefore enquire: ‘Who am I?’ Sink deep within and abide as the Self. That is Siva as BE-ing. Do not expect to have visions of Him repeated. What is the difference between the objects you see and Siva? He is both subject and object. You cannot be without Siva. Siva is always realized here and now. If you think you have not realized Him, you are wrong. That is the obstacle to realizing Him. Give up that thought also and realization is there.
D.: Yes, but how shall I effect it as quickly as possible?
B.: That is another obstacle to Realization. Can there be an individual without Siva? Even now He is you. There is no question of time. If there were a moment of non-realization, the question of realization could arise. But you cannot be without Him. He is already realized, ever realized and never non-realized. Surrender to Him and abide by His will, whether he appears or vanishes; await His pleasure. If you ask Him to do as you please, it is not surrender but command. You cannot have Him obey you and yet think you have surrendered. He knows what is best and when and how. Leave everything entirely to Him. The burden is His.
‘You have no longer any cares. All your cares are His. That is surrender. That is bhakti.’40
D.: A vision of God is something glorious.
B.: A vision of God is only a vision of the Self objectified as the God of your particular faith. What you have to do is to know the Self.'41
‘Bhagavan was often heard to say: “To know God is to love God, therefore the paths of jnana and bhakti (knowledge and devotion) come to the same.”’
Japa, that is the use of incantations and invocations of a Divine Name, is one of the most widely practised techniques of spiritual training. It has particular affinity with bhakti paths of love and devotion. The Maharshi approved of it, subject, of course, to the condition illustrated in the story of the king and his minister on page 92, that the person who practised any incantation had been duly authorized to do so by a qualified guru. He himself occasionally authorized the use of invocations, but very seldom.
‘The point is to keep out all other thoughts except the one thought of OM or Ram or God. All incantations and invocations help to do that.’42
The more devotion there is behind the words the better this is accomplished, and therefore the more effective is the incantation.
D.: When I invoke the Divine Name for an hour or more, I fall into a state like sleep. On waking up, I recollect that my invocation has been interrupted, so I try again.
B.: ‘Like sleep’, that is right. It is the natural state. Because you now identify yourself with the ego, you look upon the natural state as something that interrupts your work. So you must have the experience repeated until you realize that it is your natural state. You will then find that the invocation is extraneous, but still it will go on automatically. Your present doubt is due to false identification of yourself with the mind that makes the invocation. Invocation really means clinging to one thought to the exclusion of all others. That is the purpose of it. It leads to absorption, which ends in Self-realization or Jnana.
D.: How should I practise invocation?
B.: One should not use the name of God mechanically and superficially without a feeling of devotion. When one uses the name of God one should call on Him with yearning and unreservedly surrender oneself to Him. Only after such surrender is the name of God constantly with you.43
In its early stages, an incantation may even be accompanied by visualization of the form of a Guru or of a mythological form of God.
D.: My practice has been continuous invocation of the names of God while breathing in and of the name of Sai Baba while breathing out. Simultaneously with this I see the form of Baba always. Even in Bhagavan I see Baba. The external appearances are also much alike. Bhagavan is thin. Baba was a little stout. Should I continue this method or change it? Something within tells me that if I stick to name and form, I shall never get beyond them, but I can't understand what further to do if I give them up. Will Bhagavan please enlighten me?
B.: You may continue with your present method. When the japa becomes continuous all other thoughts cease and one is in one's real nature, which is invocation or absorption. We turn our minds outwards to things of the world and are therefore not aware that our real nature is always invocation. When by conscious effort, or invocation, or meditation as we call it, we prevent our minds from thinking of other things, then what remains is our real nature, which is invocation. So long as you think you are the name and form, you can't escape name and form in invocation also. When you realize you are not name and form, the name and form will drop off themselves. No other effort is necessary. Invocation or meditation will lead to it naturally and as a matter of course. Invocation, which is now regarded as the means, will then be found to be the goal. There is no difference between God and His name.44
As the above passage indicates, incantation merges with dhyana, which, for want of a better word, is translated as ‘meditation’. For this reason, silent incantation is better than vocal, being more inward.
D.: Isn't mental invocation better than oral?
B.: Oral incantation consists of sounds. The sounds arise from thoughts, for one must think before one expresses one's thoughts in words. The thoughts form the mind. Therefore mental invocation is better than oral.
D.: Shouldn't we contemplate the invocation and repeat it orally also?
B.: When the invocation becomes mental where is the need for sound? On becoming mental it becomes contemplation. Meditation, contemplation and mental invocation are the same. When thoughts cease to be promiscuous and one thought persists to the exclusion of all others, it is said to be contemplation. The object of invocation or meditation is to exclude varied thought and confine oneself to one. Then that thought too vanishes into its source, which is pure Consciousness or the Self. The mind first engages in invocation and then sinks into its own source.45
‘This is certain: worship, incantations and meditation are performed respectively with the body, the voice and the mind and are in this ascending order of value.
‘One can regard this eightfold universe as a manifestation of God; and whatever worship is performed in it is excellent as worship of God.
‘The repetition aloud of His name is better than praise. Better still is its faint murmur. But the best is repetition with the mind—and that is meditation, above referred to.
‘Better than such broken thoughts (meditation) is its steady and continuous flow like the flow of oil or of a perennial stream.’46
Little need be said here about karma marga, the path of action, since it has been dealt with in an earlier chapter. The Maharshi discouraged unnecessary activities on the one hand and the attempt to renounce activity on the other, enjoining performance of the necessary routine activities of life in a detached manner, simultaneously with the practice of enquiry or devotion.
D.: Swami, how can the grip of the ego be loosened?
B.: By not adding new vasanas (innate tendencies) to it.
D.: How does activity help? Will it not add to the already heavy load that has to be removed?
B.: Actions performed with no thought of the ego purify the mind and help to fix it in meditation.
D.: But suppose one were to meditate incessantly without activity?
B.: Try and see. Your innate tendencies will not let you. Meditation (dhyana) comes only step by step with the weakening of the innate tendencies by the Grace of the Guru.47
Although the Maharshi recognized all methods, he graded them as more or less direct and effective, as is shown in the above quotation of verses 4–7 of the ‘Essence of Instruction’. The following exposition also makes this clear.
‘Examination of the ephemeral nature of external things leads to dispassion (vairagya). Hence enquiry is the first and most important step. When it becomes automatic, it results in indifference to wealth, fame, ease, pleasure and so on. The “I” thought is traced to the source of the “I” in the Heart, which is the final goal.
‘However, if the aspirant is temperamentally unsuited for Self-enquiry he must develop devotion. It may be to God or Guru or mankind in general or ethical laws or even an ideal of beauty. As any of these takes possession of him, other attachments grow weaker and dispassion develops. Attachment to the object of devotion grows until it dominates him completely, and with it grows concentration (ekagrata) with or without visions and direct aids.
‘If neither enquiry nor devotion appeals to him, he can gain tranquillity by breath control. This is the way of yoga. If a man's life is in danger, all his interest centres round the one point of saving it. If the breath is held, the mind cannot afford to jump out at its beloved outer objects and does not do so. Therefore there is peace of mind as long as the breath is held. Since all one's attention is concentrated on the breath, other interests are abandoned. Then also, any passion results in irregular breathing. A paroxysm of joy is in fact as painful as one of grief, and both result in disturbed breathing. Real peace is happiness, and pleasures do not produce happiness.
‘If the aspirant is unsuited to the first two methods by temperament and to the third on account of age or health, he must try karma marga, the path of good deeds and social service. His nobler instincts are thus developed and he derives impersonal happiness from his actions. His ego becomes less assertive and its good side is enabled to develop. He thus in course of time comes to be suited for one of the three former paths. Or his intuition may be developed by karma marga alone.’48