Fwd: Selections from TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI-107

[Guest guest]

ThePowerOfSilence , " saikali6362 "

<saikali6362 wrote:

 

Selections from TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI-107

 

TALK 597:

 

Swiss lady: " Does Self-Realisation imply occult powers also? "

 

M.: The Self is the most intimate and eternal Being whereas the

siddhis are foreign. The one requires effort to acquire and the

other does not. The powers are sought by the mind which must be

kept alert whereas the Self is realised when the mind is destroyed.

The powers manifest only when there is the ego. The ego makes you

aware of others and in its absence there are no others to be seen.

The Self is beyond the ego and is realised after the ego is

eliminated. The elimination of the ego makes one unaware of others.

How can the question of others arise and where is the use of occult

powers for a Self-Realised Being? Self-Realisation may be

accompanied by occult powers or it may not be. If the person had

sought such powers before Realisation, he may get the powers after

Realisation. There are others who had not sought such powers and had

attempted only Self-Realisation. They do not manifest such powers.

 

These powers may also be sought and gained even after Self-

Realisation. But then they are used for a definite purpose, i.e. the

benefit of others as in the case of Chudala. Sikhidhvaja was a

pious king. His spouse was Chudala. They received instructions from

a sage. The king, being busy with the administration of his kingdom,

could not put the instructions into practice, whereas Chudala put

them into practice and gained Self-Realisation. Consequently she

appeared more charming than before. The king was struck by her

growing charm and asked her about it. She said that all charm was

due to the Self and he was only noting the charm of Self-Realisation

in her. He said that she was silly. There were great tapasvis who

could not realise the Self even after long periods of tapas and what

about a silly woman who was all along in the family and in the

worldly life? However, Chudala was not offended because she was

firm in the Self and only wished that her husband should realise the

Self and be happy. She then thought that unless she could prove her

worth by manifesting some extraordinary powers he could not be

convinced and she began to seek occult powers and gained them. But

she did not betray them just then. Constant association with her

made the king dispassionate. He began to dislike the worldly life

and desired to retire into the forest for performing tapasya. So he

told his wife that he wanted to leave the world for the forest. She

was delighted at the development, but pretended to be very much

concerned with his unkind decision. He hesitated out of

consideration for her. In the meantime, his dispassion gained in

force and he decided to leave home even without her consent.

When the queen was sleeping one night he suddenly left the palace by

stealth and retired into the forest. He was seeking some solitary

spot where he could perform his tapas. When the queen woke up she

did not find her husband and immediately found out by her occult

powers what had really happened. She rejoiced in her husband's

determination. She called the ministers and said that the king had

gone on some important business and that the administration should

be carried on as efficiently as ever. She herself administered the

state in the absence of the king.

Eighteen years passed. She then knew that the king was fit for Self-

Realisation. So she appeared to him disguised as Kumbha and so on.

He then realised the Self and returned to rule the kingdom with the

queen.

The point is that occult powers are sought and gained for the

benefit of others by Self-Realised persons also. But the sages are

not deluded by the possession of such powers.

D.: Does the sage use occult powers for making others realise the

Self or is the mere fact of his Self-Realisation enough for it?

M.: The force of his Self-Realisation is far more powerful than the

use of all other powers.

Inasmuch as there is no ego in him, there are not others for him.

What is the highest benefit that can be conferred on others? It is

happiness. Happiness is born of Peace. Peace can reign only when

there is no disturbance. Disturbance is due to thoughts which arise

in the mind. When the mind itself is absent there will be perfect

Peace. Unless a person had annihilated his mind he cannot gain peace

and be happy. Unless he himself is happy he cannot bestow happiness

on others.

When there is no mind he cannot be aware of others. So the mere fact

of his Self-Realisation is itself enough to make all others happy.

D.: Can samadhi come and go?

M.: What is samadhi? Samadhi is one's essential nature. How then can

it come or go?

If you do not realise your essential nature, your sight remains

obstructed. What is the obstruction? Find it and remove it. So one's

efforts are meant only for the removal of obstructions which hide

the true vision. The real nature remains the same. When once it is

realised it is permanent.

D.: But Mr. Brunton says that he had one hour's samadhi. Therefore I

asked the question.

M.: A practiser gains peace of mind and is happy. That peace is the

result of his efforts. But the real state must be effortless. The

effortless samadhi is the true one and the perfect state. It is

permanent. The efforts are spasmodic and so also their results.

When the real, effortless, permanent, happy nature is realised it

will be found to be not inconsistent with the ordinary activities of

life. The samadhi reached after efforts looks like abstraction from

the external activities. A person might be so abstracted or live

freely among people without detriment to his Peace and Happiness

because that is his true nature or the Self.

 

TALK 601:

 

G. V. Subbaramiah mentioned something about time.

M.: What is time? It posits a state, one's recognition of it, and

also the changes which affect it. The interval between two states is

called time. A state cannot come into being unless the mind calls it

into existence. The mind must be held by the Self. If the mind is

not made use of there is no concept of time. Time and space are in

the mind but one's true state lies beyond the mind. The question of

time does not arise at all to the one established in one's true

nature.

Mr. Narayana Iyer: Sri Bhagavan's words are so pleasing to hear but

their import is beyond our comprehension. That seems to be far too

much for us even to hope to realise.

G. V. S.: Our grasp is only intellectual. If Sri Bhagavan be pleased

to direct us with a few instructions we shall be highly benefited.

M.: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a

true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and

wants Peace and Rest. In other words he wants cessation of his

activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition

to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the

seeker? Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one's

inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a

master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama)

may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot

liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters.

D.: When we attempt to cease from activity the very attempt is

action.

So activity seems to be inevitable.

 

M.: True. Thayumanavar has also alluded to it. A doctor advises a

patient to take the prescribed medicine with only one condition.

That condition is not to think of a monkey when he takes the

medicine. Can the patient ever take the medicine? Will he not think

of the monkey whenever he tries not to do so? So also, when people

try to give up thoughts their object is frustrated by their very

attempt.

 

D.: How then is the state to be attained?

M.: What is there to attain? A thing remains to be attained if it is

not already attained. But here one's very being is That.

Someone: Why do we not then know it?

Annamalaiswami: I should always try to think I am That.

M.: Why should one think " I am That " ? He is That only. Does a man go

on thinking that he is a man?

Mr. Anantachari: The belief `I am a man' is so deep that we cannot

help thinking so.

M.: Why should you think " I am a man " ? If you are challenged you may

say `I am a man'. Therefore the thought - `I am a man' - is called

up when another thought, say `I am an animal', protrudes itself.

Similarly, the thought I am That is necessary only so long as the

other thought I am a man persists.

D.: The thought `I am a man' is so firm that it cannot he got rid of.

 

M.: Be your true Self. Why should you think `I am a man'?

 

D.: The thought `I am a man' is so natural.

 

M.: Not so. On the other hand `I am' is natural. Why do you qualify

it with `a man'?

 

D.: `I am a man' is so obvious whereas `I am That' is not understood

by us.

M.: You are neither That nor This. The truth is `I am'. " I AM that I

AM " according to the Bible also. Mere Being is alone natural. To

limit it to `being a man' is uncalled for.

D.: (Humorously) If votes be taken the majority will be on my side.

(Laughter)

M.: I cast my vote also on your side (Laughter). I say also `I am a

man': but I am not limited to the body. It is IN ME. That is the

difference.

Someone: The limitation (upadhi) of being a man cannot be got rid of.

 

M.: How were you in deep sleep? There was no thought of being a man.

 

Another: So, the state of sleep must be brought about even when one

is awake.

 

M.: Yes. It is jagrat-sushupti.

Sri Bhagavan continued: Some people even say that while they sleep

they are enclosed somewhere in the body. They forget that such an

idea did not persist in sleep but rises up only on waking. They

bring their waking-state to bear upon their sleep.

 

TALK 602:

 

Dr. Emile Gatheir: " Can you kindly give me a summary of your

teachings? "

M.: They are found in small booklets, particularly Who am l?

D.: I shall read them. But may I have the central point of your

teachings from your lips?

M.: The central point is the thing.

 

D.: It is not clear.

 

M.: Find the Centre.

 

D.: I am from God. Is not God distinct from me?

 

M.: Who asks this question? God does not ask it. You ask it. So find

who you are and then you may find if God is distinct from you.

 

D.: But God is Perfect and I am imperfect. How can I ever know Him

fully?

 

M.: God does not say so. The question is for you. After finding who

you are you may see what God is.

D.: But you have found your Self. Please let us know if God is

distinct from you.

M.: It is a matter of experience. Each one must experience it

himself.

D.: Oh! I see. But God is Infinite and I am finite. I have a

personality which can never merge into God. Is it not so?

M.: Infinity and Perfection do not admit of parts. If a finite being

comes out of infinity the perfection of infinity is marred. Thus

your statement is a contradiction in terms.

D.: No. I see both God and creation.

 

M.: How are you aware of your personality?

 

D.: I have a soul. I know it by its activities.

 

M.: Did you know it in deep sleep?

 

D.: The activities are suspended in deep sleep.

 

M.: But you exist in sleep. So do you now too. Which of these two is

your real state?

 

D.: Sleep and waking are mere accidents. I am the substance behind

the accidents.

(He looked up at the clock and said that it was time for him to

catch the train. He left after thanking Sri Bhagavan. So the

conversation ended abruptly)

 

--- End forwarded message ---