Bhagavan: Yes that is the Self

[Guest guest]

The Need for Ultra-Mysticism

>From Conscious Immortality

 

All metaphysical discussion is fruitless unless it causes us to seek

within the Self for the true Reality. One can, and often does, go

through numerous books, a whole library perhaps, and yet comes out

without the faintest realization of what on is. Learning often renders

a disservice, especially when it causes a person's ego and pride to

develop; these prove to be serious obstacles to progress.

 

Science is exploring the external universe, when it has not yet

explored the Self. Inventions are being made constantly; they will

never cease as we can go on inventing one new thing after another.

What is the use? All this is maya. Turn inwards and know your Self

first.

 

All these notes you are making of my sayings and so on, are useful for

beginners, for friends and to answer the questions of others. But for

yourself, you know that they are only pieces of paper. Dive into the

Self and find all you want to know there!

 

All controversies about creation, the nature of the universe,

evolution, the purpose of God etc, are useless. They do not lead to

true happiness. People try to find out about things which are outside

themselves before they try to find out `Who am I?' Only by this means

can they gain happiness - not by understanding the whole universe, for

the self is happiness.

 

Q: After some time in meditation I find that thought dies away and

stillness reigns. Within that stillness, I am aware of a tiny seed or

point in my breast or heart upon which all my attention is centered.

Is this the Self you mention?

M: Yes, that is the Self, though you have to go deeper to perfect your

realization. Hold onto it. Do not lose the current. Do not lose it by

having the wrong idea that `I am meditating on the Self,'. At such a

point try to remember that you are the Self, that this stillness is

your natural condition. Watch vigilantly that you do not wander away

from it.

 

The intricate maze of philososy of different schools is said to

clarify matters and reveal the truth. But in fact, they create

confusion where none need exist. To understand anything there must be

the Self. The Self is obvious. Why not remain as thee Self? What need

is there to explain the non-self? Take Vedanta, for instance: they say

there are fifteen kinds of prana. The student is made to memorize

their names and functions. The air goes up and is called prana, and

when it comes down it is called aprana; it operates the indriyas and

is called something else. Why all this? Why do you classify, five

names and enumerate the functions, and so on? Is it not enough to know

that one prana does the whole work? The antahkarana thinks, desires,

wills, reasons etc, and each function is attributed to one name such

as mind or intellect. Has anyone seen the pranas or the antahkaranas?

Have they any real being? they are mere concepts. When and where will

they end?

 

Consider this: A man sleeps. He says on waking that he slept. The

question is asked, `Why does he not say in this sleep that he is

sleeping?' The answer is given that he is sunk in the Self and cannot

speak, like somebody diving into a pool to bring something up from the

bottom. The diver cannot speak. When he has actually recovered the

article and emerges from the water, he speaks. Well, what is the

explanation? When he is immersed in the water, it would gush into his

mouth if he were to open it to speak. It's simple, isn't it? But the

philosopher is not content with this simple fact. He explains it by

saying that fire is the deity that presides over speech, and that it

is inimical to water and therefore cannot function. This is called

philosophy and student are struggling to learn all this. Isn't it a

sheer limbs and senses of the individual. So they talk about

hiranyagarba etc. Why should confusion be created and hen explained

away? Those who do not involve themselves in this maze are lucky. I

was very fortunate that I never took to it. If I had, I would probably

be nowhere, always in confusion. fortunately, my vasanas took me

directly to the `Who am I?' enquiry.

 

Q: What about scientific knowledge?

M: All relative knowledge belong to the mind, not the Self. It is

therefore illusory, not permanent. A scientist who formulates the

theory that the earth is round, for instance, may prove it

incontrovertibly, but when he falls asleep the while the whole idea

vanishes: his mind in left blank. What does it matter if the world is

round or flat when he is asleep? So you see the futility of all

relative knowledge and abide in the Self. Realize that the Self

transcends