CHAPTER FIVE
SELF-ENQUIRY
Although refraining, for the reason given in the previous chapter, from describing himself as a Guru, Sri Bhagavan did in fact constantly act as such. When any visitor came with questions, he would turn the trend of them from theory to practice; and in explaining and enjoining methods of spiritual training he was as forthcoming as he was reluctant to expound mere theory. He often said that the true teaching was in silence; but this did not mean that verbal expositions also were not given. They indicated to the seeker in what way he should make an effort, while the silent influence on his heart helped him to do so.As will be shown in the next chapter, Sri Bhagavan authorised many different methods; however, he laid the greatest emphasis on Self-enquiry and constantly recommended it, and therefore his method will be dealt with first.
It is not a new method. Indeed, being the most direct method of all, it must be the most ancient. However, in ancient times it had been a path reserved for the heroic few who could strive in solitude, withdrawn from the world in constant meditation. In recent times, as might be expected, it had become increasingly rare. What Bhagavan did was to restore it in a new form combined with karma marga [?] (the path of action), in such a way that it could be used in the conditions of the modern world. Since it requires no ritual or outer form, it is in fact the ideal method for the needs of our times. And yet it is not weakened or diluted by being adapted to the modern conditions of life, but remains central and direct.
For the subsidence of the mind there is no other means more effective than Self-enquiry. Even though the mind subsides by other means, that is only apparently so; it will rise again.1
Page 110
This is the direct method. All other methods are practised while retaining the ego and therefore many doubts arise and the ultimate question still remains to be tackled in the end. But in this method the final question is the only one and is raised from the very beginning.1
Self-enquiry leads directly to Self-realisation by removing the obstacles which make you think that the Self is not already realised.2
Meditation requires an object to meditate on, whereas in
Self-enquiry there is only the subject and no object. That is the difference between them.3
D.: Why should Self-enquiry alone be considered the direct
path to Realisation?
B.: Because every kind of path except Self-enquiry
presupposes the retention of the mind as the instrument for following it, and cannot be followed without the mind. The ego may take different and more subtle forms at different stages of one's practice but it is never destroyed. The attempt to destroy the ego or the mind by methods other than Self-enquiry is like a thief turning policeman to catch the thief that is himself. Self- enquiry alone can reveal the truth that neither the ego nor the mind really exists and enable one to realise the pure, undifferentiated Being of the Self or the Absolute.4
This statement that the mind is not used by the method of Self-enquiry was not always understood, and therefore Bhagavan, when asked, explained that it means that the mind is not taken for granted as a real entity but its very existence is questioned, and that this is the easiest way to dispel the illusion of its existence.
Page 111
B.: To ask the mind to kill the mind is like making the
thief the policeman. He will go with you and pretend to catch the thief, but nothing will be gained. So, you must turn inward and see where the mind rises from and then it will cease to exist. (In reference to this answer, Sri Thambi Thorai of Jaffna, who has been living as a sadhu in Pelakothu for over a year, asked me whether asking the mind to turn inward and seek its source is not also employing the mind. I put this doubt before Bhagavan.)
B.: Of course, we are employing the mind. It is well known
and admitted that only with the help of the mind, can the mind be killed. But instead of setting about saying there is a mind and I want to kill it, you begin to seek its source, and then you find it does not exist at all. The mind turned outwards results in thoughts and objects. Turned inwards it becomes itself the Self.1
It can be said that the mind ceases to exist or that it becomes transformed into the Self; the meaning is really the same. It does not mean that a person becomes mindless, like a stone, but that the Pure Consciousness of the Self is no longer confined within the narrow limits of an individualised mind and that he no longer sees through a glass darkly, but with clarity and radiant vision.
By steady and continuous investigation into the nature of the mind, the mind is transformed into That to which `I' refers; and that is in fact the Self. The mind has necessarily to depend for its existence on something gross; it never subsists by itself. It is the mind that is otherwise called the subtle body, ego, jiva [?] or soul.
That which arises in the physical body as `I' is the mind. If one enquires whence the `I'-thought arises in the body in the first instance, it will be found that it is from the hrdayam or the Heart. That is the source and stay of the mind. Or again, even
Page 112
if one merely continuously repeats to oneself inwardly `I-I' with the entire mind fixed thereon, that also leads to the same source.
The first and foremost of all thoughts that arise in the mind is the primal `I'-thought. It is only after the rise or origin of the `I'-thought that innumerable other thoughts arise. In other words, only after the first personal pronoun, `I', has arisen, do the second and third personal pronouns (you, he, etc.) occur to the mind; and they cannot subsist without it.
Since every other thought can occur only after the rise of the `I'-thought, and since the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts, it is only through the enquiry, `Who am I?' that the mind subsides. Moreover, the integral `I'-thought implicit in such enquiry, having destroyed all other thoughts, itself finally gets destroyed or consumed, just as a stick used for stirring the burning funeral pyre gets consumed.1
It must already be apparent from these indications that Self- enquiry as taught by Bhagavan is something very different from the introversion of psychologists. In fact, it is not really a mental process at all. Introversion means studying the composition and contents of the mind, whereas this is an attempt to probe behind the mind to the Self from which it arises.
When the mind or ego has to be discarded in any case, why waste time analysing it?
To enquire: `Who am I that am in bondage?' and thus know one's real nature is the only Liberation. To keep the mind constantly turned inwards and to abide thus in the Self is the only Self-enquiry. Just as it is futile to examine the rubbish that has to be swept up only to be thrown away, so it is futile for him who seeks to know the Self to set to work enumerating the tattvas that envelop the Self and examining them instead of
Page 113
casting them away. He should consider the phenomenal world, with reference to himself, as merely a dream.1
Similarly Self-enquiry differs fundamentally from psychoanalysis or any other kind of psychiatric treatment. Such treatment can only aim at producing a normal, healthy, integrated human being but not at transcending the bounds of the individual human state, since those who conduct it have themselves not done this and cannot open a road they have not trod. One thing, however, that Self-enquiry in its initial stages has in common with psychiatric treatment is that it serves to bring up hidden thoughts and impurities from the depths of the mind.
D.: Other thoughts arise more forcibly when one attempts
meditation.
B.: Yes, all kinds of thoughts arise in meditation. That is
only right; for what lies hidden in you is brought out. Unless it rises up, how can it be destroyed?
Thoughts rise up spontaneously but only to be extinguished in due course, thus strengthening the mind.2
D.: When I concentrate, all sorts of thoughts arise and
disturb me. The more I try, the more thoughts rise up. What should I do?
B.: Yes, that will happen. All that is inside will try to come
out. There is no other way except to pull the mind up each time it wants to go astray and fix it in the Self.3
D.: Bhagavan has often said that one must reject other
thoughts when one begins the quest; but thoughts are endless. If one thought is rejected another comes up and there seems to be no end at all.
Page 114
B.: I do not say that you must keep on rejecting thoughts.
If you cling to yourself, to the `I' thought, and your interest keeps you to that single thought, other thoughts will get rejected and will automatically vanish.1
Just as Self-enquiry is not introspection as understood by the psychologists, so also it is not argument or speculation as understood by the philosophers.
D.: When I think, `Who am I?', the answer comes: I am
not this mortal body but am Consciousness or the Self. And then another thought suddenly arises. Why has the Self become manifest? In other words; `Why has God created the world?'
B.: The enquiry: `Who am I?' really means trying to find
the source of the ego or of the `I'-thought. You are not to occupy the mind with other thoughts, such as `I am not the body'. Seeking the source of the `I' serves as a means of getting rid of all other thoughts. You should not allow any scope for other thoughts such as you mention, but should keep the attention fixed on finding the source of the `I'- thought by asking, when any other thought arises, to whom it occurs; and if the answer is `to me', you then resume the thought: `What is this `I' and what is its source?'2
Bhagavan did sometimes allow or even use mental argument but that was to convince the beginner of the unreality of the individual self or ego and thus induce him to take up Self- enquiry. The argument itself was not Self-enquiry.
D.: Who am I? How is the answer to be found?
B.: Ask yourself the question. The body (annamayakosa)
and its functions are not `I'. Going deeper, the mind
Page 115
(manomayakosa) and its functions are not `I'. The next step takes one to the question: Wherefrom do these thoughts arise? The thoughts may be spontaneous, superficial, or analytical. They operate in the mind. Then who is aware of them? The existence of thoughts, their clear conception and operation, become evident to the individual. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the individuality is operative as the cogniser of the existence of thoughts and their sequence. This individuality is the ego, or, as people say, `I'. Vijnanamayakosa (intellect) is only the sheath of the `I' and not the `I' itself. Enquiring further, the questions arise: What is this `I'? Wherefrom does it come? `I' was not aware in sleep. Simultaneously with its rise, sleep changes to dream and wakefulness. But I am not concerned with the dream state just now. Who am I now, in the wakeful state? If I originated on waking from sleep, then the `I' was covered up with ignorance. Such an ignorant `I' cannot be what the scriptures refer to or the wise affirm. `I' am beyond even sleep; `I' must be here and now, and must be what I was all along in sleep and dream also, unaffected by the qualities of these states. `I' must therefore be the unqualified substratum underlying these three states (after anandamayakosa is transcended).1
Two Parsi ladies arrived from Ahmedabad and spoke with
Bhagavan.
L.: Bhagavan, we have been spiritually inclined from
childhood. We have read several books on philosophy and are attracted by Vedanta. So we read the Upanishads, Yoga Vasishta, Bhagavad Gita, etc. We try to meditate, but there is no progress in our meditation. We do not understand how to realise. Can you kindly help us towards realisation?
Page 116
B.: How do you meditate?
L.: I begin by asking myself `Who am I?' and eliminate
the body as not `I', the breath as not `I', the mind as not `I', but then I am unable to proceed further.
B.: Well, that is all right so far as the mind goes. Your
process is only mental. Actually all the scriptures mention this process only in order to guide the seeker to the Truth. The Truth cannot be directly indicated; that is why this mental process is used. You see, he who eliminates all the `not-I' cannot eliminate the `I'. In order to be able to say `I am not this' or `I am That', there must be the `I' to say it. This `I' is only the ego, or the `I'-thought. After the rising up of this `I'-thought, all other thoughts arise. The `I'-thought is therefore the root thought. If the root is pulled out, all the rest is uprooted at the same time. Therefore seek the root `I'; question yourself: `Who am I?'; find out the source of the `I'. Then all these problems will vanish and the pure Self alone will remain.
L.: But how am I to do it?
B.: The `I' is always there, whether in deep sleep, in dream
or in the waking state. The one who sleeps is the same as the one who is now speaking. There is always the feeling of `I'. If it were not so you would have to deny your existence. But you do not. You say: `I am'. Find out who is.
L.: I still do not understand. You say the `I' is now the false
`I'. How am I to eliminate this wrong `I'?
B.: You need not eliminate any false `I'. How can `I' eliminate itself? All that you need do is to find out its origin and stay there. Your effort can extend only so far. Then the Beyond will take care of itself. You are helpless there. No effort can reach It.
L.: If `I' am always -- here and now -- why do I not feel so?
Page 117
B.: Who says that you do not? Does the real `I' or the false
`I'? Ask yourself and you will find that it is the false `I'. The false `I' is the obstruction which has to be removed in order that the true `I' may cease to be hidden. The feeling `I have not realised' is the obstruction to realisation. In fact, it is already realised. There is nothing more to be realised. If there were, realisation would be something new which did not yet exist, but was to come about in the future; but whatever is born will also die. If realisation is not eternal, it is not worth having. Therefore, what we seek is not something that must begin to exist but only that which is eternal but is veiled from us by obstructions. All that we need do is to remove the obstruction. What is eternal is not recognised as such, owing to ignorance. Ignorance is the obstruction. Get rid of it and all will be well. This ignorance is identical with the `I'-thought. Find its source and it will vanish.
The `I'-thought is like a spirit which, although not palpable, rises up simultaneously with the body, flourishes with it and disappears with it. The body-consciousness is the wrong `I'. Give it up. You can do so by seeking the source of `I'. The body does not say: `I am'. It is you who say `I am the body.' Find out who this `I' is. Seek its source and it will vanish.
L.: Then, will there be bliss?
B.: Bliss is co-eval with Being-Consciousness. All the
arguments relating to the eternal Being apply to eternal Bliss also. Your nature is Bliss. Ignorance is now hiding the Bliss, but you have only to remove the ignorance for the Bliss to be freed.
L.: Should we not find out the ultimate reality of the world
as individual and God?
B.: These are conceptions of the `I'. They arise only after
the advent of the `I'-thought. Did you think of them in deep sleep? Yet you existed in sleep, and the same `you' is speaking
Page 118
now. If they were real, would they not exist in your sleep also? They are dependent on the `I'-thought. Again, does the world tell you: `I am the world'? Does the body say: `I am the body'? You say: `This is the world' `this is the body', and so on. So these are only your conceptions. Find out who you are, and that will be the end of all doubts.
L.: What becomes of the body after realisation? Does it
continue to exist or not? We see realised people performing actions like other people.
B.: This question need not worry you now. You can ask it
after realisation if you feel like it. As for realised beings, let them take care of themselves. Why do you worry about them? In fact, after realisation, neither the body nor anything else will appear different from the Self.
L.: If we are always Being-Consciousness-Bliss, why does
God place us in difficulties? Why did He create us?
B.: Does God come and tell you that He placed you in
difficulties? It is you who say so. It is the false `I' again. If that disappears, there will be no one to say that God created this or that. That which is does not even say `I am'. For does any doubt arise that `I am not?' Only if a doubt arose whether one was a cow or a buffalo would one have to remind oneself that one is not an animal but a man; but this never happens. It is the same with one's own existence and realisation.1
This last quotation brings us back from what Self-enquiry is not, to what it is.
When the mind unceasingly investigates its own nature it transpires that there is no such thing as the mind. This is the direct path for all.
Page 119
The mind is merely thoughts. Of all thoughts the thought
`I' is the root. Therefore, the mind is only the thought `I'. Whence does this thought `I' arise? Seek for it within; it then vanishes. This is the pursuit of Wisdom. Where the `I' vanishes, there appears an `I-I' by itself. This is the Infinite (Purnam [?]).1
If the ego is, everything else is also. If the ego is not, nothing else is. Indeed the ego is all. Therefore the enquiry as to what this ego is, is the only way of giving up everything.
The state of non-emergence of `I' is the state of being
THAT. Without questing for that state of non-emergence of `I' and attaining It, how can one accomplish one's own extinction, from which the `I' does not revive? Without that attainment, how is it possible to abide in one's true state, where one is THAT?
Just as a man would dive in order to get something that had fallen into the water, so one should dive into oneself with a keen, one-pointed mind, controlling speech and breath, and find the place whence the `I' originates. The only enquiry leading to Self-realisation is seeking the source of the word `I'. Meditation on `I am not this; I am that' may be an aid to enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry. If one enquires `Who am I?' within the mind, the individual `I' falls down abashed as soon as one reaches the Heart and immediately Reality manifests itself spontaneously as `I-I'. Although it reveals itself as `I', it is not the ego but the perfect Being, the Absolute Self.2
B.: The notions of bondage and liberation are merely
modifications of the mind. They have no reality of their own, and therefore cannot function of their own accord. Since they are modifications of something else, there must be an entity (independent of them) as their common source and support. If,
Page 120
therefore, one investigates into that source in order to know of whom the bondage or liberation is predicated, one will find that they are predicated of `me', that is, oneself. If one then earnestly enquires `Who am I?' one will see that there is no such thing as `I' or `me'. That which remains on seeing that the `I' does not exist, is realised vividly and unmistakably as self-luminous and subsisting merely as Itself. This vivid Realisation, as a direct and immediate experience of the supreme Truth, comes quite naturally, with nothing uncommon about it, to everyone who, remaining just as he is, enquires introspectively without allowing the mind to become externalised even for a moment or wasting time in mere talk. There is, therefore, not the least doubt regarding the well- established conclusion that to those who have attained this Realisation and thus abide absolutely identical with the Self, there is neither bondage nor liberation.1
B.: The Self is Pure Consciousness. Yet a man identifies
himself with the body which is insentient and does not itself say: `I am the body'. Someone else says so. The unlimited Self does not. Who does? A spurious `I' arises between Pure Consciousness and the insentient body and imagines itself to be limited to the body. Seek this and it will vanish like a phantom. The phantom is the ego or mind or individuality. All the scriptures are based on the rise of this phantom, whose elimination is their purpose. The present state is mere illusion. Its dissolution is the goal and nothing else.2
Bhagavan here refers to the ego as the `phantom' or a `spurious I'. In the explanation to the two Parsi ladies quoted earlier, he spoke of a `false I' and a `true I'. For practical purposes, he did sometimes speak of giving up the false `I' in quest of the true,
Page 121
but that should not be taken as implying that there are two selves in a man. What he really meant was simply giving up the false identification of the `I' as an individual being in order to realise one's true identity as the universal Self. He frequently insisted that there are not two `I's of which one can seek and know the other. According to the truth of non-duality, to see the Self is to be the Self; otherwise, there would be the duality of a subject and object and the trinity of seer, sight and seen.
D.: How is one to realise the Self?
B.: Whose Self? Find out.
D.: Mine; but, who am I?
B.: It is you who must find out.
D.: I don't know.
B.: Just think over the question. Who is it that says: `I don't
know'? Who is the `I' in your statement? What is not known?
D.: Somebody or something in me.
B.: Who is that somebody? In whom?
D.: Perhaps some power.
B.: Find out.
D.: Why was I born?
B.: Who has born? The answer is the same to all your
questions.
D.: Who am I, then?
B.: (Smiling) Have you come to examine me? You must
say who you are.
D.: However much I may try, I do not seem to catch the
`I'. It is not even clearly discernible.
B.: Who is it that says that the `I' is not discernible? Are
there two `I's in you, that one is not discernible to the other?
D.: Instead of enquiring: `Who am I?' can I put the
question to myself: `Who are you?' so that my mind may be fixed on you whom I consider to be God in the form of the
Page 122
Guru? Perhaps I would come nearer to the goal of my quest by that enquiry than by asking myself: `Who am I?'
B.: Whatever form your enquiry may take, you must finally
come to the one `I', the Self. All these distinctions made between `I' and `you', master and disciple, are merely a sign of ignorance. The supreme `I' alone is. To think otherwise is to delude oneself.
Therefore, since your aim is to transcend here and now these superficialities of physical existence through self-enquiry, where is the scope for making the distinctions of `you' and `I' which pertain only to the body? When you turn the mind inwards, seeking the source of thought, where is the `you' and where the `I'? You should seek and be the Self that includes all.
D.: But, isn't it funny that the `I' should be searching for
the `I'? Doesn't the enquiry, `Who am I?' turn out in the end to be an empty formula? Or am I to put the question to myself endlessly, repeating it like some mantra?
B.: Self-enquiry is certainly not an empty formula; it is
more than the repetition of any mantra. If the enquiry: `Who am I?' were mere mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The very purpose of Self-enquiry is to focus the entire mind at its source. It is not, therefore, a case of one `I' searching for another `I'. Much less is Self-enquiry an empty formula, for it involves an intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in pure Self-awareness. Self-enquiry is the one infallible means, the only direct one, to realise the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are.1
The following passages show still more clearly that it is a question of tracing the `I' thought back to its source, not of one `I' discovering another.
Page 123
V.: I am told that according to your school I must find out
the source of my thought. How am I to do it?
B.: I have no school; however, it is true that one should
trace the source of all thoughts.
V.: Suppose I have the thought `horse', and try to trace its
source. I find that it is due to memory and the memory in its turn is due to prior perception of the object `horse', but that is all.
B.: Who asked you to think about all that? All those are
also thoughts. What good will it do you to go on thinking about memory and perception? It will be endless, like the old dispute, which came first, the tree or the seed. Ask who has this perception and memory. That `I' that has the perception and memory, whence does it arise? Find this out. Because perception or memory or any other experience only comes to that `I'. You do not have such experiences during sleep and yet you say that you existed during sleep. And you exist now too. That shows that the `I' continues while other things come and go.
V.: I am asked to find out the source of `I' and in fact that
is what I want to find out, but how can I? What is the source from which I came?
B.: You came from the same source in which you were
during sleep. Only during sleep you could not know where you entered. That is why you must make the enquiry while awake.
Some of us advised the visitor to read Who am I-- and
Ramana Gita and Bhagavan also told him he might do so.
He did so during the day and in the evening he said to
Bhagavan: `Those books prescribe Self-enquiry, but how is one to do it?'
B.: That must also be prescribed in the books.
V.: Am I to concentrate on the thought: `Who am I?'
Page 124
B.: It means that you must concentrate to see where the
`I'-thought arises. Instead of looking outwards, look inwards and see where the `I'-thought arises.
V.: And Bhagavan says that if I see that, I shall realise the
Self?
B.: There is no such thing as realising the Self. How is one
to realise or make real what is real? People all `realise' or regard as real what is unreal, and all they have to do is to give up doing so. When you do that, you will remain as you always are and the Real will be Real. It is only to help people give up regarding the unreal as real that all the religions and practices taught by them have come into being.
V.: Whence comes birth?
B.: Whose birth?
V.: The Upanishads say: He who knows Brahman becomes
Brahman.
B.: It is not a matter of becoming but of Being.1
"There is no such thing as realising the Self" -- Bhagavan has often said this in order to remind those who asked that the Self alone is, now and eternally, and is not something new to be discovered. This paradox is of the essence of non-dualism.
In answer to a question as to what is the best way to the goal,
Bhagavan said: `There is no goal to be reached. There is nothing to be attained. You are the Self. You exist always. Nothing more can be predicated of the Self than that it exists. Seeing God or the Self is only being the Self, that is yourself. Seeing is Being. You, being the Self, want to know how to attain the Self. It is like a man being at Ramanasramam and asking how many ways there are of going to Ramanasramam and which is the best way for him. All that is
Page 125
required of you is to give up the thought that you are this body and give up all thoughts of external things or the non-Self. As often as the mind goes out towards objects, stop it and fix it in the Self or `I'. That is all the effort required on your part.'1
Despite this paradox, however, Bhagavan also stressed the necessity of effort, as explained in Chapter Two of this book.
Ceaseless practice is essential until one attains without the least effort that natural and primal state of mind which is free from thought, in other words, until the `I', `my' and `mine' are completely eradicated and destroyed.2
It is in order to safeguard the viewpoint that there is nothing new to be discovered that Advaita explains that it is only a question of removing the screen of ignorance, just as by removing water-plants one reveals beneath them the water that was already there, or as the removal of clouds reveals the blue sky that is there already but was hidden by them.
D.: How can one know the Self?
B.: The Self always is. There is no knowing it. It is not
some new knowledge to be acquired. What is new and not here and now cannot be permanent. The Self always is, but knowledge of it is obstructed and the obstruction is called ignorance. Remove the ignorance and knowledge shines forth. In fact, it is not the Self that has this ignorance or even knowledge. These are only accretions to be cleared away. That is why the Self is said to be beyond knowledge and ignorance. It remains as it naturally is -- that is all.3
Page 126
This concentration on the Self, of course, requires intense control of the mind and many complained that it was not easy.
In the evening a visitor asked Bhagavan how to control the wandering mind. He began by saying that it was a question which particularly troubled him. Bhagavan replied laughing: `That is nothing particular to you. That is what everybody asks and what is dealt with by all the scriptures, such as the Gita. What other way is there except to draw the mind back every time it strays or turns outwards, as advised in the Gita? Of course it is not an easy thing to do. It will come only with practice.'
The visitor said that the mind strays after what it desires and won't stay fixed on the object we set before it.
When there was this sort of complaint, Bhagavan sometimes answered that Self-enquiry does not set any object before the mind but simply turns it in on itself, seeking its source. On this occasion, however, he answered from the point of view of desire or happiness.
Everybody seeks only what brings him happiness. Your mind wanders out after some object or other because you think that happiness comes from it, but find out where all happiness comes from, including that which you regard as coming from sense objects. You will find that it all comes from the Self alone, and then you will be able to abide in the Self.1
Sometimes people complained of the difficulty of quelling thoughts. Bhagavan brought them round again to Self-enquiry by reminding them that it is the thinker or, in case of doubt, the doubter whom one must examine. There may be a thousand doubts, but one does not doubt the existence of the doubter. Who is he?
Page 127
All doubts will cease only when the doubter and his source have been found. It is no use endlessly removing doubts. If we clear up one another will arise and there will be no end to them. But if the doubter himself is found to be really non- existent by seeking his source then all doubts will cease.1
Mind-control, of course, means concentration; but by `concentration' Bhagavan did not mean concentrating on one thought (although he did not always discourage this) but concentrating on the sense of being, the feeling of `I am', and excluding all thoughts.
B.: Concentration is not thinking of one thing. On the
contrary, it is excluding all thoughts, since all thoughts obstruct the sense of one's true being. All efforts are to be directed simply to removing the veil of ignorance.2
In a number of passages already quoted, Bhagavan does not only tell the questioner to investigate the `I'-thought but to find out where it arises. This connects Self-enquiry with concentration on the heart at the right side (referred to in Chapter One) and shows still more clearly that it is not a mental process. Indeed, an actual liberation that can be felt physically arises in this centre during Self-enquiry.
Concentrating the mind solely on the Self will lead to happiness or bliss. Drawing in the thoughts, restraining them and preventing them from straying outwards is called detachment (vairagya [?]). Fixing them in the Self is spiritual practice (sadhana [?]). Concentrating on the heart is the same as concentrating on the Self. Heart is another name for Self.3
Page 128
G.V. Subbaramaiah: Is it stated in any book that for
ultimate and final realisation one must ultimately come to the heart, even after reaching the sahasrara (the thousand-petalled lotus, the centre in the crown of the head) and that the Heart is at the right side?
B.: No. I have not come across this in any book, although
in a Malayalam book on medicine I came across a stanza locating the heart on the right side and I have translated it into Tamil in the Supplement to the Forty Verses.
We know nothing about the other centres. We cannot be sure what we arrive at by concentrating on them and realising them. But as the `I' arises from the heart it must sink back and merge there for Self-realisation. Anyway, that has been my experience.1
Know that the pure and changeless Self-awareness in the
Heart is the Knowledge which, through destruction of the ego, bestows Liberation.
The body is inert like an earthen pot. Since it has no I- consciousness and since in deep sleep, when bodiless, we experience our natural being, the body cannot be the `I'. Who then is it that causes I-ness? Where is he? In the Heart-cave of those who thus enquire and who know and abide as the Self, Lord Arunachala Siva shines forth as Himself as `That-am-I' Consciousness.2
D.: Bhagavan was saying that the heart is the centre of the Self?
B.: Yes, it is the one supreme centre of the Self. You need
have no doubts about that. The real Self is there in the heart behind the ego-self.
D.: Will Bhagavan please tell me where in the body it is?
B.: You cannot know it with your mind or picture it with
your imagination, although I tell you that it is here (pointing to
Page 129
the right side of the chest). The only direct way to realise it is to stop imagining and try to be yourself. Then you automatically feel that the centre is there. It is the centre spoken of in the scriptures as the heart cavity.
D.: Can I be sure that the ancients meant this centre by
the term `heart'?
B.: Yes, you can, but you should try to have the experience
rather than locate it. A man does not have to go and find where his eyes are in order to see. The heart is there, always open to you, if you care to enter it, always supporting your movements, although you may be unaware of it. It is perhaps more correct to say that the Self is the Heart. Really the Self is the centre and is everywhere aware of itself as the Heart or Self-awareness.
D.: When Bhagavan says that the Heart is the Supreme
centre of the Spirit or the Self, does that imply that it is not one of the six yogic centres (chakras)?
B.: The yogic centres, counting from the bottom upwards,
are a series of centres in the nervous system. They represent various stages, each having its own kind of power or knowledge, leading to the Sahasrara, the thousand-petalled lotus in the brain, where is seated the Supreme Shakti (power). But the Self that supports the whole movement of the Shakti is not located there but supports it from the heart-centre.
D.: Then it is different from the manifestation of Shakti?
B.: Really there is no manifestation of Shakti apart from
the Self. The Self became all these Shaktis. When the yogi attains the highest state of spiritual awareness (samadhi) it is the Self in the Heart that supports him in that state whether he is aware of it or not. But if his awareness is centred in the heart, he realises that, whatever centres or states he may be in, he is always the same truth, the same heart, the one Self, the spirit that is present
Page 130
throughout, eternal and immutable. The Tantra Sastra calls the heart Surya Mandala or the solar orb, and the Sahasrara as Chandra Mandala or lunar orb. This shows the relative importance of the two.1
Just as this concentration on the heart establishes a point of contact with yoga, so also Bhagavan sometimes pointed out the affinity with bhakti [?], the path of devotion, and said that the two paths lead to the same end. Perfect devotion means complete surrender of the ego to God or Guru conceived of as other than oneself, while Self-enquiry leads to dissolution of the ego. More will be said about bhakti marga in the next chapter, but the following explanation shows how the two paths converge.
D.: If the `I' is an illusion, who is it that casts off the illusion?
B.: The `I' casts off the illusion of the `I' and yet remains `I'.
Such is the paradox of Self-realisation. The Realised do not see any paradox in it. Consider the case of the worshipper. He approaches God and prays to be absorbed in Him. He then surrenders himself in faith and by concentration. And what remains afterwards? In the place of the original `I', self-surrender leaves a residuum of God in which the `I' is lost. That is the highest form of devotion or surrender and the peak of detachment.
You may give up this and that of `my' possessions, but if, instead, you give up `I' and `mine' all is given up at a stroke and the very seed of possession is destroyed. Thus the evil is nipped in the bud or crushed in the germ. But detachment must be very strong to do this. The craving to do it must equal the craving of a man who is held under water to rise to the surface and breathe.2
If distracting thoughts are a danger on one hand, so also is sleep a danger on the other hand. In fact, people who are
Page 131
beginning a spiritual path may find themselves assailed by an overpowering wave of sleepiness whenever they begin to meditate. And then, if they stop meditating, this passes and they are not sleepy at all. This is simply one form of the ego's resistance and it has to be broken down.
Mr. Bhargava also said something about sleep and this led
Bhagavan to speak about sleep as follows:
What is required is to remain fixed in the Self always. The obstacles to that are distraction by things of the world (including sense objects, desires and tendencies) on the one hand and sleep on the other. Sleep is always mentioned in the books as the first obstacle to samadhi and various methods are prescribed for overcoming it according to the stage of evolution of the person concerned. First, one is enjoined to give up all worldly distractions and to restrict sleep. But then it is said, for instance in the Gita, that one need not give up sleep entirely. One should not sleep at all during day time, and even during night restrict sleep to the middle portion, from about ten to two. But another method that is prescribed is not to bother about sleep at all. Whenever it overtakes you, you can do nothing about it, so simply remain fixed in the Self or in meditation every moment of your waking life and take up meditation again the moment you wake, and that will be enough. Then, even during sleep, the same current of thought or meditation will be working. This is evident because if a man goes to sleep with any strong thought working in his mind he finds the same thought present when he wakes up. It is of the man who does this with meditation that it is said that even his sleep is samadhi.1
It is important to remember this, because the Maharshi often spoke of sleep as an example of the egoless state. As the above passage shows, he did not mean that physical sleep is to be
Page 132
encouraged. That is only a dark, unconscious counterpart of the true egoless state, which is pure Consciousness.
Another source of questions among those who continued further with meditation was that they sometimes came up against a blank or void or a feeling of fear, but they were told to carry on, holding firmly to that which experiences the void or fear. The same answer was also given to those who experienced a state of bliss. There can be neither fear nor pleasure, neither vision nor void, without someone to experience it.
D.: When I reach the thoughtless stage in my sadhana [?], I
enjoy a certain pleasure but sometimes I also experience a vague fear which I cannot properly describe.
B.: Whatever you experience, you should never rest content
with it. Whether you feel pleasure or fear, ask yourself who feels it and continue your efforts until both pleasure and fear are transcended and all duality ceases and the Reality alone remains. There is nothing wrong in such things being experienced, but you must never stop at that. For instance you must never rest content with the pleasure of laya [?] (dissolution) experienced when thought is quelled but must press on until all duality ceases.1
In the afternoon the following questions were put by
Mr. Bhargava, an elderly visitor from Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh: (1) How am I to search for the `I' from start to finish? (2) When I meditate, I reach a stage where there is a vacuum or void. How should I proceed from there?
B.: Never mind whether there are visions or sounds or
anything else or whether there is void. Are you present during all these or are you not? You must have been there during the void to be able to say that you experienced a void. To be fixed in that `you' is the quest from start to finish. In all books on
Page 133
Vedanta you will find this question of a void or nothing being left raised by the disciple and answered by the Guru. It is the mind that sees objects and has experiences and that finds a void when it ceases to see and experience, but that is not `you'. You are the constant illumination that lights up both the experience and the void. It is like the theatre light that enables you to see the theatre, the actors, and the play while the play is going on but also remains alight and enables you to say that there is no play on when it is all finished. Or there is another illustration: We see objects all around us but in complete darkness we do not see them and we say: `I see nothing'. In the same way, you are there even in the void you mention.
You are the witness of the three bodies: the gross, the subtle, and the causal, and of the three times: past, present and future, and also this void. In the story of the tenth man, when each of them counted and thought they were only nine, each one forgetting to count himself, there is a stage when they think one is missing and do not know who it is; and that corresponds to the void. We are so accustomed to the notion that all that we see around us is permanent and that we are this body, that when all this ceases to exist we imagine and fear that we also have ceased to exist.
Bhagavan also quoted verses 212 and 213 from
Vivekachudamani in which the disciple says: "After I eliminate the five sheaths as not-Self, I find that nothing at all remains"; and the Guru replies that the Self or That by which all modifications, including the ego and all its creatures and their absence (that is the void), are perceived, is always there.
Bhagavan continued and said: "The nature of the Self or `I' must be illumination. You perceive all modifications and their absence. How? To say that you get the illumination from another would raise the question how he got it and there would be no
Page 134
end to the chain of reasoning. So you yourself are the illumination. The usual illustration of this is the following: You make all kinds of sweets of various ingredients and in various shapes and they all taste sweet because there is sugar in all of them and sweetness is the nature of sugar. And in the same way all experiences and the absence of them contain the illumination which is the nature of the Self. Without the Self they cannot be experienced, just as without sugar not one of the articles you make can taste sweet. (Later he continued): First one sees the Self as objects, then one sees the Self as void, then one sees the Self as the Self; only in this last case there is no seeing because seeing is being.1"
Before closing this chapter it may be well to give a few more specific rules or rather to indicate that they exist but are not essential. It is usual to conduct what is called `meditation' during regular hours, morning and evening, sitting with a straight spine and closed eyes. I say `what is called meditation' because this word is commonly used for Self-enquiry and concentration on the "I am" or the heart, as described in this chapter. It is, of course, far from the mental reflection that commonly goes by that name. In India it is usual to sit cross- legged on the ground. However, all such rules of technique are less important in Self-enquiry than with other less direct methods. Indeed, this is obvious from the fact that Self-enquiry has gradually to be extended from set hours of meditation until it becomes the undercurrent of all thoughts and actions.
Mr. Evans-Wentz asked a few questions. They related to yoga. He wanted to know if it was right to kill animals such as tigers, deer and so on and use the skin as a seat for the yoga- posture (asana [?]).
B.: The mind is the tiger or the deer.
D.: If everything is illusion, can one then take life?
Page 135
B.: Who has the illusion? That is what you must find out.
In fact, everyone is a killer of the Self (atmahan) at every moment of his life.
D.: Which posture is the best?
B.: Any posture, possibly sukhasana (the easy or half-Buddha
posture). But that is immaterial for jnana [?] (the path of knowledge).
D.: Does posture indicate temperament?
B.: Yes.
D.: What are the properties and effects of a tiger's skin or
wool or a deer's skin as a seat?
B.: Some people have found out and described them in
books on yoga. They correspond to conductors and non- conductors of magnetism, and so on. But all this is of no importance on the path of knowledge (jnana marga [?]). Posture really means `steadfastness in the Self ' and it is inward.
D.: Which is the most suitable time for meditation?
B.: What is time?
D.: Tell me what it is!
B.: Time is only an idea. There is only Reality. Whatever
you think it is, it appears to be. If you call it time, it is time. If you call it existence, it is existence, and so on. After calling it time, you divide it into days and nights, months, years, hours, minutes, and so on. Time is immaterial for the path of knowledge. But some of these rules and disciplines are good for beginners.
D.: Does Bhagavan recommend any special posture for
Europeans?
B.: It depends on the mental equipment of the individual.
There are no hard and fast rules.1
D.: Is meditation to be practised with eyes open or closed?
B.: It may be done either way. The important thing is that
the mind should be turned inwards and kept active in its quest.
Page 136
Sometimes, it happens that when the eyes are closed, latent thoughts rush forth with great vigour; but, on the other hand, it may be difficult to turn the mind inwards with the eyes open. It requires strength of mind. The mind is pure by nature but contaminated by taking in objects. The great thing is to keep it active in its quest without taking in external impressions or thinking of other things.1
Although, as will be shown in the next chapter, the Maharshi approved of various methods and authorised them when they suited the practitioner, he was nevertheless careful that they should not be confused with the direct method of Self-enquiry. For instance, there are indirect paths which sedulously cultivate the various virtues; but when asked about this he replied simply that on the direct path of Self-enquiry no such technique is necessary.
D.: It is said in some books that one should cultivate all the
good or divine qualities in order to prepare oneself for Self-realisation.
B.: All good or divine qualities are included in spiritual
knowledge and all bad or demoniac qualities are included in ignorance. When knowledge comes, ignorance goes and all the divine qualities appear automatically. If a man is Self-realised he cannot tell a lie or commit a sin or do anything wrong. It is no doubt said in some books that one should cultivate one virtue after another and thus prepare for ultimate realisation, but for those who follow the jnana marga [?] (path of knowledge) Self-enquiry is quite enough for acquiring all the divine qualities, they need not do anything else.2
In general, he approved the use of incantations by those who found them helpful but he was insistent that Self-enquiry should not become a mantra.
Page 137
D.: Please tell me how I am to realise the Self? Am I to
make an incantation of `Who am I?'
B.: No. It is not intended to be used as an incantation.1
However, the method which is most apt to be confused with Self-enquiry is the meditation `I am He' and therefore he frequently warned against this confusion.
Self-enquiry is a different method from the meditation
`I am Siva' or `I am He.' I rather lay stress on Self-knowledge, because you are first concerned with yourself before you proceed to know the world and its Lord. The `I am He' or `I am Brahman' meditation is more or less mental but the quest for the Self of which I speak is a direct method and is superior to the other. For, as soon as you undertake the quest and begin to go deeper and deeper, the real Self is waiting there to receive you and then whatever is done is done by something else and you have no hand in it. In this process all doubts are automatically given up just as one who sleeps forgets all his cares for the time being.2
Although the scriptures proclaim `Thou art That,' it is only a sign of weakness to meditate `I am That, not this,' because you are eternally That. What has to be done is to investigate what one really is and remain That.3
Only if the thought `I am a body' occurs will the meditation
`I am not this, I am that' help one to abide as that. Why should you forever be thinking `I am That'? Is it necessary for a man to go on thinking `I am a man'? Are we not always That?4
A Punjabi announced himself to the Maharshi as having been directed here by Sri Sankaracharya of Kamakoti Peeta
Page 138
from Jalesvar near Puri-Jaganath. He is a world traveller. He has practised Hatha Yoga and some contemplation along the lines of `I am Brahman'. After a few moments blank prevails, his brain gets heated and he becomes afraid of death. He wants guidance from the Maharshi.
B.: Who sees the blank?
D.: I know that I see it.
B.: The Consciousness overlooking the blank is the Self.
D.: That doesn't satisfy me. I can't realise it.
B.: The fear of death arises only after the `I'-thought arises.
Whose death do you fear? To whom does the fear come? So long as there is identification of the Self with the body, there will be fear.
D.: But I am not aware of my body.
B.: Who says that he is not aware?
D.: I don't understand. (He was then asked to say what exactly was his method of
meditation. He said: Aham Brahmasmi `I am Brahman'.)
B.: `I am Brahman' is only a thought. Who says it? Brahman
himself does not say so. What need is there for him to say it? Nor can the real `I' say so. For `I' always abides as Brahman. So it is only a thought. Whose thought is it? All thoughts come from the unreal `I', that is the `I'-thought. Remain without thinking. So long as there is thought, there will be fear.
D.: When I go on thinking on this line, forgetfulness
ensues. The brain becomes heated and I become afraid.
B.: Yes, the mind is concentrated in the brain and hence
you get a hot sensation there. That is because of the `I'-thought. So long as there is thought, there will be forgetfulness. There is the thought `I am Brahman'; then forgetfulness supervenes; then the `I'-thought arises and simultaneously the fear of death also. Forgetfulness and thought exist only for the `I'-thought.
Page 139
Investigate this and it will disappear like a phantom. What remains then is the real `I'. That is the Self. The thought `I am Brahman' may be an aid to concentration insofar as it keeps other thoughts away and persists alone. But then you have to ask whose thought it is. It will be found to come from the `I'. But where does the `I'-thought come from? Probe into it and it will vanish. The Supreme Self will shine forth of itself. No further effort is needed. When the one real `I' remains alone, it will not need to say, `I am Brahman'. Does a man go on repeating `I am a man'? Unless he is challenged why should he declare himself a man? Does anyone mistake himself for an animal that he should say `No, I am not an animal, I am a man?'. Similarly, since Brahman or `I' alone is, there is no one to challenge it, and so there is no need to repeat `I am Brahman."1
Throughout this chapter, Self-enquiry has been spoken of mainly as a spiritual exercise or `meditation' to be practised at certain fixed times. It does indeed begin so and, so long as effort is needed, such times of intensive meditation continue to be helpful, but that is not enough. The self-awareness which begins to be experienced during such meditation has to be cultivated at other times also and indeed begins to awaken spontaneously, forming an undercurrent to one's activities. The aim is to make it more and more continuous. It will be seen that this explains Bhagavan's injunction, referred to in Chapter Three, to conduct one's spiritual quest in the world and not to retire to a hermitage.
D.: Is a set meditation necessary for strengthening the mind?
B.: Not if you keep the idea always before you, that it is
not your work. At first effort is needed to remind yourself of it, but later on it becomes natural and continuous. The work will
Page 140
go on of its own accord and your peace will remain undisturbed. Meditation is your true nature. You call it meditation now, because there are other thoughts distracting you. When these thoughts are dispelled, you remain alone -- that is, in the state of meditation, free from thoughts; and that is your real nature, which you are now trying to realise by keeping away other thoughts. Such keeping away of other thoughts is now called `meditation'. But when the practice becomes firm, your real nature shows itself as true meditation.1
For the reason mentioned in the previous chapter, a Guru often withholds the technique of spiritual practice as a secret to be revealed only to those whom he finds fit and initiates into it personally. However, with Self-enquiry as taught by Bhagavan, no such precaution is necessary. It is a person's own understanding that opens this method to him, or his lack of understanding that closes it.
D.: May I be assured that there is nothing further to be learnt, so far as the technique of spiritual practice is concerned, than what is written in Bhagavan's books? I ask because in all other systems, the Guru holds back some secret technique to reveal to his disciple at the time of initiation.
B.: There is nothing more to be known than what you
find in the books. No secret technique. It is all an open secret in this system.2
Page 141