states of selfrealisation

[Guest guest]

>(Note: Ram is a little known American spiritual master. He has

realized the goal of life, the Self, and he meets with seekers of

truth from around the world. He speaks with the conviction of one

who is truly awake and free. The interviewer (John David) is an

artist, writer, and teacher from Australia who has been strongly

influenced by Ramana Maharshi's message. These excerpts from

interviews held in Tiruvannamalai, India, will be published in an

upcoming book of interviews with modern sages) .- Gladys Mendoza

>

>__________________

>

>John David. Please talk about the states of Self–Realisation and

Enlightenment?

>

>Ram. The question should actually be "Who am I?" because

you, the

Self, is not a state. You, the Self, are neither in or out of a

state. From the Self's point of view all states are in you. This

means that you are always beyond all states, you are that because of

which any state of mind is known. If you are an individual in a

state, then the state is bigger than you and you are conditioned by

the state you are in. People want to fall in love, for example,

because the state of `in love' makes them feel good. The

question `what state am I in?' shows that you think of

yourself as a

limited, conditioned being. Limited beings are continually trying to

remove their sense of limitation and therefore are always trying to

achieve a state that makes them feel limitless. This does not work

because you already are limitless….as the Self. So the question

then

becomes what is the Self? If you can figure out what the Self is and

identify with it, you will be free.

>

>If you are the Self, all states are objects of your awareness. This

means that you know the states…but the state does not know you.

If

you are angry, you know you are angry, the anger does not know you.

If your mind is quiet, you know the quiet mind but the quiet mind

does not know you.

>

>The Self is all states of mind but states of mind are not the Self.

The Self is the knower of everything and enlightenment is the

knowledge "I am limitless actionless awareness. I am the

Self." It

is not a state. It is jnanam, knowledge.

>

>The knowledge an enlightened person has is, `I am the Self',

not

that I am this guy John who has a particular state; because there

the `I' pertains to the limited guy John, to whom the state,

whether

it be high or low, is added. If a state is added on to you, then

that state is going to be changing, and you are going to be changing

when you are in that state. So if you are something that is subject

to change you are not real. `Real' means eternal. The

enlightened

you – the real `you' does not modify or change, and is

totally

unaffected by any experience. So when you say `I,' you need

to look

and see which `I' is talking. Is it this person that feels

modified

by experience or is it the person who remains unchanged or

unmodified by experience?

>

>Enlightenment is the knowledge that no experience can affect me one

way or another. Therefore, I do not have any bias towards

pleasurable experiences nor do I have an aversion toward unpleasant

experiences. I know that all experiences are ephemeral and that they

do not validate or invalidate me. If somebody comes and hugs me it

does not mean that I am a great guy; if somebody comes and slaps me,

it does not mean that I am a bad guy…because I am unaffected by

my

experience.

>

>Where is the experience that was happening an hour ago? It is gone

–

it was here and then it just disappeared…but you are still the

same. You are the awareness that was there before the experience

happened and you are the awareness of the experience as it happened.

When the experience went away, you did not disappear - you were not

changed. John was changed a little bit perhaps, some feelings were

changed in John's mind – positive or negative – but then

when the

feelings dissolved there you were again – the same you. So

that `you' which is unaffected by experience is called the

`Self'

and the knowledge `I Am the Self' is enlightenment.

>

>JD. What would be the signs of that?

>

>R. Here are some verses from the Bhagavad Gita, so I am just going

to tell you what the Gita says. First Arjuna asks Krishna the

question, `What are the signs of an enlightened soul?' and

Krishna

says, `When a man completely casts off, O Partha, all the desires

of

the mind …' [Ch.2, v.55]

>

>JD. Does that mean, for example, if I were sitting in a restaurant

and a beautiful woman comes in and I start fancying her?

>

>R. It has nothing to do with whether or not you fancy her. It has

everything to do with why you fancy her. If you fancy her and are

thinking that making love with her will increase your fundamental

happiness you are deluded. If you fancy her as the Self, if you see

the light in her and recognize it as the light in you and

everything, then that would be the response of an enlightened

person. But that does not mean that you will try to get her in bed.

If you are just conditioned, like Pavlov's dog, to start fancying

a

woman that your vasanas attract you to, then you are just an animal.

It's OK to be an animal, but it isn't Self realization.

>

>JD. But there is nothing actually stopping me from doing it? As

long as I am not caught up with the idea that it will make me feel

good or feel bad?

>

>R. People usually want things because they think things will make

them happier. If you feel that love is modifying you, then you are

not the Self. That person would be John, the Ego. It is very easy to

fool yourself on the issue of desires. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna

is not saying not to have desires in the mind. In fact in one verse

he says, "I am the desire that is not opposed to dharma." An

enlightened person can have desires, it is quite natural, but an

enlightened person… someone who sees his or herself as limitless

awareness…has a non-attached relationship to the desires that

appear

in the mind. It is all about one's relationship to the desires.

>

>So how does a jnani view desires? In The Course of Miracles, it

says, `From what you want God won't save you.' What does

that mean?

It means that the karma from indulging your desires may not be as

wonderful as you think. In fact experience teaches that sometimes we

get what we want and sometimes we don't, so on one hand we

can't

even count on getting what we want….which can lead to frustration

and depression. It also teaches that sometimes we aren't happy

when

we get what we want and at other times we are happy when we get what

we don't want. So, on the other hand, tying happiness to the

satisfaction of your desires is foolish.

>

>In the Gita it says when a person, `is satisfied in the Self by

the

Self, then is he said to be one of steady Wisdom.' [Ch.2, v.55]

>

>This is a statement that applies to an enlightened person: when one

is satisfied in the Self alone. The desires of the mind are optional

and can be ignored without causing agitation. When you know

that `you' are the source of your satisfaction and don't

look for

satisfaction outside yourself through fame, security, pleasure,

wealth and duty, etc. then you are wise.

>

>JD. I think one of my difficulties when you tell me these things,

is when did it start? When was it that I started to say certain

things? In some way, I could say I was always like this. As long as

I can remember that was true.

>

>R. Yes, that is the Self. It was always true for the Self. It did

not become true at some point for the Self. Maybe for John it became

true at a certain point. But for the Self it is always true. It says

in the Upanishads, "It is not for the sake of the wife that the

husband loves the wife but for the sake of the Self." Now that

could

mean the ego but it does not mean the ego – it means the Self.

Because everything is done for the sake of the Self and everything

is the Self, including all activity. When you love somebody, it

isn't your girlfriend you love although you perhaps think it is;

it

is the Self in your girlfriend that you love. When you get involved

as a person love goes out the door.

>

>JD. So what do you make of my personal situation? How does my

situation fit in with this whole Self-thing we are discussing?

>

>R. You see, John, you are not a person. You have no personal

situation. What is personal about you…your hair, your nose, your

mind? Nothing here is personal. `Personal' is a concept that

is born

of ignorance of your real nature. How does any of what you consider

yours become yours? Your body is just five elements, not different

from any other body. The pranas are just universal forces working in

the impersonal body. Where is it written that it belongs to a guy

named John? Are any of the thoughts in your mind unique? They are

not. As we speak there are millions of people thinking the same

thoughts we are. What about your feelings? When you feel lust, is it

a special John lust? It isn't. When you enter the state of deep

sleep are you entering your own personal state of sleep. No. A king

sleeping on silk sheets and a drunk sleeping in the gutter are

enjoying the same state. There is nothing personal here.

>

>The Bhagavad Gita says, `He whose mind is not shaken by

adversity,

and who in prosperity does not hanker after pleasures, who is free

from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage-

of-steady-Wisdom.'

[Ch.2, v.56]

>

>If you hanker after pleasures, that may be John, but it is not the

Self. If you are upset when things don't go your way, that's

John

and not the Self.

>

>Enlightenment confers the power of viveka, the ability to

discriminate between the Self and the non-Self – to know which is

which. So all you need to do is know what John is and know what the

Self is. When you get that sorted you can decide whether you want to

be John or the Self. It is up to you. When you think of yourself as

John, a person in this world, working to get certain things and get

rid of certain other things, then you are said to be an aviveki,

someone who lacks discrimination, a samsari.

>

>

>_____________________

>

>

>

>R. Well what I am saying is that you are the light of the world.

The Self illumines the Universe. The Universe is an object of the

Self's awareness. Without `you' there is no Universe.

>

>JD. That much is clear.

>

>R. Therefore the Universe is a second order of reality; you are

prior to the Universe. You are before John and you are prior to the

Universe. In Vedanta, there is the Self, the Individual, and the

Universe. Its called jagat, jiva and ishwara (which means the Self).

Vedanta is about these three factors: The Self, the Individual, and

the Universe. All three are the Self, but the Self is prior to jagat

and jiva. Jiva means – John. Not YOU, but you – the little

you.

There is a whole science about these three things. You are confused

about which `you' is primary. This `John' is taking

information from

the Self in the form of the Universe i.e. in the form of karma –

actions.

>

>JD. Things happening.

>

>R. Right, things happening and information from other jivas in the

Universe who are leading or teaching. However, without this Self,

this does not exist. You are the boss of all of it and you can

choose – the Universe is under your control, and you can select

whatever elements in the Universe you want. People come to me every

day and I turn down more people and ideas than I accept – its the

Universe coming to me, asking, or telling me something relevant –

but its I who choose.

>

>…………………………………

>

>R. Depends on who `you' are. If you are the Self, it does

not

matter whether he is there or not. However, if you say, ` I

don't

know whether it is good for me or not', then that `I' is

John David.

So can it be good for John David or not? It cannot. It is like

Krishna talking with Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. Arjuna was worried

about killing and Krishna tells him that you cannot kill the Self,

it is all the Self and you cannot kill it, and it cannot be slain.

Arjuna could not understand it, as it was too subtle for him. So

Krishna says even if you are just an ego and the other warriors are

just egos, death is not a problem because we just get reborn.

Therefore, it comes down to the level of ego and Krishna says it

does not matter on an ego level either. The Self is not going to be

affected by this and John David is not going to be affected either.

In fact, nobody will be affected by how it turns out one way or the

other because it is all ephemeral.

>

>JD. So then, nothing really matters?

>

>R. We have already said that there is no meaning and that it is

just all play.

>

>JD. Its just divine leela. How I would put it is, that although its

just all divine leela, I still have to tune into what it is telling

me to do.

>

>R. I am saying you are the divine leela. You wrote the play, and

can jump in and say well the play is telling me what to do. You are

the director playing at being an actor.

>

>JD. I am not clear here.

>

>R. Yes?

>

>JD. I can say. ` I will have ice cream at 3.00 p.m.

everyday.'

Somehow, it will turn up everyday. Is that what you are saying?

>

>R. Or if it does not you can rewrite the script.

>

>JD. What does that mean?

>

>R. That means you are free to take the ice cream, or not to take

the ice cream. Because the play is non-essential, you are what is

essential.

>

>JD. Lets discuss this some more. Now for instance the Ashram that I

am staying in is really a lovely place and they are saying to me

that they have fifty people coming on Monday and I must leave. I say

well if I am meant to go to the beach or the mountains that is fine.

But what you are saying is that John David can decide what is going

to happen.

>

>R. I am not saying that John David can decide, I am saying that the

Self decides.

>

>JD. Yes, that is right.

>

>R. Now where is all this taking place John?

>

>JD. In `there'.

>

>R. Right, in `there'. The Ashram is taking place in

`there', the

ocean, the beach, the other people, are taking place in

`there'. In

addition, your light is shining on all these things. It is your

awareness, which is illumining the Ashram, the moving out, the fifty

people, and the whole picture. You are illumining the whole thing.

So, who is in charge of this play, and who is assigning meaning to

this or that particular option? `You', the Light, the

Awareness.

John David is in the play too isn't he? John David is one of

those

funny little clowns who jump around doing all these things in the

play; you can decide what the meaning is for John David too, because

John David is just a concept in `You'.

>

>If you are in a dream and there is a dream ego running down the

beach, and that ego gets eaten by a tiger – so the dream tiger

eats

the dream ego – you could say, `Oh! I was eaten in the dream

by the

dream tiger', but the dream tiger and the dream ego were you, and

you were the light shining on the dream.

>

>JD. This is a bit strong for me. You are going to have go through

this all again slowly because it is very strong. This is calling

quits on my whole game.

>

>R. That's right John. (Laughs).

>

>--------------

>

>

>JD. Let's talk about Ramana Maharshi's famous

`enlightenment

experience' that occurred when he was 17 years old. I think it

can

shed a lot of light on this subject of knowing what the Self

actually is. I copied it from the board in the new hall next to

Mother's Shrine in Ramana's ashram.

>

>"I felt I was going to die and that I had to solve the problem

myself, there and then. The shock of the fear of death drove my mind

inwards and I said to myself mentally without forming the words. Now

death has come, what does it mean? What is it that is dying? This

body dies. And I at once dramatized the occurrence of death. I lay

with my limbs stretched out still as though rigor mortis had set in

and imitated a corpse so as to give greater reality to the enquiry.

I held my breath and kept my lips tightly closed so that no sound

could escape so that neither the word `I' nor any other word

could

be uttered. "Well then," I said to myself, "The body is

dead. It

will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there reduced to

ashes. But with the death of the body am I dead? Is the body

`I?' It

is silent and inert but I could feel the full force of my

personality and even the voice of the `I' within me, apart

from it.

So I am spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the s!

> pirit

> that transcends it cannot be touched by death. That means that I

am the deathless spirit." All this was not a dull thought. It

flashed through me vividly as living truth, which I perceived

directly, almost without thought process.

>

>`I' was something very real, the only real thing about my

present

state, and all the conscious activity connected with my body was

centred on that "I". From that moment onwards the `I'

or `Self'

focused attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death

had vanished once and for all. Absorption in the Self continued

unbroken from that time on. Other thoughts might come and go like

the various notes of music but the `I' continued like the

fundamental sruti note that underlies and blends with all other

states. Whether the body was engaged in talking, reading, or

anything else I was still centred on the `I'. Previous to

that

crisis I had felt no perceptible or direct interest in it, much less

any inclination to dwell permanently in it."

>

>R. First, this is a typical Self-experience. Let's not pretend

that

it is very rare. It happens somewhere to someone every day. There is

a now a vast literature of these kinds of experiences.

>

>The first thing one notices is the statement, "…the shock of

the

fear of death drove my mind inwards." The mind previously was

facing

the world. Now it is looking inwards. Spiritual literature is

forever reminding us "The Truth dwells within."

>

>And then we have Ramana's reaction to the experience. This to me

is

an important aspect and it reveals the nature of Ramana's mind

very

clearly. Ordinarily when we have intense experiences involving great

pleasure or great pain our emotions take over and cloud our

appreciation of the experience. We either get so frightened we

can't

report what happened accurately or we get so ecstatic we can't

report what happened accurately. But Ramana stayed cool as a

cucumber. He asked himself, "Now death has come, what does it

mean?

What is it that is dying? This body dies."

>

>I mentioned earlier that Vedanta is concerned with meaning. Here

you have it. Here you have an inquiring mind, one not fascinated by

the experience, one seeking to understand the experience. Although

perhaps the majority of the people coming through here are

experience happy there are quite a few who have this kind of mind to

some degree. They want to know. But very few have it to the degree

that Ramana did. This shows that he was a jnani, a lover of

knowledge. And using logic he draws the right conclusion, "This

body

dies." Already we can see by implication that he knows he is

other

than the body. He has completely objectified it. Then he does quite

an interesting thing, he dramatizes it `to give greater reality

to

the enquiry.' The rest of his musings up to `it is silent and

inert'

are just further confirmation of his understanding that he is not

the body.

>

>Then we come to the realization of the Self. This is the positive

side, what happens when the world is negated. He says, "…but I

could

feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of the

`I'

within me, apart from it." The word `personality' is

quite

interesting. I don't know if this was an accurate translation of

Ramana's words. But what he meant was the jivatman, the Self

embodied as an individual. I'm sorry to use these Sanskrit terms

but

there is simply no English equivalent. The Self is unembodied, but

it is capable of `assuming' bodies. And one of the subtle

`bodies'

it assumes is the jivatman. The other is the causal body called the

karana sharira. Ok, we can call it the soul of the person.

>

>So now he is aware of the dead body and the subtle body. What is

called the personality and `even the voice of the `I'

within me,

apart from it.' You see the whole structure of the inner world.

Then, he concludes correctly, `so I am spirit transcending the

body." He has answered the `who am I?" question, which up

to this

point he had never even considered.

>

>And then he describes jnanam, knowledge. "All this was not a

dull

thought. It flashed through me vividly as living truth which I

perceived directly, almost without thought process."

>

>When you have any experience the knowledge of that experience

arises in the mind. This knowledge needs to be grasped, owned, if

you will. In this case (as the Self) he witnessed the

knowledge `flashing vividly through me as living truth.'

>

>JD. So how does this relate to liberation?

>

>R. Many people have these kinds of experiences but do not realize

that they are `spirit transcending body.' It is this

knowledge that

is called liberation. Why is it liberation? Because thinking you are

the body is a huge problem. It makes the world and everything in it

real. But as the Self the world appears as a kind of dream that one

knows to be a dream…so all the experiences you have in it

can't bind

you. In the next statement he addresses this issue of what is real.

He says, " `I' was something very real, the only real

thing about my

present state, and all the conscious activity connected with my body

was centered on that `I'." This is knowledge. The

`I' is real. The

body/mind isn't.

>

>JD. Surely, if it is the Self it has to be real, doesn't it?

>

>R. That's a good point. The answer is `yes' and

`no.' Yes, because

if the Self is everything and the Self alone is real and there is

such a thing as the body/mind it has to be real. There is a

statement in the Vedanta that says, `Brahma satyam, jagan

mithya.'

It means the limitless Self is real, the world (read body/mind) is

apparently real. Real is defined in spiritual science as what never

changes, last's forever. So experience and the body don't fit

that

definition. But experience isn't actually unreal either. It has a

peculiar status, neither completely real, nor completely unreal.

There is a famous Vedantic text, the Vacarambana Sruti that explains

how it is. I won't digress into it because we are just getting to

the essence of Ramana's experience.

>

>There is one more thing to understand here and that is that Ramana

is not quite through with the process he's experiencing. He is at

the intermediate stage. Before this experience came and he realized

he was the Self he thought that the body was real. But this

experience has shown him that with reference to the Self the body is

not real. It is absolutely important that he completely negate his

belief in the reality of the body. So he has to say that it isn't

real. Then later, when the knowledge that he is the Self is

completely firm, he can take the body back as real because it is non-

separate from him. The only actual problem with the body is the

belief that it is an independent entity and that the `I'

depends on

it. But Ramana realized that the `I' was free of the body. He

says

and this is very important, `…all the conscious activity

connected

with my body was centered on that "I".

>

>People who are ignorant that they are the immortal Self, what you

would call materialists, believe that the `I' is centered on

the

body, that it is the body that gives life to the `I.' But

scripture

and direct experience shows that the body is centered on the

`I.' In

other words the `I' is the living principle and the body is

just

matter. Ramana realized that fact.

>

>Now the next statement is very difficult to understand. In a way we

would have been a lot happier if Ramana just packed up his

meditation carpet and stole silently away into the night. He's

the

Self and he knows it. Shouldn't that be the end? But as usual

life

always has another surprise in store. He says, "From that moment

onwards the `I' or `Self' focused attention on itself

by a powerful

fascination."

>

>Which `I' did what? If I'm the `I,' the one

without a second, how

do we get two `I's here? Has Ramana lost his realization? How

can

the Self be fascinated with anything? It would only be fascinated if

it felt there was something to experience or know. But we know that

it is whole and complete, lacking nothing, so why is it acting as if

it weren't? Furthermore if it is Self aware it is already

`focused'

on itself.

>

>This experience was not the end. In fact it was just the beginning

of Ramana's spiritual journey. He has just become Self realized

but

he has not become enlightened.

>

>JD. What do you mean by that?

>

>R. The last paragraph, Whether the body was engaged in talking,

reading, or anything else I was still centered on the Self. Previous

to that crisis I had felt no perceptible or direct interest in it,

much less any inclination to dwell permanently in it shows us

clearly that he thinks of the Self as an object and he sees himself

as separate from it. He is seeing it, experiencing it. It would

remain as as a permanent experience but he has yet to see himself

solely as the non-dual Self. He does. He gets there. We don't know

when, probably during his meditation phase when he was living in the

caves, but he gains the last little bit of knowledge.

>

>JD. How do you know?

>

>R. The language. Let's take the language at face value. Ramana

was

a very straightforward person. He says, "Absorption in the Self

continued unbroken from that time on." So the natural question

is "who is absorbed in what?" It seems that the Self was

absorbed in

itself (by that I think he meant that he, Ramana (who had just

realized that he was the Self) was absorbed in the Self that he had

realized. This would be a statement that would indicate

enlightenment. But a couple of sentences later he says, "I was

centered on the `I'." (Meaning Ramana as `mind'

was centered on

Ramana as Self.) And one gets the impression that the first

`I' was

different from the second. This is a statement of the Self-

realization phase of the spiritual journey.

>

>And it fits in with the Self-enquiry that Ramana taught, which was

based on his own experience and backed by scripture. One of the

definitions of Self-enquiry that Ramana gives is "Holding the

mind

on the Self is enquiry." So here he is, a young boy of seventeen

who

didn't have a clue about the Self, with his mind fixed

permanently

on the Self.

>

>JD. How does one go from Self-realized to enlightenment? How does

it happen?

>

>R. You keep watching the Self. You stay alert, which is not hard

because the Self is very beautiful. And the more you watch it the

more it sets you to thinking. You become fascinated. The words

Ramana uses are `a powerful fascination.' When you're in

this phase

you need a cave or something like it. You do not want to be in the

world. If you stay in the world there is a danger that your

connection will be broken.

>

>You fall in love. When you are in love you do not stop thinking.

One thing that we need to point out here is very important. You know

how I have been saying that this belief that the mind has to stop

completely is not true, that it does happen but it need not happen,

that having a dead mind can be a big problem?

>

>JD. Yes.

>

>R. Well, it's clear by Ramana's own admission that his mind

had not

stopped completely. He says, "Other thoughts might come and go

like

the various notes of music…" This `state' he is

`in' is savikalpa

samadhi to use the Yogic term. It is a state of clear seeing in

which vikalpas, thoughts, arise and fall. But the thoughts do not

obscure your vision of the Self. This is very important. Ramana says

so.

>

>Anyway, where was I? Love. You fall in love. When you are in love

you do not stop thinking. On the contrary, you think more, you want

to know what your beloved is, what he or she is doing. This thinking

is enquiry. Ramana already had the knowledge from his experience to

guide him in his enquiry. He knew about himself and the "I beyond

the body."

>

>You are getting it all straight about who you are and what your

relationship is to this beautiful being. And then one day something

happens, we cannot say when, it just happens if you stay focused on

the beloved. There is an Aha! And at that moment the you that were

looking at the Self `becomes' the Self. There is actually no

becoming. You were it all along. The becoming is recognition, a

knowing. But the `becoming' changes your perspective. You are

no

longer the jivatman looking in at the Self, the paramatman, you are

the Self looking out at the jivatman. And what do you know? That the

jivatman and the paramatman are one. Or in the words of the

scripture, "Tat Tvam Asi," That (Self) you are. Formulated

from the

Self's perspective the words are "Aham Brahmasmi" I am

limitless.

Ramana the form is limited. Ramana the Self is unlimited.

>

>This is what Vedanta calls enlightenment. From that point on you do

not abide `in' the Self you abide `as' the Self. You

have only one

non-dual identity.

>

>JD. That's a very important analysis that will help many people

who

are nearing the end of their spiritual journeys.