Readers of a philosophical turn of mind may find it strange to see the first chapter of this work entitled ‘The Basic Theory’. It may appear to them that the whole work should be devoted to theory. In fact, however, the Maharshi, like every spiritual master, was concerned rather with the practical work of training aspirants than with expounding theory. The theory had importance, but only as a basis for practice.
D.: Buddha is said to have ignored questions about God.
B.: Yes, and because of this he has been called an agnostic. In fact Buddha was concerned with guiding the seeker to realize Bliss here and now rather than with academic discussions about God and so forth.1
D.: Is the study of science, psychology, physiology, etc., helpful for attaining yoga-liberation or for intuitive understanding of the unity of Reality?
B.: Very little. Some theoretical knowledge is needed for Yoga and may be found in books, but practical application is what is needed. Personal example and instruction are the most helpful aids. As for intuitive understanding, a person may laboriously convince himself of the truth to be grasped by intuition, of its function and nature, but the actual intuition is more like feeling and requires practice and personal contact. Mere book learning is not of any great use. After Realization all intellectual loads are useless burdens and are to be thrown overboard.2
Pre-occupation with theory, doctrine and philosophy can actually be harmful insofar as it detracts a man from the really important work of spiritual effort by offering an easier alternative that is merely mental, and which, therefore, cannot change his nature.
‘What use is the learning of those who do not seek to wipe out the letters of destiny (from their brow) by enquiring: “Whence is the birth of us who know the letters?” They have sunk to the level of a gramophone. What else are they, O Arunachala?
‘It is those who are not learned who are saved rather than those whose ego has not yet subsided in spite of their learning. The unlearned are saved from the relentless grip of the devil of self-infatuation; they are saved from the malady of myriad whirling thoughts and words; they are saved from running after wealth. It is from more than one evil that they are saved.’3
Similarly he had no use for theoretical discussions.
‘It is due to illusion born of ignorance that men fail to recognize that which is always and for everybody the inherent Reality dwelling in its natural heart-centre and to abide in it, and instead they argue that it exists or does not exist, that it has form or has not form, or is non-dual or is dual.4
‘Can anything appear apart from that which is eternal and perfect? This kind of dispute is endless. Do not engage in it. Instead, turn your mind inward and put an end to all this. There is no finality in disputation.’5
Ultimately, even the scriptures are useless.
‘The scriptures serve to indicate the existence of the Higher Power or Self and to point the way to It. That is their essential purpose. Apart from that they are useless. However, they are voluminous in order to be adapted to the level of development of every seeker. As a man rises in the scale he finds the stages already attained to be only stepping stones to higher stages, until finally the goal is reached. When that happens, the goal alone remains and everything else, including the scriptures, becomes useless.’6
Sometimes, it is true, he expounded philosophy in all its intricacies, but only as a concession to weakness, to those ‘addicted to much thinking’, as he put it in Self-enquiry. I had thought of quoting such an explanation here, but found that it contained the passage:
‘The intricate maze of philosophy of the various schools is said to clarify matters and to reveal the Truth, but in fact it creates confusion where none need exist. To understand anything there must be the Self. The Self is obvious, so why not remain as the Self? What need to explain the non-self?’
And of himself he adds:
‘I was indeed fortunate that I never took to it (i.e. philosophy). Had I taken to it I would probably be nowhere; but my inherent tendencies led me directly to inquire “Who am I?” How fortunate.’7
Nevertheless, some theoretical teaching is necessary as the basis for the practical work of spiritual training. With the Maharshi this took the form of non-duality, in complete accordance with the teachings of the great Sage, Shankara. The agreement does not, however, mean that Bhagavan was, as a philosopher would put it, ‘influenced by’ Shankara, merely that he recognized Shankara's teaching as a true exposition of what he had realized and knew by direct knowledge.
D.: Is Bhagavan's teaching the same as Shankara's?
B.: Bhagavan's teaching is an expression of his own experience and realization. Others find that it tallies with Sri Shankara's.8
D.: When the Upanishads say that all is Brahman, how can we agree with Shankara that this world is illusory?
B.: Shankara also said that this world is Brahman or the Self. What he objected to is one's imagining that the Self is limited by the names and forms that constitute the world. He only said that the world has no reality apart from Brahman. Brahman or the Self is like a cinema screen and the world like the pictures on it. You can see the picture only so long as there is a screen. But when the observer himself becomes the screen only the Self remains.9
‘Shankara has been criticized for his philosophy of Maya (illusion) without understanding his meaning. He made three statements: that Brahman is real, that the universe is unreal and that Brahman is the Universe. He did not stop with the second. The third statement explains the first two; it signifies that when the Universe is perceived apart from Brahman, that perception is false and illusory. What it amounts to is that phenomena are real when experienced as the Self and illusory when seen apart from the Self.10
‘The Self alone exists and is real. The world, the individual and God are, like the illusory appearance of silver in the mother-of-pearl, imaginary creations in the Self.11 They appear and disappear simultaneously. Actually, the Self alone is the world, the “I” and God. All that exists is only a manifestation of the Supreme.’12
D.: What is reality?
B.: Reality must always be real. It has no names or forms but is what underlies them. It underlies all limitations, being itself limitless. It is not bound in any way. It underlies unrealities, being itself Real. It is that which is. It is as it is. It transcends speech and is beyond description such as being or non-being.13
He would not be entangled in apparent disagreements due merely to a different viewpoint or mode of expression.
D.: The Buddhists deny the world whereas Hindu philosophy admits its existence but calls it unreal, isn't that so?
B.: It is only a difference of point of view.
D.: They say that the world is created by Divine Energy (Shakti). Is the knowledge of unreality due to the veiling by illusion (Maya)?
B.: All admit creation by the Divine Energy, but what is the nature of this energy? It must be in conformity with the nature of its creation.
D.: Are there degrees of illusion?
B.: Illusion itself is illusory. It must be seen by somebody outside it, but how can such a seer be subject to it? So, how can he speak of degrees of it?
‘You see various scenes passing on a cinema screen; fire seems to burn buildings to ashes; water seems to wreck ships; but the screen on which the pictures are projected remains un-burnt and dry. Why? Because the pictures are unreal and the screen real.
‘Similarly, reflections pass through a mirror but it is not affected at all by their number or quality.
‘In the same way, the world is a phenomenon upon the substratum of the single Reality, which is not affected by it in any way. Reality is only One.
‘Talk of illusion is due only to the point of view. Change your viewpoint to that of Knowledge and you will perceive the universe to be only Brahman. Being now immersed in the world, you see it as a real world; get beyond it and it will disappear and Reality alone will remain.’14
As the last excerpt shows, the postulate of one universal Reality calls for the conception of a process either of illusion or creation to explain the apparent reality of the world.
‘The world is perceived as an apparent objective reality when the mind is externalized, thereby abandoning its identity with the Self. When the world is thus perceived the true nature of the Self is not revealed; conversely, when the Self is realized, the world ceases to appear as an objective reality.15
‘That is illusion which makes one take what is ever present and all pervasive, full to perfection and self-luminous and is indeed the Self and the core of one's Being, for non-existent and unreal. Conversely, that is illusion which makes one take for real and self-existent what is non-existent and unreal, namely the trilogy of world, ego and God.’16
The world is indeed real, but not as an independent, self-subsistent reality, just as a man you see in a dream is real as a dream-figure but not as a man.
‘To those who have not realized the Self as well as to those who have, the world is real. But to the former, Truth is adapted to the form of the world, whereas to the latter Truth shines as the formless Perfection and the Substratum of the world. This is the only difference between them.’17
‘As I recalled Bhagavan saying sometimes that unreal (mithya, imaginary) and real (satyam) mean the same, but did not quite understand, I asked him about it. He said, “Yes, I do sometimes say that. What do you mean by real? What is it that you call real?”
‘I answered: “According to Vedanta, only that which is permanent and unchanging can be called real. That is the meaning of Reality.”
‘Then Bhagavan said: “The names and forms which constitute the world continually change and perish and are therefore called unreal. It is unreal (imaginary) to limit the Self to these names and forms and real to regard all as the Self. The non-dualist says that the world is unreal, but he also says, ‘All this is Brahman’. So it is clear that what he condemns is regarding the world as objectively real in itself, not regarding it as Brahman. He who sees the Self sees the Self alone in the world also. It is immaterial to the Enlightened whether the world appears or not. In either case, his attention is turned to the Self. It is like the letters and the paper on which they are printed. You are so engrossed in the letters that you forget about the paper, but the Enlightened sees the paper as the substratum whether the letters appear on it or not.”’18
This is still more succinctly stated as follows:
‘The Vedantins do not say that the world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text: “All this is Brahman”? They only mean that the world is unreal as the world but real as Self. If you regard world as non-self, it is not real. Everything, whether you call it illusion (Maya) or Divine Play (Lila) or Energy (Shakti) must be within the Self and not apart from it.’19
Before leaving the theory of the world as a manifestation of the Self, devoid of objective reality, it must be stressed once again that theory had importance for the Maharshi only insofar as it helped a man's spiritual development, not for its own sake. Cosmology as understood in modern physical science simply did not concern him.
D.: The Vedas contain conflicting accounts of cosmogony. Ether is said to be the first creation in one place, vital energy in another, water in another, something else in another; how can all this be reconciled? Does it not impair the credibility of the Vedas?
B.: Different seers saw different aspects of truth at different times, each emphasizing some viewpoint. Why do you worry about their conflicting statements? The essential aim of the Vedas is to teach us the nature of the imperishable Self and show us that we are that.
D.: About that part I am satisfied.
B.: Then treat all the rest as auxiliary arguments or as expositions for the ignorant who want to know the origin of things.20
Major Chadwick was copying out the English translation of the Tamil Kaivalya Navaneetha, when he came across some technical terms that he found difficulty in understanding. He accordingly asked Bhagavan about them, and Bhagavan replied: ‘These portions deal with theories of creation. They are not essential because the real purpose of the scriptures is not to set forth such theories. They mention the theories casually, so that those readers who wish to may take interest in them. The truth is that the world appears as a passing shadow in a flood of light. Light is necessary even to see the shadow. The shadow is not worth any special study, analysis or discussion. The purpose of the book is to deal with the Self and what is said about creation may be omitted for the present.’
Later, Sri Bhagavan continued: ‘Vedanta says that the cosmos springs into view simultaneously with him who sees it, and there is no detailed process of creation. It is similar to a dream where he who experiences the dream arises simultaneously with the dream he experiences. However, some people cling so fast to objective knowledge that they are not satisfied when told this. They want to know how sudden creation can be possible and argue that an effect must be preceded by a cause. In fact they desire an explanation of the world that they see about them. Therefore the scriptures try to satisfy their curiosity by such theories. This method of dealing with the subject is called the theory of gradual creation, but the true spiritual seeker can be satisfied with instantaneous creation.’21
We come now to the very essence of theory, the nature of man himself. For whatever a man may think of the reality of the world or of God he knows that he himself exists. And it is in order to understand and at the same time to perfect himself that he studies and seeks guidance.
‘The individual being which identifies its existence with that of the life in the physical body as “I” is called the ego. The Self, which is pure Consciousness, has no ego-sense about it. Neither can the physical body, which is inert in itself, have this ego-sense. Between the two, that is between the Self or pure Consciousness and the inert physical body, there arises mysteriously the ego-sense or “I” notion, the hybrid, which is neither of them, and this flourishes as an individual being. This ego or individual being is at the root of all that is futile and undesirable in life. Therefore it is to be destroyed by any possible means; then that which ever is alone remains resplendent. This is Liberation or Enlightenment or Self-realization.’22
D.: Bhagavan often says: ‘The world is not outside you’, or ‘everything depends on you’, or ‘what is there outside you’. I find all this puzzling. The world existed before I was born and will continue to exist after my death, as it has survived the death of so many who once lived as I do now.
B.: Did I ever say that the world exists because of you? I have only put to you the question of what exists apart from yourself. You ought to understand that by the Self neither the physical body nor the subtle body is meant.
‘What you are told is that if you once know the Self within which all ideas exist, not excluding the idea of yourself, of others like you and of the world, you can realize the truth that there is a Reality, a Supreme Truth, which is the Self of all the world you now see, the Self of all the selves, the one Real, the Supreme, the eternal Self, as distinct from the ego or individual being, which is impermanent. You must not mistake the ego or the bodily idea for the Self.’
D.: Then Bhagavan means that the Self is God?
And in his next reply Bhagavan, as was his way, turned the discussion from theory to practice. Although the present chapter is, on the whole, devoted to theory, it seems appropriate to continue the dialogue so as to show how the theory was put to practical use.
B.: You see the difficulty. Self-enquiry, ‘Who am I?’ is a different technique from the meditation—‘I am Siva’, or ‘I am He’. I rather emphasize Self-knowledge, for you are first concerned with yourself before you proceed to know the world or its Lord. The ‘I am He’ or ‘I am Brahman’ meditation is more or less mental, but the quest for the Self of which I speak is a direct method and is superior to it. For the moment you get into the quest for the Self and begin to go deeper, the real Self is waiting there to receive you, and then whatever is to be done is done by something else and you, as an individual, have no hand in it. In this process all doubts and discussions are automatically given up, just as one who sleeps forgets all his cares for the time being.
The further discussion illustrates the freedom of argument that Bhagavan allowed to those who were not convinced by a reply.
D.: What certainty is there that something awaits there to receive me?
B.: When a person is sufficiently mature he becomes convinced naturally.
D.: How is this maturity to be attained?
B.: Various ways are prescribed. But whatever previous development there may be, earnest Self-enquiry hastens it.
D.: That is arguing in a circle. I am strong enough for the quest if I am mature and it is the quest that makes me mature.
This is an objection that was often raised in one form or another and the reply to it again emphasizes that it is not theory that is needed but practice.
B.: The mind does have this sort of difficulty. It wants a fixed theory to satisfy itself with. Really, however, no theory is necessary for the man who seriously strives to approach God or his true Self.23
‘Everyone is the Self and, indeed, is infinite. Yet each person mistakes his body for his Self. In order to know anything, illumination is necessary. This can only be of the nature of Light; however, it lights up both physical light and physical darkness. That is to say, that it lies beyond apparent light and darkness. It is itself neither, but it is said to be light because it illumines both. It is infinite and is Consciousness. Consciousness is the Self of which everyone is aware. No one is ever away from his Self and therefore everyone is in fact Self-realized; only—and this is the great mystery—people do not know this and want to realize the Self. Realization consists only in getting rid of the false idea that one is not realized. It is not anything new to be acquired. It must already exist or it would not be eternal and only what is eternal is worth striving for.
‘Once the false notion “I am the body” or “I am not realized” has been removed, Supreme Consciousness or the Self alone remains and in people's present state of knowledge they call this “Realization”. But the truth is that Realization is eternal and already exists, here and now.24
‘Consciousness is pure knowledge. The mind arises out of it and is made up of thoughts.25
‘The essence of the mind is only awareness or consciousness. However, when the ego overclouds it, it functions as reasoning, thinking or perceiving. The universal mind, not being limited by the ego, has nothing outside itself and is therefore only aware. This is what the Bible means by “I am that I am”.
‘The ego-ridden mind has its strength sapped and is too weak to resist distressing thoughts. The egoless mind is happy, as we see in deep, dreamless sleep. Clearly, therefore, happiness and distress are only modes of the mind.’26
D.: When I seek the ‘I’, I see nothing.
B.: You say that because you are accustomed to identify yourself with the body and sight with the eyes, but what is there to be seen? And by whom? And how? There is only one Consciousness and this, when it identifies itself with the body, projects itself through the eyes and sees the surrounding objects. The individual is limited to the waking state; he expects to see something different and accepts the authority of his senses. He will not admit that he who sees, the objects seen and the act of seeing are all manifestations of the same Consciousness—the ‘I-I’ Meditation helps to overcome the illusion that the Self is something to see. Actually, there is nothing to see. How do you recognize yourself now? Do you have to hold a mirror up in front of yourself to recognize yourself? The awareness is itself the ‘I’. Realize it and that is the truth.
D.: When I enquire into the origin of thoughts there is the perception of the ‘I’ but it does not satisfy me.
B.: Quite right. Because this perception of ‘I’ is associated with a form, perhaps with the physical body. Nothing should be associated with the pure Self. The Self is the pure Reality in whose light the body, the ego and all else shine. When all thoughts are stilled, pure Consciousness remains over.27
D.: How did the ego arise?
Here is a question that gives rise to endless philosophizing, but Bhagavan, holding rigorously to the truth of non-duality, refused to admit its existence.
B.: There is no ego. If there were, you would have to admit of two selves in you. Therefore there is no ignorance. If you enquire into the Self, ignorance, which is already non-existent, will be found not to exist and you will say that it has fled.
Sometimes it seemed to the listener that absence of thought must mean a mere blank, and therefore Bhagavan specifically guarded against this.
‘Absence of thought does not mean a blank. There must be some one to be aware of that blank. Knowledge and ignorance pertain only to the mind and are in duality, but the Self is beyond them both. It is pure Light. There is no need for one Self to see another. There are no two selves. What is not the Self is mere non-self and cannot see the Self. The Self has no sight or hearing; it lies beyond them, all alone, as pure Consciousness.’28
Bhagavan often cited man's continued existence during deep, dreamless sleep as a proof that he existed independent of the ego and the body-sense. He also referred to the state of deep sleep as a body-free and ego-free state.
D.: I don't know whether the Self is different from the ego.
B.: In what state were you in deep sleep?
D.: I don't know.
B.: Who doesn't know? The waking self? But you don't deny that you existed while in deep sleep?
D.: I was and am, but I don't know who was in deep sleep.
B.: Exactly. The waking man says that he did not know anything in the state of deep sleep. Now he sees objects and knows that he exists but in deep sleep there were no objects and no spectator. And yet the same person who is speaking now existed in deep sleep also. What is the difference between the two states? There are objects and the play of the senses now, while in deep sleep there were not. A new entity, the ego, has arisen. It acts through the senses, sees objects, confuses itself with the body and claims to be the Self. In reality, what was in deep sleep continues to be now also. The Self is changeless. It is the ego that has come between. That which rises and sets is the ego. That which remains changeless is the Self.29
Such examples sometimes gave rise to the mistaken idea that the state of Realization or abidance in the Self that Bhagavan prescribed was a state of nescience like physical sleep and therefore he guarded against this also.
B.: Waking, dream and sleep are mere phases of the mind, not of the Self. The Self is the witness of these three states. Your true nature exists in sleep.
D.: But we are advised not to fall asleep during meditation.
B.: It is stupor that you must guard against. That sleep which alternates with waking is not the true sleep. That waking which alternates with sleep is not the true waking. Are you awake now? No. What you have to do is to wake up to your true state. You should neither fall into false sleep nor remain falsely awake.30
‘Though present even in sleep, the Self is not then perceived. It cannot be known in sleep straightaway. It must first be realized in the waking state for it is our true nature underlying all the three states. Effort must be made in the waking state and the Self realized here and now. It will then be understood to be the continuous Self uninterrupted by the alternation of waking, dream and deep sleep.’31
In fact, one name for the true state of realized being is the Fourth State, existing eternally behind the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. It is compared with the state of deep sleep, since, like this, it is formless and non-dual; however, as the above quotation shows, it is far from being the same. In the Fourth State the ego merges in Consciousness, as in sleep it does in unconsciousness.
In nothing did Bhagavan show more clearly that theory has to be adapted to the understanding of the seeker than in the question of death and re-birth. For those who were capable of grasping pure, nondual theory, he explained merely that the question does not arise, for if the ego has no real existence now, it has none after death either.
D.: Do a person's actions in this life affect him in future births?
B.: Are you born now? Why do you think of future births? The truth is that there is neither birth nor death. Let him who is born think of death and palliatives for it.32
D.: Is the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation right?
B.: No definite answer is possible. Even the present incarnation is denied, for instance in the Bhagavad Gita.
D.: Isn't our personality beginningless?
B.: Find out first whether it exists at all and after you have solved that problem, ask the question. Nammalwar says: ‘In ignorance, I took the ego to be the Self, but with right knowledge the ego is not and only you remain as the Self.’ Both the nondualists and the dualists agree on the necessity for Self-realization. Attain that first and then raise other questions. Non-dualism or dualism cannot be decided on theoretical grounds alone. If the Self is realized the question will not arise.33
‘Whatever is born must die; whatever is acquired must be lost; but were you born? You are eternally existent. The Self can never be lost.’34
Bhagavan, indeed, discouraged pre-occupation with such questions since they merely distract one from the real task of realizing the Self here and now.
D.: They say that we have the choice of enjoying merit or demerit after our death, that it depends on our choice which comes. Is that so?
B.: Why raise questions of what happens after death? Why ask whether you were born, whether you are reaping the fruits of your past karma, and so on? You will not raise such questions in a little while when you fall asleep. Why? Are you a different person now from the one you are when asleep? No, you are not. Find out why such questions do not occur to you when you are asleep.35
On occasion, however, Bhagavan did admit of a lower, contingent point of view for those who could not hold to the doctrine of pure non-dualism.
‘In the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna first says to Arjuna in Chapter II, that no one was born and then in Chapter IV, “there have been numerous incarnations both of you and me. I know them but you do not.” Which of these two statements is true? The teaching varies according to the understanding of the listener.36
‘When Arjuna said that he would not fight against his relatives and elders in order to kill them and gain the kingdom, Sri Krishna said: “Not that these, you or I, were not before, are not now, nor will be hereafter. None was born, none has died, nor will it be so hereafter.” He further developed this theme, saying that he had given instructions to the Sun and through him to Ikshvaku; and Arjuna queried how that could be, since he had been born only a few years back, while they lived ages ago. Then Sri Krishna saw his point of view and said: “Yes, there have been many incarnations of me and you. I know them all but you do not.”
‘Such statements appear contradictory, but they are true according to the viewpoint of the questioner. Christ also said that he was before Abraham.’37
So, from a contingent level, Bhagavan could admit:
‘Just as in dreams, you wake up after several new experiences so after death another body is found.38
‘Just as rivers lose their individuality when they discharge their waters into the ocean, and yet the waters evaporate and return as rain on the hills and back again through the rivers to the ocean, so also individuals lose their individuality when they go to sleep but return again according to their previous innate tendencies. Similarly, in death also, being is not lost.’
D.: How can that be?
B.: See how a tree grows again when its branches are cut off. So long as the life source is not destroyed, it will grow. Similarly, latent potentialities withdraw into the heart at death but do not perish. That is how beings are re-born.39
Nevertheless, from the higher viewpoint he would say:
‘In truth there is neither seed nor tree, there is only Being.’40
He would occasionally explain in more detail, but still with the reservation that in reality there is only the changeless Self.
D.: How long is the interval between death and re-birth?
B.: It may be long or short, but a Realized Man undergoes no such change; he merges into the Infinite Being, as is said in the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad. Some say that those who, after death, take the path of light are not re-born; whereas those who take the path of darkness are born after they have reaped their karma (self-made destiny) in their subtle bodies.
‘If a man's merits and demerits are equal, he is re-born immediately on earth; if the merits outweigh the demerits, his subtle body goes first to heaven, while if the demerits outweigh the merits, he goes first to hell. But in either case he is later re-born on earth. All this is described in the scriptures, but in fact there is neither birth nor death; one simply remains what one really is. That only is the truth.’41
Again, he would explain in terms of God's mercy:
B.: God in His mercy withholds this knowledge from people. If they knew that they had been virtuous they would grow proud, and in the other case they would be despondent. Both are bad. It is enough to know the Self.42
He did, however, refer sometimes to a person's preparedness or maturity as being due to the achievements of a previous incarnation.
‘A competent person who has already, perhaps in a previous incarnation, qualified himself realizes the truth and abides in peace as soon as he hears it told him just once, whereas one who is not so qualified has to pass through the various stages before attaining samadhi (direct, pure consciousness of being).’43
That is to say that a lifetime may be regarded as a day's journey upon the pilgrimage to Self-realization. How far from the goal one starts depends on the effort or lack of effort made on the previous days; how far forward one advances depends on the effort of today.
A science lecturer from a university asked whether the intellect survives a man's death and was told:‘Why think of death? Consider what happens in your sleep. What is your experience of that?’
D.: But sleep is transient, whereas death is not.
B.: Sleep is intermediate between two waking states, and in the same way death is intermediate between two births. Both are transient.
D.: I mean when the spirit is disembodied, does it carry the intellect with it?
B.: The spirit is not disembodied; the bodies differ. If not a gross body it will be a subtle one, as in sleep, dream or daydream.44
Bhagavan would never admit that differences in mode of expression or formulation of doctrine between the various religions signified real contradiction, since the Truth to which they point is One and Immutable.
D.: Is the Buddhist view that there is no continuous entity answering to the idea of the individual soul right or not? Is this consistent with the Hindu doctrine of a reincarnating ego? Is the soul a continuous entity which reincarnates again and again, according to the Hindu doctrine, or is it a mere conglomeration of mental tendencies?
B.: The real Selfis continuous and unaffected. The reincarnating ego belongs to a lower plane, that of thought. It is transcended by Self-realization.
‘Reincarnations are due to a spurious offshoot of Being and are therefore denied by the Buddhists. The human state is due to a mingling of the sentient with the insentient.’45
Sometimes it was not a question of reincarnation but grieving over the death of a loved one. A lady who had come from North India asked Bhagavan whether it was possible to know the posthumous state of an individual.
B.: It is possible, but why try? Such facts are only as real as the person who seeks them.
L.: The birth of a person and his life and death are real to us.
B.: Because you wrongly identify yourself with the body, you think of the other also as a body. Neither you nor he is the body.
L.: But from my own level of understanding, I regard myself and my son as real.
B.: The birth of the ‘I’ thought is a person's birth and its death is his death. After the ‘I’ thought has arisen, the wrong identification with the body arises. Identifying yourself with the body makes you falsely identify others also with their bodies. Just as your body was born and grows and will die, so you think the other also was born, grew and died. Did you think of your son before he was born? The thought came after his birth and continues even after his death. He is your son only insofar as you think of him. Where has he gone? To the source from which he sprang. So long as you continue to exist, he does too. But if you cease to identify yourself with the body and realize the true Self, this confusion will vanish. You are eternal and others also will be found to be eternal. Until this is realized there will always be grief due to false values which are caused by wrong knowledge and wrong identification.46
‘On the death of King George V, two devotees were discussing the matter in the hall and seemed upset. Bhagavan said: “What is it to you who dies or is lost? Die yourself and be lost, becoming one with the Self of all (on the ego's extinction).”’47
And finally, about the importance of death. Religions stress the importance of the frame of mind in which a person dies and his last thoughts at death. But Bhagavan reminded people that it is necessary to be well prepared beforehand; if not, undesirable tendencies will rise up at death, too powerful to be controlled.
D.: Even if I cannot realize in my lifetime, let me at least not forget on my death-bed. Let me have a glimpse of Reality at least at the moment of death, so that it may stand me in good stead in the future.
B.: It is said in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter VIII, that whatever is a person's last thought at death determines his next birth. But it is necessary to experience Reality now, in this life, in order to experience it at death. Consider whether this present moment is any different from the last one of death and try to be in the desired state.48
This seems a suitable place to set forth the Maharshi's teaching about heart and head. He taught that the heart, not the head, is the true seat of Consciousness; but by this he did not mean the physical organ at the left side of the chest but the ‘spiritual heart’ at the right, and by ‘consciousness’ he did not mean thought but pure awareness or sense of being. He had found this from his own experience to be the centre of spiritual awareness and then found his experience confirmed in some ancient texts. When his devotees were instructed to concentrate on the heart, it was this spiritual heart upon the right that was referred to; and they also would find it the centre of an actual, almost physical vibration of awareness. However, he would also speak of the Heart as equivalent to the Self and remind them that in truth it is not in the body at all but spaceless.
D.: Why do you say that the heart is on the right when biologists have found it to be on the left? What authority have you?
B.: No one denies that the physical organ is on the left; but the heart of which I speak is on the right. That is my experience and I require no authority for it; still, you can find confirmation of it in a Malayali book on Ayurveda and in the Sita Upanishad.49
Saying this, Bhagavan showed the quotation from the latter and quoted the text from the former. Sometimes, when asked, he referred also to the Biblical text from Ecclesiastes: ‘The wise man's heart is at the right hand and a fool's heart is at the left.’
D.: Why do we have a place such as the heart to concentrate on for meditation?
B.: Because you seek true Consciousness. Where can you find it? Can you attain it outside yourself? You have to find it internally. Therefore you are directed inward. The Heart is the seat of Consciousness or Consciousness itself.50
‘I ask you to observe where the “I” arises in your body, but it is not really quite correct to say that the “I” arises from and merges in the chest at the right side. The Heart is another name for the Reality and this is neither inside nor outside the body. There can be no in or out for it, since it alone is. I do not mean by “heart” any physiological organ or any plexus or nerves or anything like that; but so long as a man identifies himself with the body or thinks he is in the body, he is advised to see where in the body the “I” thought arises and merges again. It must be the heart at the right side of the chest since every man of whatever race and religion and in whatever language he may be speaking, points to the right side of the chest to indicate himself when he says “I”. This is so all over the world, so that must be the place. And by keenly watching the emergence of the “I” thought on waking and its subsidence on going to sleep, one can see that it is in the heart on the right side.51
‘When a room is dark you need a lamp to light it, but when the sun rises there is no need for a lamp; objects are seen without one. And to see the sun itself no lamp is needed because it is self-luminous. Similarly with the mind. The reflected light of the mind is necessary to perceive objects, but to see the heart it is enough for the mind to be turned towards it. Then the mind loses itself and the Heart shines forth.’52
It is a yogic practice to concentrate on one of the chakras or spiritual centres of the body, very often on the point between the eyebrows. As will be shown in a later chapter, the heart on the right side is not one of these chakras; nevertheless, in the following passage, Bhagavan explains concisely his teaching that concentration on the heart-centre is more effective than on any other point but less effective than pure enquiry.
D.: There are said to be six (subtle) organs of different colours in the chest, of which the spiritual heart is said to be the one situated two fingers' breadth to the right from the centre. But the heart is also said to be formless. Does that mean that we should imagine it to have a form and meditate on this?
B.: No; only the quest ‘Who am I?’ is necessary. That which continues to exist throughout sleep and waking is the same being in both; but while waking there is unhappiness and therefore the effort to remove it. When asked who awakes from sleep, you say ‘I’. Hold fast to this ‘I’. If that is done the Eternal Being reveals itself. The most important thing is the investigation of the ‘I’ and not concentration on the heart-centre. There is no such thing as the ‘inner’ and the ‘outer’. Both words mean the same or nothing at all. Nevertheless, there is also the practice of concentration on the heart-centre, which is a form of spiritual exercise. Only he who concentrates on the heart can remain aware when the mind ceases to be active and remains still, with no thoughts, whereas those who concentrate on any other centre cannot retain awareness without thought but only infer that the mind was still after it has become active again.53
In the following passage an English lady remarks on this awareness without thought and Bhagavan approves.
D.: Thoughts suddenly cease and ‘I-I’ rises up equally suddenly and continues. It is only a feeling, not a thought. Can it be right?
B.: Yes, it is quite right. Thoughts have to cease and reason to disappear for the ‘I-I’ to rise up and be felt. Feeling is the main thing, not reason.
D.: Moreover, it is not in the head, but at the right side of the chest.
B. That is where it should be, because the heart is there.
D.: When I look outwards it disappears. What should I do?
B.: Hold fast to it.54
This does not mean that thought is impossible during the state of ‘I’ consciousness, as indeed one can see from the example of Bhagavan himself, who was permanently in that state. For the ignorant person, thought is like a dense cloud overhead, shutting him off from the illumination of the sun. When the ceiling of cloud has been broken and rolled back, letting in the light, he can use thought without being imprisoned by it. To change the metaphor, Bhagavan sometimes compared the mind of the Realized Man to the moon in the sky in day-time—it is there but its light is not needed—because one can see without it by the direct light of the sun.
One of the problems about which Bhagavan was often asked was suffering. The questions were usually personal rather than academic, since it was often the experience of grief that drove people to seek solace from him. The real solace came as a silent influence, but he did also answer theoretical questions. The usual answer was to bid the questioner find out who it is that suffers, just as he would bid the doubter find who it is that doubts; for the Self is beyond suffering as it is beyond doubt. Sometimes, however, on a more contingent level, he would point out that whatever makes a person dissatisfied with his state of ignorance and turns him to the quest of the Self is beneficial and suffering is often the means of doing this.
B.: The Bliss of Self is always yours and you will find it if you seek it earnestly. The cause of your misery is not in your outer life; it is in you, as your ego. You impose limitations on yourself and then make a vain struggle to transcend them. All unhappiness is due to the ego. With it comes all your trouble. What does it avail you to attribute the cause of misery to the happenings of life when that cause is really within you? What happiness can you get from things extraneous to yourself? When you get it, how long will it last?
‘If you would deny the ego and scorch it by ignoring it, you would be free. If you accept it, it will impose limitations on you and throw you into a vain struggle to transcend them. That was how the “thief” sought to ruin King Janaka.
‘To be the Self that you really are is the only means to realize the Bliss that is ever yours.’55
‘A very devoted and simple devotee had lost his only son, a child of three. The next day he arrived at the Asramam with his family. Referring to them, Bhagavan said: “Training of mind helps one to bear sorrows and bereavements with courage; but the loss of one's children is said to be the worst of all griefs. Grief only exists as long as one considers oneself to have a definite form; if the form is transcended, one knows the One Self to be eternal. There is neither death nor birth. What is born is only the body and this is the creation of the ego. But the ego is not ordinarily perceived without the body and so is identified with it. It is thought that matters. Let the sensible man consider whether he knew his body while in deep sleep. Why, then, does he feel it in the waking state? Although the body was not felt in sleep, did not the Self exist? What was his state when in deep sleep and what is it now when awake? What is the difference? The ego rises up and that is waking. Simultaneously thoughts arise. Find out who has the thoughts. Where do they come from? They must arise from the conscious self. Apprehending this even vaguely helps towards the extinction of the ego. The realization of the One Infinite Existence becomes possible. In that state there are no individuals but only Eternal Being. Hence there is no thought of death or grieving.
‘If a man thinks that he is born he cannot escape the fear of death. Let him find out whether he was ever born or whether the Self takes birth. He will discover that the Self always exists and that the body which is born resolves itself into thought, and that the emergence of thought is the root of all mischief. Find where thought comes from, and then you will abide in the ever-present inmost Self and be free from the idea of birth and fear of death.’56
D.: If someone we love dies, it causes grief. Should we avoid such grief by either loving all alike or not loving at all?
B.: If someone we love dies, it causes grief to the one who continues living. The way to get rid of grief is not to continue living. Kill the griever, and who will then remain to grieve? The ego must die. That is the only way. The two alternatives you suggest amount to the same. When all are realized to be the one Self, who is there to love or hate?57
Sometimes, however, the questions were informal, referring not to some private tragedy but to the evil and suffering in the world. In such cases they were usually by visitors who did not understand the doctrine of non-duality or follow the path of Self-enquiry.
Visitor: Widespread distress, such as famine and pestilence, spreads havoc through the world. What is the cause of this state of affairs?
B.: To whom does all this appear?
V.: That won't do. I see misery all round.
B.: You were not conscious of the world and its sufferings while asleep, but you are now that you are awake. Continue in the state in which you are not affected by such things. When you are not aware of the world, that is to say when you remain as the Self in the state of sleep, its sufferings do not affect you. Therefore turn inwards and seek the Self and there will be an end both of the world and of its miseries.
V.: But that is selfishness.
B.: The world is not external to you. Because you wrongly identify yourself with the body, you see the world outside you and its suffering becomes apparent to you; but the world and its sufferings are not real. Seek the reality and get rid of this unreal feeling.
This the visitor was unwilling to do, but instead referred again to suffering and to those who strive vainly to remove it.
V.: There are great men and public workers who cannot solve the problem of suffering in the world.
B.: That is because they are based on the ego. If they remained in the Self it would be different.
Still presuming the absolute reality of the objective world, the visitor now asked in an indirect way how it would be different, demanding that those who abide in the Self should accept the unreal as Real.
V.: Why don't Mahatmas help?
For the moment, Bhagavan answers on the visitor's own level.
B.: How do you know that they don't? Public speeches, outer activity and material help are all outweighed by the silence of the Mahatmas. They accomplish more than others.
Now, the visitor comes to the practical point: outer activity instead of inner quest; and Bhagavan rejects that viewpoint no less categorically.
V.: What can we do to ameliorate the condition of the world?
B.: If you remain free from pain, there will be no pain anywhere. The trouble now is due to your seeing the world outside yourself and thinking there is pain in it. But both the world and the pain are within you. If you turn inwards there will be no pain.
V.: God is perfect. Why did he create the world imperfect? A work partakes of the nature of its author, but in this case it is not so.
B.: Are you something separate from God that you should ask this question? So long as you consider yourself the body, you see the world as external to you. It is to you that the imperfection appears. God is perfection and his work is also perfection but you see it as imperfect because of your wrong identification with the body or the ego.
V.: Why did the Self manifest as this miserable world?
B.: In order that you might seek it. Your eyes cannot see themselves but if you hold a mirror in front of them they see themselves. Creation is the mirror. See yourself first and then see the whole world as the Self.
V.: Then what it amounts to is that I should always turn inwards?
B.: Yes.
V.: Shouldn't I see the world at all?
B.: You are not told to shut your eyes to the world, but only to see your Self first and then see the whole world as the Self. If you consider yourself as the body, the world appears to be external; if you are the Self, the world appears as Brahman manifested.58
The trouble is that it is extremely difficult to regard the body or the objective world as unreal. Bhagavan admitted that in the following dialogue.
D.: I have a toothache; is that only a thought?
B.: Yes.
D.: Then why can't I think that there is no toothache, and so cure myself?
B.: One does not feel the toothache when one is absorbed in other thoughts or when asleep.
D.: But still it remains.
B.: So strong is man's conviction of the reality of the world that it is not easily shaken off. But the world is no more real than the individual who sees it.
Then a humorous exchange, which illustrates the difficulty of the concept.
D.: At present there is a Sino-Japanese war going on. If it is only in the imagination, can or will Sri Bhagavan imagine it not to be going on and so put an end to it?
B. (laughing): The Bhagavan of the questioner (whom the questioner sees as an external being) is as much a thought of his as the Sino-Japanese War!59
Finally, a quotation that shows how Bhagavan sometimes answered on a more contingent plane, pointing out that it is suffering that makes a man discontented with the life of the ego and spurs him on to seek Self-realization.
D.: But why should there be suffering now?
B.: If there were no suffering, how could the desire to be happy arise? If that desire did not arise, how could the quest of the Self arise?
D.: Then is all suffering good?
B.: Yes. What is happiness? Is it a healthy and handsome body, regular meals and so on? Even an emperor has endless troubles, although he may be in good health. So all suffering is due to the false notion ‘I am the body’. Getting rid of this is knowledge.60
Sin and evil of every kind are the result of egoism unrestrained by consideration for the injury caused to others or the deleterious effect on the sinner's own character. Religions guard against them by moral and disciplinary codes and emotional appeals, seeking to keep the ego within bounds and prevent its trespassing into forbidden places. However, a spiritual path that is so radical and direct as to deny the ego itself does not need to attend specifically to the various excesses of egoism. All egoism has to be renounced. Therefore non-duality turns the attack on the ego itself, not on its specific manifestations.
‘However sinful a person may be, if he would stop wailing inconsolably: “Alas, I am a sinner; how shall I attain liberation?” and, casting away even the thought that he is a sinner, if he would zealously carry on meditation on the Self, he would most assuredly get reformed.’61
Similarly, a discipline that aims at transcending thought completely, in realization of the super-rational Self, does not need to inveigh specifically against evil thoughts. All thoughts are distractions. A European lady asked whether good thoughts were not helpful in seeking Realization, at any rate in the early stages, like the lower rungs of the ladder, and was told:
‘Yes, insofar as they keep off bad thoughts; but they themselves must disappear before the state of Realization.62
‘Because the quality of purity (sattva) is the real nature of the mind, clearness like that of the unclouded sky is the characteristic of the mind-expanse. Being stirred up by the quality of activity (rajas) the mind becomes restless and, influenced by darkness (tamas), manifests as the physical world. The mind thus becoming restless on the one hand and appearing as solid matter on the other, the Real is not discerned. Just as fine silk threads cannot be woven with the use of a heavy iron shuttle, or the delicate shades of a work of art be distinguished in the light of a lamp flickering in the wind, so is Realization of Truth impossible with the mind rendered gross by darkness (tamas) and restless by activity (rajas). Because truth is exceedingly subtle and serene, Mind will be cleared of its impurities only by a desireless performance of duties during several births, getting a worthy Master, learning from him and incessantly practising meditation on the Supreme. The transformation of the mind into the world of inert matter due to the quality of darkness (tamas) and its restlessness due to the quality of activity (rajas) will cease. Then the mind regains its subtlety and composure. The Bliss of the Self can manifest only in a mind rendered subtle and steady by assiduous meditation. He who experiences that Bliss is liberated even while still alive.’63
He did, of course, insist on the need for purity. Sometimes a visitor would complain that he was too weak to resist his lower tendencies and would simply be told to try harder. According to his temperament he might be told to find who it is that has the lower tendencies, or to trust in God.
D.: I am a sinner and do not perform any religious duties. Shall I have a painful re-birth because of that?
B.: Why do you say you are a sinner? Faith in God is enough to save you from re-birth. Cast all your burden on Him. In the Tiruvachakam it is said: ‘Though I am worse than a dog, You have graciously undertaken to protect me. The delusion of death and birth is maintained by You. Is it for me to sit and judge? Am I the Lord here? Almighty God, it is for You to roll me through many bodies, or keep me fixed at Your feet.’ Therefore have faith and that will save you.64
D.: There is more pleasure in meditation than in sensual enjoyment and yet the mind seeks the latter and not the former. Why is that?
B.: Pleasure and pain are only aspects of the mind. Our essential nature is happiness, but we have forgotten the Self and imagine that the body or the mind is the Self. It is this wrong identification that gives rise to misery. What is to be done? This tendency is very deep-rooted and has continued for many past births and so has grown strong. It will have to go before the essential nature, which is happiness, can be realized.65
And above all, not to create new vasanas or latent tendencies.
D.: Swami, how can the grip of the ego be loosened?
B.: By not adding new vasanas to it.66
If the objective reality of the world be an illusion, then the evil in it is also an illusion and the remedy is to turn inwards to the Reality of the Self. An American visitor, the secretary of Swami Yogananda, asked why there are good and evil in the world and was told:
‘They are relative terms. There must be a subject to know the good and evil. That subject is the ego. It ends in the Self. Or, you can say that the source of the ego is God. This definition is probably more definite and understandable for you.’67
Superficially, it might seem that the Maharshi's statements about God were inconsistent, since he would sometimes enjoin complete faith and submission to God and sometimes speak of God as unreal; but actually there was no inconsistency. It must always be remembered that the purpose of his exposition was not to propound a philosophy but to give practical guidance on the spiritual path. Someone who could conceive of the non-dual Self could understand that it was his own Self and the Self of God and of the world also, whereas one who clung to the apparent reality of his ego could understand the Self only as the God who had created him. According to their needs he explained. In this, as in other matters, he pointed out the uselessness of discussion. Following either path was useful; theorizing about them was not.
‘All religions postulate the three fundamentals, the world, the soul and God; but it is the One Reality that manifests itself as these three. One can say: “The three are really three” only so long as the ego lasts. Therefore to inhere in one's own Being, when the ego is dead, is the perfect state.
‘The world is real.’ ‘No, it is mere illusory appearance.’ ‘The world is conscious.’ ‘No.’ ‘The world is happiness.’ ‘No.’ What use is it to argue thus? That state is agreeable to all wherein, having given up the objective outlook, one knows one's Self and loses all notions either of unity or duality, of oneself and the ego.
‘If one has form oneself, the world and God will also appear to have form; but if one is formless, who is to see these forms, and how? Without the eye can any object be seen? The seeing Self is the Eye, and that Eye is the Eye of Infinity.’68
‘Brahman is not to be seen or known. It is beyond the threefold relationship of seer, sight and seen, or knower, knowledge and known. The Reality remains ever as it is. The existence of ignorance or the world is due to our illusion. Neither knowledge nor ignorance is real; what lies beyond them, as beyond all other pairs of opposites, is the Reality. It is neither light nor darkness but beyond both, though we sometimes speak of it as light and of ignorance as its shadow.’69
When there was genuine search for understanding, Bhagavan would explain in some detail, always leading the seeker back to the doctrine of the One Self.
‘Mr. Thompson, a very quiet young gentleman who has been staying in India for some years and studying Hindu philosophy as an earnest student, asked: Srimad Bhagavad Gita says: “I am the prop for Brahman.” In another place it says: “I am in the heart of each one.” Thus the different aspects of the Ultimate Principle are revealed. I take it that there are three aspects, namely: (1) the transcendental, (2) the immanent, and (3) the cosmic. Is Realization to be in any of these or in all of them? Coming to the transcendental from the cosmic, Vedanta discards the names and forms as being Maya. Again Vedanta also says that the whole is Brahman, as illustrated by gold and ornaments of gold. How are we to understand the truth.’
B.: The Gita says: Brahmano hi pratishtaham. If that aham is known, the whole is known.
D.: That is the immanent aspect only.
B.: You now think that you are an individual; outside you there is the universe and beyond the universe is God. So, there is the idea of separateness. This idea must go. For God is not separate from you or the cosmos. The Gita also says: ‘ I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the heart of all beings: I am the beginning and the middle and also the end of all beings.’70 Thus God is not only in the heart of all, He is the prop of all, He is the source of all, their abiding place and their end. All proceed from Him, have their stay in Him, and finally resolve into Him. Therefore He is not separate.
D.: How are we to understand the line in the Gita: ‘This whole cosmos forms a particle of me’?
B.: It does not mean that a small particle of God separates Him and forms the universe. His shakti is acting; and as a result of one phase of such activity the cosmos has become manifest. Similarly the statement in Purusha Sukta: Padosya viswa bhutani (All beings form one of His feet) does not mean that Brahman is in four parts.
D.: I understand that. Brahman is certainly not divisible.
B.: So the fact is that Brahman is all and remains indivisible. He is ever realized. However, man does not know this; and it is just what he has to know. Knowledge means overcoming the obstacles which obstruct the revelation of the Eternal Truth that Self is the same as Brahman. The obstacles taken altogether form your idea of separateness as an individual. Therefore the present attempt will result in the truth being revealed that the Self is not separate from Brahman.71
Christians, except for the greatest mystics, cling to the idea of a permanently real and separate ego. Sri Bhagavan had a discussion on this point with a Jesuit Father, but it remained inconclusive, Bhagavan trying to turn the father's mind inwards to Self-enquiry and the father demanding a theoretical exposition instead.
‘Dr. Emile Gathier, s.j., Professor of Philosophy at the Sacred Heart College, Shembaganur, Kodaikanal, asked: “Can you kindly give me a summary of your teachings?”’
B.: They are found in the booklets, particularly in ‘Who am I?’
F.: I shall read them. But may I have the central point of your teachings from your own lips?
B.: The central point is just the thing.
F.: It is not clear to me what you mean by that.
B.: That you should find the centre.
F.: I come from God. Isn't God distinct from me?
B.: Who asks this question? God does not. You do. So find who you are and then you may find out whether God is distinct from you.
F.: But God is perfect and I am imperfect. How can I ever know Him fully?
B.: God does not say so. It is you who ask the question. After finding out who you are, you may know what God is.
F.: But you have found your Self. Please let us know if God is distinct from you.
B.: It is a matter of experience. Each one must experience it for himself.
F.: Oh! I see. God is infinite and I am finite. I have a personality, which can never merge into God. Isn't that so?
B.: Infinity and perfection do not admit of parts. If a finite being is apart from Infinity, the perfection of Infinity is marred. Thus your statement is a contradiction in terms.
F.: No, see, there is both God and creation.
B.: How are you aware of your personality?
F.: I have a soul. I know it by its activities.
B.: Did you know it in deep sleep?
F.: The activities are suspended in deep sleep.
B.: But you exist in sleep, and you do now too. Which of these two is your real state?
F.: Sleep and waking are mere accidents. I am the substance behind the accidents.
(He looked up at the clock and said that it was time for him to catch the train. He left after thanking Sri Bhagavan. So the conversation ended abruptly.)72
The following talk takes up various problems that plague philosophers and theologians—Divine Omniscience and free will; natural laws and divine activity; personal God and impersonal; and yet the tone of the answer shows that Bhagavan considers it of rather secondary importance.
D.: What is the relation between my free will and the overshadowing might of the Omnipotent? (a) Is the Omnipotence of God consistent with the ego's free will? (b) Is the Omniscience of God consistent with the ego's free will? (c) Are natural laws consistent with God's free will?
B.: Yes. Free will is the present appearing to a limited faculty of sight and will. That same ego sees its past activity as falling into a course of ‘law’ or rules—its own free will being one of the links in the course of law. The Omnipotence and Omniscience of God are then seen by the ego to have acted through the appearance of his own free will. So he comes to the conclusion that the ego must go by appearances. Natural laws are manifestations of God's will and they have been laid down.73
The following dialogue is characteristic as showing refusal to discuss theory and insistence on the need for practice.
D.: Is God personal?
B.: Yes, He is always the first person, the I, ever standing before you. Because you give precedence to worldly things, God appears to have receded to the background. If you give up all else and seek Him alone, He will remain as the I, the Self.
D.: The final state of Realization is said, according to Advaita, to be absolute union with the Divine, and according to Visishtadvaita a qualified union, while Dvaita maintains that there is no union at all. Which of these should be considered the correct view?
B.: Why speculate about what will happen some time in the future? All are agreed that the ‘I’ exists. To whichever school of thought he may belong, let the earnest seeker first find out what the ‘I’ is. Then it will be time enough to know what the final state will be, whether the ‘I’ will get merged in the Supreme Being or stand apart from Him. Let us not forestall the conclusion, but keep an open mind.
D.: But will not some understanding of the final state be a helpful guide even to the aspirant?
B.: No purpose is served by trying to decide now what the final state of Realization will be. It has no intrinsic value.
D.: Why not?
B.: Because you proceed on a wrong principle. Your conclusion is arrived at by the intellect, which shines only by the light it derives from the Self. Is it not presumptuous on the part of the intellect to sit in judgement over that from which it derives its little light? How can the intellect, which can never reach the Self, be competent to ascertain and much less decide the nature of the final state of Realization? It is like trying to measure the sunlight at its source by the standard of the light given by a candle. The wax will melt down before the candle comes anywhere near the sun. Instead of indulging in mere speculation, devote yourself here and now to the search for the Truth that is ever within you.74
Sometimes questions were also asked about the multiple gods of Hinduism. In this connection it should be explained that Hindus, like Christians or Muslims, worship the One God. Some of the questions about God recorded above were put by Hindus. However, they also worship God manifested in various forms, one possibility or name or form or viewpoint not negating another.
D.: Why are so many gods mentioned?
B.: The body is only one, but how many functions are performed by it! The source of all these functions is one. It is the same with the gods.75
It would sometimes be asked whether the various gods and their heavens were real. But such a question starts from the presumption of the reality of this physical world and the questioner's body—a presumption that Bhagavan would not admit. Instead, he would turn this question like all others, to the quest for Reality.
D.: Are the Gods, Ishvara and Vishnu, and their heavens, Kailas and Vaikuntha, real?
B.: As real as you are in this body.
D.: I mean have they got a phenomenal existence like my body, or are they pure fictions like the horns of a hare?
B.: They do exist.
D.: If so they must be somewhere; where are they?
B.: In you.
D.: Then they are only my idea; something that I create and control?
B.: Everything is.
D.: But I can create a pure fiction, like the horns of a hare, or a partial truth, like a mirage; while there are also facts that exist irrespective of my imagination. Do the gods, Ishvara and Vishnu, exist like that?
B.: Yes.
D.: Is God subject to cosmic dissolution at the end of a cycle?
B.: Why should He be? A man who realizes the Self transcends cosmic dissolution and is liberated; why should not Ishvara (God) who is infinitely wiser and abler than a man?
D.: Do gods and devils also exist?
B.: Yes.
D.: How are we to conceive of Supreme Divine Consciousness?
B.: As that which is.76
Particularly interesting are the questions asked by a Muslim professor about the hymns which Bhagavan wrote to God in the form of Arunachala.
D.: I have been reading the Five Hymns. I find that the hymns are addressed by you to Arunachala. But you are a non-dualist, so how can you address God as a separate Being?
B.: The devotee, God and the hymns are all the Self.
D.: But you are addressing God. You are specifying this Arunachala Hill as God.
B.: You can identify the Self with the body, so why shouldn't the devotee identify the Self with Arunachala?
D.: If Arunachala is the Self, why should it be specifically picked out among so many other hills? God is everywhere. Why do you specify Him as Arunachala?
B.: What has attracted you from Allahabad to this place? What has attracted all these people around?
D.: Sri Bhagavan.
B.: How was I attracted here? By Arunachala. The Power cannot be denied. Again, Arunachala is within and not without. The Self is Arunachala.
D.: Several terms are used in the holy books, Atman, Paramatman, Para, etc. What is the gradation among them?
B.: They mean the same to the user of the words, but they are understood differently by various persons according to their development.
D.: But why do you use so many words to mean the same thing?
B.: It depends on the circumstances. They all mean the Self. Para means not relative, or beyond the relative, that is to say the Absolute.77
Bhagavan would often make remarks, which the superficial critic might take to be agnostic or theistic, just as has been done by superficial critics of the Buddha. For instance he might say:
‘Why worry about God? We do not know whether God exists but we know that we exist, so first concentrate on yourself. Find out who you are.’
There was no agnosticism, since Bhagavan, like the Buddha, spoke from perfect knowledge. He was simply placing himself in the position of the questioner and advising him to concentrate rather on what he knew than what he merely believed in. Sometimes he would tell people not to trouble whether there is God or not or whether Realization implies unity with God or not but simply strive to realize the Self, and when that was achieved they would know. Theorizing about it would not help them.
‘The Malayalam version of Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses) was read out by a devotee for the benefit of a visitor. After hearing it, the latter asked: “What about the reference to duality during one's effort and unity at the end?”’
B.: It refers to people who think one must begin one's spiritual striving with a dualistic idea. They say that there is God and that one must worship and meditate until ultimately the individual merges into God. Others say that the individual and the Supreme Being always remain separate and never merge. But let's not worry now about what happens at the end. All agree that the individual exists now. So let a man discover it—that is discover his Self. There will be time enough afterwards to find out whether the Self is to merge in the Supreme or is a part of it or remains separate. Let us not forestall the conclusion. Keep an open mind, dive within and find the Self. The truth will dawn upon you all right, so why try to decide beforehand whether it is absolute or qualified unity or duality? There is no meaning in doing so. Your decision would have to be made by logic and intellect, but the intellect derives its light from the Self (the Highest Power), so how can its reflected and partial light envisage the entire and original light? The intellect cannot attain to the Self, so how can it ascertain its nature?78
While explaining to an American lady, Bhagavan said:
‘The Self alone is Real. All else is unreal. The mind and intellect have no existence apart from you. The Bible says: “Be still and know that I am God.” Stillness is the only thing needed to realize that I am is GOD.’
Later he added:
‘The whole Vedanta is contained in the two Biblical statements “I am that I am” and “Be still and know that I am God”.’79
For one who found Self-enquiry too difficult, he would recommend worship and submission.
D.: What should one think of when meditating?
B.: What is meditation? It is the suspension of thoughts. You are perturbed by thoughts which rush one after another. Hold on to one thought so that others are expelled. Continuous practice gives the necessary strength of mind to engage in meditation. Meditation differs according to the degree of advancement of the seeker. If one is fit for it, one can hold directly to the thinker; and the thinker will automatically sink into his source, which is Pure Consciousness. If one cannot directly hold on to the thinker, one must meditate on God; and in due course the same individual will have become sufficiently pure to hold to the thinker and sink into the absolute Being.80
In case the path of worship was chosen, he demanded absolute surrender.
D.: God is described as manifest and unmanifest. As the former, He is said to include the world as a part of His Being. If that is so, we, as part of the world, should find it easy to know Him in His manifested form.
B.: Know yourself before you seek to know the nature of God and the world.
D.: Does knowing myself imply knowing God?
B.: Yes, God is within you.
D.: Then, what stands in the way of my knowing myself or God?
B.: Your wandering mind and perverted ways.
D.: I am a weak creature. But why does not the superior power of the Lord within remove the obstacles?
B.: Yes, He will, if you have the aspiration.
D.: Why should He not create the aspiration in me?
B.: Then surrender yourself.
D.: If I surrender myself, is no prayer to God necessary?
B.: Surrender itself is a mighty prayer.
D.: But is it not necessary to understand His nature before one surrenders oneself?
B.: If you believe that God will do all the things that you want Him to do, then surrender yourself to Him. Otherwise let God alone, and know yourself.81
If there be true surrender, there can be no complaint or frustration.
D.: We are worldly people and are afflicted by some grief that we cannot get over. We pray to God and are still not satisfied. What should we do?
B.: Trust God.
D.: We surrender but still there is no help.
B.: But if you have surrendered, it means that you must accept the will of God and not make a grievance of what may not happen to please you. Things may turn out differently from what they appear. Distress often leads people to faith in God.
D.: But we are worldly people. We have wife, children, friends and relations. We cannot ignore them and resign ourselves to the Divine Will without retaining some trace of individuality.
B.: That means that you have not really surrendered, as you say you have. All you need to do is to trust God.82
Following the path of devotion, one should leave everything to God.
‘The Lord bears the burden of the world. Know that the spurious ego which presumes to bear that burden is like a sculptured figure at the foot of a temple tower which appears to sustain the tower's weight. Whose fault is it if the traveller instead of putting his luggage in the cart which bears the load any way, carries it on his head, to his own inconvenience?’83
There cannot even be impatience for speedy realization. To one who was so afflicted, he replied:
‘Surrender to Him and accept His will whether He appears or vanishes. Await His pleasure. If you want him to do as you want, it is not surrender but command. You cannot ask Him to obey you and yet think you have surrendered. He knows what is best and when and how to do it. Leave everything entirely to Him. The burden is His and you have no more cares. All your cares are His. That is what is meant by surrender.’84
Even prayer can betoken a lack of trust and Bhagavan did not normally encourage prayer in the sense of petition.
‘They pray to God and finish with: “Thy will be done.” If His will be done, why do they pray at all? It is true that the Divine will prevails at all times and under all circumstances. Individuals cannot act of their own accord. Recognize the force of the Divine will and keep quiet. Everyone is looked after by God. He created all. You are only one among two thousand millions. When He looks after so many, will He omit you? Even common sense dictates that one should accept His will.
‘There is no need to tell Him your requirements. He knows them Himself and will look after them.’85
On other occasions, however, he would confirm the efficacy of prayer. As in other matters, he would put the viewpoint that would best help the spiritual development of the particular questioner.
B.: Yes, they are granted. No thought will ever go in vain. Every thought will produce its effect some time or other. Thought force will never go in vain.86
It will be seen that this hints at a doctrine far wider than personal response by an anthropomorphic God. It indicates the general power of thought for good or evil and its repercussions on the thinker. Understanding of this involves a great responsibility for thoughts no less than for actions, just as Christ indicated that to look at a woman lustfully was a sin, the same as committing adultery with her. The following passage shows how far this teaching was from any humanized conception of a God.
‘Not from any desire, resolve or effort on the part of the rising sun, but merely due to the presence of his rays, the lens emits heat, the lotus blossoms, water evaporates and people attend to their various duties in life. In the proximity of the magnet the needle moves. Similarly, the soul or jiva subjected to the threefold activity of creation, preservation and destruction, which takes place merely due to the unique Presence of the Supreme Lord, performs acts in accordance with its karma, and subsides to rest after such activity. But the Lord Himself has no resolve; no act or event touches even the fringe of His Being. This state of immaculate aloofness can be likened to that of the sun, which is untouched by the activities of life, or to that of the all-pervasive ether, which is not affected by the interaction of the complex qualities of the other four elements.’87
It should be clear from what was said in the previous section that Bhagavan's teaching was not opposed to any religion. If philosophers or theologians wished to argue whether the human soul was permanently and essentially separate from the Divine Being, he would refuse to join issue with them but try to turn them to spiritual effort instead, as, for instance, in his talk with a Catholic priest on pages 37–38. When they attained Realization they would know, and theoretical knowledge without Realization would not help them anyway.
Strictly speaking, Bhagavan was not exclusively a Hindu or subject to Hindu ritual, since Hinduism recognizes that one who is established in constant, conscious identity with the Self is above all religions; he is the mountain peak towards which the various paths converge. Bhagavan had many followers who were not Hindus—Christians, Muslims, Parsis and others—and none was ever recommended to change his religion.
A religion involves two modes of activity; what might be called the horizontal and the vertical. Horizontally it harmonizes and controls the life of the individual and society in conformity with its faith and morality, giving opportunity and incentive for a good life leading to a good death. Vertically it provides spiritual paths for those who strive to attain a higher state or realize the ultimate truth during this life on earth. Horizontally, religions are mutually exclusive, but not really contradictory. Bhagavan was concerned rather with the vertical mode, the paths to realization, and therefore his teaching clashed with no religion. He guided those who would follow him on the most direct and central path, the quest of the Self; and for this any religion could serve as a foundation. He approved of every religion and if some devotees came to him who followed no formal religion, he did not insist they should do so. When asked about the different religious practices, he would stress their deeper meaning, and about different religions their basic unity.
B.: Yoga (union) is necessary for one who is in a state of viyoga (separation). But really there is only One. If you realize the Self there will be no difference.
D.: Is there any efficacy in bathing in the Ganges?
B.: The Ganges is within you. Bathe in this Ganges; it will not make you shiver with cold.
D.: Should we sometimes read the Bhagavad Gita?
B.: Always.
D.: May we read the Bible?
B.: The Bible and the Gita are the same.
D.: The Bible teaches that man is born in sin.
B.: Man is sin. There is no feeling of being man in deep sleep. The body-thought brings out the idea of sin. The birth of thought itself is sin.
D.: The Bible says that the human soul may be lost.
B.: The ‘I’ thought is the ego and that is lost. The real ‘I’ is ‘I am that I am.’88
‘The doctrine of the Trinity was explained: God the Father is equivalent to Ishwara, God the Son to the Guru, and God the Holy Ghost to the Atman. Isvaro gururatmeti murti bheda vibhagina vyomavad vyapta dehaya dakshinamurtaye namah means that God appears to His devotee in the form of a Guru (Son of God) and points out to him the immanence of the Holy Spirit. That is to say that God is Spirit, that this Spirit is immanent everywhere and that the Self must be realized, which is the same as realizing God.’89
He protested against being satisfied with formal heavens, whether Hindu or any other, because so long as there is form there remain seer, sight and seen and not the One Self.
D.: There is a short account of the spiritual experiences of St. Theresa in the March number of Prabudha Bharata. She was devoted to a figure of the Madonna, which became animated to her sight and she was in bliss. Is this the same as saktipada?
B.: The animated figure indicates the depth of meditation (dhyana bala). Saktipada prepares the mind for introversion. There is a process of concentration of the mind on one's own shadow, which in due course becomes animated and answers questions put to it. That is due to strength of mind or depth of meditation. Whatever is external is also transitory. Such phenomena may produce joy for the time being, but abiding peace (shanti) does not result. That is got only by the removal of avidya (ignorance).90
D.: Can't we see God in concrete form?
B.: Yes. God is seen in the mind. A concrete form may be seen but still it is only in the devotee's mind. The form and appearance in which God manifests are determined by the mind of the devotee. But that is not the ultimate experience. There is a sense of duality in it. It is like a dream or vision. After God is perceived Self-enquiry begins and that leads to Realization of the Self. Self-enquiry is the ultimate route.91
Sometimes his answers were cryptic and epigrammatical. The same universal truth is to be found in them; their rather prickly form may reflect the aggressive manner of the questioner.
Q.: What is the best of all religions? What is Bhagavan's method?
B.: All methods and religions are the same.
Q.: But different methods are taught for attaining liberation.
B.: Why should you be liberated? Why not remain as you are now?
Q.: I want to get rid of pain. To be rid of pain is said to be liberation.
B.: That is what all religions teach.
Q.: But what is the method?
B.: Go back the way you came.92
Q.: Where did I come from?
B.: That is just what you have to find out. Did these questions arise when you were asleep? And yet you existecf then. Were you not the same person?
Q.: Yes, I existed in sleep. So did the mind. But the senses had merged so that I could not speak.
B.: Are you the individual? Are you the mind? Did the mind announce itself to you when you were asleep?
Q.: No. But the authorities say that the individuality is different from God.
B.: Never mind about God; speak for yourself.
Q.: What about myself? Who am I?
B.: That is just what you have to find out. Then you will know everything. If you do not, it will be time enough to ask then.
Q.: When I wake I see the world and I am not changed at all.
B.: But you do not know this when asleep. And yet you exist in both states. Who has changed now? Is it your nature to change or to remain unchanging?
Q.: What is the proof?
B.: Does one require proof of one's own being? Only remain aware of yourself and all else will be known.
Q.: Why then do the dualists and non-dualists quarrel among themselves?
B.: If each would attend to his own business (of seeking Realization) there would be no quarrel.93
Spiritual experiences may be differently expressed because some form must be given to the formless in order to express them at all, but essentially they are the same.
D.: Is the experience of the highest state the same to all, or is there any difference?
B.: The highest state is the same and the experience is the same.
D.: But I find some difference in the interpretations given of the highest truth.
B.: The interpretations are made with the mind. The minds are different, so the interpretations also differ.
D.: I mean to say that the seers express themselves differently.
B.: Their modes of expression may differ according to the nature of the seekers for whose guidance they are intended.
D.: One speaks in terms of Christianity, another of Islam, a third of Buddhism, etc. Is that due to their upbringing?
B.: Whatever may be their upbringing, their experience is the same. Only the modes of expression differ according to circumstances.94
So also with different paths or schools within a religion.
D.: Different teachers have set up different schools and proclaimed different truths and so confused people. Why?
B.: They have all taught the same truth but from different standpoints. Such differences were necessary to meet the needs of different minds differently constituted, but they all reveal the same truth.
D.: Since they have recommended different paths, which is one to follow?
B.: You speak of paths as if you were somewhere and the Self somewhere else and you had to go and attain it. But in fact the Self is here and now and you are it always. It is like being here and asking people the way to Ramanasramam and then complaining that each one shows a different path and asking which to follow.95
While confirming the various religions, Bhagavan at the same time urged people to get beyond them to the One Self. Paul Brunton, author of A Search In Secret India, asked him about the various doctrines of heaven and hell.
D.: Why do religions speak of gods, heaven, hell, etc.?
B.: Only to make people realize that they are on a par with this world and that the Self alone is real. The religions are according to the viewpoint of the seeker. (Take the Bhagavad Gita for instance; when Arjuna said that he would not fight against his own relations and elders, in order to kill them and gain the kingdom, Sri Krishna said: ‘Not that these, you or I were not before, are not now, nor will be hereafter. None was born, none has died, nor will it be so hereafter,’ and so on. Later, as he developed the theme and declared that He had given the same instruction to the Sun, through him to Ikshvaku, etc., Arjuna raised the doubt: ‘How can that be? You were born a few years ago. They lived ages ago.’ Then Sri Krishna, understanding Aguna's standpoint, said: ‘Yes, there have been many incarnations of myself and yourself; I know them all, but you do not.’) Such statements appear contradictory, but still both are right according to the point of view of the questioner. Christ also declared that He was even before Abraham.
D.: What is the purpose of such descriptions in religion?
B.: Only to establish the reality of the Self.
D.: Bhagavan always speaks from the highest standpoint.
B. (smiling): People will not understand the bare and simple truth—the truth of their everyday, ever present and eternal experience. That is the truth of the Self. Is there any one not aware of the Self? Yet, they do not even like to hear of it, whereas they are eager to know what lies beyond—heaven and hell and reincarnation. Because they love mystery and not the plain truth, religions pamper them—only to bring them round to the Self in the end. Moreover, much as you may wander you must return ultimately to the Self, so why not abide in the Self here and now?96
A passage was quoted above in which the questioner was recommended to read the Gita or the Bible constantly; and yet on other occasions people were reminded that their scriptures also have to be superseded.
‘All the scriptures are meant only to make a man retrace his steps to his original source. He need not acquire anything new. He only has to give up false ideas and useless accretions. Instead of doing this, however, he tries to grasp something strange and mysterious because he believes his happiness lies elsewhere. That is the mistake.’97
‘All scriptures without exception proclaim that for attaining salvation, the mind should be subdued. And once one knows that control of the mind is their final aim, it is futile to make an interminable study of them. What is required for such control is actual enquiry into oneself by self-interrogation: “Who am I?” How can this enquiry in quest of the Self be made by means of a study of the scriptures?
‘One should realize the Self by the Eye of Wisdom. Does Rama need a mirror to recognize himself as Rama? That to which “I” refers is within the five sheaths, whereas the scriptures are outside them. Therefore, it is futile to seek by means of the study of the scriptures, the Self that has to be realized by summarily rejecting even the five sheaths.
‘To enquire Who am I that is in bondage? and to know one's real nature alone is Liberation. To keep the mind constantly turned within and to abide thus in the Self is alone Atmavichara (Self-enquiry), whereas dhyana (meditation) consists in fervent contemplation of the Self as Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss). Indeed, at some time, one will have to forget everything that has been learnt.98
‘The Realized Man stands forth as That to which all the attributes enumerated by the scriptures refer. To him, therefore these sacred texts are of no use whatever.’99