Vichara Mani Mala
Jewel Garland of Enquiry
This is a compilation of the salient points extracted by
Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi from a large volume in Tamil
known as Vichara Sagara (Ocean of Enquiry), which itself
was a translation from the original in Hindi by Mahatma
Nischaldas. On being requested by a devotee, Arunachala
Mudaliar, who complained that the volume in Tamil was too
difficult to read and understand, Sri Bhagavan graciously
made the following extracts.
Invocation
I am that Brahman [?] which is bliss, which is eternal,
effulgent, all-pervasive, the substratum of names and forms,
which is not cognized by the impure intellect, but is cognized
by the pure intellect, stainless and boundless. That is to say,
when one discards the jiva [?] (individual being) of the form of
ahamkara (ego-sense), which is the apparent meaning of the
word `I', what remains merely as the effulgent and conscious
Atman (Self), which is the implied meaning of the word `I',
is Brahman [?]. This can also be understood from the following
words of Arunagiriar's experience: "After swallowing me who
had the form of `I' (ego), that supreme Being remained as
mere Self."
Page 278
The Text
The noble aspirant for liberation whose mind has become
pure and one-pointed by the cessation of evil thoughts, as a
result of the motiveless acts and meditations performed by
him in his former lives, and who is subject only to the defect
of the concealing power (avarana shakti) in the form of
ignorance of the Self, and who possesses the four qualifications
of discrimination, dispassion, the six virtues like self-control
and yearning for liberation, being unable to endure the miseries
of samsara, approaches the Sadguru who is compassionate,
who has realized the meaning of Vedanta [?]and who is
established in Brahman, and, after prostrating before him with
fear and reverence, questions him thus:
Disciple: Swami, what are the means of putting an end to
the miseries of samsara like birth and death and of attaining
supreme bliss?
Guru: Oh Disciple! What a delusion! You are always of
the nature of bliss. There is not the least trace of the miseries
of samsara in you. Therefore do not take upon yourself the
miseries of birth, etc. You are the conscious Brahman [?] which
is free from birth and death.
Disciple: Is not liberation the cessation of misery and the
attainment of supreme bliss? If I am (already) of the nature of
bliss how is it possible for me to attain the bliss which is
always attained and similarly to get rid of the misery which
never existed?
Page 279
Guru: This is possible just as one can seek and find a
bracelet which was on one's arm all the time but which one
had forgotten about, and on finding it look upon it as a new
acquisition. It is possible as in the case of the serpent which,
at no time present in the rope, was mistaken for one, but which
seemed to be there and seems to disappear when one discovers
that it is only a piece of rope.
Disciple: Will the nonexistence of misery and the existence
of bliss coexist in one and the same state (lit. substance) of
liberation?
Guru: They will. Just as the nonexistence of the imagined
serpent is the existence of the rope, the nonexistence of the
imagined misery is the existence of bliss.
Disciple: As bliss arises only from contact with objects,
how can I be said to be (of the nature of) bliss?
Guru: The bliss of the Self will not be felt in the intellect
which is distracted by desires for objects by one who does
not know the Self. When the object of desire is obtained the
intellect becomes steady for a moment and turns inward.
Then the bliss of the Self is reflected in it and this gives rise
to a delusion that there was bliss in the object. But when
other objects are desired this bliss vanishes. It is similar to
the bliss which one experiences on the arrival of one's son
from a foreign country. It does not last as long as the object
which seemed to be the cause of it. Further, bliss is
experienced in the state of samadhi and deep sleep, even
without objects. Therefore there is no bliss in objects. The
Self alone is bliss. It is because the bliss of the Self alone is
experienced by all, that all are proclaimed by the Vedas to
be of the form of bliss.
Page 280
Disciple: But does the sage (jnani) who knows the Self
desire objects and experience bliss, or does he not?
Guru: Although he may desire objects and experience bliss
like the ignorant person, he does not imagine that bliss to be
any different from the bliss of the Self.
Disciple: When the misery of birth, death, etc. is actually
experienced how can it be said that it never exists in me?
Guru: Know that the world of birth, death, etc. is an illusory
appearance like the serpent in the rope and blueness in the
sky, or like dreams, due to your ignorance of your Self which
is Brahman.
Disciple: What is the support (adhara) for this extensive
world?
Guru: Just as the rope is the support and basis for the
delusive serpent which appears when the rope is not recognized
as such, so you are the support and basis for the world which
appears when you do not know your Self.
Disciple: Kindly explain distinctly the ideas of support
(adhara) and basis (adhishtana).
Guru: Even in the unreal serpent there is a concept `this'
which is mixed up with the general concept `this' underlying
the rope. Similarly in the unreal world there is a concept `It
exists' which is mixed up with the general concept of existence
underlying the Self. This existence is the support of the world.
Again, just as there is the particular concept `rope' (besides the
general concept of `this') there is also the particular concept of
the Self, namely that it is unattached, immutable, ever-liberated,
all-pervasive, etc. This is not cognized at the time of the delusion,
but, when cognized, removes the delusion. This particular
concept of Self is the basis of the world.
Page 281
Disciple: Corresponding to the seer who is separate from
the rope which is the support and basis of the serpent, who is
the seer apart from me who is the support and basis of the
world?
Guru: If the basis is insentient a separate seer is necessary.
If the basis is sentient it will itself be the seer. Just as the
witnessing consciousness which is the basis of the dream is
itself the seer of the dream, you are yourself the seer of the
world.
Disciple: If the world of the waking state comes into
existence and falsely appears like dreams through nescience,
why should we speak of any distinction between the waking
state and the dream state and say that the waking state has
relative (empirical: vyavaharika) reality while the dream state
has only personal (pratibhasika) reality?
Guru: Since a dream appears without the help of the
appropriate time, space and materials on account of nescience
accompanied by the defect (dosham) of sleep, it is spoken of
as a personal state. Since the waking state appears in the
supreme Self which is free from time, space and materials,
owing to nescience alone, it is spoken of as the relative state.
They are thus described with reference to the three states of
reality (personal, relative and absolute). When we think clearly
there is no difference between them. Nor is there any difference
between the waking and the dream state. Undifferentiated
consciousness is the only true reality. Whatever is different
from it is personal and has nescience as its material cause and
consciousness as its basis.
Disciple: If that is so why is there a cessation of the dream
state even in the absence of knowledge of Brahman while the
state of waking does not cease without knowledge of Brahman?
Page 282
Guru: Although there cannot be complete cessation of the
dream state until there is knowledge of Brahman [?] in the waking
state, the defect of sleep, which is the immediate cause of the
dream, may disappear by the emergence of the waking state
which is inimical to it.
Disciple: The objects of the waking state prior to the dream
exist in the waking state succeeding the dream also. But the
objects of one dream are not seen in the next dream. How
then can the two states be regarded as similar?
Guru: All objects are the transformation by nescience of
the underlying consciousness. When a concept arises they also
arise and when a concept ceases they also cease. Therefore it
cannot be said that the objects of the previous waking state
exist in the subsequent waking state also. As in a dream they
(the objects of the subsequent waking state) come into
existence for the time being. Therefore both are similar.
Disciple: Since a man who wakes up from a dream believes
the objects he sees to be the same as before his dream, it
cannot be said that they come into existence only when there
is knowledge of them. Objects exist permanently prior to and
after the knowledge of them.
Guru: Just as the things which come into existence for the
time being in a dream seem to have existed unchanged for a
long time, so also do the objects which come into existence in
the waking state on account of strong nescience. The ideas of
cause and effect in respect of these objects are also similar.
Disciple: If the bondage of samsara came into existence
on account of ignorance of the Self, when did that ignorance
arise?
Guru: The ignorance, arising from the Self, which is
Brahman, is mere imagination (kalpita) and has no beginning.
Page 283
Disciple: Since darkness cannot exist in the sun, how can
nescience exist in Brahman which is pure consciousness? Even
if it exists, it cannot exist in what is clearly known or in what
is not at all known. Superimposition of a false reality upon a
true, is possible only when the general aspect of something is
known and not its particular aspect. Brahman has no parts
like general and particular; it is attributeless; so how can
there be the superimposition of bondage?
Guru: Although Brahman [?] is consciousness, the general
(indistinct) aspect of that all-pervasive consciousness which
is of the nature of effulgence is not inimical to nescience, but
helpful to it. In deep sleep nescience coexists with the
consciousness of the Self. The general (possibility of) fire
within the wood is not inimical to darkness, but helpful to it.
But as the actualized (manifest) fire produced by rubbing the
wood is inimical to darkness, so also the distinct consciousness
produced in the mind as Brahman [?] is inimical to nescience.
Although Brahman [?] is without attributes (and cannot therefore
be cognized) its general existence is known even in the state
of nescience in the form of `I am', while its particular aspects
like consciousness, bliss, etc. are not then known, but are
known only in the state of knowledge. As appearances are the
result of nescience, there can be the bondage of
superimposition in the attributeless Brahman, which is known
as existence and unknown as consciousness and bliss.
Disciple: Although the world is unreal it is the cause of
miseries like birth and death. An unreal nightmare will not
occur if japa is done (before going to sleep). Analogous to
this, what can be done to prevent the appearance of the world?
Guru: That which appears owing to ignorance of something
will cease to appear only through knowledge of that something.
The serpent and the silver which appear on account of the
Page 284
ignorance of the rope and the nacre will disappear only through
knowledge of them. Similarly the world which appears on
account of ignorance of the Self will disappear only through
knowledge of the Self. Brahman [?] is infinite, homogeneous,
unattached to anything, without birth, etc., invisible and without
name and form. The nescience imagined in it and its effects,
namely the individual, the Lord and the world, are unreal in all
the three periods of time. Whatever is seen is the play of the
intellect which is the effect of that nescience. Brahman, while
remaining unmoved, illumines the intellect. This intellect
projects its false imagination in the states of waking and
dreaming and merges in the nescience in the state of deep sleep.
`Just as the water of the mirage does not make the desert wet
this unreal thing (world) will not do any harm to me who is its
basis.' Such a conviction is real knowledge. This is the means
of liberation. I have already said this. Darkness will not
disappear through anything except light; it will not disappear
through ritualistic acts, meditation (upasana)1 etc. The darkness
of nescience departs along with its effects, from him in whose
Heart the light of knowledge arises. He remains always as the
unattached and homogeneous Self of the form of Brahman.
Nothing came into existence in the past. Nor is there anything
existing now. Nor will there be anything in the future. Since
the objects that are known do not (really) exist, the terms
`witness' and `seer' are not applicable. Since there is no bondage
there is no liberation. Since there is no nescience there is no
knowledge. He who has known this and cast away the sense of
duty is a sage (jnani [?]). Whether his senses come into contact
with their objects or not he is unattached and free from desires.
Therefore, even though he may appear to act, he does nothing.
Page 285
Disciple: How can the individual who is of the form of
`I' `I' and is numerous and finite and subject to attachment
and other forms of misery, be identical with Brahman which
is one and all-pervasive and free from attachment and other
forms of misery? If individual and Brahman are the same,
who is it that acts? And who bestows the fruits of action?
Guru: Although Brahman [?] cannot be identical with the
individuality (jiva [?]) which is limited to the inner organ
(antahkarana [?]) and which is the apparent meaning of `I', it
can be with the witness (sakshi [?]), which is the implied meaning
of the word `I'. It is the reflected part (abhasa bhaga) of the
jiva [?]which performs action. The reflected part in Ishvara
(God), which is the apparent meaning of the word Tat
(Brahman [?]), bestows the fruits of action. There is no difference
in the consciousness which is the implied meaning of these
words (I and Tat [?]). Nor do these two aspects (jiva [?]and Ishvara [?])
really exist.
Disciple: Who is the jiva? Who is the sakshi (witness)? Is
not a witness other than the jiva a sheer impossibility like the
son of a barren woman?
Guru: Just as the reflection of the sky in a pot becomes the
sky in the water, consciousness established in the intellect
(buddhi [?]) along with the reflected consciousness (abhasa) in
the intellect, accompanied by desires and action, becomes the
jiva [?]who is the doer, enjoyer and samsari. The consciousness
which is the basis of the intellect and which is the attribute of
the jiva [?]or the finite (vyasti) nescience, is the immutable
witness (kutastha). He has no beginning and is unchanging.
Features (dharmas) like good and evil, joy and sorrow, going
to another world and coming back to this, belong to the
reflected consciousness alone. Even in the reflected
consciousness they exist only in the inner organ which is its
Page 286
attribute. They do not exist in the consciousness which is the
substance part (of the jiva [?]). The substance part of the jiva is
the witness. In one and the same consciousness the inner organ
is the adjunct (upadhi) for the ideas of witness and attribute
for the idea of jiva. That is to say, the single consciousness
becomes the jiva [?]along with the inner organ and the witness
when bereft of it. That is, one and the same inner organ is the
adjunct of consciousness in the eyes of one who lacks
discrimination. Therefore the single consciousness is the
witness for a man of discrimination and jiva [?]for one who
lacks discrimination.
Disciple: How is it possible for even the witness, who is
manifold and limited on account of the multiplicity of jivas,
to be identical with Brahman who is one?
Guru: Just as the space in a pot which is manifold and
limited is not different from, and in fact is, the same as total
space (mahakasa), the witness who is manifold and limited is
not different from Brahman [?] but is Brahman. It is therefore
possible for it to be identical with Brahman. Therefore know
`I am Brahman'.
Disciple: For whom is this knowledge? For the jiva or for
the witness?
Guru: Knowledge and ignorance are for the jiva [?]alone and
not for the witness.
Disciple: Will not the knowledge `I am Brahman' which
arises in the jiva, which is different from Brahman, be false?
Guru: As the immutable Self (kutastha) implied in the term
`I' is always one with Brahman, like the pot-space and infinite
space, it is completely identical with it. As for the jiva [?]implied
in the term `I', it can have identity with Brahman [?]`by removal
of obstruction' (badha samanadhikaranyam) through negating
Page 287
the idea of jiva, just as the man one imagines one sees in a
post (in a dim light) becomes one with the post on the negation
of the idea of its being a man.
Disciple: Do the reflected consciousness (abhasa) and the
immutable (kutastha) which are implied in the term `I' exist
at the same time? Or do they appear at different times?
Guru: They appear at the same time. The reflected
consciousness is the object of the witness, but the witness is
self-cognized. When there is actual knowledge, of pots and
other external objects what happens is this: The concept part
in the concept of the inner organ accompanied by the reflected
consciousness goes out as far as the pots and other objects
and assumes their forms and removes the obstruction
(avaranam) which naturally covers them, on account of
ignorance. Just as a non-luminous object covered by a pot
will not be seen (in the dark) even if the pot is broken by a
stick, but can be seen with the help of a lamp, even so the
reflected part illumines the objects.
When there is direct realization of Brahman, which is the
Self, what happens is this: The inner organ, with the help of
the sound produced by the important scriptural saying
(mahavakya [?])2 `That thou art' (Tat tvam asi) when connected
with the ear, takes the form of Brahman [?] (Brahmakara) and
loses contact with the senses. This is like the knowledge of
the tenth man (dasama) which arises through the sound
produced by the sentence `you are the tenth man', or like the
ideas of joy and sorrow which arise without any
(corresponding) external objects. This concept of the form of
Page 288
Brahman [?] removes the obstruction hiding the Self and then
the slight ignorance which still persists in the inner organ
disappears like the dirt (in a cloth) which is removed by soap.
Thereafter Brahman [?] becomes manifest by its own effulgence,
like the light of the glorious sun which shines when slight
obstructions, like when fingers held over one's eyes are
removed. Just as a lamp kept in a pot shines without the aid of
another light when the pot is broken, Brahman [?] too does not
require the help of the reflected consciousness.
Disciple: What are the chief (antaranga) and secondary
(bahiranga) means of attaining this knowledge?
Guru: Ritualistic sacrifices and similar acts and meditation
(upasana) performed without motive are the secondary means.
The four (qualifications)3 like discrimination, the three
(steps)4 and (the one) enquiry into the meaning of `That' and
`Thou' -- these eight make up the chief means.
Disciple: If knowledge arises through the `saying' alone,
where is the need for `hearing,' etc.?
Guru: Knowledge is of two kinds, namely steady (free
from defects) and unsteady (defective). Although an inferior
aspirant (mandadhikari) who has doubts and false notions
may have direct knowledge through the teaching of the
`saying' it will not produce the proper effect; it is defective.
Page 289
By constant practice of `hearing,' etc., the defect will be
removed. This is the aim of `hearing,' etc. In the case of a
superior aspirant (uttama adhikari) whose inner organ is
extremely pure and free from the doubts and false notions, so
that steady direct knowledge will arise by merely hearing the
saying, it is not necessary to have hearing, etc., (again) for
removing the defects. He alone is `liberated while alive' (jivan
mukta), whose wisdom is firm (sthita prajna).
Disciple: What are the distinguishing marks of the sage
and the ignorant person?
Guru: The ignorant person is distinguished by his
attachment (raga), the sage by dispassion. Even if the ignorant
person occasionally develops dispassion, it is likely to change
since he has not got rid of the sense of reality in the objects of
the senses. His dispassion is superficial. On the other hand,
the dispassion of the sage, which has developed out of his
sense of the unreality of objects of the senses, does not change
at any time and is therefore intense.
Disciple: Why do some persons say that ritualistic acts
(karma) accompanied by meditation (upasana) and knowledge
(jnana) are the cause of steadiness?
Guru: The idea that the Self, which is separate from the
body, is the doer and enjoyer and the idea that the doer, the
act and its result are different from one another, are the cause
of ritualistic acts; the result is impermanent samsara. The Self
is of the nature of the unattached Brahman; the doer, the act
and the result are not distinct from the Self; this is knowledge,
and its fruit is eternal liberation. So how can these two
coexist?
Disciple: So long as the inner organ exists its natural quality
of unsteadiness will not leave even the sage. Therefore if it is
Page 290
not an obstacle to liberation after death (videhamukti) how
can there be the experience of bliss of liberation while alive?
Is it not necessary for even the sage to meditate (do upasana)
in order to remove the unsteadiness of the mind?
Guru: Since samadhi and distraction are the same to a
sage of steadfast wisdom, he does not enter into any action
for the sake of steadiness of mind. For him there is no
nescience as a cause of his activity, nor any delusion of
difference as a result of nescience, nor attachment and hatred
resulting from the delusion of difference. Only prarabdha
(that part of one's karma [?]which has to be worked out in this
life) remains; this is the cause of his activity. And that being
different from person to person, there is no fixity (lit. order)
in regard to the activity arising out of prarabdha. Hence the
sage's activity and inactivity are governed by prarabdha.
Therefore there can be desire for sense enjoyment and efforts
to attain it, as in the case of Janaka and others, on account of
the prarabdha responsible for enjoyment. Similarly, there
can be the desire for liberation while alive, and disgust with
sense-enjoyment as in the case of Suka, Vamadeva and others,
on account of the prarabdha responsible for inactivity. The
bliss of Brahman [?]will not become manifest owing to the
mere immobility of the inner organ. It will become manifest
only through the concept of the form of Brahman
(Brahmakara vritti). Since this will arise only through
reflection (chintana) on the meaning of the Vedanta [?](texts),
and since unsteadiness will disappear even through this, one
who desires to have the bliss of liberation while alive has to
reflect on the meaning of Vedanta [?]texts only and need not
meditate (do upasana).
Disciple: Can the sage have too much activity?
Guru: When activity is excessive, happiness will decrease;
when activity is less, the happiness will be more. But
Page 291
knowledge remains the same. Although activity is inimical to
that (kind of) happiness which is distinct from liberation while
alive, it is not inimical to liberation while alive, since there is
not delusion of bondage by activity and inactivity so far as
the Self is concerned.
Disciple: Since the sage cannot have attachment on account
of his seeing all objects as non-Self, unreal and evil, what can
motivate his activity?
Guru: Although he knows the body to be unreal, the sage
may be active on account of his prarabdha; for instance, he
may go begging, etc., to maintain the body on account of his
prarabdha. It is like people watching a conjuring act even
when they know how it is done, or like an invalid doing things
that are bad for him even though he knows that they are.
Disciple: What is the meaning of saying that the sage has
no desires?
Guru: It is not that his inner organ will not take the form
of desires. As the inner organ is not the product of pure sattva
alone, but of the less prominent rajas [?]and tamas, in
combination with the prominent sattva, all the qualities will
more or less exist in it. Therefore, so long as the inner organ
remains there will not be entire absence of desires which are
modifications of rajas. But the sage does not mistake the
desires for characteristics of the Self. That is the difference.
He is unattached. Though he acts he is a non-doer. That is
why the scripture (sruti [?]) says that the good and bad acts done
by the body and the merit and demerit (acquired thereby)
after attaining knowledge do not affect him.
Disciple: Is it not necessary for the sage to enter into blissful
and non-dual nirvikalpa samadhi in which concepts are all
absorbed in nescience, as in deep sleep, and there is no
experience of nescience-covered bliss and the concept of the
Page 292
inner organs in the form of Brahman (Brahmakara vritti) is
absorbed in the effulgence of Brahman?
On hearing this the Guru laughed thinking, `Why does he
talk like a fool?'
Disciple: Won't one who, while alive, gives up the bliss of
liberation to enjoy sense pleasures, give up liberation after
death for the desire to attain heavenly worlds?
Guru: The rejection of the bliss of liberation while alive
and the desire for worldly enjoyments may happen in the case
of a sage on account of his prarabdha, but they will not happen
after his nescience is burnt up by his knowledge. Therefore
his life force (prana [?]) will not go out and he cannot become
embodied again either in this world or any other on account
of prarabdha. Hence the rejection of liberation after death
and desire for, or attainment of, other worlds is not possible
for the sage.
Disciple: What is liberation while alive? And what is
liberation after death?
Guru: The absence of the delusion of bondage even while
one is embodied, is liberation while alive. The absorption of
the gross and subtle nescience in consciousness after the
experience of prarabdha is liberation after death.
This is the gist of the important scriptural texts.
On hearing this the disciple experienced the direct
knowledge of his Self and, after first experiencing liberation
while alive, attained liberation after death.
Page 293