An excellant article by S.S.cohen on Ramana maharisi

[Guest guest]

Reflections on Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi

By S. S. Cohen

 

" Now what you should do is to learn what the Self is, and then

directly seek it. Do not digress in irrelevant matters, in bodies,

koshas, involution and evolution, birth and death; in supersensuous

sights and sounds, etc., for all these are glamorous irrelevancies

which trap and seduce you away from the reality of yourself and

retain you in the delusion of the senses from which you are now

attempting to escape.

What is of importance is not what you perceive, think or do, but WHAT

YOU ARE.'' Sense-perceptions, conceptions, sensations, actions, are

mere dreams, mere pictures in the consciousness that perceives them.

They rise from it, like dreams from the dreamer, distract its

attention for a while and disappear in it. They change incessantly,

have a beginning and an end, but he, the thinker and knower, being

pure intelligence, remains ever. The knower is thus indestructible.

The light of knowledge comes only from him, the subject, never from

the object, the body.

What we therefore call our Self is not the body, which is born, grows

and dies, which is made of innumerable non-homogeneous parts which do

not think, do not seek, do not perceive and do not understand. We are

the intelligent indivisible unit 'I' - life itself, - which pervades

and uses the body, which sees but cannot be seen, hears but cannot be

heard, smells but cannot be smelt, knows but cannot be known; for it

is always a subject, never an object. And because we cannot see, hear

or smell our 'I', we mistake it for the body which can be seen, heard

and smelt.

Thus the self-instinct, the 'I'-sense, getting mixed up with the

sense-percepts, from which none can save it but the Supreme Guide,

the divine Guru.

 

Thus the knower, or dreamer, is alone real; the known is sheer dream.

This sums up the teachings of the Srutis, and conforms to the

experience of Sri Ramana Bhagavan.

 

To follow up the Quest till the Self is realised, is the path of

Jnana, of Supreme Knowledge, of Liberation and Bliss everlasting - a

path which has been viewed by the Master from every side and

discussed in every detail. He has said everything that needs be said

and revealed everything that needs be revealed. And whatever he has

not said and revealed is scarcely worth knowing.

 

S. S. Cohen

 

 

Chapter 1

 

Happiness and Misery

 

9. " Soul, mind and ego are mere words. These are not real entities.

Consciousness is the only truth. Its nature is Bliss. Bliss alone is -

enjoyer and enjoyment both merge in it. Pleasure consists in turning

and keeping the mind within; pain in sending it outward. There is

only pleasure. Absence of pleasure is called pain. One's nature is

pleasure - bliss.''

 

Note: Consciousness, Self, Being are one and the same reality. As we

have already seen, the Self is blissful; we, in our nature, are

bliss, but when we " rush out'', to use the metaphor of the last note,

when we extrovert and take the body for ourselves, giving it a

special name, we become other than ourselves - the body and its

name; - then we are not bliss. We take upon ourselves the suffering

which the body of Mr. So-and-so is heir to. In other words we imagine

ourselves the not-Self and likewise imagine in ourselves the

suffering and pain of the not-Self. Extroversion is the cause of this

false imagination. Instead of looking inwardly at the pure and

blissful seer of the world, we look outwardly at the misery - and -

disease - laden world and at the perishable body of the seer, which

we mistake for the seer himself.

 

" Soul, mind, ego are mere words: consciousness is the only truth.''

This is a timely reminder that we should not lose ourselves in sounds

that convey no sense at all. Bhagavan is supremely practical. Nobody

knows what soul or ego is, although we repeat the words mechanically,

but everybody knows what awareness is, what consciousness and

unconsciousness mean, for we daily see before our eyes people in an

unconscious state - in sleep, swoon, or under anaesthesia. Therefore

the Master uses the word consciousness for the Self and for its

synonyms - soul, spirit, mind, knowledge, intelligence, and even ego,

which is a misnomer for the Self.

 

 

Chapter 7

 

God

 

4. " How is all-immanent God said to reside in the Ether of the

Heart?''

 

Bhagavan: " Do we not reside in one place? Do you not say that you are

in your body? Similarly God is said to reside in the Heart-lotus. The

Heart-lotus is not a place. Some place is mentioned as the place of

God, because we think we are in the body. This kind of teaching is

meant for those who can appreciate only relative knowledge. Being

immanent everywhere, there is no particular place for God. The

instruction means 'look within'.''

 

Note: That the Almighty God, who is infinite and boundless, can

squeeze Himself in such a small and uncomfortable hole as the human

heart, poses a tremendous problem to the sense-bound person. Bhagavan

explains that the heart-lotus is not a physical place, but an apt

simile made for the sake of those who " appreciate only relative

knowledge,'' that is, sensuous experience. But the designation of

Heart for God is not without foundation: the experience of absolute

Being is felt in samadhi as pure consciousness in one's inmost being,

rather, to be precise, in the heart of one's being, because it is

blissful as well as being. We are all agreed that joy or any emotion

is only felt in the heart - not the muscular heart, but somewhere in

our being, which we locate in the chest, though not in the flesh and

ribs of the chest. It is in this heart, this subtle emotional centre,

that the bliss of the pure consciousness or God is felt in samadhi.

This is the meaning of the saying that God is bliss and resides in

the ether of the heart. If the whole universe resides in this

consciousness, it follows that consciousness pervades the universe.

God is thus immanent and resides in the Heart as well. And if you

wish to verify it, Bhagavan exhorts you to " look within.''

 

 

Chapter 9

 

The Self or Reality

 

15. " There is no being who is not conscious and therefore who is not

Siva. Not only he is Siva but also all else. Yet he thinks in sheer

ignorance that he sees the universe in diverse forms. But if he sees

the Self he will not be aware of his separateness from the universe.

Siva is then seen as the universe. But (unfortunately) the seer does

not see the background. Think of the man who sees only the cloth and

not the cotton of which it is made; or the pictures and not the

screen; or the letters which he reads and not the paper on which they

are written. Siva is both the Being assuming the forms in the

universe as well as the consciousness that sees them. That is to say

Siva is the background underlying both the subject and the object -

Siva is repose and Siva is action. Whatever it is said to be, it is

only Consciousness, whether in repose or in action.''

 

Note: It is now evident that Siva is not other than the seer. The

last part of this text which makes the absolute consciousness to

be " in repose'' as well as " in action'' is a good answer to the

doctrinaire theory that Chaitanya does not include the active senses.

If it does not include them, whence then do they arise and enact a

world? They answer that the senses do not exist at all - all is Maya,

which implies that Maya is the creator of the senses, which is

absurd. The senses are, like memory, space-sense, time-sense, etc.,

undeniable, for they are responsible for the appearance of an

external world, whereas Maya is the name given to this appearance,

this illusion. Maya is thus not the parent but the offspring of the

senses. Therefore, the senses are the activity of Chaitanya, the Pure

Consciousness, but, to repeat, an APPARENT activity, which displays a

world that does not exist, like a dream. It is an activity which is

within the consciousness, though it appears to be without it, an

activity which does not affect the consciousness itself. And, being

an appearance within the consciousness, it is the consciousness

itself, that is, of the same nature as its substratum; for it cannot

be of an alien nature, since there exists nothing but pure

consciousness. Thus the world is Siva Himself. He is BEING as well as

DOING - Repose as well as Action. And this will not be realised as

such until Siva is first realised as BEING, because BEING is His very

nature, whereas DOING is only an appearance in Him.

 

Unless action is understood to be a mere appearance in Being, the

true nature of the object will ever remain a puzzle to the student of

metaphysics. This is of fundamental importance for the proper

comprehension of the relation of the perceptions to their seer, of

the changeless Self to the ever-changing phenomena, of the screen, to

use Bhagavan's analogy, to the pictures which move on it.

 

 

Chapter 13

 

Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi

 

9. " The Srutis speak of the Self as being of the size of the thumb,

the tip of the hair, a spark, subtler than the subtle, etc., etc.

They have no foundation in fact. It is only Being. It is simply

Being. People desire to see it as a blazing light, etc. How can it

be? It is neither light nor darkness. It is only as it is, It cannot

be defined. The best definition for it is 'I am that I am'.''

 

Note: That settles it: we are not to take literally all the

descriptions of the Self found here and there. If we do, then we will

be giving form to the formless, name to the nameless, and attributes

to the attributeless. All objective descriptions and comparisons of

the Self are meaningless, and must stop at a point not too far away.

Bhagavan does not wish to slight the Srutis, because he himself very

often quotes them. What he declares is only the lack of uniformity

and cohesion which almost always confounds and confuses the casual

student and biased theologian who finds in them a vast field for

adverse propaganda. The beginner feels himself honestly lost in what

appears to be a maze of inconsistencies and exaggerations, as witness

these descriptions of the Self. The Jnani knows how to tackle the

Upanishads. The veteran seeker likewise skims much of their cream,

according to his intuitive maturity. The others take them literally

and allow their imagination to run riot, or hold to their letter

tenaciously but allow the spirit to slip through their fingers.

 

Bhagavan is keen that we have a notion of the Self which is divested

of all analogies and sensory descriptions. The Self is pure Being. To

be, by its very definition, means to exist, which negates non-

existence. Being therefore means eternal existence, which can be said

of only an indestructible substance. But all objective things are

destructible, being insentient. Therefore eternal existence can be

predicted on only the be-ing which is pure sentience. This we call

the Infinite Self or Supreme Consciousness which transcends all

objectivity. What description or analogy can therefore fit it?

Bhagavan finds a single definition which can do so, namely 'I am that

I am', that is, the " undefinable Being''.

 

 

Chapter 14

 

The Jnani or Jivan Mukta

 

6. " Is there no 'I-am-the-body' idea for the Jnani? If, for instance,

Sri Bhagavan is bitten by an insect, is there no sensation?

 

Bhagavan: " There is the sensation and there is also the 'I-am-the-

body' idea. The latter is common to both the Jnani and the ajnani

with this difference, that the ajnani thinks 'only the body is

myself', whereas the Jnani knows 'all this is the Self' or 'all this

is Brahman'; if there be pain, let it be. It is also part of the

Self. The Self is perfect''.

 

" Now with regard to the actions of the Jnanis, they are only so

called because they are ineffective. Generally the actions get

embedded as samskaras (impressions) in the individual. That can be

only so long as the mind is fertile, as is the case of the ajnani.

With a Jnani the mind is only surmised; he has already transcended

the mind. Because of his apparent activity the mind has to be

inferred in his case, and that mind is not fertile like that of an

ajnani. Hence it is said that the Jnani's mind is Brahman. Brahman is

certainly no other than the Jnani's mind. Vasanas cannot bear fruit

in that soil, His mind is barren, free from the vasanas, etc.

 

" However, since prarabdha is conceded in his case, vasanas also must

be supposed to exist. But they are only vasanas for enjoyment,

leaving no impressions to be the seeds for future karma.''

 

Note: In this text we have a full view of the Jnani's state: in

pains, in action, in the working out of an old, and the generation of

a new, karma, etc. It all amounts to this; his perceptions of pain

and pleasure and of the world are exactly like those of the ajnani,

as we have discussed in Note 45 of the last chapter. He sees other

bodies and his own exactly as others see them, but, unlike others, he

knows the truth about them. A peasant who, for the first time goes to

a cinema-show and sees fierce fire raging on the screen, starts

screaming and tries to run out of the theatre, taking the fire to be

real; whereas the others sit back in their chairs unconcerned. This

is the exact difference between the Jnani and the ajnani in their

perceptions. Both see the very same sights, yet their knowledge of

them vastly differs.

 

As for the actions of Jnani they are equally productive - often even

more so - as those of the ajnani (the word 'ineffective' in the text

is likely to be misrepresented as qualifying actions, whereas it

qualifies the production of samskaras, but they are without vasanas,

although they appear as if they were. They resemble Coleridge's

wonderful pen picture of " a painted ship on a painted ocean'', though

ship and ocean are real. The actual ship is there, the actual ocean

is also there, but there is no movement in either on account of the

curse. The same are the vasanas of the Jnani which leave no

impressions on his mind. The driving force in an action which

produces Karma is its motive, which is absent in the Jnani's; hence

there is no creation of a new karma for him. The actor is there, the

action is also there, but the driving force of the action is, in his

case, automatic, being impersonal, vasana free. The Srutis compare it

to the fried seed which can no longer sprout. That is why the action

of the Jnani is viewed as inaction. The Jnani appears to act, and

efficiently too, but he is not acting at all. This is the

significance of inaction in action and action in inaction. The

motiveless mind is Brahman Itself. This is one of the most revealing

statements of Bhagavan.