The Vidya of Vichara – III; “Anbu-Punume”

… Continued from the previous post

In part I of this series, I mentioned that Anma Viddai contains an extraordinary instruction relating to Self-knowledge and the practice of Vichara. This instruction comes in the last verse, which, it may be recalled, was composed by Bhagavan especially as He wanted to include Sri Arunachala in the hymn. In fact, it is in the last line of the hymn, making it a sort of parting advice from Bhagavan. The last line, marvellously rhymed and musical, is:

“Arulum venume; Anbu-punume; Inbu tonume”.

Literally:

“Grace also is needed; have Love; Bliss will blossom forth”.

“Anbu-punume” is translated by different scholars in different versions of Anma Viddai as: “be possessed of love”, “have love”, “love is added”, or “love is needed”. Essentially, Bhagavan in the last line of His hymn is saying that “Love” is an essential ingredient of success in Self-knowledge, in the practice of Vichara. This, in my humble opinion folks, is quite extraordinary and well worth a closer look!

Is Grace the quid-pro-quo for Love?

Going back to the different commentaries and translations of Anma Viddai available, just about every version links the “have Love” ingredient to “Grace”. “Anbu-punume”, after all, comes just after “Arulum venume” in the hymn, and just after Lord Arunachala is mentioned. And then, this is the way we generally tend to look at Grace: that the Grace of the Entity you follow / worship flows towards you in exchange for the love and devotion you, as the sadhaka and devotee, have shown towards the said Entity. The extent of Grace is proportional to the love you bring to the table. Alternately, you have to love in adequate measure, the state of God-hood, or the state of Self-hood, i.e. the state of the Entity you hold sacred, in order to be Graced with that state.   

So, the different commentaries expand on “Anbu-punume”, loosely, as: “have love for ‘Being’”, “have love for the Self”, “have love for Sri Arunachala Siva (or God in any form)” or “have love for Bhagavan”. This then would enable the much needed Grace to flow from the Self, Sri Arunachala, God in any form, or Sri Bhagavan, take your pick.

Personally, I believe that this is too simplistic an interpretation. Firstly, it brings-in plenty of confusion into Vichara. Is the teaching to seek the Source, or is it to show love, devotion, and adoration towards the Divinity? Why then seek the Source? Just show intense love for God, essentially take up the devotional approach fully, be eligible to receive Grace, and be done with it all?

Secondly, and more importantly, if we think about it a bit, we should come to the conclusion ourselves that if Grace were to be the quid-pro-quo for love for an Entity, or anything else besides, it would not be “Grace” then, would it? And so, Bhagavan has consistently held that Grace is ever flowing, Grace is always available. In His teachings, Grace is never the quid-pro-quo for anything, It chooses whom It chooses (on It's own unknown and unfathomable criteria). He would say that the fact you are doing Vichara, is itself because of Grace. And thus, doing Vichara itself qualifies as the fulfillment of mandatory duty on part of the sadhaka. The supreme expression of love for Him, then, is the doing of Vichara alone. And thus, there was no need for Bhagavan to mention “love” separately in Anma Viddai, if it were to be love FOR an Entity or state.

Is the instruction to “add” love during Vichara?

A doubt then may arise that: Is Bhagavan saying that when seeking the Source in Vichara, we have to “add” love to the process? Generate an emotion of love towards a Divinity or the Self? To check this out (no laughing now!), during a few Vichara sessions, I tried to “add” love when deep within and seeking the Source of the “I”. During these attempts, I was careful to keep the emotion as pure as possible, a sort of love in general for things Divine, for Bhagavan, Lord Arunachala, the Great Mother and so on. In my humble opinion, it just cannot be done. The attempt to generate any emotion when in that state, even though it is the most sattvika and pure of emotions, immediately starts a wave of movement in the mind that pops you out of Vichara. Of this then I am absolutely certain, that “love is needed”, is NOT an instruction to include "love" during Vichara. The obvious logical conclusion then is: that you have to come into the Vichara process with all mandatory sentiments as needed, “Love” included, already ingrained in you.

The Importance of “Arulum venume; Anbu-punume”

At this point it might help to pause and consider why Bhagavan’s last line is of some importance. I have already mentioned that I believe it represents the final, parting advice in the hymn from Bhagavan. I also believe that it comes into play for the sadhaka who is doing Vichara as prescribed by Bhagavan earnestly, and having a degree of success in that he is able chase down the “I” until the sense of It is nice and strong within him. He has reached the point now beyond which his efforts cannot go further. It is almost as if there is door there which refuses to open, do what he may [am reminded of Bob Dylan’s fantastic whining - “knock, knock, knockin’ on heaven’s door …”]. 

I believe this advice from Bhagavan is given for that moment. Bhagavan is saying that all your efforts can only take you upto that door, and then it is all upto Grace; and the “Love” that you come imbedded with. In effect, given that Grace is ever present and ever flowing, the imbedded Love becomes the key that opens the door, or cuts through the “cit-jada-granthi”, to use a technical term sometimes used by Bhagavan.

Personally, I believe, that Bhagavan is referring to a deep and fundamental requirement in the sadhaka: to have “Love” per se; “Love” that is the flip side of the Self as sat-cid-ananda.

What is this “Love”?

Ironically, it is not having any love at all, i.e. love that is limited and directed for any entity or state, Divine or otherwise. To explain this, let me quote this fascinating extract from Bhagavan Himself:

[From: “Letters from Sri Ramanasramam” by Suri Nagamma; Letter No. 179, titled “The Path of Love”; A young man has been asking Bhagavan why not love God and follow the path of love …]

“… Who else is to be loved? Love itself is God,” said Bhagavan.

“That is why I am asking you whether God could be worshipped through the path of love?” said the questioner.

“That is exactly what I have been saying. Love itself is the actual form of God. If by saying, ‘I do not love this; I do not love that’, you reject all things, that which remains is Swarupa, i.e., the innate Self. That is pure bliss. Call it pure bliss, God, Atma or what you will. That is devotion; that is realization and that is everything,” said Bhagavan.

“The meaning of what you say now is that we should reject all outside things which are bad, and also all those which are good, and love God alone. Is it possible for anyone to reject everything, saying this is no good, that is no good, unless one experiences them?” said some other.

“That is true. To reject the bad, you must love the good. In due course that good also will appear to be an obstacle and will be rejected. Hence, you must necessarily first love what is good. That means you must first love and then reject the thing you love. If you thus reject everything, what remains is the Self alone. That is real love. One who knows the secret of that love finds the world itself full of universal love,” said Bhagavan and resumed silence.

 

So, Bhagavan says, do not have love for anything, but “be Love”. We all know that Bhagavan’s life, and the way He lived it, is itself a great teaching for us. And so, we only have to look to Him to understand what “being Love” means. He embodied Love, Love that was felt instantly by whosoever came into His presence. It was shown in the compassion towards the animals, the plants and trees, the birds, the fierce adherence to sharing equally with all, in the gentleness and politeness of demeanour; in the consideration shown towards the thieves who beat Him, to the bees that were allowed to sting His leg, and in a million other matters. Bhagavan’s life itself gives us the perfect example of “Love”, far beyond the capabilities of ordinary folks like you and me.

The Instruction “Anbu-punume” [“have Love”] 

I can hear someone saying, “Hey, wait a minute! There is a chicken and egg element to this if we are required to have such Love. Such Love is possible only in the Jnani, i.e. post Self-realization; how can we then say that such Love is the pre-requisite for success in Vichara and needed  for Self-realization”?

Yes, that is true. The sadhaka cannot ever reach extent of Love imbedded in Bhagavan, the great Jnani. That can only be when he or she is Self-realized. But it is also clear from the usage in Anma Viddai, that the phrase “Anbu-punume” is intended for the sadhaka, and not as being descriptive of the state of the Jnani. And so, in my humble opinion, it is an instruction that the sadhaka has to also consciously try and generate in him or her, certain specific qualities which come close to, or emulate, the ideal position as exemplified by Bhagavan and the Jnani.

In a sense it all loops back to the character and mental make-up of the sadhaka and the thorny issue of whether there are any pre-requisites at all needed for Vichara and Self-realization. Personally, I believe that there is much merit in the traditional disciplines of “Yama”, “Niyama” etc. that the sadhaka had to undergo in the olden days, as they built up the necessary qualities in him or her in a formal manner. But leaving the formal spiritual training bit aside, howsoever it may come about, the sadhaka has to evolve in character to come close to the ideal of "being Love".

Won’t Vichara by itself handle it?

It can be said that, as far as Vichara is concerned, the process of intense introversion itself builds up these qualities in an informal manner. I agree. In fact, I would add that the sadhaka may take it that if his or her Vichara is periodically getting stuck at times, it is so because certain necessary qualities are still being built up via the process (in a sense, the vasanas are being cleared), and further advancement will happen only when the process is complete. And thus, if he or she is halted at the “door” which refuses to open despite all the knockin’, it will do so only when the “Love” ingrained in the sadhaka approaches a level as explained in Bhagavan’s note above. And the point is, that could still take an eternity if the basic vasanas are too strong to be eliminated quickly.

For Self-knowledge to dawn, I believe, we need every trick in the book. Bhagavan well knows what Vichara can or cannot do, and still, He especially does mention “have Love” in the hymn. And so it can only be that in addition to our Vichara practice, we still need to consciously work on our demeanour, attitude and overall character.

I have come across sadhakas in Sri Ramanasramam who do Vichara for hours in the halls, but then have seen them outside the halls show savage unkindness to others for small transgressions. And not just as a one-off burst of anger. That will not do.

So the love we may have for us and our endeavours, our partner, our family, our possessions, needs to expand to include a much wider circle. We should feel the pain of the hungry doggie limping along on the road, the monkey mother who lost her baby, the tree whose branches were savagely lopped-off by the road maintenance crew, the aged lonely beggar-woman sitting by the roadside with not a friend in the world, the newcomer morosely sitting in the hall struggling with Vichara without a clue as to what its all about and being noisy, the grain of rice that was not consumed but lies forlorn on the plate as if saying “I survived storm and drought and locusts over many months to offer myself to you, but you abandoned me just like that …”; and then we may “be Love”.

These Jnana paths are a little tricky in that we may look at them as dry, sterile acts of almost a hatha-yoga nature; just sit down at Vichara and chase down the “I”, that is all that is needed. In fact, this is also the fundamental misconception regarding Advaita in general. We can find reams written expressing wonder as to how the avowed logician, Sri Sankara, could compose heart-melting hymns like Sri Meenakshi Panchratnam and Sri Saundarya Lahiri to name but two (and so these must be wrongly attributed to him, or there must be 2 or even 3 persons called “Sankara”). I can bet anything that if Bhagavan’s advent had been a 1000 years ago, in times when historic records were poorly made, they would have said today that the writer of Ulladu Narpadu could never have also composed Sri Arunachala Aksharamanamalai or any of the other devotional hymns; that there must have been 2 people called “Ramana” separated by a 100 years or so, one following the path of Jnana and the other Bhakti. What is poorly understood is that, in fact, a true Advaitist is also the greatest embodiment of Love; of “Rasa” (literally “Juice”, as opposed to being “dry”). Because in the real Advaitist, Love has become “Universalized” in the manner Bhagavan explained in the extract above.

If there is “Love”, doesn’t Vairagya go for a toss?

And then the doubt can be: but the sadhaka is told to have intense vairagya (renunciation); after all, the instruction is that the world is unreal and therefore not worth running after. How then, can he or she be also asked to “be” Love? Well, paradoxically, as vairagya develops in the sadhaka, he or she “feels” more intensely. That is, all the great and pure emotions. We have the great example of Bhagavan again, who would start sobbing when reading devotional stories like those of the Periya Puranam, much to the amazement of those sitting around. The embodiment of vairagya and Jnana would shed profuse tears along with the woman crying away at the loss of her baby, whereas the others hanging about, the worldly ones presumably full of feelings, would sit stone-faced and struggle to show any emotion. Or, He would laugh along when a joke was cracked, a happy story told.

The secret of vairagya is NOT that you don’t “feel”, but that you remain unattached. You don’t go looking for misery to show “feeling” or to do “good”; but if you encounter misery, you do your best to help with love and attention, still remaining unattached to it all. In this connection am reminded of the famous Zen story called “The River” (also called “The Muddy Road” someplaces; the version below is randomly picked off the internet):

Two Zen monks, Tanzan and Ekido, were travelling on pilgrimage, when they came to a muddy river crossing. There they saw a lovely young woman dressed in her kimono and finery, obviously not knowing how to cross the river without ruining her clothes. She had to attend a wedding and was all tears not knowing what to do. Without further ado, Tanzan graciously picked her up, held her close to him, and carried her across the muddy river, placing her onto the dry ground. The young woman was very happy and thanked Tanzan profusely. Then he and Ekido continued on their way. Hours later they found themselves at a lodging temple. And here Ekido could no longer restrain himself and gushed forth his complaints: “Surely, it is against the rules, what you did back there…. Touching a woman is simply not allowed…. How could you have done that? … And to have such close contact with her! … This is a violation of all monastic protocol…” Thus he went on with his verbiage. Tanzan listened patiently to the accusations. Finally, during a pause, he said, “Look, I set that girl down back at the crossing. Are you still carrying her?”.

 

Conclusion

I suspect some criticism may be headed my way in that I may be reading too much into one innocuous phrase from Bhagavan. After all, why not just leave it at the traditional point that Grace is needed, and for that you need to love the appropriate Divinity; why bring in such a complex meaning for “Love”?

Well, having pored over Bhagavan writings for so many years now, one thing that I can affirm confidently is that He never wrote anything as just an “innocuous” phrase. Every word and line written by Him has layers of meaning which emerge on deeper reflection. But, certainly, the meaning may shine forth differently for each one of us. The foregoing is how the phrase “Anbu-punume” from Bhagavan in the context of Vichara and Self-knowledge shines for me. And, hey, if your Vichara is getting stuck at a point and you feel you are not getting anywhere, do also try “being Love” as an innate characteristic within, and reflected without in all worldly interactions as well!    :-)

Again, all just a very humble effort at sharing folks …

--------------------

Folks, I have been rambling away for a while now on Vichara. Would be very happy to read your views on Vichara as well; maybe on the aspects covered in these three posts, or on different issues altogether, or even just suggestions from personal experience that you feel may be helpful during practice. Look forward to your comments below.

Also, it is now just about a year since this blog was started. Guess, there are not very many people who drop by on any given day ... but those who do, let me take this chance to thank you all from the bottom of my heart for coming by, and bothering to read all the weird stuff churned out!   

The Vidya of Vichara – II; “Who or Whence am I?”

… Continued from the previous post

Preliminary

Bhagavan’s short works are really special. The shortness implies that Bhagavan could include only the crucial aspects of practice, and only the mandatory theory thereof, with respect to His teachings. For the devotee then, Bhagavan’s short works provide a unique insight into what Bhagavan Himself considered critically important in relation to sadhana. Especially true for a work like Anma Viddai, which concerns Self-Knowledge, and was composed without any significant contextual influences.

And so, the portions of the hymn as were cut away in Part I comprising of the mandatory theoretical framework for the practice, are no less important. They are not being especially considered in this post only because I thought to keep the focus on practical aspects only. But as an example, let me mention the sublime first verse here, as it serves as an introduction to the whole work. This then provides a prerequisite of sorts for the practice; the basic theme being that the world is unreal, so don’t run after it. This is pure Advaita, Sri Sankara himself could have written it:

1. True, strong, fresh for ever stands the Self. From this in truth spring forth the phantom body and phantom world. When this delusion is destroyed and not a speck remains, the Sun of Self shines bright and real in the vast heart-expanse. Darkness dies, afflictions end, and Bliss wells up.

 

Also, before we start on our discussion, let me mention that am mindful of the fact that each one of us would have evolved his or her own style of doing Vichara. Spiritual practice of this nature requires a high level of conviction on part of the sadhaka. This naturally makes for strong views to be held by all as to what constitutes Vichara. But still, I believe, it is really important to exchange ideas now and then, one simple way to refine and grow our practice. It is in this spirit that these ideas on Vichara are presented, a very humble effort at sharing views. Let me, however, sincerely apologize in case any one feels upset at anything presented herein, or in part I.  

The role of “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?”

Bhagavan’s instructions with respect to Vichara practice as given in Anma Viddai are short and simple:

“Enquiring within, ask, ‘Who am I? and whence is this thought?’

All other thoughts vanish.”

 

I thought to pick up on this very basic instruction first, as a not-uncommon line of thinking with regard to Vichara practice goes something like this:

 <<< “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?” is just the tool to draw the mind back to the “I” within. After all, the instructions are: whenever attention breaks and a thought arises, ask “to whom has this thought happened?” The answer is, “I have this thought”. Then ask “Who am I?”, and thus attention is directed back from outside matters to the sense of “I” within. But if the sense of “I” is locatable and holdable otherwise, “Who am I?” is not needed at all. Also, any alternate tool to focus attention on the “I” is equally good, and may be used equally effectively. >>>

It may be the experience of those who do Vichara regularly, that the sense of “I” within, starts to appear almost instantaneously after a while. Then ‘Who am I?” may not be needed at all to initiate focus on the “I”. For a while thereafter, “Who am I?” may be used occasionally to tackle the problem that outside thoughts may still keep flooding the mind in waves. But even in this, in due course, the mind gets trained into thinking the outside thoughts for a few minutes, and then switching back, on its own, to thinking of the “I” for a few. The “Who am I?” query is found to be superfluous somewhat. Thus for the regular practitioner, it is certainly possible to focus attention on the “I” without the use of “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?” at all.

[The foregoing comes from chatting around over the years with people doing Vichara regularly. And also, I must confess, from personal experience. There was a phase when I would do Vichara without much of “Who or Whence am I?”; I would perhaps say it mentally a couple of times to start-off with, in a routine sort of way lacking any intensity. I found I was 'holding' on to the “I” all right, but after a while felt as if it was not really getting me anywhere. The mind is such a clever brat, it does just a little bit to lull one into thinking that something is being achieved …].

The approach outlined above, in my humble opinion, is a significant climbdown from the optimum position. It changes Bhagavan’s powerful ‘Enquire and Seek’, into a limp ‘holding on to the “I”’ approach. To use Bhagavan’s great simile of the pearl diver, the sadhaka then floats on the surface of the ocean so to speak, periodically dipping his or her head under water, but never diving deep into the depths to find the pearl hidden below.

I find myself struggling to put this idea into words, but here goes anyway: there is of course a sense of “I” locatable quickly and immediately by most of us even without the “Who am I?”; but if the “I” within is approached with an intensely focused sense of enquiry and search contained in the statements “Who am I?” or “Where am I from?”, the sense of “I” that arises does so with a slight but significant difference to the ‘base’ sense of “I” referred to earlier. It is as if there is a composite sense of “I” and “Who am I?” and “Where am I from?” all mixed together which arises, a feeling disconcertingly on the edge when compared to the sense that arises otherwise; and which has the natural tendency to sink-in deeper within. Of course it is not as if there is a different “I” which is thus found. But it seems that the intense “intuiting-within” of the sense of “Who or Whence am I?” when approaching the “I”, causes the “I” to be gripped with ever increasing strength without additional conscious effort. If we were to use Bhagavan’s second great simile of the doggie seeking his master by following the scent, the scent of the “I”, slowly but surely, becomes stronger on its own.

After all, when we seek the Source of the “I” we are not seeking it in any physical spot within the body or even anywhere else. The Heart is considered as ‘located’ simply where the “I” can be traced back to. And the “I” is traced, not from one physical spot to another within the body for instance, but wherever the “scent” of the signal takes us. So, using Bhagavan’s simile, the doggie sniffs away at the master’s scent on the ground all right, but he is oblivious to the ground he is covering in his search; he simply goes wherever he finds the scent is increasing in strength. Similarly, in my humble opinion, in Vichara, we try to exclude all locational aspects of where the “I” is, and chase It down in terms of – we go where the strength of the sense of “I” is increasing, oblivious to all else. And this happens naturally if “Who or Whence am I?” is intrinsic to our Vichara practice.   

In virtually every work composed by Bhagavan, and in the major chunk of the conversations recorded, the teaching for Vichara practice has invariably been, ‘ask “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?”’; enquire, and seek the Source. Only infrequently, in the conversations mostly, are mentioned variations like, “try and be without thoughts”, “hold on to the “I” (as distinct from seeking It’s Source)”, “watch the breath”, “watch the gap between two thoughts”, and so on. I believe Bhagavan insisted on going-in via the “Who or Whence am I?” route because, in a way not really understood by the sadhaka, the internal impact is radically different than otherwise. Even though, admittedly, this made the practice so much more difficult. So, “Who or Whence am I?” is certainly also the ‘tool’ to draw attention back to the “I” when the mind wanders; it is, however, much more than that, at the first.

[Note: For those who may be not familiar with Bhagavan's similes of the 'pearl diver' and the 'doggie seeking his master': they are covered in more detail in my post "Arunachala Pancharatna Varttikam and Vichara" of 20th April 2012.]  

Also, in my humble opinion, there is another reason too for using “Who or Whence am I?” all the time, whether required or not. In the Indian tradition it is incumbent for the sadhaka to follow the instructions of the Guru implicitly and fully; that is his primary duty. And the true shishya (disciple) will do that without any quid-pro-quo expectations of any sort, not even of Grace from the Guru. Bhagavan has anyway consistently held that the Grace is ever-flowing, ever-available to all without exception. But in an inexplicable way, I believe, things go better if the instructions of the Guru are followed to the dot. And then, why give Someone the chance, up ‘above’, to say “but he never followed the instructions of his Guru …” !

In this context, am reminded of the reminiscences of “Sundaram” (Swami Trivenigiri Sadhu) as recorded in the marvellous “Ramana Smriti Souvenir” [From the 1980 edition, published by Sri Ramanasramam; the pages are not numbered in this edition with me, but the extract below is taken from the article “Bhagavan’s Cooking”, which is towards the middle of the book]:

“With time I realized that working with Bhagavan in the kitchen was not mere cooking, but definitely a form of spiritual training. The first lesson in spiritual education to learn, and to learn for good, is to obey the Guru implicitly without questioning or using one’s judgment in the least. Nothing would make him so happy as when he saw that we had grasped this essential point, that the commands of the master should be immediately carried out, and not be delayed by the desire to please him or even to do it correctly. Even if we knew a better way of doing it, we had to do it exactly as the master told us. It might have appeared that by obeying him the work would be ruined, but still one had to obey. One must master this art of instantaneous and unquestioning obedience, for the secret of realization lies in utter surrender and renunciation of one’s own judgment.”

 

What great words written by a very simple man!

Also, the following note by Sampurnamma [from “Bhagavan in the Kitchen”, the same Ramana Smriti Souvenir]:

“As long as we followed his instructions, everything would go well with our cooking. But the moment we acted on our own we would be in trouble. Even then, if we sought his help, he would taste our brew and tell us what to do to make the food fit for serving. Every little incident in our kitchen had a spiritual lesson for us. We thus learnt the art of implicit obedience while perfecting our culinary skills under Bhagavan’s guidance.”

 

Let me finish this part by quoting the same instruction, as the one in “Anma Viddai”, from “Nan Yar?” (Sri Ramanasramam: Q & A version): 

Q10. How will the mind become quiescent?

Answer:   By the inquiry ‘Who am I?’. The thought ‘who am I?’ will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise Self-realization.

 

-------------------------

To be continued …

[Apologies, folks, for the stop-start approach on these posts. But I thought to put up what is finished anyhow, since there is still some writing to do on the one other point left to cover. Part III, the last, should follow shortly … ]

The Vidya of Vichara – I

It is now nearly a year since this blog was started. One of the first posts (on 20.4.2012) had been on Vichara entitled “Arunachala Pancharatna Varttikam and Vichara”, but nothing since then. Time enough for a second post on this tricky topic to be attempted methinks! That the subject is difficult is exemplified by this little story below:

Around 10 years ago, one of the Office Bearers of the Sri Ramana Kendra here in Delhi, asked me to write an article on Vichara for their periodical “Direct Path”. Not that I had any particular qualifications to write such an article, but they just could not find anyone else just then, and were sort of scraping the bottom of the barrel in asking yours truly. Being pressed repeatedly to do something, I finally penned down 4 to 5 pages on the practice of Vichara. It was, oh so naively, a comprehensive blueprint based on my understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings then, and encapsulated what all I was actually practicing at that point of time. In a stroke of inspiration but, I held the article back saying to myself that I will read the whole write-up again after exactly one month, and only if I am not inclined to make any changes whatsoever in it, will I submit it to the Kendra. And so I stalled my elderly friend, the Board member, the best I could. Well, one month later when I read that article again, I was stunned to realize how much I disagreed with what I myself had written just a short while ago. My whole understanding and practice had already evolved into something different altogether! As you can imagine, that article never went to the Kendra. But I thought then to keep re-approaching this write up of mine every 3 months or so and see whether I agreed with the version I last left it at. I did that for 2 or 3 years I guess. Never, not once, did I ever fully agree with my own views on Vichara of just a few months ago. Never, also, did my latest view ever go back to any of the previous views!

Well, the conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing is that, simply, never can an authoritative blueprint be laid down by one who is a seeker himself. Only the Self-realized sage can. And so, this post does not even remotely claim to be able to specify how to go about doing Vichara. Much like the article of one year ago, this write up too will focus on discussing some limited aspects of practice only.

Just a very humble effort towards sharing of ideas on a difficult subject folks!

For this, I intend to use as a blueprint here, Bhagavan’s sublime composition: Anma Viddai [Self-Knowledge]. From chatting around over the years, I have the distinct impression that it is relegated to some sort of a secondary rung of compositions (as if any composition of Bhagavan’s could be so!) by most devotees. From the teaching works, attention is usually reserved for Ulladu Narpadu, Upadesa Undiyar and Nan Yar? perhaps. Even in the compilations and translations, or in interpretative works produced by scholars, Anma Viddai will be usually found towards the end somewhere. I believe, however, that Anma Viddai is a crucially important work as well, particularly so, as it contains an extraordinary element of practice that is not easily available from the other works. More on that later.   

First, a brief background to the work as a refresher:

Anma Viddai  [Atma Vidya, Self-Knowledge]

[From “Parayana – The Poetic Works of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi”, Sri Ramanasramam, 2008 edition, Pg 120]:

“One day a devotee came before Bhagavan and in reference to this poem’s opening lines – ‘Lo, very easy is Self-Knowledge, Lo, very easy indeed’ – asked how it could be so, how Liberation could be easy. Bhagavan gave the ready reply, “How should I know?” Then pointing to Muruganar said, “Go and ask him, he wrote it!” [This story is from T. R. Kanakammal (footnote)].

Years before in April 1927 Muruganar had handed Bhagavan these lines with the request to elaborate. Bhagavan’s response was the five verses called Anma Viddai or ‘Self Knowledge’. [Muruganar’s lines were a deliberate recast of a popular Tamil poem that begins, ‘Lo, very difficult is Self-Knowledge’ (footnote)]. 

Bhagavan gave this history of the poem [From “Day by Day”, 26-2-46 Morning]:

Muruganar had written the pallavi (refrain) and anupallavi (supplemental refrain) and wanted the charanams. He said he could not possibly complete the song, as somehow no more lines would come to him, and so requested me to complete it. Thereupon I wrote this song. First I wrote only one stanza or charanam, but Muruganar wanted at least four, thereupon I made three more. Finally I recollected, I had not made any mention of Annamalai and so made a fifth charanam also and made mention of Annamalai in it, as Ponnambalam is mentioned in the stanzas of the song in Nandanar story on which our song is modelled.”

 
The Hymn

 

Refrain

Lo, very easy is Self-Knowledge,

Lo, very easy indeed.

Supplemental Refrain

Even for the most infirm, so real is the Self

That compared with it, the amlaka [the gooseberry fruit] in one's hand appears a mere illusion.

Lo, very easy is Self-Knowledge,

Lo, very easy indeed.

Text

1.      True, strong, fresh for ever stands the Self.

From this in truth spring forth the phantom body

and phantom world. When this delusion is destroyed

And not a speck remains, the Sun of Self shines

bright and real in the vast heart-expanse.

Darkness dies, afflictions end, and Bliss wells up.

2.      The thought ‘I am the body’ is the thread on which

are strung together various thoughts. Enquiring within, ask, ‘Who am I?

and whence is this thought?’

All other thoughts vanish. And as ‘I-I’ within the Heart-cave,

the Self shines of its own accord. Such Self-awareness is the

only Heaven, this stillness, this abode of Bliss.

3.      Of what avail is knowing things other than the Self?

And the Self being known, what other thing is there to know?

That one light that shines as many selves,

see this Self within as awareness’ lightning flash;

The play of grace; the ego’s death;

the blossoming of bliss.

4.      For loosening karma’s bonds and ending births, -

this path is easier than all other paths.

Abide in stillness, without any stir of tongue, mind, or body.

And behold the effulgence of the Self within,

the experience of eternity; absence of all fear;

the vast ocean of Bliss.

5.      Annamalai the Self, the eye behind the eye of mind, which

Sees the eye and all the other senses, which knows the sky and

other elements, the Being which contains, reveals, perceives

the inner sky that shines within the Heart. When the mind

free of thought turns inward, Annamalai appears as my own

Self. True grace is needed; love is added and bliss wells up.

Preliminary

Before I start on Vichara proper let me address the apparent implication of the refrain, ‘Lo, very easy is Self-knowledge, Lo, very easy indeed’, accompanied by the supplemental refrain, that the Self is more easily evident than the proverbial amalaka (the gooseberry fruit) placed on one’s palm.

Is the Teaching categorically then – that Self-knowledge is very easy to obtain? Bhagavan Himself neatly ducked the direct question, as given in the anecdote above, by saying, “How should I know? Ask Muruganar”. But we know that several conversations are recorded in the books of reminiscences wherein Bhagavan has said to the effect that Self-knowledge is the easiest path of all. Perhaps a clue as to what is really meant is forthcoming from what Bhagavan said on the amalaka example used as the supplemental refrain in the hymn:

[From “Day by Day”, 26-2-46 Morning; these lines immediately precede the extract from this book quoted in the anecdote above as given in the “Parayana” book]

 

“Next the talk drifted to the Self being pratyaksha (self evident) and Bhagavan then related how the song Atma Vidya was composed. He said, “Any vidya is for the purpose of knowing something. If it is so self-evident as to render the well known classical example of hastamalakam or a gooseberry on the palm a false analogy, as Muruganar had put it, where was the need for Atma Vidya, whether you call it easy or not? What Muruganar meant to say was: ‘In the classical example, a hand is necessary, a hand that will and can feel a fruit on it, a fruit, an eye that can see, a person that has already known what fruit it is, and so on and so forth. But for knowing the Self, nothing at all except the Self is needed.’ In sleep for instance nothing at all exists for us except ourselves and we admit we existed during that sleep. On waking we say, ‘I slept and none of us believes there are two ‘I’s, the one that slept and the one that is awake now. In the classical example all these must exist to make the fruit self-evident. All these depend on or derive from the Self and make the fruit self-evident. How much more self-evident must the Self itself be?”

 

So Bhagavan is saying that: Many things are needed to see the amalaka – the amalaka itself, the palm, the eye, light, the process of cognition, the mind etc. (and the Self too!). On the other hand as far as the Self is concerned, each one of us, whether learned or otherwise, can readily affirm the feeling “I-am” within us without any intermediary items. The Self is already known to all as the direct experience of our existence, the sense of “I” inside. And none have the slightest doubt of their existence continuing through waking, dream or deep sleep. Thus Atma Vidya, Self-knowledge, is already well known, and is very ‘easy’ indeed; much more so than knowledge of the hapless amalaka! 

Also, much as for our amalaka, other paths may need many items for Knowledge to dawn, whereas for Atma Vidya the Self needs only the Self. The latter is thus undoubtedly the most direct and shortest path compared to all other paths. In this sense too Atma Vidya is ‘easy’ (though it could still involve ‘difficult’ sadhana). 

The usage, therefore, is NOT in the sense of it all being ‘easy’ as against ‘difficult’ in terms of practice. For, as Bhagavan says, if it were easy in that sense, what is the need for any Atma Vidya at all? Since all of us already know the Self as the feeling “I am” within us, we should be immediately Self-realized. But we are not. And if we are not already so, then, obviously Self-knowledge is not so easy for us. There are strong vasanas at play still which muddy the waters, and which need to be extinguished first.

So, ‘Is Self-knowledge very easy’? I believe that the answer can only be that very useful phrase applicable to a lot of spiritual conundrums – “Yes and No”. Ultimately, the easy or difficult bit is up to us I guess, dependant on how ‘ripe’ we are and on how much earnestness and sincerity of effort we bring into play.

Finally, in addition to the above, I believe that Atma Vidya is also referred to as being easy by Bhagavan (in the refrain and in verse 4 here, and in conversations elsewhere), in the sense of providing an assurance to the sadhaka that the final goal is completely achievable. The path could be difficult, incredibly difficult even, but no matter how far back the sadhaka starts, Bhagavan is assuring success.

Atma Vichara from Anma Viddai

Let us look at this great hymn again by stripping away the refrain and supplemental refrain, and a few other accompanying lines as well - those which do not directly describe the practice associated with Atma Vidya. In the lines that follow, not one word is otherwise changed at all. This then is the glittering diamond that emerges, a blueprint for Atma Vichara in Bhagavan’s own Divine words: 

[Anma Viddai]

Enquiring within, ask, ‘Who am I? and whence is this thought?’

All other thoughts vanish. And as ‘I-I’ within the Heart-cave,

the Self shines of its own accord.

See this Self within as awareness’ lightning flash;

Abide in stillness, without any stir of tongue, mind, or body.

And behold the effulgence of the Self within,

When the mind free of thought turns inward, Annamalai appears as my own

Self. True grace is needed; love is added and bliss wells up.

Note: The Instructions are Sequential

An important aspect of the instructions in the hymn becomes apparent only when they are presented in the stripped-down form – that they follow a sequential order. It may be seen that the instructions above flow smoothly from lines in one verse to the lines in the next.

I thought to highlight this fact first because I have been, in the past, quoted verse 4 to justify a practice which eschews the hard work prescribed in the earlier verses with reference to Vichara. In isolation, the lines in verse 4, “Abide in stillness, without any stir of tongue, mind, or body, and behold the effulgence of the Self within”, can be taken as an alternate practice given by Bhagavan, one that requires the sadhaka to do nothing but “just be”. The argument is presented that this then would sync with Bhagavan’s great teaching “Summa Iru”, and is thus taken as a higher, superior practice as compared to struggling day in and day out with seeking the Source and so on. 

But the point is, if you are struggling with basic Vichara anyway, then you are not 'ripe' enough to “abide in stillness … and behold the effulgence of the Self” anyhow. It is only if Vichara has become easy for you, can you then expect to reach the latter state easily. So, a simple test to see whether you are ready for “just being” is: try Vichara; is it effortless? Have ‘you’ instantaneously found the Self and are abiding as That? Then it is all done anyhow! If not, then you need to carry on with the practice of Vichara as given by Bhagavan.

Thus, in my humble opinion, the sequence from above goes somewhat like this:

Do Vichara ... see the Self flash forth ... abide in stillness.

The primary practice remains: “Enquiring within, ask, ‘Who am I?, and whence is this thought?’”. 

Enquire and Seek.

------------------------------------

To be continued …

[Please forgive me folks, I need attend to attend to a few chores around the house. Besides, dont want to bore you with one very long post, and this one has already hit 5 pages. Will continue on selected aspects of Vichara in Part II, to follow shortly].