Oh … that Grain of Rice!

 

“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 lines are taken from my earlier post “Vidya of Vichara III; ‘Anbu Punume’” put up on 21st Apr 2013. I was trying to give expression to the idea of true compassion, of how we need to “be love”. Then, the compassion or love throbbing within us will, on its own, ensure that we are kind to those in need; and indeed, in the context of this post now, not let us waste even one grain of rice. The implication clearly was that Bhagavan’s great emphasis on not wasting anything at all, of clearing His leaf-plate of even the last morsel of rice when He ate, came from the great natural and inherent compassion (love) of the Jnani Sage; thus setting an example for the disciple to follow.   

I received an interesting, anonymous query asking (paraphrased):

Seshadri Swami was a great self-realized sage too. But we read of how he would eat only a little food and scatter most of it all around. He would enter a house or a shop and throw rice grains all around and into the mud. Does that imply that he had no compassion within him like what you describe, since he showed none towards the poor grains of rice? That he wasted precious food in the midst of so many hungry beggar-people in Tiruvannamalai? How would you reconcile the 2 positions, of one Jnani not wasting even one grain of rice, and the other tossing them away casually?

My unknown friend also makes it clear that he/she is rather fed up with the usual responses such questions get, such as: who knows about the behaviour of Jnanis?; the behaviour of a Jnani may not be understood by non-Jnanis; as many Jnanis, that many patterns of behaviour!; focus on your sadhana and do not waste time on understanding why a Jnani does what he does; and so on.

At the outset it may be appreciated that this query on the difference in behaviour with respect to the grains of rice as exemplified by Bhagavan and Seshadri Swami, is in effect a query on the broader question of why 2 Jnanis should show divergent behaviour. Given that Bhagavan has categorically stated that there are no degrees of Self-realization, and that the state of one Jnani is exactly the same as the state of any other Jnani, the query immediately becomes a very complex one. And one which, as a sadhaka like everybody else, I can only hope to rudimentarily answer.

[There may be some out there who may not be willing to accept that Seshadri Swami was Self-realized, and a Jnani. That does not really matter. For the purpose of this post they may take him as being representative of any acceptable, alternate, Self-realized  Sage, whose public behaviour was in stark contrast to Bhagavan’s].

The World to a Jnani

For a start we know that it is not possible for a non-Jnani to really understand and appreciate how the world is seen by a Jnani. But we have pointers and clues given to us by Bhagavan, other Gurus, and the sacred texts.

“That which is called ‘I’ (nan) having gone, that which is called ‘Self’ (tan) shines. Sometimes the universe itself does not appear.”

[sayings of Sri Bhagavan recorded by Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai under the heading ‘Sri Ramana Maharshigalin Upadesa Mozhigal’ from the Mountain Path, June 1995, Pg 47; article by Michael James on the text ‘Who am I’].

 

So again, as ordinary folks, we may not be sure whether a grain of rice was seen to be a grain of rice as such by Bhagavan or Seshadri Swami. But what we may be certain of  is that a grain of rice was seen (or not seen) in an identical manner by both. Simplistically put, both “saw” it as Brahman with no distinctions.

Seshadri Swami then, from the Jnani’s view of no differentiation, did not distinguish between the grain of rice and mud, or even the ambient “ether” which held the grain of rice. When he tossed the grains of rice all around, he might as well have been drawing with a white pen (like the type with the white correction fluid) on a white sheet of paper, if you get what I mean. For him then, in the distinction-less, amorphous mass (?) of whatever it is that the Jnani sees and experiences, a blow with his stick to the head of the person kneeling before him in devotion, would be the same as a loving, compassionate caress.   

But Bhagavan, despite having exactly the same “view”, would with care and attention, eat the last fragment of a grain of rice from his plate. And exhibit all the characteristic actions of compassion and love as are given in that para from Anbu Punume. In fact, every act of His throughout the day and night was carried out with perfection, laying down a paradigm of the ideal Guru, and an example of preferred behaviour for the would-be seeker.

 

And thus, one explanation for my unknown friend’s query suggests itself: that Bhagavan was also, specifically, carrying out the role of a great Guru.

 

 

The Great Atiashrami Guru

 

Let me refer to my last post ‘The Guru-shishya  relationship’ (11th Feb 2014), and bring in the great atiashrami Guru. The point was made that though Bhagavan Himself denied the role of a Guru in a formal sense, even a rudimentary study of His life and teachings brings out the fact that in effect, He was the exemplar nonpareil of one such. And so, every act of His was perfection itself, an example for others to follow, Supreme Dharma in its own right.

 

Every atiashrami is in a natural way a Guru, but Seshadri Swami’s role was more of the nature of those Sages who give darshan only, into whose presence devotees may passively  come and imbibe blessings; rather than of those who teach a great sadhana, give lots of instruction, and answer many queries. And, as he was not playing the “role” of a Guru, he had no need to be an exemplar of spiritual behaviour, and could behave in the erratic manner that he did.

Ah !  But ...

Folks, admittedly the foregoing explanation goes about half-way only in explaining this difficult issue. It works in this instance where the other Jnani in consideration is Seshadri Swami, who was not in the “role” of a Guru. But my unknown but very persistent friend who initiated the query in the first place will say - what if the second Jnani was a Guru too, one who interacted on an ongoing basis with sadhakas, whilst also displaying “aberrant” behaviour? Certainly, examples may be found of such Gurus.

And if we study the literature on this issue, we find some other explanations, all inadequate. The most common ones are:

-   That there are several categories of Jnanis: superior, middling, and inferior, and their actions are in concord with their “level”. But simple logic tells us that this is unsound. And also, more significantly, we have Bhagavan’s categorical statements that there are no differences between Jnanis.

-   That prarabdha karma carries on after enlightenment too, that the body is doomed, in a sense, to carry out its pre-ordained acts like an arrow shot from a bow that cannot be pulled back. And thus different Jnanis act differently as per their pre-determined karma playing out. Again, this was brushed aside by Bhagavan:

Sri Bhagavan: “If one says that the sage is free from the accumulated karma of past actions [sanchita] and the karma now being made [agamya] but is subject to the karma that is to be worked out in this life [prarabdha], that is only to satisfy others who ask about it. You should know that just as none of a man’s wives can remain unwidowed on his death, when the doer is gone, none of the three forms of karma can survive.” [From: “Sri Ramana Darsanam”, Pg 106; Also: Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, verse 33].

Actually, the problem lies our erroneously taking the actions of the Jnani in the world as his prarabdha karma playing out. Whereas, the ONLY prarabdha karma in play, in the first place, is ours and ours alone. Or to put it more accurately, the one Jiva’s.

The view from Eka-Jiva (One-Jiva)

It is my humble opinion that the only way to understand Bhagavan’s teachings in significant depth, and even the great truths from scripture, is from the viewpoint of eka-Jiva-vada (“the doctrine of eka-Jiva”). Though a detailed exposition on this topic is beyond the scope of this post, a few preliminary points may be outlined to enable us to tackle the issue at hand.

The basic theory is succinctly laid down by the great Madhusudan Saraswati in his Siddhanta Bindu [Para 76, translation by Sri S. N. Sastri, published by Adi Sankara Advaita Research Centre, Chennai]:

“... Consciousness limited by nescience is the Jiva. This is the main Vedanta theory, known as the theory of a single Jiva (eka Jiva). This itself is called ‘drishtisrishtivada’. In this view the Jiva himself is the material and efficient cause of the universe through his own nescience. All the objects perceived are illusory (like things seen in dream). The delusion that there are many Jivas is only due to there being many bodies. Liberation is attained by the single Jiva on realization of the Self as a result of the perfection of hearing, reflection etc., with the help of the Guru and the scriptures which are all conjured up by him. The statements about Suka and others having attained Liberation are only by way of eulogy…”  

 

We know that Bhagavan held that eka-Jiva is the ultimate truth [actually, though not so easily apparent, the doctrine of eka Jiva runs concomitant with Ajata]. Bhagavan’s detailed analogies comparing the seen world to the dream world are characteristic of the type of arguments put forward in this system. My earlier post (8th Feb 2013) entitled “Just as Dream and Magic…” gave a whole series of quotes by Bhagavan on this theme. And from there I will pick out just one to try and explain the query at hand.

[From: “Mountain Path”, 1969, Pg 89; “Wake Us Up”, by R. Narayana Iyer]

I once asked Sri Bhagavan: “If all that we see is mere illusion, and no more real than a dream, what about the form before us, on the couch talking to us about Truth and Reality?”

He remained silent for a few seconds. I repeated the question. He called for a Tamil book Ozhuvil Odukkam and read out and explained the second verse in it, which said that a Jnani is, to his disciple in jagrat (our state of wakefulness), like a lion in the dream of a mad elephant. The dream lion startles and wakes up the elephant – the lion, the dream and the elephant vanish and what is, remains. Even so the enlightened Guru wakes up the adept disciple to absolute Reality in which there is neither Guru nor sishya.

“Bhagavan, we are still asleep. Wake us up”, I said.

“Who is it that is asleep, and who is it that wants to be woken up. Find that out first, and all doubts will vanish”, said Sri Bhagavan. I was not satisfied. Then Sri Bhagavan said: “Last night you met a number of persons in your dream. Now, how would it look if I were to ask you to go and tell everyone of them, ‘you are not real’, ‘you are not real’, etc. What you say now is similar to that.

 

In the world seen by Arvind, who is the illusory dream-perceiver arisen in the “sleep” of the one-Jiva (that is nought but Brahman), every individual, object and event is just like an individual, object etc. seen in a dream. Therein, even the great Jnani Guru is just another dream character - albeit one much worshipped and loved by the said Arvind, who recognises Him as an infinitely superior and a very special entity. The Jnani-Guru is Brahman taken form out of Grace, with the sole intention of waking up the Jiva. Like the lion in the dream of an elephant, the Jnani-Guru startles the said Arvind into oblivion, and the Jiva wakes up as Brahman.  

The foregoing is especially set in terms centric to “Arvind” because that is how we have to view the unfolding of the eka Jiva logic. To elucidate further, Bhagavan has appeared in Arvind’s dream with specific attributes which would be efficacious in startling Arvind into oblivion and waking up the underlying Jiva. These attributes include those of spontaneous compassion and love which shines out even for a grain of rice, or a hacked up tree, or a limping monkey. What attributes other Gurus have or not have, or even if they are Jnanis in the first place or not, are all peripheral for Arvind. The Lion in Arvind’s dream is Bhagavan and Bhagavan alone.

So folks, for Arvind you all are objects in a dream. But for you, obviously, you are not. Each one who can feel herself/himself as an entity with a throbbing ‘I’ in the Heart, may substitute her/his own name for “Arvind” in the above, and see who is the Lion in their dream. Is it Bhagavan? Or is it Seshadri Swami? Or is it someone else? And then you have to be primarily concerned with the attributes as displayed by that “Lion”. The attributes of others are just like the differing attributes we find amongst the vast multitude of human beings. And comparing one to the other is as fruitless as comparing any one arbitrary person with another. Not that what the other characters do or say is meaningless. The whole scene is carefully crafted by the Lion to “startle”. The “movie” is, in fact, lovingly produced and directed by the Lion, every act and event being thus completely pre-destined.

And so, in Arvind's world, Seshadri Swami is just another character, albeit a much respected and loved one, and as a great Jnani Sage, again infinitely superior to the character Arvind. But his lines and actions too were written out carefully by the Director-Bhagavan for the perceiver-Arvind (like the lines and acts of every other entity). And specifically, perhaps, his act of tossing of rice all about him was written into the screenplay by Bhagavan for Arvind to pause and ponder “why so?”, and thus gain spiritual insights to take one step closer to be “startled” into oblivion, enabling Brahman to shine forth.

In Conclusion

If we were to be asked: why do any 2 ordinary persons behave differently? We would immediately come up with a reply of the type - they have different personalities, or that their intrinsic nature is different. But a Jnani having no personality and being Brahman Itself, is “reduced” to The Identity. All Jnanis thus, by following simple logic, should not exist at all in the world as they should disappear on Self-realization; or else, at least display identical behaviour. But in the world we see that Jnanis not only exist, but behave as differently from each other as do ordinary persons. This is the basic conundrum.

Folks, I believe that it is only from the eka-Jiva viewpoint on the lines as above, can any reasonable explanation for this conundrum be found. Admittedly, eka-Jiva is not a doctrine easily understood, or even palatable to many of us. I struggle too with some of the staggering conclusions that it leads to. But we know how firmly Bhagavan held this view. And for me at least, that gives it legitimacy like that of the highest scripture.

 

As always, comments are most welcome folks!
 

“Just as Dream and Magic ...”

II.31:   Just as dream and magic are seen to be unreal, or as in a city in the sky, so also is this whole universe known to be unreal from the Upanisads by the wise.

II.4:   As the dream objects are unreal in a dream, so also, because of that very reason, the objects of the waking state are unreal. But objects (in the dream state) differ because of existence inside (the body) and because of contraction (in the dream).

II.5:   Inasmuch as the diverse things are (found to be) similar on the strength of the familiar grounds of inference, the wise say that the dream and waking states are one.

II.15:   Those objects that appear as obscure inside the mind, and those that appear as vivid outside, are all merely created by imagination. Their distinction is to be traced to the difference in the organs of perception.

These sacred verses from the Mandukya Upanisad / Karika exemplify the position from Advaita that, as far as their reality is concerned, the images of the world seen during waking are identical to dreams. I must confess that this was very difficult for me to accept till, many years ago now, one encountered Sri Bhagavan’s literature and His talks on the nature of the world for the first time. It was pretty earth-shattering for me to realize the complete inflexibility with which Bhagavan held on to these very same views; views which were derived, remarkably, not from the reading of any particular Advaitic text, but from His own personal experience of the Supreme State. That the two should match so perfectly, for me at least, has always been a source of wonder, and has led to an unshakeable belief in the teachings. 

Here then are some of my favourite quotes from Sri Bhagavan on this theme, jotted down over the years. For me, reading them in one place like this brings home forcefully as to how closely Bhagavan was questioned on these teachings; and also the enormous tenacity with which He never budged even the slightest on this aspect. These teachings holding the World as unreal feature prominently even in Bhagavan’s original works like Ulladu Narpadu, and all put together it should leave no doubt as to how much importance He attached to them. 

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

[From: “Living by the Words of Bhagavan”, by David Godman, Pg 235; Annamalai Swami writes that once Sri Bhagavan made the following remarks about the waking and dream states]  

“The world vision which appears in the waking state and the world vision which appears in the dream state are both the same. There is not even a trace of difference. The dream state happens merely to prove the unreality of the world which we see in the waking state. This is one of the operations of God’s Grace. The world of the waking state changes in the same way as the world of the dream state. Both are equally insubstantial and equally unreal.

Some people dispute this by saying, ‘But the same world which we saw yesterday is existing today. Dream worlds are never the same from one night to the next. Therefore how can we believe that the world of the waking state is unreal? History tells us that this world has existed for thousands of years.’

We take the evidence that this changing world has been existing for a long time and decide that this constitutes a proof that the world is real. This is an unjustified conclusion. The world is changing every minute. How? Our body is not the same as it was when we were young. A lamp which we light at night may seem to be the same in the morning but all the oil in the flame has changed. Is this not so? Water flows in a river. If we see the river on two successive days we say it is the same river, but it is not the same; the water has completely changed.

The world is always changing. It is not permanent. But we exist unchanged in all the three states of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Nobody can truthfully say, ‘I did not exist during these three states’. Therefore we must conclude that this “I” is the permanent substance because everything else is in a state of perpetual flux. If you never forget this, this is liberation.”

***

[From: “Mountain Path”, Oct 1970, Pg 188 & 189, (Arthur Osborne Commemoration Issue); from the Editorial “What is death if Scrutinized?” by Lucia Osborne quoting Sri Bhagavan (third para is taken from “Day by Day”, Pg 221 19.6.1946)]

“You create a dream-body for yourself in the dream and act with it. The same is falsified in the waking state. At present you think you are this body and not the dream-body. In your dream this body is falsified by the dream-body. So you see neither of these bodies is real. Because each of them is true for a time and false for other times. That which is real must be real always. The ‘I’-consciousness is present all through the three states. That alone is real. The three states are false. They are only for the mind It is the mind that obstructs your vision of your true nature, which is Infinite Spirit.

Sleep is temporary death and death is longer sleep.

Why go to birth and death to understand what you daily experience in sleeping and waking? When you sleep, this body and world do not exist for you and these questions do not worry you, and yet you exist, the same you that exists now while waking. It is only when you wake up that you have a body and see the world. If you understand waking and sleep properly you will understand life and death. Only waking and sleeping happen daily so people don’t notice the wonder of it but only want to know about birth and death.”

***

[From: “Sri Ramanaparavidyopanishad”, Pg 156] 

305.   As at every instant of time the spectator, seeing only a new picture, assumes that what he sees is one, so the ignorant one, seeing an utterly new world every instant, assumes that what he sees is one continuous world.

***

[From: “Talks”, Pg 612; Talk No. 651 (23.3.1939)]

“The Vedanta says that the cosmos springs into view simultaneously with the seer. There is no detailed process of creation. This is said to be yugapat srshti (instantaneous creation). It is quite similar to the creations in dream where the experiencer springs up simultaneously with the objects of experience. When this is told, some people are not satisfied for they are so rooted in objective knowledge. They seek to find out how there can be sudden creation. They argue that an effect must be preceded by a cause. In short, they desire an explanation for the existence of the world which they see around them. Then the Srutis try to satisfy the people with such theories of creation. This method of dealing with the subject of creation is called krama srshti (gradual creation). But the true seeker can be content with yugapat srshti – instantaneous creation”

***

[From: “Guru Ramana”, by S. S. Cohen, Pg 54; from Chapter IX “Maya”; “Mr. C wanted to know the mystery of this gigantic world illusion” (15.4.1937)]

C:   We speak of the world as illusion, yet everything in it follows rigid laws, which prove it to be well-planned and well-regulated.

Bh:   Yes, he who projected the illusion gave it the appearance of order and sound planning. In dreams one also sees a well-regulated world with saints, scriptures, etc, but the moment one wakes up they all disappear. So also waking from this dream world into the Supreme Consciousness causes them all to disappear.

C:   But how out of Truth does illusion, falsehood spring up.

Bh:   Maya is not falsehood, although it has the appearance of it, but the active side of Reality. It is the maker of forms in Consciousness and form means variety, which causes illusion – mind you, all this variety is in Consciousness and nowhere else; it is only in the mind. One jiva, seeing another jiva, forgets its identity with it and thinks of it as separate from itself. But the moment it turns its attention on its own nature as Consciousness, and not as form, the illusion of diversity or separateness breaks as a dream breaks when waking takes place.

C:   It is hard to conceive God, the formless, giving rise to forms.

Bh:   Why hard? Does not your mind remain formless when you do not perceive or think, say, in deep sleep, in samadhi, or in a swoon? And does it not create space and relationship when it thinks and impels your body to act? Just as your mind devises and your body executes in one homogenous, automatic act, so automatic, in fact, that most people are not aware of the process, so does the Divine Intelligence devise and plan and His Energy automatically and spontaneously acts – the thought and act are one integral whole. This Creative Energy which is implicit in Pure Intelligence is called by various names, one of which is Maya or Shakti, the Creator of forms or images.

V:   Is there any genuine difference between the experience of jagrat and that of dreams?

Bh:   None, except that jagrat appears to be more enduring than the other to the person who is in jagrat, though not so to the dreamer himself. The person in jagrat relates his dream to have sometimes covered hundreds of years, hence he calls it transitory, whereas actually there is not the slightest difference between the nature of the two states.

C:    There is this difference: each time we return to jagrat, we come to the same place, same people, same activities and interests, which is not the case with going to the svapna state.

Bh:   This is because things move very rapidly in dreams, compared to as they appear now to you in jagrat. But each time you go to the dream world do you feel being a stranger in it? Do you not feel thoroughly at home with the people and places as you do here? Don’t you sometimes dream of being a minister, or meeting your father who had died in jagrat long ago, or seeing God seated on a throne, etc, without noticing any incongruity in it? The dream is as real then to you as jagrat is now. Where is the difference? If you call the dream illusion, why do you not do so to jagrat also?

***

[From: “Know Yourself – Conversations with Sri Ramana Maharshi”, by A. R. Natarajan, Pg 184; source - ‘Conversations: old Devotees’ papers’]

D:   But the world exists and displays itself?

"Sat is seen as Cit. Imagine a picture in which a king witnesses a drama. The picture contains both subject and object. They cannot remain independent of each other. The one implies the other. The pictures pass on the screen. Where is the screen? Is it to be formed from the pictures?

***

[From: “Day by Day”, Pg 86 (8.1.1946 afternoon)]

“It is like this: There is a screen. On that screen first appears the figure of a king. He sits on a throne. Then before him in that same screen a play begins with various figures and objects and the king on the screen watches the play on the same screen. The seer and the seen are mere shadows on the screen, which is the only reality supporting these pictures. In the world also, the seer and the seen together constitute the mind and the mind is supported by, or based on, the Self.”

***

[From: “Arunachala’s Ramana, Boundless Ocean of Grace”, Vol I, Pg 229; a boy N. S. Arunachalam composed a short poem in English on a discussion between Nayana & Sri Bhagavan on the location of vasanas; Sri Bhagavan explained further when the poem was received by letter]

“But I said, ‘How can it be so? The vasanas must be with one’s self and can never remain away from the Self. If, as you (Nayana) say, the vasanas be contained in the brain and the Heart is the seat of the Self, a person who is decapitated must be rid of his vasanas and should not be reborn. You agree that is absurd. Now can you say that the Self is in the brain with vasanas? If so, why should the head bend down when one falls asleep? Moreover, a person does not touch his head and say ‘I’. Therefore it follows that the Self is in the Heart and the vasanas are also there in an exceedingly subtle form.’

When the vasanas are projected from the Heart they are associated with the Light of the Self and the person is said to think. The vasanas which lie imbedded in an atomic condition grow in size in their passage from the Heart to the brain. The brain is the screen on which the images of the vasanas are thrown and it is also the place of their functional distribution. The brain is the seat of the mind and the mind works through it.”

[The following is a prose rendering of Sri Bhagavan’s Tamil translation of the poem]

6. Just as the pictures in the film, which is placed inside the machine (the cinema projector), are expanded through the magnifying lens and move as very big pictures on the wall

7. So the atom-like vasanas in the Heart are made gross by the lens of the brain, go out through the eyes, mouth and nose and so on (i.e. through the five senses) and appear in space as wonderful pictures of many kinds. 

***

[From: “Arunachala’s Ramana, Boundless Ocean of Grace”, Vol I, Pg 514; Sri Bhagavan’s boyhood mate, Vilacheri Ranga Iyer, asked Sri Bhagavan how many more lives would he have to live before attaining jnana]

Sri Bhagavan said: “There is no thing as time or space. In the course of an hour during sleep we have dreams in which we feel and have passed through many days and even years. On the cinema screen you see pictures of a film 1/8th inch broad transformed into big mountains, vast oceans and huge buildings. The world is not outside. As we see the tiny pictures on the film reflected on the screen through the lens, so (in the same manner), we see the small world that is in the mind as a big world outside through the lens of our sight.”

***

[From: “Guru Ramana”, Pg 50 (14.3.1943); similar talk on Pg 41 (3.9.1948) also]

“There is the world, which requires location for its existence and light to make it perceptible. Both rise simultaneously. Therefore physical existence and perception depend upon the light of the mind which is reflected from the Self. Just as cinematic pictures can be made visible by a reflected light, and only in darkness, so also the world pictures are perceptible only by the light of the Self reflected in the darkness of avidya. The world can be seen neither in the utter darkness of ignorance, as in deep sleep, nor in the utter light of the Self, as in Self-Realisation or samadhi.”

***

[From: “Talks”, Pg 148; Talk No. 177, to Major Chadwick]

Lying down on your bed in a closed room with eyes closed you dream of London, the crowds there and you among them. A certain body is identified as yourself in the dream. London and the rest could not have entered into the room and into your brain; however, such wide space and duration of time were all perceptible to you. They must have been projected from the brain. Although the world is so big and the brain so small, is it not a matter of wonder that such a big creation is contained in such small compass as one’s brain? Though the screen is limited, still all the pictures of the cinema pass on it and are visible there. You do not wonder how such a long procession of events could be manifest on such a small screen. Similarly with the objects and the brain.

***

[From: “Maharshi’s Gospel”, Pg 55-63; extracts from Chapter III “The Jnani and the World”]

"Is it the world that seeks to decide the issue about its reality? The doubt arises in you. Know in the first instance who the doubter is, and then you may consider if the world is real or not.

You talk of seeing and knowing the world. But without knowing yourself, the knowing subject (without whom there is no knowledge of the object), how can you know the true nature of the world, the known object? No doubt, the objects affect the body and the sense organs, but is it to your body that the question arises? Does the body say ‘I feel the object, is it real?’ Or is it the world that says to you ‘I, the world, am real?’

First realize the Self. What does it matter if the world is perceived or not. Do you gain anything to help you in your quest by the non-perception of the world during sleep? Conversely, what would you lose now by the perception of the world? It is quite immaterial to the Jnani or ajnani if he perceives the world or not. It is seen by both but their view-points differ.

Seeing the world, the Jnani sees the Self which is the substratum of all that is seen; the ajani, whether he sees the world or not, is ignorant of his true Being, the Self.

Take the instance of moving pictures on the screen in the cinema-show. What is there in front of you before the play begins? Merely the screen. On that screen you see the entire show, and for all appearances the pictures are real. But go and try to take hold of them. What do you take hold of? Merely the screen on which the pictures appeared so real. After the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The screen again!

So with the Self. That alone exists; the pictures come and go. If you hold on to the Self, you will not be deceived by the appearance of the pictures. Nor does it matter at all if the pictures appear or disappear.

There is no alternative for you but to accept the world as unreal, if you are seeking the Truth and the Truth alone."

D.  Why so? 

"For the simple reason that unless you give up the idea that the world is real your mind will always be after it. If you take the appearance to be real you will never know the Real itself, although it is the Real alone that exists. This point is illustrated by the analogy of the ‘snake in the rope’. As long you see the snake you cannot see the rope as such. The non-existent snake becomes real to you, while the real rope seems wholly non-existent as such."

D.  Is then the world nothing but a dream?

"What is wrong with the sense of reality you have while you are dreaming? You may be dreaming of something quite impossible, for instance, of having a happy chat with a dead person. Just for a moment you may doubt in the dream saying to yourself, ‘Was he not dead?’ but somehow your mind reconciles itself to the dream-vision, and the person is as good as alive for the purposes of the dream. In other words, the dream as a dream does not permit you to doubt its reality. Even so, you are unable to doubt the reality of the world of your wakeful experience. How can the mind which has itself created the world accept it as unreal? That is the significance of the comparison made between the world of wakeful experience and the dream-world. Both are but creations of the mind and so long as the mind is engrossed in either, it finds itself unable to deny the reality of the dream-world while dreaming and of the waking world while awake."

D.   As I said before, we see, feel and sense the world in so many ways. These sensations are the reactions to the objects seen, felt etc. and are not mental creations as in dreams, which differ not only from person to person but also with regard to the same person. Is that not enough to prove the objective reality of the world?

"All this talk about inconsistencies and their attribution to the dream-world arise only now, when you are awake. When you were dreaming, the dream was a perfectly integrated whole. That is to say, if you felt thirsty in a dream, the illusory drinking of illusory water did quench your illusory thirst. But all this was real and not illusory to you so long as you did not know that the dream itself was illusory. Similarly with the waking world; and the sensations you now have, get co-ordinated to give you the impression that the world is real.

If, on the contrary, the world is a self-existent reality (that is what you evidently mean by its objectivity) what prevents the world from revealing itself to you in sleep? You do not say you have not existed in your sleep."

D.   Neither do I deny the world’s existence while I am asleep. It has been existing all the while. If during my sleep I did not see it, others who are not sleeping saw it.

"To say you existed while asleep, was it necessary to call in the evidence of others so as to prove it to you? Why do you seek their evidence now? Those ‘others’ can tell you of having seen the world (during your sleep) only when you yourself are awake. With regard to your own existence it is different. On waking up you say you had a sound sleep, so to that extent you are aware of yourself in the deepest sleep, whereas you have not the slightest notion of the world’s existence then. Even now, while you are awake, is it the world that says ‘I am real’, or is it you?

You want somehow or other to maintain that the world is real. What is the standard of Reality? That alone is Real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging.

Does the world exist by itself? Was it ever seen without the aid of the mind? In sleep there is neither mind nor world. When awake there is the mind and there is the world. What does this invariable concomitance mean?

Of yourself you can say ‘I exist’. That is, yours is not mere existence, it is Existence of which you are conscious. Really it is existence identical with Consciousness."

D.  The world may not be conscious of itself, yet it exists.

"Consciousness is always Self-consciousness. If you are conscious of anything, you are essentially conscious of yourself. Unself-conscious existence is a contradiction in terms. It is no existence at all. It is merely attributed existence, whereas true Existence, and Sat, is not an attribute, it is the Substance itself. It is the Vastu. Reality is therefore known as Sat-Chit, Being-Consciousness, and never merely the one to the exclusion of the other. The world neither exists by itself, nor is it conscious of its existence. How can you say such a world is real?

And what is the nature of the world? It is perpetual change, a continuous, interminable flux. A dependent, unself-conscious, ever-changing world cannot be real."

D.  I accept. But why should they (Vedas and other scriptures) give cosmological descriptions spun out at great length, unless they consider the world real?

"Adopt in practice what you accept in theory, and leave the rest. The Sastras have to guide every type of seeker after Truth, and all are not of the same mental make-up. What you cannot accept treat as artha-vada or auxiliary argument."

***

[From: “Day by Day”, Pg 102 (26.1.1946 afternoon); Devaraja Mudaliar had the pamphlet on Madhva’s Philosophy, given to Sri Bhagavan by a visitor, in his hands. He writes]

I said, “… But I find that this author also asks, as I sometimes used to feel, ‘Why should we refuse to treat anything as real unless it exists always?’ Bhagavan said, “How can anything be said to be real which is only a passing show?” Balaram also quoted Bhagavad Gita which says, “That which exists never ceases to exist. That which does not exist (at any time) has no existence.”

***

[From: “Maharshi’s Gospel”, Pg 83]

“For the Jnani all the three states are equally unreal. But the ajnani is unable to comprehend this, because for him the standard of reality is the waking state, whereas for the Jnani the standard of reality is Reality itself.”

***

[From: “The Power of the Presence” vol I, by David Godman, Pg 20; Sri Bhagavan told Rangan]

“… But whichever world appears to you, that world will appear to be true and real.”

***

[From: “The Power of the Presence” vol I, Pg 242; Swami Madhavatirtha writes that Sri Bhagavan said]

“Our present world itself is not real. Each one sees a different imaginary world according his imagination, so where is the guarantee that the new world (created by God) will be real? The Jiva, the world and God, all these are relative ideas. So long there is the individual sense of ‘I’, these three are also there.

From this individual sense of ‘I’, from the mind, these three have arisen. If you stop the mind, the three will not remain, but Brahman alone will remain, as it remains and abides even now. We see things because of an error. This misperception will be rectified by enquiring into the real nature of this Jiva….

When the individual sense of ‘I’ arises in the body, the world is seen. If this sense is absent, who then will see the world?”

***

[From: “The Power of the Presence” vol I, Pg 243; Swami Madhavatirtha writes]

Sri Bhagavan further explained that the transition from the ego, the ahankara, to the ego-less state, if it can at all be called a transition, is not through a change or evolution from the lower to the higher nature in man. It is through the total denial or destruction the ego. It is like a man waking up from a dream. It is the total negation of one state in the other.

***

[From: “Talks”, Pg 530; Talk No. 571]

7th November 1938

Multiplicity of individuals is a moot point with most persons. A jiva is only the light reflected on the ego. The person identifies himself with the ego and argues that there must be more like him. He is not easily convinced of the absurdity of his position. Does a man who sees many individuals in his dream persist in believing them to be real and enquire after them when he wakes up?

This argument does not convince the disputant.

Again, there is the moon. Let anyone look at her from any place at any time; she is the same moon. Everyone knows it. Now suppose that there are several receptacles of water reflecting the moon. The images are all different from one another and from the moon herself. If one of the receptacles falls to pieces, that reflection disappears. Its disappearance does not affect the real moon or the other reflections. It is similar with an individual attaining Liberation. He alone is liberated.

The sectarian of multiplicity makes this his argument against non-duality. “If the Self is single, if one man is liberated, that means that all souls are liberated. In practice it is not so. Therefore Advaita is not correct.”

The weakness in the argument is that the reflected light of the Self is mistaken for the original Light of the Self. The ego, the world and the individuals are all due to the person’s vasanas. When they perish, that person’s hallucinations disappear, that is to say one pitcher is broken and the relative reflection is at an end.

The fact is that the Self is never bound. There can therefore be no Release for It. All the troubles are for the ego only.

10th November 1938

A question was asked why it was wrong to say that there is a multiplicity of jivas. Jivas are certainly many. For a jiva is only the ego and forms the reflected light of the Self. Multiplicity of selves may be wrong but not of jivas.

M: “Jiva is called so because he sees the world. A dreamer sees many jivas in a dream but all of them are not real. The dreamer alone exists and he sees all. So it is with the individual and the world. There is the creed of only one Self which is also called the creed of only one jiva. It says that the jiva is only one who sees the whole world and the jivas therein.”

D: “Then jiva means the Self here.”

M: “So it is. But the Self is not a seer. But here he is said to see the world. So he is differentiated as the jiva.”

***

[From: “Mountain Path”, Jan 1966, Pg 101; “Divine Glimpses”, ‘Vishnu’ writes]

I asked Bhagavan, explaining my doubt: “Bhagavan, can all of us be unreal and non-existent? Please enlighten me.”

Bhagavan laughed and asked me whether I had any dream the previous night. I replied that I saw several people lying asleep. He Said: “Suppose now I ask you to go and wake all those people in the dream and tell them that they are not real, how absurd it would be! That is how it is to me. There is nothing but the dreamer, so where does the question of dream people, real or unreal arise; still more of waking them up and telling them that they are not real? We are all unreal, why do you doubt it? That alone is real.”

***

[From: “Mountain Path”, July 1981, Pg 154; from “Conversations with Bhagavan” by Swami Madhavatirtha, extracts from the text - on persistent questioning of Shri Bhagavan on the (un)reality of the world; Also in “Surpassing Love & Grace”, Pg 142]

A: It is not necessary to think of the view of other seers. Those others are only in your imagination. Know the one seer and all will be well. In a dream many are seen, but they are all in the imagination of the one seer. When you wake up from the dream, the dream and those seen in the dream will take care of their own prarabdha.

Q: Is it a fact that dreams arise because of impressions received during the waking state?

A: No, it is not true. In your dream you see many new things and many new people whom you have never seen before in your waking state. You may even see a second dream within the dream. After waking up from the second dream, you feel that you have woken up, but that is the waking state of the first dream. In the same way, man wakes up daily, but it is not to a real waking state.

Q: Why does the waking state look so real?

A: We see so much on the cinema screen, but it is not real; nothing is real there except the screen. In the same way, in the waking state, there is nothing but Adhisthana. Jagat-prama (knowledge of the world) is the prama of jagrat-pramata (knowledge of the knower of the world). Both go away in sleep.

Q: Why do we see such permanency and constancy in the world?

A: It is seen on account of wrong ideas. When someone says that he took a bath in the same river twice, he is wrong because when he bathed for the second time the river was not the same as it was when he bathed for the first time. On seeing the brightness of a flame, a man says that he sees the same flame, but this flame is changing every moment. The waking state is like this. The stationary appearance is an error of perception.

Q: Whose is the error?

A: Pramata (the knower)

Q: How did the knower come?

A: On account of the error of perception. In fact, the knower and his misperceptions appear simultaneously, and when knowledge of the Self is obtained, they disappear simultaneously. Just as in a dream, a false knower, knowledge and known rise up, in the waking state, the same process operates. In both states, on knowing this ‘I’, you know everything, and nothing remains to be known. In deep sleep knower, knowledge and known are absent; in the same way, at the time of experiencing the true ‘I’, they will not exist. Whatever you see happening in the waking state happens only to the knower, and since the knower is unreal, nothing in fact ever happens.

Q: After waking from sleep, why does the world of the previous day appear the same?

A: The world seen on the previous day was not real. It was the knowledge of an unreal knower; similarly, the world of the next day is also the knowledge of an unreal knower. Truly there is no real world. What appears separate from us is called by us “the world”. It appears separate to us due to ego-consciousness (ahamkara). When ahamkara goes there is nothing separate and then there is no world. Time also arises from pramata (the knower). Because pramata is not real, time also is not real.

***

[From: “Living by the Words of Bhagavan”, Pg 236; Annamalai Swami writes]

One evening in the Hall, Major Chadwick tried to persuade Bhagavan that the world did have some reality and permanence.

‘If the world exists only when my mind exists’, he began, ‘when my mind subsides in meditation or sleep, does the outside world disappear also? I think not. If one considers the experience of others who were aware of the world while I slept, one must conclude that the world existed then. Is it not more correct to say that the world got created and is ever existing in some huge collective mind? If this is true how can one say that there is no world and that it is only a dream?’

Bhagavan refused to modify his position. “The world does not say that it was created in the collective mind or that it was created in the individual mind. It only appears to our small mind. If your mind gets destroyed, there will be no world. If we go beyond this waking dream and see only our real Self we will discover that there is no world and that there are no ‘other people’. On the other hand if we move away from the Self and see the world, we find that we are in bondage.”

“Every jiva is seeing a separate world but a jnani does not see anything other than himself. This is the state of truth.”

***

[From: “The Power of the Presence” vol I, Pg 256; Swami Madhavatirtha writes]

Q: Is the world real or false?

M: “So long as there is mind, the world is there. During sleep there is no mind, so the world is not there”.

Q: While I am sleeping, other people who are awake continue to see the world.

M: “The people who are awake at that time are part of the world [whose existence you are trying to prove], so what they say cannot be taken as a piece of admissible evidence. At that time [when you were asleep] it [first] has to be proved whether or not other people exist. That which has to be proved cannot be taken for granted as existent. Their existence has to be proved independently, but such proof cannot be found. Those who are awake have minds that are moving; that is why they see the world. So, the world exists in relation to the mind. It is not a thing independent and existing by itself.”

Q: What is the relationship between Maya, the power that makes us take the world to be real, and Atman, the reality itself?

M: A man gets married in a dream and there the groom is real but the wife is false. And when he wakes up he is the same man as before. Similarly, the real Atman always remains as it is. It does not get affected or contaminated by Maya. It does not marry either Maya or Anatma [the not-Self] because it is complete, whereas the substance of the world is unreal. The individual ‘I’ is like the dream state of the man. When it begins to arise, the mind and the sense organs begin to operate. When it goes, they also go away. The root of all perceived material things is this ‘I’. Aham, ‘I’, is real, but ahamkara, the ego ‘I’, is false.

***

[From: “Day by Day”, Pg 3 (19.3.1945 morning)]

V: When I wake up and ask those friends or relations whom I met in the dream about the dream, they know nothing about it. But in the waking state what I see and hear is corroborated by so many others.

B: “You should not mix up the dream and the waking states. Just as you seek corroboration about the waking state experiences from those you see in the waking state, you must ask for corroboration about the dream experiences from those whom you saw in the dream state, i.e. when you were in the dream. Then in the dream, those friends or relations whom you saw in the dream would corroborate you.

The main point is, are you prepared when awake to affirm the reality of any of your dream experiences? Similarly, one who has awakened into jnana cannot affirm the reality of the waking experience. From his viewpoint, the waking state is dream.”

***

[From: “Surpassing Love & Grace”, Pg 149; “Dreams” (extracts from), Major Chadwick writes]

“But Bhagavan,” I would repeat, “dreams are disconnected, while the waking experience goes on from where it let off and is admitted by all to be more or less continuous.”

“Do you say that in your dreams?” Bhagavan would ask. “They seemed perfectly consistent and real to you then. It is only now, in your waking state that you question the reality of the experience. This is not logical.”

Bhagavan refused to see the least difference between the two states, and in this he agreed with all the great Advaitic Seers. Some have questioned if Sankara did not draw a line of difference between these two states, but Bhagavan has persistently denied it. Sankara did it apparently only for the purpose of clearer exposition, he would explain. The answer I received was always the same, however I tried to twist my questions.  

“Put your doubts when in the dream state itself. You do not question the waking state when you are awake. You accept it in the same way you accept your dreams. Go beyond both states, all three states including deep sleep, and study them from that point of view. You now study one limitation from the point of view of another limitation. Could anything be more absurd? Go beyond all limitation, then come here with the problem.”

But inspite of this, doubt still remained. I somehow felt that at the time of dreaming, there was something unreal in it, not always of course, but just glimpses now and then.

“Doesn’t that ever happen to you in your waking state too?” Bhagavan queried. “Don’t you sometimes feel that the world you live in and the thing that is happening is unreal?”

***

[From: “Mountain Path”, 1964, Pg 174; “Letter to a Brother III” (6.9.1947), ‘Above the Three States’, by Smt. Nagamma]

Sri Bhagavan said: “Short and long duration apply only to the dream and waking ‘states’. Some one may say we have lived so long and these houses and belongings are so clearly evident to us that it surely cannot be all a dream; but we have to remember that even dreams seem long while they last. It is only when you wake up that you realize it only lasted a short time. In the same way, when one attains jnana [Realization] this life is seen to be momentary.”

***

[From: “Day by Day”, Pg 137 (26.2.1946 morning)]

Bhagavan: “On the other hand, if you are aware it is a dream, you are no longer dreaming. At the best, it may be the transition stage when you are awaking from the dream state.”

Another visitor remarked that some of his dream experiences stood very firmly rooted in his mind, while others were not remembered at all.

Bhagavan remarked: “All that we see is a dream, whether we see it in the dream state or in the waking state. On account of some arbitrary standards about the duration of experience and so on, we call one experience dream experience and another waking experience. With reference to Reality, both the experiences are unreal. A man might have such an experience as getting anugraha (grace) in his dream and the effect and influence of it on his entire subsequent life may be so profound and so abiding that one cannot call it unreal, while calling real some trifling incident in the waking life, that just flits by, is casual, of no moment whatever and is soon forgotten.”

***

[From: “The Power of the Presence” vol I, Pg 243; Sri Bhagavan told Swami Madhavatirtha]

“All objects are in the one who sees. In a dream, just as all objects are in the one who dreams, so also in the waking state, all the objects are also in him. When the one who sees is corrected, there will be nothing seen. In dreamless sleep there is no Self-differentiation. If it is real, it must be felt in dreamless sleep also.”

***

[From: “The Power of the Presence” vol I, Pg 245; Sri Bhagavan told Swami Madhavatirtha]

“The Jnani does not believe that there are others, so there is no question of changing anyone’s material nature. When others are seen, that is ignorance.”

***

[From: “The Power of the Presence” vol I, Pg 258; Sri Bhagavan told Swami Madhavatirtha & others]

M: “If you want God, he is there all the time. So long as the world is not realized to be false, thoughts of the world will keep on coming. So long as the snake is seen, the rope does not appear. The mind that creates the world will not be able to take the world as false. As it happens in the dream state, so it also happens in the waking state. Without the mind there is no world. In sleep, since there is no mind, there is no world. Therefore it is not necessary to think of the world that is imagined by the mind. That which is nitya nivritta [always removed, never existing] need not be given any thought to. A barber having thrown out someone’s hair does not count how many are black and how many are white as all of them have to be thrown away. Similarly, it is not necessary to count imaginary things. It is only necessary to cease to imagine that they are true.

To remove the snake from the rope, it is not necessary to kill the snake. In the same way it is not necessary to kill the mind. By understanding the complete non-existence of the mind, the mind will go away. The experience that is without the seer and the seen, that is without time and space, is the real experience.

When we have a dream, we see many varieties of forms. Out of them we believe one form to be ‘my’ form and we also believe that ‘I am that’. If we are the manufacturer of the dream, then we are the actor in all the forms in the dream as well as the actor in our own form. The one who has the dream believes that all the forms [in the dream] are real, and that they are separate from each other. And he also believes that in the dream he himself has a form. He is not aware that he is both the actor of the dream and all the other forms [that he sees]. He realizes on waking that everything in the dream was he and he alone. In the same way, a jnani knows that the world [being only a dream] is never created. Whatever is there is all his own Self, one and undivided.”

Q: In golden ornaments both the gold and the ornaments seem to be real. The only difference is that the piece of gold does not have the same beauty as the ornament. Likewise, both Brahman and the world appear to be real.

M: “Whether you keep the gold or the gold ornaments, in both, the basic material is the same. The name given to a form is for everyday activities. If there were a lot of gold ornaments lying around, and if we were to say, ‘Please get the gold’, the job could not be done. Similarly, there is only one ‘I’ and it is the same in all people, but for worldly activities we cannot say, ‘Please call that “I”’. That is why some ‘I’s are called ‘Ramachandran’ and some ‘Krishna Lal’. Even so, there is only one ‘I’.”

Q:  If the ‘I’ at one place calls the ‘I’ at some other place ‘I’, many mistakes will happen.

M: “During worldly activity, if your attention is fixed on the fundamental reality, there is no difficulty. But ordinary people forget the reality and take the name alone to be real. The different ‘I’s are not real. There is only one ‘I’. The separate ‘I’ is like a watchman in a fort. He is like the protector of the body. The real owner in everybody is only the one real ‘I’. So when the separate ‘I’ surrenders to the real ‘I’, then, ‘I’ and ‘mine’ are eliminated. The true state comes into existence when, after sorting out what belongs to whom, the ego ‘I’ surrenders itself to the real owner".

***

[From: “Living by the Words of Bhagavan”, Pg 254; Swami Annamalai writes that to a query by Ms. Bateman, who came to stay at the Ashram with her friends & retinue, on the difference between people like herself & Sri Bhagavan, Sri Bhagavan gave this analogy]

“Two people were sleeping in the same place. One of them had a dream in which both of them suffered while they were wandering through many forests. The other person slept well without dreaming at all. The one who dreamed thought that the one who slept well was also suffering. The dreamer is like the ajnani: he makes a dream world for himself, suffers in that dream, and because he is not able to see that it is only a dream, he believes that all the people in his dream are also suffering. The jnani, on the other hand, does not dream a world at all. He invents no suffering either for himself or for other people. That is because the jnani looks upon everything as jnana, as his own Self, whereas the ajnani sees only ajnana around him”

***

From: “Sri Ramanaparavidyopanishad”, Pg 85]

144. The mind itself creates the world in waking, as it does in dream. But the mind does not know that this is its own creation, in waking, as in dream.

145. The mind creates the world subject to a superior power (Avidya-Maya) and therefore is unable to create it to its own liking. The mind believing the world to be real, is deluded and suffers the woes of samsara.

***

[Reference not noted, sorry!]

‘We are told by the Sage that this is Nature’s way; and he gives us the analogy of dreams to prove it; when we are dreaming of pleasant things we do not awake but do so as soon as we see visions of a frightful nature. A life of placid enjoyment is naturally inimical to serious thinking on serious subjects.’

***

[From: “Day by Day”, Pg 13 (8.9.1945 morning)]

V: But in our dreams we make no conscious effort to get rid of the dream and to awake, but the dream itself comes to an end without any effort on our part and we become awake. Similarly why should not the waking state, which is in reality only another sort of dream, come to an end of its own accord, and without any effort on our part, and land us in jnana or real awakening?

B: “Your thinking that you have to make an effort to get rid of this dream of the waking state and your making efforts to attain jnana or real awakening are all parts of the dream. When you attain jnana you will see there was neither the dream during sleep, nor the waking state, but only yourself and your real state.”

I pressed Bhagavan, ‘But what is the answer to the question: Why should not the waking state also pass like our dreams without any effort on our part and land us in jnana, as a dream passes off and leaves us awake?’

B: “Who can say that the dream passed off on its own accord? If the dream came on, as is generally supposed, as a result of our past thoughts or karma, probably the same karma also decides how long it should last and how after that time it should cease.”

***

[From: Guru Vacaka Kovai, Pg 162; Sadhu Om’s book]

557.   When the experience of the fruits of karmas which had caused the waking state come to an end, and when the fruits of the karmas to be experienced in dream start, the mind, in the same manner as it had taken a body as ‘I’ in the waking state, will identify and take another as ‘I’ in dream.

***

[From: “Day by Day”, Pg 76 (3.1.1946 morning)]

“In a dream, you have no inkling that it is a dream and so you don’t have the duty of trying to get out of it by your effort. But in this life you have some intuition, by your sleep experience, by reading and hearing, that this life is something like a dream, and hence duty is cast on you to make an effort and get out of it. However, who wants you to realize the Self, if you don’t want it? If you prefer to be in the dream, stay as you are.”

***

[From: “Guru Ramana”, Pg 55; “Today’s talk is about Kaivalyam. Maya comes up in the middle and claims attention. Sri Bhagavan explains:” (14.6.1948)]

“Every plane has its own illusion, which can be destroyed only by another illusion on the same plane. For example, a man takes a full meal and goes to sleep. He dreams of being hungry inspite of the jagrat food in his stomach. To satisfy the dream hunger, he has to take dream food. A wound in dream requires dream treatment. A great king once dreamt that he was ill but was too poor to call a doctor. He had to beg the doctor’s fees from his friends to receive medical help. Although he had fabulous wealth in the waking state, it could be of no use to him in the dream state. Similarly, the illusion of ajnana can be destroyed only by the illusion of guru-upadesa. Mukti is ever present and bondage ever absent, yet the universal experience is the reverse.”

***

[From: “The Power of the Presence” vol I, Pg 262; Sri Bhagavan told Swami Madhavatirtha & others (extracts)]

“Adhisthana does not wake up or sleep. The knower, pramata, sleeps. During sleep, the knower, the means of knowing and the known get dissolved, leaving the activity-less state of Atman. For the Atman there is nothing to know or be known. It is the one who has no knowledge who has to make an effort to gain knowledge. This is what takes place in the waking state. Anatman, which is the non-Self, which can also be called chidabhasa, the reflected consciousness, has the ignorance, so this reflected consciousness has to make the effort for jnana, or knowledge. Knowing and not knowing happen in the non-Self. The Self does not have to obtain knowledge, for it is knowledge itself. When the knower [pramata], the reflected consciousness [chidabhasa], is felt, at that time mithyajnana [false knowledge] or ignorance is always present. When the reflected consciousness gets the knowledge, it no longer remains. During sleep there is no reflected consciousness. So, [at that time] the false knowledge is not to be obtained. In reality, there is only the Atman. Because this is so, there is nothing to know and nothing to be known".

***

[From: “Day by Day”, Pg 65 (24.12.45 evening)]

“People are afraid that when ego or mind is killed, the result may be a mere blank and not happiness. What really happens is that the thinker, the object of thought and thinking, all merge in the one Source, which is Consciousness and Bliss itself, and thus that state is neither inert nor blank. I don’t understand why people should be afraid of that state in which all thoughts cease to exist and the mind is killed. They are everyday experiencing that state in sleep. There is no mind or thought in sleep. Yet when one rises from sleep one says, ‘I slept happily’. Sleep is so dear to everyone that no one, prince or beggar, can do without it. And when one wants to sleep, nothing however high in the range of all the worldly enjoyments can tempt him from much-desired sleep. …That is an indication of the supreme happiness that is to be had in that state where all thoughts cease. If one is not afraid of going to sleep, I don’t see why one should be afraid of killing the mind or ego by sadhana.”

***

[From: “Ramana Smriti”, ‘The Bhagavan I Knew’; Krishna Bhikshu writes how a visitor started wailing to Sri Bhagavan about the enormity of his sins]

Sri Bhagavan asked: “When you sleep, are you a sinner?” “No, I am just asleep.” “If you are not a sinner, then you must be good.” “No, I am neither good nor bad when I am asleep. I know nothing about myself.” “And what do you know about yourself now? You say you are a sinner. You say so because you think so. Were you pleased with yourself, you would call yourself a good man and stop telling me about your being a sinner. What do you know about good and evil except what is in your mind? When you see that the mind invents everything, all will vanish. The good will vanish, the evil will vanish, and you will remain as you are.”

***

[From: “Letters”, Pg 197; 18.5.1947 (117) Seeing a Lion in a Dream]

Q: It [the ego] is bigger than a wild elephant. It will not yield ordinarily. For that wild elephant, it is said that Guru Kataksham (the Grace of the Guru) is like seeing a lion in its dream.

“That is true. If an elephant sees a lion in its dream, it wakes up startled and will not sleep again that day for fear that the lion might appear again in a dream. In the same way in a man’s life which is also akin to a dream, it is not Guru Kataksham alone, but also sravana, manana, nididhyasana, etc., that are akin to the sight of a lion in a dream. As they go on getting these dreams they wake up, and again go to bed and by efflux of time they may some day get a lion’s dream called Guru Kataksham in an intense manner. They get startled and obtain jnana. Then there will be no more dreams and they will not only be wakeful at all times but will not give room for any dreams of life but will remain alert until that true and real knowledge is obtained. These lion’s dreams are unavoidable and must be experienced,” said Bhagavan.

With some surprise, that questioner said, “Are sravana etc. and Guru Kataksha akin to dreams?”

“Yes, that is so. For those who realise the truth, everything is akin to a dream. That being so, what do you now say is the truth? During sleep you have no control over this body. You wander about in various places with different bodies. You do all sorts of things. At that time everything appears real. You do everything as if you are the doer. It is only after you wake up that you feel that you are a Venkiah or a Pulliah, that what you had experienced in the dream is unreal and that it was only a dream. Not only that. Sometimes you go to bed after eating your fill at night - sweets such as laddu and jilebi. During sleep you dream that you are wandering in all sorts of places, cannot get food and are about to die of starvation. When you get up startled, you will be belching. Then you will realize that the whole thing was a dream. But during that sleep, did you remember about this (your overeating)? Another person goes to bed suffering from starvation. In his dream, he enjoys a feast, eating laddu and jilebi. Will he remember at that time the fact that he had gone to bed hungry? No, he wakes up and finds himself terribly hungry. ‘Oh God! It is all illusion, a mere dream,’ he thinks. That is all. You were existent in the wakeful state as well as in the dream state and also in the sleeping state. When you are able to understand your state which had been existent all the time, you will then understand that all the rest is like a dream. When that is known, the feeling that the Guru is different from you will disappear. But then, since this realization must come about because of Guru Kataksha, that Guru Kataksha is likened to a dream of a lion. That dream must be intense and must imprint itself in one’s mind. It is only then that a proper wakefulness will come about. For that, the time must be propitious. If sadhana is performed relentlessly, some time or other favourable results turn up. That is all.” So saying, Bhagavan assumed a dignified silence.

***

[From: “Mountain Path”, 1969, Pg 89; “Wake Us Up”, by R. Narayana Iyer]

I once asked Sri Bhagavan: “If all that we see is mere illusion, and no more real than a dream, what about the form before us, on the couch talking to us about Truth and Reality?”

He remained silent for a few seconds. I repeated the question. He called for a Tamil book Ozhuvil Odukkam and read out and explained the second verse in it, which said that a Jnani is, to his disciple in jagrat (our state of wakefulness), like a lion in the dream of a mad elephant. The dream lion startles and wakes up the elephant – the lion, the dream and the elephant vanish and what is, remains. Even so the enlightened Guru wakes up the adept disciple to absolute Reality in which there is neither Guru nor sishya.

“Bhagavan, we are still asleep. Wake us up”, I said.

“Who is it that is asleep, and who is it that wants to be woken up. Find that out first, and all doubts will vanish”, said Sri Bhagavan. I was not satisfied. Then Sri Bhagavan said: “Last night you met a number of persons in your dream. Now, how would it look if I were to ask you to go and tell everyone of them, ‘you are not real’, ‘you are not real’, etc. What you say now is similar to that.

***
                                            
   

[From: “Guru Vacaka Kovai”, Pg 134; (David Godman’s book)]

283.   Through the Guru appearing in the waking state [of the disciple] – which is actually a dream that originates in the sleep of ignorance – the disciple will lose the shrouding ignorance and attain Jnana. The validating analogy for this is: when the elephant sees a lion in its dream – which originates in sleep – the elephant’s sleep ends and he wakes up.

Ozhivil Odukkam: verse 1.2.   If the Sadguru did not cast his glance upon him, bringing him to absolute stillness, free of all distress, just as a majestic lion appears in the dream of a rutting elephant, stopping it in its tracks, by the study of what [subjects] may he accomplish the loss of the ego-self?

--- x ---