Author Topic: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi  (Read 9892 times)

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« on: December 17, 2009, 11:38:49 AM »
Dear I,

I found this interesting story in some website and found it worth sharing it here.

When Annamalai Swami was staying at the Ashram of Sri Ramana Maharshi, he was given charge of constructing more buildings for the Ashram.
Annamalai Swami was some times troubled by sexual thoughts but some how he used to avoid the thoughts. Amongst the construction workers there were some very attractive females and occasionally, Annamalai Swami were attracted to them. Once he expelled all the female workers so that he can avoid them. But Ramana Maharshi stressed him to employ them.

Once he told Ramana Maharshi that he doesn't want Moksha but he wants to get rid of the desire for women. Ramana Maharshi laughingly said “all saints are striving only for this”. From Ramana Maharshi  answer, Annamalai Swami was assured that he was not alone in this suffering. But one afternoon Annamalai Swami was sitting in his room, when he saw a beautiful woman going to meet Ramana Maharshi. After some time when that woman came out of room, Annamalai Swami was totally captivated by her beauty and lust. Suddenly Ramana Maharshi came out and asked Annamalai Swami to stand on a particular rock and Maharshi started conversing with him. The sun was at its peak and Annamalai Swami was not wearing any sandals. So soon his feet starts burning from heat but he could not change his feet as it was an order from Maharshi.

The pain in his feet started increasing and suddenly a thought arises in him that the pain he is experiencing has replaced the sexual desire. As the thought entered his mind, Ramana Maharshi abruptly ended conversation and left him. After some days Annamalai Swami was again disturbed by sexual thoughts to the extent that he could not eat or sleep properly for three days. At last he thought of taking Maharshi's help.

Maharshi advised him “Why you pay attention to evil thought? Why don’t you meditate? To whom does this thought came. The thought will leave you on its own accord. You are not the body nor the mind, you are the Self, Meditate on your Self and all desires will leave you."

Salutations to Ramana
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 11:41:38 AM by Nagaraj »



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2009, 01:26:01 PM »
yes, the discomfort will be there so long there is duality present. Once the duality is removed (not really removed, as its only illusion) there is no need to even bear the discomfiture.



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[

matthias

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2009, 02:29:29 PM »
something like rock, headache, strong discussions are challenging...indeed it is very easy to be thrown out of contemplating the true nature fo things...

but it is indeed possible...

I recently talked about this, and we came to the conclusion that "negative" feelings (that we label negative) like anger, fear etc, tent to stick to our beeing, our body is hard the chest and heart not open etc...we feel stress also on this level not just the running mind...

and it is very easy to stay with such a feeling, because you can do it....it is an effort to stay aggressive or deppressed...you ned mind and body tension to do it...

meditaiton on hte nature of reality is nonactive, skylike resting...nothing to do, all doing ceased and just relaxing into what is....this is surrendering all effort...because it is not neccessary...

the strange thing is...this does not stick, becaus ethe ego cannot do it...so anger and other emotions (also manic happyness...the untrue smile and laughter etc..) all this needs effort and we can train out body//mind to do it..

but dzogchen meditaiton or beeing the self is totally different...and we cannot produce it, or keep it, or stay with it...not possible

very strange that the universe worke like this way :)

like it would challange us to wander the right path :)

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17366
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2009, 04:25:30 PM »
Dear matthias,

The story of Annamalai Swami mentioned by you appears in detail
in David Godman's book Living in the words of Bhagavan, (copies
sold by Sri Ramanasramam.)

Arunachala Siva.


Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2009, 12:18:47 PM »
Dear I,

:)
I remain totally non-conclusive at this point, neither 'yes' nor 'no', I am able to comfortably say 'I don't know'. I feel, here in these points, we are only dabbling in the realms of Sri Ramana Maharshi's life, or more appropriately a self defined Self Realised person's State and not really ours. I just felt its best to leave these questions open for ourselves to 'face'

I am  not able to really take it 100% that Sri Ramana had to 'bear' any pain, the pain in Ramana's knee only existed in the seer's mind, the devotees, writers, you and I and not really Ramana's and when I read about the incenses, probably 'Day by Day' or 'Talks', infact I interpreted it otherwise, some one lit a lot of incense sticks that emanated a lot of smoke and since He- 'Sri Ramana' was always surrounded by devotees, he would have expressed the discomfiture of the devotees; actually not His. He was absolutely non committal neither used authority nor rejected what was happening around him, to make the devotees realise themselves. Actually to whom are we lighting incense sticks, is it for God or for our own selves?

Salutations to Sri Ramana
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 12:21:08 PM by Nagaraj »



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2009, 04:40:16 PM »
Dear I,

Thats one of my favorite picture :)

Maya is that which is Not-Real, Asat. Therefore that which is not real cannot really exist and since it is believed to exist, it is called Mithya or illlusion. Therefore whatever we call as Maya does not exist but we keep giving it existence by thinking, feeling that everything is Maya... How can everything be Maya when everything is but only the Aatma.

Is there anything to leave in reality? Pains, sufferings are all only Mithya, it is just believed that there is pain and suffering. Mirage does not really exist. At no point one is never Not-Realized. Therefore the question of Realization is also a Mithya of a kind. I felt being realized does not imply leading a realized life since it akala, Timeless. The question to improvements etc... is by itself Mithya. It is here and at the same time not here. It was never and at the same time always.

The feelings, discomforts and thoughts are all mithya - made believed. They are not there at all. As along as we believe all these are there so long there is Mithya - we believe It is there but it cant touch me. But this difference itself signifies the separateness - "It is there, but it cant touch me" is also Mithya. The pains, sensations are not there in the first place so that they are stop, because its just illusion Mithya. the existence Pains, sensations is asat not true. The thoughts, body are all the Seer himself. There is nothing there! All that there is - is only the 'Seer' alone. 'Seer' himself is Mithya. For 'Seer' to exist, there has to be a 'Seen'. Therefore all these exist so long there is the 'Seer'

Like the classical example from Nirvaana Shatkam:

Aham Bhojanam naiva Bhijyam na Bhokthaha
I am neither the Observed nor the Observed or the Observation or the Observer as well

Sadame Samatvam Na muktir na Bandhaha, Chidananda rupam, Shivoham Shivoham
I am always in the state of equality, neither liberated nor captivated

Salutations to Sri Ramana



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17366
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2009, 06:01:43 PM »
During the last days of Bhagavan Ramana in this world, when His
cancer was giving excruciating pain, two attendants on different
days asked Bhagavan Ramana:

Swami!  Is it paining?

Bhagavan Ramana replied:

1.  It is paining like the sting of a honey bee.

2.  Yes. The body is paining.

Bhagavan Ramana had always been subtle in His views.  It is
quite difficult to interpret His replies for such questions.

But the fact is Dr. Guruswami Mudaliar who did surgery said:

This is spindle-type cancer pain.  It is as if a spindle is rotated
into the wound.  The pain will be as excruciating as if a lorry
is running over your arm!

What to say?

Arunachala Siva.   

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2009, 06:15:47 PM »
Dear I,

Absolutely! "I" which is ego personified can never interpret all these. In the life of Sada Shiva Brahmendra, when his arms were cut off by some Nawab, he was even not aware that one of his arms was cut off. another instance, when he was in deep meditation near some river, huge logs of wood rolled over him during some flood or something like that and after about 22 days or so, when people were clearing the debris, he got up and moved forward carelessly as if nothing had happened with blood all over his body and flowing down.

Salutations to Sri Ramana



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2009, 06:20:54 PM »
Dear I,

In Day by Day - 18-11-1945

This morning about 6 a.m. Vaikunta Vasar, an attendant,
was massaging Bhagavan’s legs. After he had been massaging
for about half an hour, Bhagavan expressed 'ennathayo pidikkira
pol irukiradu (I vaguely feel that something is being massaged).
This is perhaps a glimpse into the inner life of Bhagavan.
He was not in any trance or special samadhi
then, but in his usual state.

Salutations to Sri Ramana



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[

matthias

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2009, 01:05:35 PM »
I know stories of contemporary tibetan masters where similar things happened...

for example the 16th karmapa had cancer and they flew him to america to cure him, every morning the doctors came and wanted him to take morphium...and he always  said "there is no pain"...even if the doctors where sure that it most be awefully painful....and they came again next morning...and the reply "there is no pain"

another incident was with tulku urgyen rinpoche, they made a surgery on the arm, and the doctor stopped after cutting down tot he muscle, because he saw that the muscle was pulsing...the nurse forgot to use local anaesthetisation. he showed no kind of reaction, same face like before :)

he also talked with the doctor afterwards because he wanted to fire the nurse, but tulku urgyen convinced him to dont do it...

you see this happend some 20 years ago or something...

but what udai said is also true. I understand it a little different allthough: if I have such expactations from my sadhana I should stop it immediatly..because it is about realizing myself with all its qualities, the manifest and the unmanifest..to be totally absorbed in the self (with no individuality left) is the highest state, the state of a buddha, and for me Iam happy if I get liberation and lead a more and more joyfull and happy life where I can be of use for others..thats enough, I just want to relaxe more and more into the primordial ground, wich is already happening from time to time, so Iam happy..

the wish to be totally free of pain and suffering is of course there but I know that this is a littel to much at the moment :)

first we should take care of our self and our situation, all else will manifest through the grace of our teachers...

and of course we need perfect understanding of what we are looking for, but the we also need to apply it in our lifes...to talk about pain is there or not there is not very practical for me..when we know that pain is there for myself then we can udnerstand that we are not fully realized and thats it..wich does not mean that we dont have full potential to be realized...

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17366
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2009, 02:13:37 PM »
Dear matthias,

Your post.  I am of the view that a complete Jnani who has conqured
the mind-body complex, will not 'experience' pain, because the
pain issues out of the body and mind transmits it.  And that is why
Bhagavan Ramana said to one of His attendants:  The body is paining.  What does it mean?  The body is 'experiencing pain'
but there is no mind to transmit it!  There were several Jnanis
and some of them lived in recent past, some two or three centuries
before.  Sadasiva Brahmendra was walking nude on a street.  The
town was ruled by some Muslim chieftain.  He, on being told about
this, grew angry, because his women in the harem were living in
that street.  So the chieftain rushed to him, from behind in a horse,
and with his sword cut off Sadasiva's hand.  Sadasiva simply
continued to walk!  The chieftain became dumbfound, descended
from his horseback and prostrated before him.  He then picked up
the severed hand and gave it to him.  Sadasiva took it and fixed it
on his shoulder as if, it were a glove!  He continued to walk without
saying anything.

PoLur Vittoba once was forcibly drowned in a foul smelling ditch.  He lived there for several days.  What food did he eat?  How did he breath?  After sometime, some passers by pulled him out of the
ditch and placed him nearby.  He continued to sit without any
reaction!

But there were Jnanis who cried during such times of crisis.  Sivananada of Rishikesh during his last days, I am told, cried
due to pain.

Arunachala Siva.

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2009, 09:37:39 PM »
Dear I,

1.

I - (you) say "without thoughts a person does not function" Here the person who does not function is the I - ego.
I - (you) say "I firmly believe I am a man now" is again identification with the body as a man.
I - (you) say "I see myself as consciousness" yes, but only that 'seeing' has to be 'being' but then consciousness will not acknowledge itself as consciousness. it still is identification with some idea of consciousness because consciousness cannot know itself. There is no meaning for consciousness, so 'I' cannot say it/I is consciousness. Who is this 'I' that is telling that it is consciousness?

WRT Ramakrishna, honestly speaking, I does not know! 'I' can not interpret Ramakrishna, what he said, what he meant, etc... what details are available are only written records of devotees, what they/devotees/writers (I's) saw (As you read Ramakrishna's devotees written record, I - you see/read it, It is your(I) first hand experience of what you have read bout Ramakrishna) therefore ultimately only I - (you) see what Ramakrishna said, understood it based on what I - (you) knows and the published books of RK Math and all other books are only what the writers have understood. Infact all the read books are verily my/yours - 'I' own. And when you read any book or just anythin, it solely becomes your own for ultimately, its you (I) who gives meaning to what is written or read or said. Who is this I?

Its like the round robin game, where 10 people are made to stand in a line and the first person is asked to describe to another one by one what he is shown secretly but only once and by the time this secret is reached the last person, it is entirely different from what originally the first person saw and told it to his immediate person!

2.

I - (you) say "They withdrew the mind from pain... that is an ability or mind control ... that is possible ... when the person has great mind control , he can withdraw his mind. That explains the surgery."

3.

I - (you) say "The normal day to day life, Ramana experienced pain. There is no alternative to it. When body is pinched whether Jnani or otherwise, experiences pain. No alternative to it. that is why Ramana himself said the body had pain."


 ------  is only what I - (you) knows or thinks it to be! Is exactly what the various interpretations of various book writers of what they (I) saw their Jnanis do or say. Can you (I) or anyone (I) ever vouch if what Ramana really meant by what we (I) believe or understand it to be?

Each words uttered by Jnanis can never be interpreted by 'I' person. Therefore 100% of books can never exactly say what Jnani's meant for all that they heard or saw!

Nobody knows

when I say "I - (you) say" I mean, as I have read the post, your post has become mine, your points are mine, and for the same (your) points, I am telling (I) what (I) knows of the same (your) points. I is just like a computer processor. when I see's 2+2=4 written on a board. as I read it I analysis if 2+2=4, if its answer is not 4, it says 2+2<>4 but 2+2=1.

Dear I, no member here is testing you (I). Infact all members here are verily You itself - I. Therefore if at all there is a testing or threatening, its you itself. 'I' testing 'I'

I is seen here as just various other selves (I's). what ever the other selves (I's) write here are verily your (my - I)) own as you (I) read it.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 10:07:23 PM by Nagaraj »



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2009, 11:52:26 AM »
Dear I,

:)

What 'I' thinks is that once when 'I' realises that 'I' is not role - Ravana but but only the one that has been playing the role so long. Then and there 'I' says there is no more any need to continue that role. Here only the seer 'I' feels that the role need not stop. Its like streatching your 'I' palm and believing that there is an apple and 'I' can eat it and enjoy its taste. So long it was enjoying eating and tasting the apple. Once when 'I' faces the death of this belief that the palm is actually empty, there is nothing in the palm, then why would 'I' want to continue to relish that there is apple in in the palm and that 'I' can continue to enjoy its taste? is this not absurd? as a child the elders make tea, coffee, rice for small kids to play with them without any of these but only actions with small vessels and cups with no ingredients at all and the child 'I' relishes all this, cooking, feeling the heat, taste etc... but now when the child has grown up, and if still if the elder plays the same game with the child of cooking and eating (Soppu Saaman, dnt know if you have heard this) the child is not impressed, it does not play that again for it now knows what is real cooking. The role has to end completely. if not, there is still some amount of delusion.

As consciousness, we do not and cannot know anything. what ever 'I' thinks that as consciousness there is no thoughts or no body, etc... is all again the ideas of the 'I' person. Who is saying that Ramana did not have thoughts here again, its the 'I' person.

you - I say -  "So if someone thinks Body needs to end for the Self to be realized --- what would you tell him? The body need not end ... coz its already jada ... lifeless. The Mind need not be Killed ... coz mind is already jada ... Only Consciousness is Live. All Else is already jada ... so the question of ending that which is never alive is itself as sign of ignorance!"

here when 'I' says "so the question of ending that which is never alive is itself as sign of ignorance!" how then can it be that the role can still continue when the role itself is not there in first place?

Body is itself a thought! As long as the body is there so long 'I' - thoughts are there.

Salutations to Sri Ramana



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[

viswanathan

  • Guest
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2009, 05:57:32 PM »
Dear devotees,
                     On the subject of mind, I would like to share some of my understanding based on teachings of masters.We know that the mind has four components ie, manas, buddhi(intellect),,ahamkara(ego) & chittam(memory).What we call as manonasam is the killing of the ahamkara(Notion of I and Mine) and not the other functions  of mind without which we cannot function.To quote Sri Ramesh Balsekar,we have a working mind which is required for our functioning whereas we also have a  thinking mind which is  known as ego and it  is the thinking mind which gives us trouble and has to be destroyed..As per Swami Suddhananda, thinking  is not a problem but the wrong thinking is the problem.We all know that the wrong thinking is due to our ego and results in karma palaham
Best regards
viswanathan

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3678
    • View Profile
Re: Annamalai Swami and Ramana Maharshi
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2009, 12:20:21 AM »
Dear I and I's

I would like to point out a small thing in your post:

you I said - "As per Swami Suddhananda, there are two........" is wrong notion, actually it is ignorance to say "As per..." because it is yours (I) very own. when you read what Swami Suddhananda said, it has now become yours very own, whatever it may be.

There cannot be any tendency to stop playing the role as the role itself is Mithya. Its like saying after waking up, the dream still continues or has to continue and not allowing this dream to continue after waking up itself is Vasana or continuity of dream is also vasana, how can it be possible? its like saying, a childless mother giving birth to a child. There is no roles at all. Still why 'I' thinks that there is role and that role has to be played, continued? Does the Self even after realising continues playing the role? Ramana Bhagawan was Ati Ashrami, beyond any stages of life i.e. even beyond Sanyasi. He - (I) did not play any role at all. not even the role of a Rishi, sadhu or even for that matter a sage as well. Its only the 'seer' 'you', 'I' fit him (yourself - I) all these decorations

I spent some time to see the Vedanta Saram or Maha Yoga, by 'Who' or Lakshmana Sarma:

The Sage tells us that there is only one kind of Deliverance, namely Egolessness. Since the world has no existence without the ego, it follows that the Sage is bodiless in fact, whatever he may seem to be. Even those that think that the Sage has a body and mind, and are unable to realise that they are unreal, can understand this much, that his causal body — which is the primary ignorance — has been dissolved, and that therefore the Sage — who is just the real Self and
nothing else — is in no way connected with the surviving, subtle and gross bodies, as the ignorant one thinks himself to be. For the Sage, therefore, nothing exists except the Self; there is neither body, nor mind, nor world, nor other persons.

The Sage himself has repeatedly emphasised that for him there is no problem at all — no need of reconciling inconsistencies. From his point of view all the three bodies are non-existent. Not only that, he does not even recognise that they existed before. Hence it is only as a concession to the semi-ignorant disciple that the distinction is mentioned in the books. The absolute truth of Deliverance is that It is bodiless and worldless, because Deliverance is the state where the Truth alone shines.

The Jivan-Mukta is therefore not a person. But because of the dual role stated before, personality is attributed to him. In the Upanishadic lore this point of view is tolerated, and it is said that his body will be subject to the law of causality while it survives. By the force of this law his body will be
affected by the reactions — pleasant or unpleasant — of previous actions, which are called karmas. These are divided into three parts or lots. There is the particular lot of karmas which came to fruition at birth — which gave the Sage the present body, and will go on regulating what happens to it till it dies. This karma is called prarabdha, because it has begun to yield fruit. There is another lot of karma called agami, ‘actions to come.’ The remainder is called sanchita, the reserve; this is an enormous lot, because of the great number of the past lives that have been lived. It is said that the first lot alone retains its power, but that the second and third lots become liquidated when one becomes a Sage — when individuality is ‘lost’. The Sage will have no more rebirths. Nor will he go to other worlds. But he will reap the fruits of the prarabdha or current karma; so says the ancient lore in some places. We shall see that this is not strictly correct.

Those that have not heard and understood the truth of the Natural State — namely that it is not inimical, like the Kevala, to bodily activity — raise a question about the Sage, the answer to which is not easy to understand for all; even among the Sage’s disciples, there are some who cannot understand the answer; but that is so because they are believers in a fascinating, but complicated creed, in which the chief tenet is that the world is real as such; it is therefore quite natural that they should refuse to understand the Sage’s teachings, of which the essential part is that the world is not real as such.

We have two kinds of views about the Sage. First class of people argue thus: “The person called Ramana Maharshi lives in the world very much like other people. He eats, sleeps, acts, talks and does other things. He remembers the past and answers questions about it; therefore he has both ego and mind. Also, he says ‘I’, ‘you’ and ‘he’, just as we do. Therefore he is not a Jivan- Mukta, though we are willing to allow that he is a holy person.” We need have no quarrel with these people. It is clear that they imagine the Kevala Nirvikalpa to be the final state. Hence they are unable to understand how a Sage can live among men as a Light from the real Self.

To be able to recognise a Sage one must be a genuine devotee of the real Self. This implies a refinement of understanding, a humbleness of spirit and other virtues. For such a one the Sage has a real and abiding attracti on. On the other hand those that are in love with bondage — even though they are learned in the sacred lore — are not so attracted; they are prosperous in a worldly sense and think themselves happy; and they are perhaps afraid that if they go to the Sage, he might effect a change in their outlook, of the consequences of which they are sincerely afraid; being so afraid, they keep at a safe distance from the Sage. But those that have been attracted to the Sage, having felt keenly the need of a competent Guru, are able to see that he is something unique. They may take time to understand that he is a Sage. That is because they need first to understand what a Sage is, and what are the unfailing marks of one. The
one unfailing mark is the non-perception of difference.

Now we shall consider the other view — that which is upheld by certain sectarian devotees of the Sage. They say that he is a Sage. But they also maintain that he is a person. They say that he is an exalted ‘Person’. They hold it as an article of belief that personality is real, and that it persists in Deliverance, though, inconsistently enough, they admit that the ego is lost in Deliverance. The Sage, they say, has a mind, and therefore has a distinct existence. They say that in Deliverance the mind is changed into something wonderful and becomes endowed with divine powers of ‘siddhis’. To these powers they attach a profound importance. They seem to think that it is these powers that prove him to be a Sage.

The essential teaching of the Sage is the Truth of Non-Becoming, which means that the Reality never actually became the three, these being merely creations of the ego-mind, which is itself unreal. In other words the Sage is at one with the Sage Sankara, in saying that this is all Maya. He explains that Deliverance consists in the reduction to nothingness of what is always nothing; the threefold false appearance is unreal even now, but appears as real through ignorance. That appearance will cease in such a way that it could not even be said that it appeared before and ceased to appear later. This is made clear by the following utterance of the Sage, which tells us what is accomplished by the Guru’s grace: “Reducing the unreal to unreality, and causing the one real Self to shine, the Guru puts a final end to the unreal soul.”

The rejection of the Truth of Non-Becoming has led these disciples to misunderstand the Sage. One such misunderstanding is pointed out and corrected by the Sage in the following: “Ignorant people say, ‘The Sage sees differences, but enjoys non-difference in them.’” This non-perception of differences is twofold, as nonperception of difference between oneself and others and non-perception of difference among others. The former is manifested by the Sage’s indifference to praise and censure. The latter is seen in what is termed the ‘equal eye’ which is referred to in the famous but much-misunderstood verse of the Gita, where it is said that Sages look with equal eye on all creatures. The meaning of which is as follows "To one who is firmly established in the blissful
Natural State beyond change, and therefore is not aware of difference — who does not think ‘I am one, and he is another’ — who is there, other than the Self? If anyone says anything about him, what matters it? For him it is just the same as if it was said by himself.”

On this point the Sage says: “It is wrongly said by the ignorant that the Sage sees difference, but enjoys non-difference in them. The truth is that he does not see difference at all.”

Besides, the primary difference is that between subject and object, and in the State of Non-difference, namely the Egoless State, this difference does not survive. Hence perception is impossible in that State. It is therefore absurd to describe the Sage as perceiving non-difference. He can be rightly described
only as not perceiving difference. Perhaps what these sectarians mean is that the Sage knows the underlying Unity while seeing the differences. If so, then we have to ask whether this ‘Knowledge of the Unity’ is experiential or merely inferential. This Revelation makes it clear to us that so long as differences
are being perceived — that is so long as the ego survives — only inferential or theoretical knowledge of the Unity is possible, not Experience.

An argument advanced by these sectarians is that there must be something to maintain the distinction between one Sage and another. They here take it for granted there is a distinction, and to account for it they claim that each Sage has a subtle body of his own. We have seen that the subtle body is not other
than the ego, and that the latter is just a hyphen joining two mutually negatory things, the real Self and the body. It logically follows from this that there is no distinction between Sage and Sage and this is true because the Sage is not the knower or enjoyer of the Self, but utterly identical with the Self. This is what Sage Sri Ramana says on this point: “It is from ignorance that you say, ‘I have seen this Sage; I shall see that other Sage also.’ If you know by experience the Sage that is within you, then all Sages will be seen to be one.”


What I have been trying to tell is clearly said here:

It may be said that we do see a body and mind belonging to the Sage. But so do we see other bodies and minds, and the teaching is that they are unreal. The truth is that it is our mind that creates the Sage’s mind and body, just as it creates the whole world, including God. We see the Sage as a person in our dream of relativity, occurring in the sleep of ignorance. In the Guru Ramana Vachana Mala we are told: “The body or mind that appears as pertaining to the Sage — who is, in truth, intangible like the sky —  is just a reflection of the body or mind of him that sees it. It is not real.”1 Whatever may be the case of other men, disciples ought not, we are told, to entertain the notion that the Sage is embodied. In the same book it is said: “Understand that he that regards as really embodied, the Sage, his Guru — who appears like a human being, but who is really Infinite Consciousness — is sinful and of impure mind.”

The immature disciple cannot help making the mistake here pointed out. And there is some excuse for him, because he may plausibly argue that only the causal body of the Sage is dissolved, but that the other two bodies survive. But he must outgrow this tentative point of view. How can he himself attain absolute bodilessness, as pure Spirit, if he regards his Guru as not having attained that State?

We have to recognise, therefore, that though the Sage appears to us behaving like a person in the world, he is in fact the pure Consciousness, which cannot even be described as the Witness of the activities of the mind and the body. A question was put to the Sage: “Does the Sage see the world as others do?” The Sage replied: “The question does not arise for the Sage, but only for the ignorant. He puts the question because of his ego. To him the answer is. ‘Find out the Truth of him to whom the question occurs.’

Thus we have to conclude that the Sage does not see the world and has no part or lot in it. What seem to us to be his activities are not therefore really his. Being egoless and mindless, he does not will those actions. “If the Self were ever himself the doer than He himself would reap the fruits of actions. But since the sense of doership is lost on the Experience of the Infinite Self, by the Quest ‘Who am I that is a doer?’, with it will be lost the three kinds of actions. The wise know this state as timeless Deliverance.”*


Here is most important point:

From this, incidentally, we learn that Deliverance is perfect and absolute, not qualified, as might appear from some of the Upanishadic texts. These tell us that a portion of the karma of him who has attained sage-hood remains unaffected, and will be exhausted only when his body dies. This karma is the prarabdha or current karma, that which came to fruition at birth, which gave him the body, and will regulate all that happens to it till its death. We are to understand that the liability to reap the fruits of this karma is only apparent, not real. The Sage emphasises this in the following: “What is said in the books, namely that the actions of the future and those of the reserve, belonging to the Sage, are certainly lost, but that the current karma is not lost, is intended for the ignorant. (But) just as one wife out of many cannot remain sumangali (nonwidow) on the death of the husband, so all the three divisions of karma are lost, when the doer, the ego, is lost.”1 ‘I am doer’ is a thought; it cannot survive the ego.

Since the Sage is mindless, he is in no way related to the world and its affairs. That is the essence of his being free. He does not feel obliged to do certain things or not to do certain other things. Whatever he does, he does spontaneously and automatically, without fore-thought, as one would do that has no mind. The ancient lore tells us that the Sage is not assailed by regrets, ‘I have done wrong,’ or ‘I have not done right.’ The Sage expresses the same truth as follows: Can the Sage that dwells in the State of Unity with the Truth, which arises by consuming the ego, and is calm, happy and beyond relativity and is therefore wantless, be bound to do anything whatever in the world? Since he is unaware of anything other than the Self, how can his State — which is mindless — be conceived by the mind?* Thus we have to conclude that for him the words ‘duty’ and its correlative ‘right’ are meaningless.

Of course, having a divine mission to fulfil — to illumine and uplift those that are ripe for Deliverance — he is not inactive.But he does not will the actions he does. In fact his activity is far more efficient because of his egolessness than it would be if he willed them. The sacred lore and the Sage tell us that the Sage is a non-doer and great doer at the same time. There is no contradiction in this, because he is not a doer in truth, but appears to be greatly active to those who see him. He cannot be really active, because if he were, he would be aware of persons different from the Self; we have been clearly told this is not the case. Actions are willed out of desire; he is desireless, Aptakama, because he is happy in the Self, Atmarama.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 09:55:11 AM by Nagaraj »



“You cannot travel the path until
you have become the path itself”
[