Bhagavan’s verses on birthday celebrations

Bhagavan was born at one o’clock in the morning on 30th December 1879, which was during the lunar constellation (nakṣatra) of punarvasu, which this year occurs today, 31st December 2020, so according to the Hindu custom of celebrating a person’s birthday on their birth nakṣatra, today his 141st birthday or jayantī is being celebrated by devotees all over the world.

Dīpāvali Tattva: the reality of Deepavali

In Guru Vācaka Kōvai there is a chapter called Naraka Jaya-t-Tiṟaṉ (Explaining the Conquest of Naraka), which consists of five verses, three composed by Muruganar and two composed by Bhagavan. The former are verses 181 to 183, in which Muruganar recorded what Bhagavan explained about the real import of Naraka Caturdaśi and Dīpāvali, and the latter are verses B4 and B5 (and verses 2 and 3 of Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ), in the first of which Bhagavan summarised the ideas expressed in verses 181 and 182, and in the second of which he expressed the same idea as verse 183 but in a simpler and clearer manner.

We can be self-attentive in waking and dream but not in sleep

A friend recently wrote to me:

It seems to that “Self-Attention” as taught by Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi is possible only when I am in the Waking State, and not when I am in the Sleeping State and in the Dreaming State. In that case, what do I have to do in the latter two states, according to the teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi? If I cannot do anything in those two states, will that be a problem or should I take it that as long as I am doing “Self-Attention” correctly during the Waking State, that will be enough?

The ultimate truth is ajāta, but because we seem to have risen as ego and consequently perceive a world, Bhagavan, Gaudapada and Sankara teach us primarily from the perspective of vivarta vāda

In several comments on one of my recent articles, Whatever jñāna we believe we see in anyone else is false, there was a discussion about ajāta vāda, so in this article I will reply to some ideas that a friend called Venkat expressed in the course of that discussion, and in particular I will highlight the distinction between ajāta vāda (the contention that nothing has ever arisen, appeared or come into existence) and vivarta vāda (the contention that whatever has arisen, appeared or come into existence is just an illusion or false appearance), because in some of his comments he seemed to confuse the former with the latter, of which it is actually a denial.

Is it possible to have a ‘direct but temporary experience of the self’ or to watch the disappearance of the I-thought?

Last year a friend wrote to me saying that it seems distortions and misinterpretations of Bhagavan’s teachings are inevitable, and that nowadays the internet is sadly inundated with misinformation and confused ideas about them, and concluding, ‘I suppose this is the nature of mind’, to which I replied:

Yes, the mind is māyā, so its nature is to distort and confuse, making what is simple seem complicated, what is clear seem clouded, what is plain seem obscure, what is obvious into something mysterious and what is subtle into something gross. The only way for us to overcome this natural tendency of the mind is to persistently turn within to see what we actually are, which is not this mind but just the clear light of pure and infinite self-awareness.

In a dream there is only one dreamer, and if the one dreamer wakes up the entire dream will come to an end

A friend recently wrote to me:

I understand that there is one ego, which creates the illusion of many people and a world. If one person in this illusion, i.e. you or I, becomes realized, how is that going to destroy the ego as a whole? When Ramana became realized, this didn’t stop the world appearing for me. I know Ramana when asked about others said there are no others and if all is a dream of course he is correct, but others myself including continue to dream we exist despite Ramana becoming enlightened. Is realization a gradual breaking down of the ego individual by individual?

My second question: What is Shakti? I have looked it up and it seems to say it is energy which creates and that it is part of who we naturally are. This seems contradictory to how I now see realization as being. I now see realization as a kind of nothingness, not dissimilar to deep sleep. Can you remind me is this correct? Is shakti the same as ego and the cause of illusion?

The following is adapted from the reply I wrote to her:

What is aware of everything other than ourself is only the ego and not ourself as we actually are

In a comment on one of my recent articles, Why does Bhagavan sometimes say that the ātma-jñāni is aware of the body and world?, a friend called Ken wrote, ‘Ramana states: “The ego functions as the knot between the Self which is Pure Consciousness and the physical body which is inert and insentient.” Therefore, there is nothing that can experience other than the Self. [...] since the body is insentient (cannot experience), and only the Self can experience, then any experience that occurs, can only be experienced by the Self’, but contrary to what he argues in this comment and in several other ones, what experiences everything (all forms or phenomena) is not ‘the Self’ (ourself as we actually are) but only ourself as this ego, as I will try to explain in this article.

What is the correct meaning of ajāta vāda?

In a comment on my previous article, The difference between vivarta vāda and ajāta vāda is not just semantic but substantive, a friend called Venkat questioned my understanding of the meaning of ajāta vāda, citing something that I wrote in the sixth section of that article, What is unborn (ajāta) is only pure self-awareness, and since it is the infinite whole, nothing else actually exists, namely ‘ajāta vāda is the contention that no creation has ever occurred even as an illusory appearance’, and then arguing:

Michael I think that you might be incorrect in your understanding of the advaitic meaning of ajata vada. I cannot argue with you on what Bhagavan Ramana meant by it.

Gaudapada’s famous ajata verse occurs in the second chapter of his karika. If this verse is taken in context of the verses that precede and follow it, it is clear that Gaudapada does indeed mean that there is no real creation of the world or the jiva, and that both are illusions.

30: This Atman, though non-separate from all these, appears as it were separate. One who knows this truly interprets the meaning of the Vedas without hesitation
31: As are dreams and illusions or a castle in the air seen in the sky, so is the universe viewed by the wise in the Vedanta
32: There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.
33: This (the Atman) is imagined both as unreal objects that are perceived as the non-duality. The objects are imagined in the non-duality itself. Therefore non-duality alone is the highest bliss.

Sankara’s commentary on v32 is also worth reading, though quite long. Relevant extracts:

“This verse sums up the meaning of the chapter. When duality is perceived to be illusory and Atman alone is known as the sole Reality, then it is clearly established that all our experiences, ordinary or religious, verily pertain to the domain of ignorance.”

“Thus duality being non-different from mental imagination cannot have a beginning or an end . . . Therefore it is established that duality is a mere illusion of the mind. Hence it is well-said that the Ultimate Reality is the absence of destruction, etc, on account of the non-existence of duality (which exists only in the imagination of the mind”.

My understanding is that srsti-drsti vada says first the world is created and then jivas evolve from it thereafter. Then, vivartha vada takes a step back to say that actually the jiva’s perceiving creates the world. And ajata vada then takes a further step back to point out that the jiva itself is an illusion, a superimposition on the atman.

In this article, therefore, I will try to explain more clearly why the correct meaning of ajāta vāda is the contention that no vivarta (illusion or false appearance) has ever been born or come into existence at all.

The difference between vivarta vāda and ajāta vāda is not just semantic but substantive

I wrote my previous article, As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself, in reply to various comments written by a friend called Ken, and in reply to it he wrote another comment in which he argued:

Thank you for your thorough research on these topics, they are a significant aid in understanding Ramana’s teaching.

[…]

Beyond that, it seems to me that we are getting into an area ruled by semantics.

For example, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. As such, he “is unreal and never existed”. However, his lack of existence is a semantic one. From our viewpoint, we certainly find a difference between our current world (with at least two different Sherlock Holmes series in production) and an alternative universe where Conan Doyle never invented the character Sherlock Holmes.

In a similar way, we go to sleep and have a dream. When we wake up, we realize that the events in the dream were unreal. “Nothing ever happened”. But we cannot say that our night was the same as a night where we did not dream at all.

And, if we go into the dark garage and mistake the coiled rope for a snake, we can certainly say “the snake is unreal and never existed”. However, there is a difference between going into the garage and immediately recognizing the rope, or else going into the garage and mistakenly seeing the snake. If there were no difference, then Ramana would not have advised, in Ulladu Narpadu 35:

“The subsided mind having subsided, knowing and being the Reality, which is (always) attained, is the (true) attainment (siddhi). [...] (Therefore) know and be (as) you (the Reality) are.”

If there were no difference between seeing the snake and seeing the rope, then he would have said instead:

“The mind is unreal and does not exist, so do not practice self-attention, go home, watch cricket and stop bothering me.”

So, a universe where there was never any appearance of temporary phenomena, never any maya, never any mistaken identification, never any ego... just satchitananda.... is perhaps theologically, metaphysically, and/or philosophically identical to this universe.... but it is not entirely identical, otherwise Ramana would have never answered Pillai’s question of “Who Am I?”.

The Advaita Vedanta standard of “real” and “exists” is very meaningful — it tells us what is important. But if we use it in all contexts, we end up with “Neo-Advaita”, i.e. “Nothing ever happened, the ego never existed, so go home and watch T.V., that will be $50, thanks.”

In Path of Sri Ramana, Sadhu Om is careful to apply absolute metaphysical standards to theology and philosophy, but not otherwise. For example, he stated:

“The sole cause of all miseries is the mistake of veiling ourself by imagining these sheaths to be ourself, even though we are ever this existence-consciousness-bliss (sat-chit-ananda).”

This is similar to my statement quoted from 9 September 2016:

“Because there is nothing other than the Self, so there is nothing that can force the Self to do anything. The Self is alone, so it decides to “veil” itself and limit itself as a multitude of ‘individuals’. This is the Lila, the play.”

The Upanishads, Shankara and Ramana all agree that there is nothing other than the Self. So, there cannot be anything that forces the Self to do anything.

Sadhu Om characterizing veiling as a “mistake”, while I characterize it as a “decision”. Well, certainly those two things are compatible. Plenty of decisions are found to be mistakes (such as deciding to drive when you have drunk far too much alcohol).

Before the “veiling”, there was no ego, so Sadhu Om can only be referring to the Self as the one who veils.

Therefore in this article I will try to explain to Ken why these arguments of his do not adequately address the issue I was discussing in my previous article, namely the confusion that arises if we believe that our actual self veils itself and sees itself as numerous phenomena.

As we actually are, we do nothing and are aware of nothing other than ourself

In several comments on one of my recent articles, What is the ‘self’ we are investigating when we try to be attentively self-aware?, a friend called Ken wrote:

Note that the Self is what is watching the movie [...] (4 September 2016 at 17:45)

[...] the ego is actually the Self in another form. (4 September 2016 at 23:27)

The Self is God [...] The Lila (play) of the Self (Brahman/Atman) is that it “veils” itself so it itself thinks it is limited. As “veiled”, it is watching the movie. When it decides to stop watching the movie, and the lights go on, it then sees it is actually the Self. Hence “Self-” “realisation”, i.e. realizing that it is the Self. (5 September 2016 at 04:16)

The ego stops giving attention to “2nd person and 3rd person”, i.e. sense perceptions and thoughts. The Self sees this and if it is convinced of complete sincerity, then it terminates the ego (this is the “action of Grace performed by the Self” according to Ramana — paraphrased). [...] since the Self IS your own basic awareness, then it is entirely aware of everything you have ever thought, said or done. (5 September 2016 at 04:26)

The Self (atman) is: The present moment [and] That which is looking. (7 September 2016 at 03:26)

This is what is called “The Play of Consciousness” (lila in Sanskrit). [...] The Self makes the “mistake” of identifying with a character in the world. (8 September 2016 at 02:09)

The Self definitely wants to see the movie, otherwise the movie would not even exist. (8 September 2016 at 17:49)

Because there is nothing other than the Self, so there is nothing that can force the Self to do anything. The Self is alone, so it decides to “veil” itself and limit itself as a multitude of “individuals”. This is the Lila, the play. (9 September 2016 at 00:04)

Ken, in these remarks you have attributed properties of our ego (and also properties of God) to ‘the Self’, which is ourself as we actually are, so in this article I will try to clarify that our actual self does not do anything and is neither aware of nor in any other way affected by the illusory appearance of our ego and all its projections, which seem to exist only in the self-ignorant view of ourself as this ego.

We are aware of ourself while asleep, so pure self-awareness alone is what we actually are

In many of my articles in this blog, including my most recent one, The role of logic in developing a clear, coherent and uncomplicated understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings (particularly in sections six and twelve), I have written about Bhagavan’s teaching that we are aware of ourself while asleep, but it is such a crucial aspect of his teachings that I do not hesitate to write about it repeatedly, because it is a concept that many people seem to have difficulty grasping, and because thinking about it deeply and understanding it clearly is an extremely valuable aid to us in our practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra). In fact, until we are able to recognise clearly that we are aware of ourself even when we are aware of nothing else whatsoever, as in sleep, while trying to investigate ourself we will not be able to distinguish our fundamental self-awareness from our awareness of all other things, including our body and mind.

Why should we believe what Bhagavan taught us?

In a comment on my previous article, Why do I believe that ātma-vicāra is the only direct means by which we can eradicate the illusion that we are this ego?, a friend called Maya explained why he was not convinced by what I wrote in it, so this article started off as a reply to some of the ideas he expressed in that comment. However when I began to discuss the logical reasons that Bhagavan gave us to explain why we should believe the fundamental principles of his teachings, this led to a series of reflections on aspects of his teachings that Maya did not refer to, so this article has developed into being more than just a direct reply to what he wrote in his comment.

Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya)

In a comment on one of my recent articles, The term nirviśēṣa or ‘featureless’ denotes an absolute experience but can be comprehended conceptually only in a relative sense, a friend called Bob asked several questions concerning the idea of a void, blank or nothingness and expressed his fear of such an idea. He started by asking why all we can now remember about what we experienced in deep sleep is a blank, or rather why we cannot remember anything at all except that we existed, and he suggested, ‘Is this because the illusory dualistic knowing consciousness [our mind or ego] cannot conceive the real non-dual being consciousness[?]’. He then went on to say, ‘I would be lying to you if I said that surrendering myself […] isn’t scary. It is very scary as I am scared of dissolving into the unknown. It is like letting go of the cliff and falling into nothingness, the complete unknown … the cold empty void’, but then asked, ‘is it more accurate to say that myself as I really am, the infinite non dual being consciousness that experiences everything as itself, is not a mere blank void or cold nothingness but is just a reality completely beyond the conceptualisation of my limited dualistic egoic mind[?]’, and added, ‘This seems to make letting go less scary as I am not falling into a cold empty void at all’.

To clarify what he was trying to express he also asked several other questions such as ‘is it right to say the non-dual infinite being consciousness is not a blank void of nothingness, it is just a reality beyond what the limited mind can understand so it appears a blank when tried to be recollected from the illusory dualistic waking state[?]’ and ‘is it right to say when I experience myself as I really am with perfect clarity of self-awareness this previous seeming blank empty nothingness / void I once linked to deep sleep will now be the one true reality as waking & dream would have dissolved into it and the deep sleep state will now be all there ever was / has been[?] The veil of lack of clarity would have been lifted for ever’, before finally expressing his hope that ‘this once seeming cold empty blank void perception of the deep sleep state will not be so but in contrast it will be a reality of pure bliss ... pure happiness of being where I experience everything as myself .. it won’t be cold empty void at all’.

This article is therefore an attempt to reassure Bob that the experience of true self-knowledge is not as scary as it may seem, and that it is something way beyond any idea that our finite mind may have of it.

‘That alone is tapas’: the first teachings that Sri Ramana gave to Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri

In the comments on one of my recent articles, Can we experience what we actually are by following the path of devotion (bhakti mārga)?, a friend argued that self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is a two-stage process, and though I tried to explain in my latest article, Trying to distinguish ourself from ego is what is called self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), that it is actually a single seamless process with no distinct stages, various friends have continued discussing this idea, and at one point this discussion branched off into a discussion about the reliability of what is recorded in the ‘Talks’ section of Sat-Darshana Bhashya, which prompted me to explain (here, here and here) why I generally do not consider anything written or recorded by Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri or Kapali Sastri to be reliable.

Since discussion of these two separate subjects continued side by side for a while, in one comment a friend called Wittgenstein suggested that it would be useful to consider the first teaching that Bhagavan gave to Kavyakantha in order to see whether he gave any indication at that time that ātma-vicāra is a two-stage process. Wittgenstein concluded that there was no such indication, but asked me to correct him if he had drawn any wrong conclusions from that teaching, so this article is written in reply to him.

1. The two replies that Bhagavan gave to Kavyakantha
2. The implication of Bhagavan’s first reply
3. The practice of self-investigation entails nothing but attentively observing ourself
4. The implication of Bhagavan’s second reply
5. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 30: experiencing what remains when ego dissolves is tapas
6. Guru Vācaka Kōvai verse 706: a paraphrase of Bhagavan’s second reply
7. Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ verse 14: Bhagavan’s condensation of verse 706 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai

1. The two replies that Bhagavan gave to Kavyakantha

Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri had been living in Tiruvannamalai on and off since 1903, so he had known about Bhagavan since then, but he did not feel any particular interest in him until one day in 1907. On that day, 18th November, he was feeling dejected, because in spite of practising mantra-japa (repetition of sacred words) and other forms of tapas (religious austerity or spiritual practice) for many years he had not achieved any of his ambitions, so he suddenly felt inspired to approach Bhagavan and ask him for guidance. Finding him sitting alone outside Virupaksha cave, where he was then living, Kavyakantha prostrated to him and said something to the effect: ‘I have studied all the Vedas and numerous other books; I have done countless crores of mantra-japa; I have fasted and eaten very little; yet what is actually meant by ‘tapas’ is still not clear to me. Graciously explain to me what tapas really is’.

At first Bhagavan just kept quiet and silently gazed at Kavyakantha, but after about fifteen minutes Kavyakantha said: ‘I have read in books about such cakṣu-dīkṣā [initiation by sight] but I cannot grasp the truth that is taught thereby, so graciously explain verbally’. Bhagavan then said:

நான் நான் என்பது எங்கேயிருந்து புறப்படுகிறதோ அதைக் கவனித்தால், மனம் அங்கே லீனமாகும்; அதுவே தபஸ்.

nāṉ nāṉ eṉbadu eṅgēyirundu puṟappaḍugiṟadō adai-k gavaṉittāl, maṉam aṅgē līṉam-āhum; adu-v-ē tapas.

From where what says ‘I, I’ goes out, if one attentively observes that, there the mind will be dissolved; that alone is tapas.

However Kavyakantha was bewildered by the unfamiliarity of this teaching, so he asked, ‘Is it not possible to attain that state even by mantra-japa?’, to which Bhagavan replied:

ஒரு மந்திரத்தை ஜபம் பண்ணினால் அந்த மந்திரத்வனி எங்கேயிருந்து புறப்படுகிறது என்று கவனித்தால், மனம் அங்கே லீனமாகிறது; அதுதான் தபஸ்.

oru mantirattai japam paṇṇiṉāl anda mantira-dhvaṉi eṅgēyirundu puṟappaḍugiṟadu eṉḏṟu gavaṉittāl, maṉam aṅgē līṉam-āgiṟadu; adu-dāṉ tapas.

If one does japa of a mantra, if one attentively observes from where that mantra-sound goes out, there the mind is dissolved; that itself is tapas.

Let us now consider the meaning and implication of these two replies in more detail.

2. The implication of Bhagavan’s first reply

In the first of these two replies the phrase நான் நான் என்பது (nāṉ nāṉ eṉbadu), which means ‘what says I I’, denotes ego, because ego is the only form of ‘I’ that rises or goes out. In this phrase the repetition of நான் (nāṉ), which means ‘I’, refers to the fact that in both thought and speech ego repeatedly refers to itself as ‘I’, as Kavyakantha had done when saying ‘I have studied all the Vedas […] I have done crores of mantra-japa; I have fasted […]’.

எங்கேயிருந்து (eṅgēyirundu) means ‘from where’; புறப்படுகிறதோ (puṟappaḍugiṟadō) means ‘goes out’ or ‘starts out’; அதை (adai) is the accusative case form of அது (adu), which means ‘that’ or ‘it’; and கவனித்தால் (gavaṉittāl) is a conditional form of கவனி (gavaṉi), which is a transitive verb that means to observe or attend to, so கவனித்தால் (gavaṉittāl) means ‘if one attentively observes’. Thus ‘நான் நான் என்பது எங்கேயிருந்து புறப்படுகிறதோ அதைக் கவனித்தால்’ (nāṉ nāṉ eṉbadu eṅgēyirundu puṟappaḍugiṟadō adai-k gavaṉittāl) is a conditional clause that means: ‘from where what says I I goes out, if one attentively observes that’.

This conditional clause is followed by the main clause, ‘மனம் அங்கே லீனமாகும்’ (maṉam aṅgē līṉam-āhum), which means ‘there the mind will be dissolved’. மனம் (maṉam) means ‘mind’; அங்கே (aṅgē) is an intensified form of அங்கு (aṅgu), which means ‘there’, so it implies ‘in that very place’ or ‘in the very source from which ego rises’; லீனமாகும் (līṉam-āhum) is a compound of two words, லீனம் (līṉam), which means ‘melted’, ‘dissolved’, ‘absorbed’ or ‘swallowed up’, and ஆகும் (āhum), which means ‘will be’, so லீனமாகும் (līṉam-āhum) means ‘will be dissolved’.

Since that from which ego rises or goes out is only ourself, what Bhagavan describes in the conditional clause of this sentence is only the practice of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), which is attentively observing ourself, the source from which we rise as ego, and what he describes in the main clause is the result of this practice, which is the complete dissolution of the mind along with its root, ego, in its source, which is ourself. Then in the concluding sentence of this first reply he says ‘அதுவே தபஸ்’ (adu-v-ē tapas), which means ‘that alone is tapas’.

Though tapas literally means ‘scorching’ or ‘burning’ and is generally used to mean any type of severe religious austerity or spiritual practice, what any form of tapas essentially entails is self-denial. Therefore according to Bhagavan real tapas is only the practice of ātma-vicāra, because this is the only means by which we can dissolve ego, and without the complete dissolution of ego we cannot really deny ourself. Any other form of self-denial is only a denial of what seems to be ‘mine’ but not a denial of what now seems to be ‘I’, namely ego.

Thus in this simple reply Bhagavan summarised the entire essence of his teachings, indicating clearly that the simple practice of being self-attentive or attentively self-aware is the only means by which we can dissolve ego back into ourself, the source from which it arose, and thereby remain as we really are.

3. The practice of self-investigation entails nothing but attentively observing ourself

As Wittgenstein wrote in his comment, there is absolutely no suggestion in this reply that ātma-vicāra entails more than one stage. In fact in this reply Bhagavan implies quite the opposite, namely that in order to dissolve ego in ourself we need do nothing else but try to attentively observe ourself.

Since we now experience ourself as this ego, which is a mixture of ourself and various adjuncts that we currently mistake ourself to be, when we begin trying to attentively observe ourself we will be observing ourself as this ego. However, so long as we understand that what we actually are is only pure self-awareness, which is the essence of this ego, what we will try to observe attentively is only our self-awareness and not any of the adjuncts with which it is now mixed, such as our body, and by thus trying to observe only our essential self-awareness we will gradually manage to separate this self-awareness and thereby experience it in complete isolation (kaivalya) from all our adjuncts.

This separation and isolation of ourself by keenly vigilant self-attentiveness is the only means by which ego and the rest of our mind can be dissolved back into ourself, because we seem to be this ego or mind only so long as we experience ourself mixed with any adjuncts. Therefore simple self-attentiveness is all that ātma-vicāra entails from beginning to end, so there is no stage in ātma-vicāra other than trying to be attentively self-aware as much as possible.

That is, by simply observing ego attentively as much as we can we will eventually succeed in dissolving it back into ourself, its source. No effort other than this is required, and indeed any effort other than this will only distract away us from attentively observing ourself alone.

4. The implication of Bhagavan’s second reply

What Bhagavan taught Kavyakantha in his second reply is essentially exactly the same as what he taught him in his first reply, because just as we ourself are the source from which we rise as this illusory ‘I’ called ego or mind, we are also the source from which everything else arises, including the sound of any mantra that we might be repeating, so attentively observing the source from which a mantra-sound goes out is the same as attentively observing the source from which we go out as this ego. Both entail only being vigilantly self-attentive.

In the second reply there are two conditional clauses, of which the first is a condition for the second, and the second is a condition for the result expressed in the main clause (which is the same as the result expressed in the main clause of the first reply). The first conditional clause is ‘ஒரு மந்திரத்தை ஜபம் பண்ணினால்’ (oru mantirattai japam paṇṇiṉāl), which means ‘if one does japa of a mantra’, except that மந்திரத்தை (mantirattai) is the accusative case form of மந்திரம் (mantiram), which is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word मन्त्र (mantra), so it is the direct object of the conditional verb phrase ஜபம் பண்ணினால் (japam paṇṇiṉāl), which means ‘if one does japa’ or ‘if one does repetition’. However in English the verb phrase ‘do repetition’ cannot take a direct object, so we have to add the preposition ‘of’. Therefore we either have to translate this clause as ‘if one does japa of a mantra’, or in order to make ‘mantra’ a direct object, as it is in Tamil, we have to paraphrase the meaning of this clause simply as ‘if one repeats a mantra’.

The second conditional clause is ‘அந்த மந்திரத்வனி எங்கேயிருந்து புறப்படுகிறது என்று கவனித்தால்’ (anda mantira-dhvaṉi eṅgēyirundu puṟappaḍugiṟadu eṉḏṟu gavaṉittāl), which means ‘if one attentively observes from where that mantra-sound goes out’. In this context the term மந்திரத்வனி (mantira-dhvaṉi) or ‘mantra-sound’ does not literally mean a physical sound, because such a literal meaning would apply only in the case of japa done aloud and not in the case of japa done mentally, so we should take it figuratively to mean the ‘mental sound’ or thought of a mantra. That is, if we repeat a mantra in our mind we are mentally enunciating the sound of that mantra, so that mentally enunciated sound arises only in our mind, and the source from which it arises is the same source from which ego and everything else arises, namely ourself.

Therefore what Bhagavan implies in this clause is ‘if one attentively observes oneself, the source from which that mantra-sound goes out’. If we try to do this in practice, what will happen sooner or later is that our mental japa will cease, because we can do such japa only by attending to the thought of whatever mantra we are mentally repeating, so if we try to focus our entire attention on ourself, the source of that thought, the thought itself will thereby be prevented from rising.

However, this cessation of our japa does not matter, because if we are following Bhagavan’s instruction correctly, what is important is only that we attentively observe ourself. So long as we allow ourself to be attached to attending to the mantra, we will not be able to attentively observe its source steadily, because our attention will then be divided between the mantra and ourself, fluctuating back and forth between one and the other, so at best our self-attentiveness will only be partial. Therefore if we want to go deep into this practice of attentively observing from where the mantra-sound goes out, we have to be ready to let go of the mantra-sound in order to focus our entire attention on ourself, its source.

What will happen if we thus attentively observe from where the mantra-sound goes out is expressed by Bhagavan in the main clause of this sentence, ‘மனம் அங்கே லீனமாகிறது’ (maṉam aṅgē līṉam-āgiṟadu), which means, ‘there the mind is dissolved’. This is further evidence that he did not mean that we should continue clinging to the mantra or mantra-sound itself, because so long as we allow our mind to cling to anything other than ourself we will be preventing it from dissolving. It is only by our attending to ourself and ourself alone that our mind will dissolve back into ourself, its source.

As in the case of his first reply, in this reply after saying that our mind will dissolve in ourself if we attend to ourself he ends by saying, ‘அதுதான் தபஸ்’ (adu-dāṉ tapas), which means, ‘that itself is tapas’ or ‘that alone is tapas’. Thus what he implies in both of these replies is that real tapas is only the dissolution of our mind, which can be effected only by our attentively observing ourself, the source from which ego and all its thoughts arise.

5. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 30: experiencing what remains when ego dissolves is tapas

This idea is also expressed by him in verse 30 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

யானற் றியல்வது தேரி னெதுவது
தானற் றவமென்றா னுந்தீபற
     தானாம் ரமணேச னுந்தீபற.

yāṉaṯ ṟiyalvadu tēri ṉeduvadu
dāṉaṯ ṟavameṉḏṟā ṉundīpaṟa
     tāṉām ramaṇēśa ṉundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: ‘யான் அற்று இயல்வது தேரின் எது, அது தான் நல் தவம்’ என்றான் தான் ஆம் ரமணேசன்

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ‘yāṉ aṯṟu iyalvadu tēriṉ edu, adu-dāṉ nal tavam’ eṉḏṟāṉ tāṉ ām ramaṇēśaṉ.

English translation: ‘What [state of egolessness is experienced] if one knows what remains after ‘I’ has ceased to exist, that alone is good tapas’: thus said Lord Ramana, who is ourself.

In this verse the phrase யான் அற்று இயல்வது (yāṉ aṯṟu iyalvadu), which literally means ‘I ceasing what remains’ or ‘I having ceased what remains’, and which therefore implies ‘what remains after I has ceased to exist’, denotes ourself (what we actually are), because we alone will remain when ego has dissolved and thereby ceased to exist. தேரின் (tēriṉ) means ‘if one knows’, and since knowing ourself, who alone will remain after ego has ceased, is the state of true self-knowledge or pure self-awareness, what is denoted by both the pronouns எது (edu, which means ‘what’) and அது (adu, which means ‘that’) is that pure self-awareness.

The suffix தான் (dāṉ) that is appended to அது (adu) is an intensifier, so அதுதான் (adu-dāṉ) means ‘that itself’ or ‘that alone’, which refers to the egoless self-awareness implied by the previous clause, ‘யான் அற்று இயல்வது தேரின்’ (yāṉ aṯṟu iyalvadu tēriṉ), ‘if one knows what remains after I has ceased to exist’. நற்றவம் (ṉaṯṟavam) or நல் தவம் (nal tavam) literally means ‘good tapas’, but since ‘good’ is an understatement in this context, what is implied by நல் (nal) or ‘good’ is excellent, genuine or real. Therefore what is implied by the main clause, ‘அது தான் நல் தவம்’ (adu-dāṉ nal tavam) or ‘that alone is good tapas’, is that real tapas is only the egoless self-awareness that alone will remain and be experienced after the annihilation of ego.

Thus the definition of tapas that Bhagavan gives in this verse closely parallels the definitions of it that he gave in his two replies to Kavyakantha, because in all these three cases he clearly implies that real tapas is only the state in which ego or mind has been completely dissolved and eradicated.

Like Kavyakantha, the so-called ‘rishis’ (ṛṣis) in the Daruka forest, to whom the teachings in Upadēśa Undiyār were addressed, were doing tapas for the fulfilment of their personal ambitions, so after weaning them away from their kāmya karmas (desire-motivated actions) by telling them that such actions cannot give liberation, then explaining to them the relative efficacy of a broad range of other practices, and then teaching them that the best of all practices is only self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), because it alone is the direct path to liberation, Bhagavan finally tells them that real tapas is only the egoless state of pure self-awareness that will alone remain as a result of the annihilation of ego by means of ātma-vicāra. However whereas this was the final teaching (upadēśa) that he as Lord Siva gave in ancient times to the ṛṣis in the Daruka forest, it was the first teaching that he gave to Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri, thereby indicating to us that in his manifestation as Sadguru Ramana he would not beat around the bush but would from the very outset guide his devotees onto the direct path of ātma-vicāra.

Though both the ṛṣis in the Daruka forest and Kavyakantha had been doing tapas for the fulfilment of their personal ambitions, we should not think that they are very different to us, because like them we each have our own desires and trivial aspirations that we hope to fulfil. So long as we experience ourself as this ego, we cannot completely avoid having desires, because desire and attachment to things other than ourself is the very nature of ego. If we aspire to experience ourself as we really are, we obviously need to try to minimise our other desires and aspirations as much as possible, but we cannot root them out entirely by any means other than persistent self-attentiveness.

That is, the root of all our desires and ambitions is only ego, so even if we manage to curb or reduce the intensity of some of our desires, other desires (perhaps more subtle or seemingly altruistic ones) will keep on sprouting as long as this ego survives. Therefore the only effective way to curb all desires, both long-established ones and newly sprouting ones, is to curb the rising of ego, which we can do only by attentively observing it as much as possible. So long as we allow ourself to be aware of anything other than ourself, we are giving ego freedom to rise, so we can restrict its freedom only by trying to be aware of ourself alone as much as we can.

We may consider our desires to be altruistic, as Kavyakantha no doubt did, but no matter how altruistic they may be, desires are desires, and they bind us to ego and all its adjuncts. Therefore if we are intent on rooting out ego, we have no option but to try to curb all our desires, even our seemingly most altruistic ones, by persevering in our effort to attentively observe ourself, the source from which ego arises along with all its desires. Thus at each moment of our life we are faced with a choice: whether to allow ourself to be drawn away by the outward-going flow of our desires, or to cling firmly to self-attentiveness. The extent to which we choose the latter option indicates the extent to which we have genuine love to experience ourself as we really are.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I know my own love to experience myself as I really am is woefully inadequate, so I am constantly carried away by the flow of my desires to experience things other than myself alone, but I suspect that most of us feel more or less the same. However, we should not despair, because however little effort we may make to be self-attentive, every attempt we make is a small step in the right direction, and Bhagavan has assured us (in the twelfth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār? and elsewhere) that if we persevere as much as we can we will certainly succeed sooner or later. He has given us the golden remedy, so if we yield ourself to him by trying to avail of it as much as possible, we can be sure that our small efforts to do so will unfailingly lead us to our destination. Therefore let us each continue trying to do our own little bit of tapas by attentively observing ourself, the source from which we have risen as this devilish and self-deceptive ego.

6. Guru Vācaka Kōvai verse 706: a paraphrase of Bhagavan’s second reply

In many biographies of Bhagavan, such as Self-Realisation (which was first published in 1931 and which being the earliest detailed biography became the basis for most subsequent ones), the reason why he gave his second reply to Kavyakantha is not clearly indicated, so he was often asked by devotees why he had done so, and he would then explain that he did so because after hearing his first reply Kavyakantha had asked him whether it is not possible to achieve the same state by doing mantra-japa. On one such occasion he elaborated on the inner meaning and implication of his second reply, and what he said then was summarised by Sri Muruganar in verse 706 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai:

யானென் றெழுமிடமே தென்னத்தந் நுண்ணறிவாம்
மோனத்தா லுண்மூழ்க மாட்டாதார் — மானதத்தாற்
பண்ணுஞ் செபத்திற் பராவாக்கு யாண்டிருந்து
நண்ணுமென் றாய்த னலம்.

yāṉeṉ ḏṟeṙumiḍamē deṉṉattan nuṇṇaṟivām
mōṉattā luṇmūṙka māṭṭādār — māṉadattāṟ
paṇṇuñ jepattiṯ parāvākku yāṇḍirundu
naṇṇumeṉ ḏṟāyda ṉalam.

பதச்சேதம்: யான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என்ன தம் நுண் அறிவு ஆம் மோனத்தால் உள் மூழ்க மாட்டாதர் மானதத்தால் பண்ணும் செபத்தில் பராவாக்கு யாண்டு இருந்து நண்ணும் என்று ஆய்தல் நலம்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): yāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉṉa tam nuṇ aṟivu ām mōṉattāl uḷ mūṙka māṭṭādar māṉadattāl paṇṇum jepattil parāvākku yāṇḍu-irundu naṇṇum eṉḏṟu āydal nalam.

English translation: Those who are not able to sink within by silence, which is their sharp awareness, what the place is from which it rises as ‘I’, in japa done by mind investigating from where the supreme word approaches is good.

Explanatory paraphrase: Those who are not able to sink [or submerge] within by silence, in which their sharp [acute, refined or subtle] awareness [keenly investigates] what the place is from which it [ego] rises as ‘I’, in [or during] japa done by mind investigating from where parāvāk [the supreme word, speech or sound] approaches [begins to shine forth] is good.

The grammatical structure of this verse may be somewhat difficult to understand in English, because it is a single sentence in which the verbal noun ஆய்தல் (āydal), which means ‘investigating’, together with all that precedes it is the subject of the main clause, so the entire verse except the final word, நலம் (nalam), which means ‘good’, is a single noun phrase with ஆய்தல் (āydal) as its head. Within this noun phrase, the entire portion up to and including உள் மூழ்க மாட்டாதர் (uḷ mūṙka māṭṭādar), which means ‘those who are not able to sink within’, is another noun phrase and is the subject of the verbal noun ஆய்தல் (āydal), so the basic structure of this sentence is equivalent to saying in English ‘their investigating is good’, where ‘their’ represents the noun phrase ending with மாட்டாதர் (māṭṭādar), ‘those who are not able’, and ‘investigating’ represents the rest of the main noun phrase ending with ஆய்தல் (āydal). Though the basic structure is therefore quite simple, all the other words that form both the main noun phrase and the noun phrase embedded within it make this sentence seem rather difficult to understand without adequate explanation when it is translated accurately into English.

There are several useful ideas in this verse that were not explicit in the second reply that Bhagavan gave to Kavyakantha. Firstly the first noun phrase, ‘யான் என்று எழும் இடம் ஏது என்ன தம் நுண் அறிவு ஆம் மோனத்தால் உள் மூழ்க மாட்டாதர்’ (yāṉ eṉḏṟu eṙum iḍam ēdu eṉṉa tam nuṇ aṟivu ām mōṉattāl uḷ mūṙka māṭṭādar), which means ‘those who are not able to sink within by silence, in which their sharp awareness [keenly investigates] what the place is from which it rises as I’, indicates that what Bhagavan suggested in his second reply is an option that needs to be offered only to those who feel they are unable to silently subside within by investigating what the source is from which ego rises.

Another important point in this complex phrase is the simpler instrumental phrase ‘தம் நுண் அறிவு ஆம் மோனத்தால்’ (tam nuṇ aṟivu ām mōṉattāl), which means ‘by silence, which is their sharp [acute, refined or subtle] awareness’ and which therefore implies that the instrument by which we can investigate our source is silent and keenly focussed self-awareness or self-attentiveness.

In his second reply to Kavyakantha Bhagavan advised him to attentively observe from where the mantra-dhvaṉi or sound of the mantra arises, but in this verse he expresses the same idea in a slightly different way by saying ‘பராவாக்கு யாண்டு இருந்து நண்ணும் என்று ஆய்தல்’ (parāvākku yāṇḍu irundu naṇṇum eṉḏṟu āydal), which means ‘investigating from where parāvāk approaches’. பராவாக்கு (parāvākku) literally means ‘supreme word’ or ‘supreme sound’, and in verse 715 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai he indicates that what he means by this term is the silence that shines ‘I am I’ pervading the heart-space in which ego has been destroyed, so it is obviously not the same as the mantra-dhvaṉi but is the source from which the mantra-dhvaṉi arises, namely our own being, so Bhagavan’s instruction in both cases amounts to saying that we should attentively observe our being even while doing mantra-japa. Therefore his use of this term பராவாக்கு (parāvākku) in this verse is further evidence that what he meant by attentively observing from where the mantra-dhvaṉi arises is only attentively observing ourself.

Obviously to attentively observe ourself we do not need to do any japa, but if like Kavyakantha we are so habituated to doing japa that we are unwilling to give it up, Bhagavan suggested that even while doing japa we should attentively observe our own being, which is the parāvāk from which the mantra-sound arises. Therefore the essential import of the two replies that Bhagavan gave to Kavyakantha is that whether we do japa or not, what we should try to attend to is only ourself and not anything else.

Another useful idea in this verse is expressed by the words ‘மானதத்தால் பண்ணும் செபத்தில்’ (māṉadattāl paṇṇum jepattil), which mean ‘in [or during] japa done by mind’. In his second reply Bhagavan said ‘ஒரு மந்திரத்தை ஜபம் பண்ணினால்’ (oru mantirattai japam paṇṇiṉāl), which means ‘if one does japa of a mantra’, without specifying whether he was referring to oral japa or mental japa, but in this verse he indicates that it is preferable to interpret what he replied to Kavyakantha as referring to mental japa rather than oral japa. Of course we can also apply what he suggested in that reply to doing oral japa, but since he said in verse 6 of Upadēśa Undiyār that mental japa is more beneficial than oral japa, we can infer that what he replied to Kavyakantha can be more effectively applied while doing mental japa.

7. Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ verse 14: Bhagavan’s condensation of verse 706 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai

After composing the above verse of Guru Vācaka Kōvai Muruganar showed it to Bhagavan, as he always did whenever he composed any verse, particularly a verse of Guru Vācaka Kōvai, and rather than suggesting any correction or improvement, as he sometimes did, Bhagavan composed another verse in which he expressed the same idea in a more succinct manner. His verse is now included in Guru Vācaka Kōvai as verse B12 and in Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ as verse 14:

ஞானத்து ணானாருந் தானமுறார் வாக்பரையார்
தானந்தேர் தல்சபத்திற் சால்பு.

ñāṉattu ṇāṉārun thāṉamuṟār vākparaiyār
thāṉandēr taljapattiṯ cālpu.

பதச்சேதம்: ஞானத்துள் ‘நான்’ ஆரும் தானம் உறார் வாக் பரை ஆர் தானம் தேர்தல் சபத்தில் சால்பு.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ñāṉattuḷ ‘nāṉ’ ārum thāṉam uṟār vāk-parai ār thāṉam tērdal japattil sālbu.

அன்வயம்: ‘நான்’ ஆரும் தானம் ஞானத்துள் உறார் சபத்தில் வாக் பரை ஆர் தானம் தேர்தல் சால்பு.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ‘nāṉ’ ārum thāṉam ñāṉattuḷ uṟār japattil vāk-parai ār thāṉam tērdal sālbu.

English translation: Those who within jñāna do not reach the place where ‘I’ pervades, in japa investigating the place where parāvāk pervades is appropriate.

Explanatory paraphrase: Those who within [the path of] jñāna [namely the practice of self-investigation] cannot reach [and remain firmly fixed as] the place where ‘I’ pervades [namely sat-cit, pure being-awareness], in [or during] japa investigating [and knowing] the place where parāvāk [the supreme word, namely the infinite silence of pure being] pervades [which is the source from which the sound of the mantra arises] is appropriate.

The grammatical structure of this verse is basically the same as that of the verse of Guru Vācaka Kōvai that Bhagavan summarised in it, so the noun phrase ‘ஞானத்துள் நான் ஆரும் தானம் உறார்’ (ñāṉattuḷ nāṉ ārum thāṉam uṟār), which means ‘within jñāna do not reach the place where ‘I’ pervades’, is the subject of the noun phrase ending with the verbal noun தேர்தல் (tērdal) , which means ‘investigating’ or ‘knowing’ and which is in turn the subject of the main clause.

உறார் (uṟār) is a personal noun formed from the negative of the verb உறு (uṟu), which has a rich range of meanings including to be, exist, happen, occur, dwell, reside, be permanent, be stable, be attached to, be devoted to, love, join, associate with, touch, contact, move towards, approach, gain access to, reach, attain, perceive by touch, experience, suffer, think and resemble. The meaning of உறு (uṟu) or உறார் (uṟār) is therefore determined in each case by the context in which either of them is used. In this context உறார் (uṟār) means those who do not, will not or cannot steadily be, abide as, intimately experience, move towards, approach, gain access to, reach or attain, so ‘ஞானத்துள் நான் ஆரும் தானம் உறார்’ (ñāṉattuḷ nāṉ ārum thāṉam uṟār) means ‘those who within [the path of] jñāna [namely the practice of self-investigation] cannot reach [and remain firmly fixed as] the place where ‘I’ pervades’.

ஆர் (ār) is a verb that means to become full, spread over, pervade, be satisfied, abide, stay, experience or obtain, and ஆரும் (ārum) is a relative participle form of it, so நான் ஆரும் தானம் (nāṉ ārum thāṉam) means the place where (or in which) ‘I’ pervades, abides or is experienced. தானம் (thānam) is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit word स्थान (sthāna), which literally means a place (particularly a holy place) or a state of being fixed and stationary (being cognate with English words such as stand, state and static), but which is used here in a metaphorical sense to refer to ourself, the abode or static state that is filled only by ‘I’.

Likewise, வாக் பரை ஆர் தானம் (vāk-parai ār thāṉam) means the place where vāk-parai pervades, abides or is experienced, because ஆர் (ār) is used here to represent its relative participle, ஆரும் (ārum). வாக் பரை (vāk-parai) is an alternative form of the term பராவாக்கு (parāvākku), which Muruganar used in his verse, so it literally means the ‘word supreme’ or ‘supreme word’, and as we saw in the previous section, this is a term that Bhagavan used to describe ‘I’, the natural name of ourself, the supreme and only reality. Therefore, since வாக் பரை (vāk-parai) means நான் (nāṉ) or ‘I’, and since in practice investigating ‘I’ entails just experiencing and abiding as ‘I’ without rising to attend to anything else, ‘வாக் பரை ஆர் தானம் தேர்தல்’ (vāk-parai ār thāṉam tērdal) or ‘investigating [or knowing] the place where vāk-parai pervades [abides or is experienced]’ means exactly the same as ‘நான் ஆரும் தானம் உறுதல்’ (nāṉ ārum thāṉam uṟudal) or ‘abiding as [or intimately experiencing] the place where ‘I’ pervades [abides or is experienced]’.

Therefore the only difference between the practice that Bhagavan describes in each of these two noun phrases lies in the two words ஞானத்துள் (ñāṉattuḷ) and சபத்தில் (japattil). ஞானத்துள் (ñāṉattuḷ) literally means ‘within jñāna’ or ‘inside jñāna’, but in this context implies while practising self-investigation (ātma-vicāra), which alone is the path of jñāna, as taught by Bhagavan in verse 29 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, in which he says ‘உள் ஆழ் மனத்தால் நான் என்று எங்கு உந்தும் என நாடுதலே ஞான நெறி ஆம்’ (uḷ āṙ maṉattāl nāṉ eṉḏṟu eṅgu undum eṉa nāḍudalē ñāṉa-neṟi ām), which means ‘investigating by an inward sinking mind where it rises as I alone is the path of jñāna’. சபத்தில் (japattil) likewise means ‘in japa’, which in this context implies while practising japa, so what Bhagavan implies in this verse is simply that for those who think they cannot practise self-investigation on its own, it is appropriate to practise self-investigation while doing japa.

That is, for those who are accustomed to doing some action (karma) such as japa in the name of spiritual practice, just being silently and attentively self-aware may seem to be too abstract and may therefore not seem to be a spiritual practice at all, so for such people it can be helpful to continue doing japa (or whatever other such action they are used to doing) but at the same time trying to attentively observe themselves, the source from which japa or other such actions arise. By continuing to do whatever they are used to doing, they will maintain their impression that they are doing a spiritual practice, while at the same time by trying to be attentively self-aware they will be beginning to do a spiritual practice that is actually far more beneficial and efficacious than any action could ever be.

Thus in this verse Bhagavan clearly indicates that the practice he taught Kavyakantha in his second reply is essentially exactly the same practice of self-attentiveness that he taught him in his first reply. The only reason he worded his second reply as he did was because Kavyakantha had asked him whether he could not attain the same state by doing mantra-japa, so what Bhagavan implied in his second reply is that he could do so provided he tried to be self-attentive while doing his japa.

In other words, though both in his second reply and in this verse Bhagavan mentions doing japa as an optional extra, he makes it clear that whether or not we do japa, what is essential is only that we should try as much as possible to be self-attentive. To illustrate how we can apply this in practice without being distracted away from our main aim, which is only to be self-attentive, I will end by relating it to my own experience.

That is, I find it is useful occasionally to apply what he suggests in this verse in the following way: sometimes when my mind is engrossed in other thoughts and seems to have no interest or liking even to try to be self-attentive, to restore my interest I start to mentally repeat his name, ‘Ramana, Ramana, Ramana, Ramana’ (often in one of the tunes in which Sadhu Om used to sing it, which involves lengthening the final ‘a’ to make it vocative case, a prayerful call to him, just as he himself lengthened the final ‘a’ in ‘Arunachala’ at the end of each verse and the refrain of Akṣaramaṇamālai), and while doing so I try to be self-attentive. Using his name (or that of Arunachala) for this purpose is particularly appropriate and effective, because he taught us that he is in fact our own self and therefore shines eternally within us as ‘I’, so his name not only rekindles our devotion to him but also draws our attention back within to experience him as he really is. When I succeed in restoring my interest in being self-attentive by this means, the repetition of his name naturally subsides, because the more strongly our attention is drawn to ourself the less we need to or are able to pay any attention to doing japa.

Is there any such thing as a ‘self-realised’ person?

In the comments on my previous two articles, Our memory of ‘I’ in sleep and Why should we believe that ‘the Self’ is as we believe it to be?, there has been some discussion about the subject of being a ‘self-realised’ person, with one friend claiming ‘I have realised who I am’ and others expressing doubts about that, so in this article I will examine this concept of being a ‘self-realised’ person and consider whether it accurately represents anything that truly exists.

Firstly I will consider the common use of the term ‘self-realisation’ as a translation of the Sanskrit terms ātma-jñāna or ātmānubhava, which respectively mean self-knowledge and self-experience in the sense of experiencing or being clearly aware of ourself as we really are. Though ‘realise’ can mean to recognise, understand, ascertain or become clearly aware of something, it is a rather vague and ambiguous term to use in this context, because it has various other meanings such as to accomplish, achieve, fulfil, actualise, effect, bring about, acquire or cause to happen, so ‘self-realisation’ is not the most appropriate term to use as a translation of ātma-jñāna or ātmānubhava, particularly since in psychology the term ‘self-realisation’ means self-actualisation or self-fulfilment in the sense of achieving one’s full personal potential.

Though he did not speak much English, Sri Ramana understood it enough to recognise that ‘self-realisation’ is not a particularly appropriate term to use in the context of his teachings. He therefore used to joke about it saying that ourself is always real, so there is no need for it to be realised, and that the problem is that we have realised what is unreal (that is, we have made the unreal seem to be real), so what we now need to do is not to realise our ever-real self but only to unrealise everything that is unreal, particularly our seemingly real ego, which is the root cause of the seeming reality of everything else.

Metaphysical solipsism, idealism and creation theories in the teachings of Sri Ramana

In a comment that he wrote on one of my recent articles, What should we believe?, Sankarraman referred to an article on David Godman’s blog, Swami Siddheswarananda’s views on Bhagavan’s Teachings on Creation, in which David discussed some opinions that Swami Siddheswarananda (former president of the Mysore branch of the Ramakrishna Math and founder of the Centre Védantique Ramakrichna in France) expressed about Sri Ramana’s views on solipsism and the idealistic theory of creation known as dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda in the third section of an article that he wrote in 1946 for the Golden Jubilee Souvenir, in which he claimed:

The philosophical outlook of Maharshi tends very often to be confused with that of solipsism or its Indian equivalent, drishti-srishti-vada, which is a sort of degenerated idealism. That Maharshi never subscribes to that view can be known if we study his works in the light of orthodox Vedanta or observe his behaviour in life. [...] (Golden Jubilee Souvenir, third edition, 1995, p. 69)

In his article David explains in his own way why Swami Siddheswarananda was wrong to believe that Sri Ramana did not teach dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, and in his comment Sankarraman expressed his own views on this subject and asked me to explain my understanding in this regard, so the following is my reply to him:

Swami Siddheswarananda had genuine love and respect for Sri Ramana, but from what he wrote in the Golden Jubilee Souvenir it is clear that his understanding of some crucial aspects of Sri Ramana’s teachings (and also of what he called ‘orthodox Vedanta’) was seriously confused. Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (or drishti-srishti-vada, as he spelt it) is the argument (vāda) that creation (sṛṣṭi) is a result of perception or ‘seeing’ (dṛṣṭi), as opposed to sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, which is any theory (whether philosophical, scientific or religious) that proposes that creation precedes perception (in other words, that the world exists prior to and hence independent of our experience of it). The classic example of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi is our experience in dream: the dream world seems to exist only when we experience it, so its seeming existence is entirely dependent on our experience of it. Since Sri Ramana taught us that our present so-called waking state is actually just a dream, and that there is no significant difference between waking and dream, it is obvious that he did teach dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda.

Self-investigation, effort and sleep

In the final paragraph of a comment that he wrote on my previous article, Since we always experience ‘I’, we do not need to find ‘I’, but only need to experience it as it actually is, Wittgenstein wrote:

From point 4 above [Due to the opposing nature of consciousness and non-consciousness, laya and vichara (self attention) are mutually exclusive], it is clear that one can not be self attentive while in sleep. That being so, there is a statement [believed to be made by Bhagavan] in Mudaliar’s book [DDWB] that if self attention is maintained and one drifts into sleep, it would continue even in sleep, which is difficult to understand. Does this simply mean that one would sooner or later wake up with a reminder to be self attentive? Or is there something else meant [assuming Bhagavan really made this statement]?

As Wittgenstein says, we obviously cannot make any effort to be self-attentive while we are asleep, but if we try to be self-attentive now while we are awake we will eventually be able to experience sleep in this waking state, as Sri Ramana says in verse 16 of Upadēśa Taṉippākkaḷ (in which he summarised what Sri Muruganar recorded him as having said in verses 957-8 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai):

Scientific research on consciousness

A few months ago an academic psychologist whose current research is exploring ‘the conscious experience’ wrote to me inviting me to give feedback on some of his research findings based on his theory of ‘Consciousness Quotient’, and he explained: ‘I am trying to describe the conscious experience as accurately as possible, including as many perspectives as possible’. I replied to his invitation, and this led to a series of emails between us in which he tried to answer what I wrote and to explain his viewpoint in more detail. The following is adapted from the six replies I wrote to him.

First reply:

Thank you for this kind invitation, but I am not sure whether I can contribute in any way to your research, because the questions I would ask about consciousness and conscious experience perhaps go beyond the scope of your project.

To give you an idea of what I mean, I would start by questioning the meaning of the word ‘consciousness’, which I believe is ambiguous, because it used differently in different contexts. On the face of it ‘consciousness’ means either the quality or state of being conscious, which immediately raises several questions such as: What is it that is conscious? Is consciousness an inherent or a contingent quality of that thing? In other words, is consciousness a permanent or a temporary state of what is conscious?

By discovering what ‘I’ actually is, we will swallow time

To a friend who wrote some remarks about experiencing the here-and-now by being aware of the ‘mind and its attachments and reactions to the world outside’, and also about the ego being a subtle form, I replied:

Since the mind is constantly changing, it never stands still in the here and now, but is instead caught up in the constant flow of change, which is always moving from past to future. The only thing that always stands still in the here and now is ‘I am’, because it never changes.

Therefore if we wish to stand in the here and now we must attend only to ‘I am’, because if we attend instead to the constant activity and reactivity of the mind, we will get caught in the every-changing flow of time from past to future.

Upadesa Tanippakkal – an explanatory paraphrase

In continuation of my previous six articles, which were explanatory paraphrases of Upadesa Undiyar, Ulladu Narpadu, Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, Ekatma Panchakam, Appala Pattu and Anma-Viddai (Atma-Vidya), the following is the last of seven extracts from the introductory page that I have drafted for Sri Ramanopadesa Noonmalai (an e-book copy of which I will be uploading to the Books section of my website within the next few days, along with e-book copies of Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Sadhanai Saram and Part Two of The Path of Sri Ramana):

Besides these six poems that form உபதேச நூன்மாலை (Upadesa Nunmalai), there are a total of twenty-seven separate verses of upadesa (spiritual teaching) that Sri Ramana composed, which are not included in the Upadesa Nunmalai section of ஸ்ரீ ரமண நூற்றிரட்டு (Sri Ramana Nultirattu), the Tamil ‘Collected Works of Sri Ramana’, but which could appropriately be included there.

However, as I explain in the introduction that I wrote for this English translation of Sri Ramanopadesa Noonmalai, which is contained in the printed book and in the e-book copy of it (and also in a separate article in my blog, Sri Ramanopadesa Nunmalai – English translation by Sri Sadhu Om and Michael James), Sri Sadhu Om gathered these twenty-seven verses together and arranged them in a suitable order to form a work entitled உபதேசத் தனிப்பாக்கள் (Upadesa-t-tani-p-pakkal), the ‘Solitary Verses of Spiritual Teaching’, and he included this work at the end of his Tamil commentary on Upadesa Nunmalai, which is a book called ஸ்ரீ ரமணோபதேச நூன்மாலை – விளக்கவுரை (Sri Ramanopadesa Nunmalai – Vilakkavurai).