Renunciation

A few weeks ago several of our regular contributors were having a discussion in one of the ‘responses’ sections about whether physical renunciation was a prerequisite for progress on the spiritual path. I didn’t contribute much except to say at one point that Bhagavan taught one should ‘renounce the renouncer’, rather than give up particular desires, ways of life, courses of action, and so on. As the debate rumbled on, at some point someone asked me to clarify what Bhagavan had actually taught on this subject. I have therefore, somewhat belatedly, assembled some of Bhagavan’s key teachings on this topic and arranged them under various headings.

Bhagavan taught that true renunciation was giving up interest in and attachment to anything that is not the Self:

Giving up the non-Self is renunciation. Inhering in the Self is jnana or Self-realisation. One is the negative and the other the positive aspect of the same, single truth. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 2nd January, 1946, afternoon)

According to Bhagavan this is accomplished by giving up erroneous identifications and limitations. This basic theme will come up in all the sections of this post, as will the methods by which this is accomplished: self-enquiry and Self-abidance.

Renouncing the ego

Bhagavan often used terms such as ‘mind’, ‘ego’ and ‘individuality’ interchangeably, particularly when it came to giving them up. If the ego (or any of its synonyms) is renounced, no further renunciation is required. The following three verses from Padamalai (p. 171, vv. 103-105) sum this up quite neatly:

For those who have abandoned their ego mind, what other things besides that [mind] are left that are worthy of being renounced?

Renunciation, glorious and immaculate, is the total extirpation of the impure ego mind.

Only those who have renounced the ego-mind have truly renounced. What have all the others, who may have given up other things, really renounced?

The next three verses (Guru Vachaka Kovai, vv. 837, 500 and 850) emphasise the same point and conclude that it is self-enquiry that produces the true renunciation, which is the abandonment of the individual ‘I’:

For those who have, with great difficulty, accomplished the renunciation of the ego, there is nothing else to renounce.

That which is worth taking up is the self-enquiry that reveals jnana; that which is worth enjoying is the grandeur of the Self; that which is worth renouncing is the ego-mind; that in which it is worth taking refuge, to eliminate sorrow completely, is one’s own source, the Heart.

By becoming the source of all desires, the ego is the doorway to the sorrow of samsara. The extremely heroic and discriminating person first attains through dispassion the total renunciation of desires that arise in the form of ‘I want’. Subsequently, through the Selfward enquiry ‘Who am I?’, he renounces that ego, leaving no trace of it, and attains the bliss of peace, free from anxieties. This is the supreme benefit of dharma.

Renouncing desires

The last verse of the previous section makes the interesting point that desires for external objects have to be renounced ‘through dispassion’ before self-enquiry can accomplish the ultimate renunciation, the renunciation of the ‘I’. The same point is made in Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 764:

Those excellent seekers who have completely renounced desires, realising that more and more afflictions result from them, will attain, through the direct path of self-enquiry that they embark on, the endless and supreme experience of the essence of the Self in the Heart.

Sometimes Bhagavan said (as he did in the last two verses) that desires should be tackled prior to the practice of enquiry, but on other occasions he was equally insistent that self-enquiry, properly performed, was the most effective way of eliminating and renouncing desires. The following two dialogues illustrate this particular approach:

Question: What is the best way of dealing with desires, with a view to getting rid of them – satisfying them or suppressing them?

Bhagavan: If a desire can be got rid of by satisfying it, there will be no harm in satisfying such a desire. But desires generally are not eradicated by satisfaction. Trying to root them out that way is like pouring spirits to quench fire. At the same time, the proper remedy is not forcible suppression, since such repression is bound to react sooner or later into forceful surging up with undesirable consequences. The proper way to get rid of a desire is to find out, ‘Who gets the desire? What is its source?’ When this is found, the desire is rooted out and it will never again emerge or grow. Small desires such as the desire to eat, drink and sleep and attend to calls of nature, though these may also be classed among desires, you can safely satisfy. They will not implant vasanas in your mind, necessitating further birth. Those activities are just necessary to carry on life and are not likely to develop or leave behind vasanas or tendencies. As a general rule, therefore, there is no harm in satisfying a desire where the satisfaction will not lead to further desires by creating vasanas in the mind. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 12th April, 1946)

Question: How am I to deal with my passions? Am I to check them or satisfy them? If I follow Bhagavan’s method and ask, ‘To whom are these passions?’ they do not seem to die but grow stronger.

Bhagavan: That only shows you are not going about my method properly. The right way is to find out the root of all passions, the source whence they proceed, and get rid of that. If you check the passions, they may get suppressed for the moment, but will appear again. If you satisfy them, they will be satisfied only for the moment and will again crave satisfaction. Satisfying desires and thereby trying to root them out is like trying to quench fire by pouring kerosene oil over it. The only way is to find the root of desire and thus remove it. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 2nd January, 1946)

The question of how to deal with desire was raised in an earlier post. One reader, Haramurthy, said that it should be effectively tackled by viveka, proper discrimination. Bhagavan himself occasionally took this line himself, suggesting that desires could be tackled, to some extent at least, by cultivating an understanding of what was true and real, and what was not:

Question: How can they [desires] be rendered weaker?

Bhagavan: By knowledge. You know that you are not the mind. The desires are in the mind. Such knowledge helps one to control them.

Question: But they are not controlled in our practical lives.

Bhagavan: Every time you attempt satisfaction of a desire the knowledge comes that it is better to desist. What is your true nature? How can you ever forget it? Waking, dream and sleep are mere phases of the mind. They are not of the Self. You are the witness of these states. Your true nature is found in sleep. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 12th April, 1946)

Bhagavan: There is room for kama [desire] so long as there is an object apart from the subject, i.e., duality. There can be no desire if there is no object. The state of no-desire is moksha. There is no duality in sleep and also no desire. Whereas there is duality in the waking state and desire also is there. Because of duality a desire arises from the acquisition of the object. That is the outgoing mind, which is the basis of duality and of desire. If one knows that bliss is none other than the Self the mind becomes inward turned. If the Self is gained all the desires are fulfilled. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 502)

However, Bhagavan taught that there are limitations to this approach. Viveka can help one to lose interest in the unreal non-Self, but true desirelessness and true renunciation only occur when one abides in and as the Self:

Only the Self-abidance wherein one shines free of affliction will cut asunder all the bonds engendered by the non-Self. Discrimination [viveka], which differentiates between the unreal and the real that is one’s own nature, is [only] an aid to immaculate desirelessness. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 769)

Question: Has the discrimination between reality and unreality [sat asat vicharana] the efficacy in itself to lead us to the realisation of the one imperishable?

Bhagavan: As propounded by all and realised by all true seekers, fixity in the supreme spirit [Brahmanishta] alone can make us know and realise it. It being of us and in us, any amount of discrimination [vivechana] can lead us only one step forward, by making us renouncers, by goading us to discard the seeming [abhasa] as transitory and to hold fast to the eternal truth and presence alone. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 29)

The best kind of renunciation is remaining in the state in which the mind holds extremely tightly to the swarupa. (Padamalai, p. 170, v. 100)

In the context of Bhagavan’s teachings, the implication of this warning about the limitations of viveka is that it is only through enquiry or surrender that true Self-abidance can be attained. This point is made in Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 415:

Having, through discrimination, distinguished between the supreme [para] and the world [apara], one should, through enquiry and dispassion, attain attachment to para and detachment from apara. Then, with the strength of dispassion thus attained, one should live with one’s heart completely free from the infatuations of ‘I’ and ‘mine’. This alone is the way of life that should be taken up by those who desire to live in the expansive world of true jnana.

Renunciation of ‘I’ and ‘mine’

‘Internal renunciation’ is renunciation of the ego whereas ‘external renunciation’ is giving up possessions. Together they are known as giving up ‘I’ and ‘mine’. It is the former that results in enlightenment.

If you attain perfect mastery of internal renunciation, external renunciation will have no importance. (Padamalai, p. 170, v. 102)

Bhagavan sometimes illustrated the superiority of inner over outer renunciation by telling the story of King Sikhidhvaja who unnecessarily gave up his kingdom and retired to the forest to seek enlightenment:

He [the king] had vairagya [non-attachment] even while ruling his kingdom and could have realised the Self if he had only pushed his vairagya to the point of killing the ego. He did not do it but came to the forest, had a timetable of tapas and yet did not improve even after eighteen years of tapas. He had made himself a victim of his own creation. Chudala [his enlightened wife] advised him to give up the ego and realise the Self, which he did and was liberated.

It is clear from Chudala’s story that vairagya accompanied by ego is of no value, whereas all possessions in the absence of ego do not matter. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 404)

However, Bhagavan would sometimes say that surrendering to God all the objects and ideas that comprise ‘mine’ would also lead to the same goal:

Whatever the means, the destruction of the sense ‘I’ and ‘mine’ is the goal, and as these are interdependent, the destruction of either of them causes the destruction of the other; therefore in order to achieve that state of silence which is beyond thought and word, either the path of knowledge which removes the sense of ‘I’ or the path of devotion which removes the sense of ‘mine’, will suffice. So there is no doubt that the end of the paths of devotion and knowledge is one and the same. (Upadesa Manjari, chapter one, answer 11)

Generally, though, Bhagavan would recommend enquiry even to those who were pursuing union or identity with a form of the divine:

Through delusion the trickster sometimes arrogantly regards the property of the boundless perfect one, the Lord of all, as ‘I’, and at other times, through attachment to it, regards it as ‘mine’. If he [the trickster] enters the Heart, his source, and examines who he is, then where is he to be found?

Abandon your mind unconditionally at the feet of him [Siva] who shares his form with the Lady [Uma]. Then, as the ‘I’ that investigates the false dies away, along with [the concept of] ‘mine’, the powerful Supreme Self will unfold fully and flourish eternally. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, vv. 484, 487)

Renouncing the ‘I am the body’ idea

Identification with the body is, says Bhagavan, just a wrong idea, but it is an association that prevents us from being aware of who we really are. The renunciation of this idea is therefore central to Bhagavan’s teachings:

Question: Why cannot the Self be perceived directly?

Bhagavan: Only the Self is said to be directly perceived [pratyaksha]. Nothing else is said to be pratyaksha. Although we are having this pratyaksha, the thought ‘I am this body’ is veiling it. If we give up this thought, the Atma, which is always within the direct experience of everyone, will shine forth. (Living by the Words of Bhagavan, 2nd ed., pp. 218-19)

This theme appears many times in Bhagavan’s teachings. Here is a sequence of verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai that covers this important aspect of renunciation:

34

The world that associates with us as an appearance of names and forms is as transient as a lightning flash. The faltering understanding ‘I am the body’ is the deceptive device that makes us desire the world as if it were real, [thereby] entrapping us instantaneously in the powerful snare of bondage.

39

In the experience of true knowledge, which is the reality of the Self, this world is merely the beautiful [but illusory] azure-blue colour that appears in the sky. When one becomes confused by the veiling, the ‘I am the body’ delusion, those things that are seen through suttarivu [the consciousness that divides itself into seer and seen] are merely an imaginary appearance.

846

Be aware that the ‘I am the body’ ego is truly the one unique cause of all the sorrows of samsara. Therefore, make genuine, firm and steady efforts to destroy that ego, and desist from making any other kind of effort.

266

Following the destruction of the ‘I am the body’ idea, whatever body it may be, the radiance of being exists forever, free of limitation, without any bondage, shining as the pure expanse. Dwelling in the hearts of all individuated jivas as attribute-free jnana, as wholly the Self, and as non-distinct from them, this radiance of being abides as the all-encompassing supreme power [akila-para-sakti].

348

Having become free from concepts, which are afflicting thoughts, and with the ‘I am the body’ idea completely extinguished, one ends up as the mere eye of grace, the non-dual expanse of consciousness. This is the supremely fulfilling vision of God.

Bhagavan 17

Know that the eradication of the identification with the body is charity, spiritual austerity and ritual sacrifice; it is virtue, divine union and devotion; it is heaven, wealth, peace and truth; it is grace; it is the state of divine silence; it is the deathless death; it is jnana, renunciation, final liberation and bliss.

Renouncing the ‘I am the doer’ idea

According to Bhagavan, it is not actions themselves that should be given up, but the inner feeling that one is doing them:

If total cessation from activity is alone the determining criterion for jnana, then even the inability to act because of leprosy will be a sure indication of jnana! You should know that the state of jnana is the exalted state of remaining without any sense of responsibility in the heart, having renounced both the attraction to, and the revulsion from, the performance of actions. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 1160)

There are two Sanskrit terms that are relevant to this part of the discussion: kartrutva and kartavya. The former denotes the feeling of being the performer of actions that the body undertakes, while the latter denotes the feeling that there are activities that must be done. Here is one verse from Guru Vachaka Kovai and two from Padamalai that summarise the problem and its solution:

Unless one’s connection with individuality is destroyed at its root, one will not become a true jnani, free of the sense of doership [kartrutva]. Even if one attains a supreme and eminent state of tapas that can be marvelled at, one is still only a sadhaka who is qualified to realise the truth. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, v. 122)

The ignoble infatuation kartrutva that associates with you is the confused attitude of mind that regards the instruments [of action and cognition] as ‘you’.

Deeds [karma] are not your enemy, only the sense of doership [kartrutva] is. Therefore, live your life, having completely renounced that enemy. (Padamalai p. 171, vv. 106, 107)

The next sequence of verses, also from Padamalai, stresses the necessity of abandoning kartavya, the idea that there are courses of action that must be pursued:

The notion of duties that need to be done [kartavya] will not cease as long as the sense of doership [kartrutva] exists in the heart.

Why do you become mentally agitated, blindly believing there are things you have to do [kartavya]?

The bondage called ‘duty’ will cease [being known] as a delusion caused by the ego, when the firm knowledge of reality is attained.

A mind that has dissolved in the state of God, and ceased to exist, will not be aware of any activity that needs to be performed because when the ego, which has the idea that it is the performer of actions, has been completely destroyed, the idea that something needs to be accomplished ends.

Those who do not see anything as a duty that has to be done will attain the bliss of peace that yields limitless contentment. (Padamalai, vv. 119-124)

The abandonment of the ‘I am the doer’ idea is not accomplished by giving up certain courses of action, or even all of them, but by enquiry into the nature and origin of the ‘I’ that thinks it is performing the actions:

The truth of karma [activities] is only the realisation of one’s true nature by the enquiry ‘Who is the doer, the “I” who is embarking upon the performance of karma?’ Unless the ego, the performer of action, perishes by enquiring into and knowing [its real nature], the perfect unassailable peace in which all doing has ended will be impossible [to attain].

Prarabdha, like a whirlwind, relentlessly agitates and spins the mind that has shrunk through the ‘I am the body’ idea. However, it cannot stir, even slightly, the limitation-free mind that shines as the extremely clear space of being-consciousness when that ego-impurity [the ‘I am the body’ idea] is destroyed by self-enquiry. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, vv. 703, 698)

Enquiry leads to an unbroken experience of the Self, and it is this culminating experience, rather than the preceding enquiry, that ultimately destroys the ‘I am the body’ belief. Here is a statement from Bhagavan (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 699) on this topic, followed by a brief commentary on it by Muruganar:

O mind, other than meditation which takes the form of the akhandakara vritti [unbroken experience] that shines as the Self, have you discovered any means to burn to ashes the evil ‘I am the doer’ belief that propels and plunges the jiva into the bottom of the ocean of karma? If you have, let me know.

Muruganar: The ‘I am the doer’ belief repeatedly plunges the jiva into the ocean of karma, without allowing it to rise up and reach the shore. By doing this it obstructs the attainment of liberation. It has therefore been described as ‘the evil “I am the doer” belief’. The fire that burns this [belief] to ashes is the fire of jnana that has taken the form of akhandakara vritti. The practice of this vritti burns to destruction the ‘I am the doer’ idea by revealing to the jiva the truth that one’s nature is not to do karma but to shine as mere being. There is no other means to destroy this ‘I am the doer’ belief. This is the implication. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, p. 303)

The end of result of this process is the state of Self-abidance wherein both kartrutva and kartavya are absent:

He whose ego, the veiling, has subsided in swarupa-consciousness, and who has become wholly that forever, will, through the disappearance of the ‘I am the doer’ idea, lose all his personal volition, and he will [then] shine with the blissful state, whose nature is peace, flaring up in his Heart. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 864)

Taking sannyasa

In a Hindu context ‘renouncing the world’ is usually associated with the ritual of ‘taking sannyasa’ – becoming a renunciate monk. The restrictions involved in this lifestyle vary – the different religious orders that are authorised to initiate have slightly different rules – but they would generally include celibacy, leaving home and giving up the ties to one’s family, and, more often than not, living on begged food. According to Bhagavan the true and definitive renunciation of the world is not accomplished through giving up relationships or by ceasing to indulge in activities that are prompted by physical desire; it is instead something that happens when the thought-created externally perceived world ceases to appear in the experience of the Self:

Sankalpa [thought] creates the world. The peace attained on the destruction of sankalpas is the [permanent] destruction of the world. (Padamalai, p. 264, v. 6)

The world is seen distinctly only in the waking and dream states in which sankalpas [thoughts] have emerged. Is it ever seen during sleep, where sankalpas do not emerge even slightly? Sankalpas alone are the material substance of the world. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, v. 29)

It is this more profound form of renunciation that Bhagavan was referring to when he said:

Instead of ruining yourself by clinging, as your refuge, to the utterly false world that appears as a conjuring trick, it is wisdom to renounce it in the mind and remain still, forgetting it and remaining detached from it, like the ripe tamarind fruit that, despite remaining inside its pod, stays separate from it. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 825)

The abandonment of the mechanism through which the perceived world is projected and sustained is quite a different process from the adoption of a lifestyle that restricts one from pursuing certain actions. However, even though most of Bhagavan’s devotees were aware of these teachings on mental renunciation, some still wanted to express their inner desire to renounce by formally taking sannyasa. Bhagavan was asked on many occasions to initiate individual devotees into sannyasa, but he refused every single request. Some devotees who felt compelled to adopt this particular lifestyle, even after being refused an initiation by Bhagavan, went elsewhere to obtain it, but they usually faced some degree of disapproval when they returned to Ramanasramam. Kunju Swami and Maurice Frydman both took the sannyasa initiation elsewhere, after being refused by Bhagavan. Others, such as Papaji, went back to a family life after Bhagavan had refused to initiate them.

When the topic of taking sannyasa was brought up in Bhagavan’s presence, his usual response was that true physical renunciation was something that happened naturally and spontaneously, like a fruit dropping from a tree when it is ripe. He did not approve of people who took a formal decision to renounce their former lifestyles, but he did concede that it was good if physical renunciation happened automatically:

Question: I have a good mind to resign from service and remain constantly with Sri Bhagavan.

Bhagavan: Bhagavan is always with you, in you, and you are yourself Bhagavan. To realise this it is neither necessary to resign your job nor run away from home. Renunciation does not imply apparent divesting of costumes, family ties, home, etc., but renunciation of desires, affection and attachment. There is no need to resign your job, but resign yourself to Him, the bearer of the burden of all. One who renounces desires, etc., actually merges in the world and expands his love to the whole universe. Expansion of love and affection would be a far better term for a true devotee of God than renunciation, for one who renounces the immediate ties actually extends the bonds of affection and love to a wider world beyond the borders of caste, creed and race. A sannyasi who apparently casts away his clothes and leaves his home does not do so out of aversion to his immediate relations but because of the expansion of his love to others around him. When this expansion comes, one does not feel that one is running away from home, but drops from it like ripe fruit from a tree; till then it would be folly to leave one’s home or his job. (Crumbs from his Table, p. 43)

The analogy of the ripened fruit also appears in Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 830, although there Bhagavan qualifies his remarks by saying that such spontaneous renunciation can only take place if personal circumstances are favourable:

Just as a ripened fruit separates effortlessly from the tree and falls, when a sadhaka who is [aiming to] merge his mind in the supreme attains maturity, he will definitely renounce family life as unsalted gruel unless his unfavourable prarabdha stands in the way.

For complete renunciation to take place one must give up all identities except the identification with the formless Self. Giving up one physical identity (‘I am a householder’) and replacing it with another (‘I am a sannyasi’) does not get to the root of the problem of false identification:

Question: Should not a man renounce everything in order that he might get liberation?

Bhagavan: Even better than the man who thinks ‘I have renounced everything’ is the one who does his duty but does not think ‘I do this’ or ‘I am the doer’. Even a sannyasi who thinks ‘I am a sannyasi’ cannot be a true sannyasi, whereas a householder who does not think ‘I am a householder’ is truly a sannyasi. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 530)

Know that not regarding oneself erroneously as being limited to the body and trapped in family bonds is a far superior renunciation to the state wherein one thinks repeatedly within one’s mind: ‘I have truly extricated myself by renouncing all the ties of this world.’ (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 840)

Muruganar made the following comments on this Guru Vachaka Kovai verse:

Thinking, ‘I am a person who has renounced’ is only mental imagination. The state of truth transcends such imagination. Only the state of remaining still, which is the natural state, is true sannyasa, the nature of liberation. It is not thinking repeatedly, ‘I am someone who has renounced samsara’. Therefore, not thinking is a far superior renunciation to thinking. Like the thought, ‘I am caught in bondage’, the thought, ‘I am one who is free from bondage’ indicates the delusion of regarding yourself as being limited to the body. When that delusion is destroyed, along with it, both of these thoughts will cease. Unless the ‘I am the body’ belief is present to some extent, there can be no possibility of having the thought, ‘I have renounced’.

Refer to Ulladu Narpadu, verse 39, where Bhagavan wrote: ‘So long as one thinks “I am in bondage”, thoughts of liberation and bondage will remain. When one sees oneself through the enquiry “Who is the bound one?”, and the Self alone remains, eternally attained and eternally free, will the thought of liberation still remain, where the thought of bondage cannot exist?’

The general supposition amongst most Hindus is that sannyasa demonstrates one’s commitment to following the spiritual path full time, and by extension, somehow makes it easier to meditate and realise the Self. Since Bhagavan taught that inner renunciation was more important than outer renunciation, he did not accept the generally accepted premise that sannyasins were in a better position to realise the Self than householders. I put the following dialogue in one of my recent replies, but it is worth posting again because it shows quite definitely that living a normal life in the world is not, according to Bhagavan, a disadvantage when it comes to making spiritual progress:

When I [Rangan] started to visit Bhagavan regularly at Skandashram, it occurred to me that it would be good if I became a sannyasin [mendicant monk]. I knew that this was a foolish and irresponsible dream because it would leave my family, already in a precarious financial position, with no one to support them. However, the thought would not leave me. One night, while I was lying in my bed at Skandashram, I was unable to sleep because this thought kept recurring so strongly.

As I was turning uneasily in my bed, Bhagavan came to my side and asked me, ‘What is the matter? Are you in pain?’ ‘

Venkataraman, [Bhagavan’s childhood name]’ I replied, ‘I want to adopt sannyasa.’

Bhagavan went away and came back with a copy of Bhakta Vijayam, an anthology of the lives of some famous saints who lived in western India many centuries ago. He opened the book and read out the story in which Saint Vithoba decided to take sannyasa. In the story his son, Jnanadeva, who is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, gave him the following advice.

‘Wherever you are, whether in worldly society or the forest, the same mind is always with you. It is the same old mind, wherever you reside.’

After reading this out Bhagavan added, ‘You can attain jnana even while you are living in samsara [worldly activities]’.

‘Then why did you become a sannyasin?’ I countered.

‘That was my prarabdha [destiny],’ replied Bhagavan. ‘Life in the family is difficult and painful, no doubt, but it is easier to become a jnani while living as a householder.’ (The Power of the Presence, part one, pp. 6-7)

Conclusion

Peace can never be attained by one who subjects himself to ignorance by embracing the body and the world, regarding them as enduring and beneficial. Equally, suffering or fear will never be experienced by one who renounces this ignorance and reaches the permanent resting place of the ego, the Heart, clinging tenaciously to it like an udumbu lizard, without letting go.

What is it that remains as impossible to renounce after all that can be renounced has been renounced? It is the harvest of bliss, the surging flood, the reality of the Self, shining in the Heart, as the Heart, as that which cannot be renounced. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, vv. 130, 836)

Guru Vachaka Kovai

I collected the first few boxes of Guru Vachaka Kovai from my printer yesterday. I delivered 80 copies to the Ramanasramam Book Depot this morning, and will give them more in a few days' time. Devotees living in India should order from Ramanasramam since I will not be supplying to individual customers in India.

The book is a hardback, about 640 pages long.

Two devotees have contributed towards the printing costs and this has enabled me to subsidise the cover price for devotees in India. It will go on sale at Rs 150 in the ashram bookstore, a price which, if I factor in the discount I give to the bookstore, is less than the cost of printing the book. I don't know how much extra will be charged for postage. Indian customers should contact the bookstore manager at bookstall@sriramanamaharshi.org for further details.

The price for customers outside India will be $25, plus postage. The postal rates for airmail book post have, unfortunately, just doubled. I haven't actually posted a copy of Guru Vachaka Kovai yet, but I estimate will cost about $11 per copy to post it by airmail, including packing and registration. I have not yet added the book to the 'sale' section of my site yet, but it should appear there sometime this week. Meanwhile, anyone who can't wait can order a copy by sending money ($36 US) through Paypal. My email address is david_godman@yahoo.co.uk.

The discrepancy between the Indian and foreign prices is to make some allowance for the different earning capacity of potential purchasers. There are many devotees in India who live on low fixed incomes, and I know they would not be able to afford to buy a book of this sort if I charged them the full commercial rate.

The book will not be appearing in foreign bookstores for about three months since I have to send shipments by sea-freight to distributors in the West.

Desire for the Self

There was an extensive discussion between Arvind and Broken Yogi in the response column of the post on ‘Relations with the Guru’. Arvind defended the position that desiring the Self was wrong, while Broken Yogi took the opposing view. The pros and cons of this debate prompted the following query from an anonymous contributor:

There was a pretty serious debate on desire between Broken Yogi and Arvind and others. Now I am left unsure as to who was actually describing Sri Ramana’s position correctly. What is the correct teaching? Am I to desire the Self consciously as much as possible till I achieve the Self, or am I to desire it only unconsciously and keep no desire-thoughts in my mind? Does the Self have desires or does God have desires? …

I think in such situations you have to clarify what was the teaching as per Sri Ramana. I don’t want Papaji’s position or Lakshmana Swamy’s position nor the position of some of the other Masters - but Sri Ramana’s actual teaching.

The question ‘Does the Self have desires, or does God have desires?’ is probably the easiest component of the query to give an answer to. According to Bhagavan, the answer would be ‘no’:

Bhagavan: Without desire, resolve or effort, the sun rises; and in its mere presence the sunstone emits fire, the lotus blooms, water evaporates, people perform their various functions and then rest. Just as in the presence of the magnet the needle moves, it is by virtue of the mere presence of God that the souls governed by the three functions or the fivefold divine activity perform their actions and then rest, in accordance with their respective karmas. God has no resolve; no karma attaches itself to him. That is like worldly actions not affecting the sun, or like the merits and demerits of the other four elements not affecting all-pervading space. (The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi, pp. 42-3.)

Bhagavan included a summary of these ideas in one of his replies in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 28:

Question: Why then is samsara - creation and manifestation as finitised - so full of sorrow and evil?

Bhagavan: God’s will!

Question: Why does God will it so?

Bhagavan: It is inscrutable. No motive can be attributed to that Power - no desire, no end to achieve can be asserted of that one Infinite, All-wise and All-powerful Being. God is untouched by activities, which take place in His presence; compare the sun and the world activities. There is no meaning in attributing responsibility and motive to the One before it becomes many.

That is to say, God has no sankalpa, no resolve, will, desire or intention. It (God or the Self) simply is.

One of the briefest sections in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (talk no. 537) comprises the following quotation by Bhagavan: ‘Desire constitutes maya, and desirelessness is God.’

A moment’s reflection will see why this is so. Desire can only exist if there is something separate from the subject who desires. When that separation is not there, desire no longer exists:

Bhagavan: There is room for kama (desire) so long as there is an object apart from the subject (i.e., duality). There can be no desire if there is no object. The state of no-desire is moksha. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 502)

The other question that was asked – is it good or bad to desire the Self? – is a more complex one. I think that one reason this debate went on for so long in the responses’ section is that it is possible to find statements from Bhagavan that can support either side of the argument.

Here are some unqualified assertions from Bhagavan, recorded in Padamalai, pages 71-2, which stress the importance of wanting and desiring the Self:

79

Through a longing for the swarupa that waxes more and more as abundant bliss, infatuation for the false world will slip away.

80

The glory of Self-realisation is not experienced except in the hearts of those who are very zealous about sinking into the Self.

81

Those who greatly desire the Self, the state of mere being that transcends all concepts, will not desire anything else.

82

Devotion to the Self, the best of desires, yields the true jnana sight in which all names and forms are names and forms of the Self.

83

If you wholeheartedly desire and realise the truth, that truth itself will liberate you.

Verse twenty-seven of Guru Vachaka Kovai contains similar sentiments:

Do not be confounded by this worthless samsara that appears as a dream in the deluding [sleep of] ignorance. In a mind that has an intense desire for reality – consciousness, the supreme – it is impossible for the binding mental delusion that arises in the dense darkness of ignorance to remain.

In contrast to these verses, and seemingly contradicting them, we have the following unequivocal statement, recorded on page 191 of Padamalai:

16

Even the desire for liberation is the work of delusion. Therefore, remain still [summa iru].

Similar sentiments can be found in a reply Bhagavan gave in Day by Day with Bhagavan, 24th December, 1945:

Bhagavan: Liberation is our very nature. We are that. The very fact that we wish for liberation shows that freedom from all bondage is our real nature. That has not got to be freshly acquired. All that is necessary is to get rid of the false notion that we are bound. When we achieve that, there will be no desire or thought of any sort. So long as one desires liberation, so long, you may take it, one is in bondage.

Here is another reply on this topic, this time to a devotee who wanted to follow the path of surrender:

Question: Does not total or complete surrender require that one should not have left in him the desire even for liberation or God?

Bhagavan: Complete surrender does require that you have no desire of your own, that God’s desire alone is your desire and that you have no desire of your own. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 1st March, 1946)

Since the questioner has asked for ‘Sri Ramana’s actual teaching’ on this topic, I will add one more citation, Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 378:

Only in those who have completely severed the bond of desire and attachment will the illusory appearance that associates with them through ego-defilement perish. The aim, then, is to cut off, without so much as a second thought, even the desire for the indescribable supreme bliss of peace that is full of jnana.

How may these seemingly contradictory statements to be resolved? I would say (and I will back this up with some quotes from Bhagavan) that desiring the Self intensely is, somewhat paradoxically, a way of reaching the state where all desires, including the desire for the Self, vanish. Bhagavan might say, as he did in one of the Padamalai verses I cited, remain still, without having a desire for liberation, but who can carry out this particular instruction? If I say, ‘Give an apple to your mother,’ that is a simple physical action that can easily be accomplished. If, on the other hand, I say ‘Give up all desires, including the desire for liberation, and remain still,’ who has the capacity to do this? Those who cannot will request a route to the state of desirelessness, and in such circumstances Bhagavan would say that one should take attention off desires for the objects of the non-Self and instead direct it towards the Self. At this preliminary stage of practice the Self is an object to be focused on, and a strong desire to reach it will enhance one’s ability to focus on the goal. If one wants and desires it to the exclusion of all else, then one is not diverted by mental and physical distractions.

Here is a well-known dialogue from Day by Day with Bhagavan (11th January 1946) that illustrates some of these points:

A young man from Colombo asked Bhagavan, ‘J. Krishnamurti teaches the method of effortless and choiceless awareness as distinct from that of deliberate concentration. Would Sri Bhagavan be pleased to explain how best to practise meditation and what form the object of meditation should take?

Bhagavan: Effortless and choiceless awareness is our real nature. If we can attain it or be in that state, it is all right. But one cannot reach it without effort, the effort of deliberate meditation. All the age-long vasanas carry the mind outward and turn it to external objects. All such thoughts have to be given up and the mind turned inward. For that, effort is necessary for most people. Of course everybody, every book says, “Be quiet or still”. But it is not easy. That is why all this effort is necessary. Even if we find one who has at once achieved the mauna or Supreme state indicated by “Be still”, you may take it that the effort necessary has already been finished in a previous life. So …, effortless and choiceless awareness is reached only after deliberate meditation. That meditation can take any form which appeals to you best. See what helps you to keep away all other thoughts and adopt that method for your meditation”.

In this connection Bhagavan quoted verses 5 and 52 from ‘Udal Poyyuravu’ and 36 from ‘Payappuli’ of Saint Thayumanavar:

'Remain still, mind, in the face of everything!’
This truth that was taught to you, where did you let it go?
Like wrestlers, bent upon their bout, you raised your arguments.
Where is your judgement?
Where, your wisdom? Begone! (‘Udal Poyyuravu’, verse 5)

Bliss will arise if you remain still.
Why, little sir, this involvement still with yoga, whose nature is delusion? Will [this bliss] arise through your own objective knowledge?
You need not reply, you who are addicted to ‘doing’!
You little baby, you! (‘Udal Poyyuravu’, verse 52.)

Though I have listened unceasingly to the scriptures
that one and all declare,
‘To be still is bliss, is very bliss,’
I lack, alas, true understanding,
and I failed even to heed
the teachings of my Lord, Mauna Guru.
Through this stupidity I wandered in maya’s cruel forest.
Woe is me, for this is my fated destiny. (‘Payappuli’, verse 36.)

Though all the scriptures have said it, though we hear about it every day from the great ones, and even though our Guru says it, we are never quiet, but stray into the world of maya and sense objects. That is why conscious deliberate effort is required to attain that mauna state or the state of being quiet.

In the original Day by Day citation Bhagavan merely summarised the ideas in these three verses. I have added the complete text, which I took from a translation that Venkatasubramanian, Robert Butler and myself did a few years ago.

While we still have minds, we have choices, motives and desires. Bhagavan advises us in these circumstances to choose the Self over the non-Self, and with a strong dose of vairagya (discrimination between what is real and important and unreal and unimportant) keep one’s attention on the Self by desiring awareness of the ‘I’ to the exclusion of all other desires.

Here is another well-known passage from Bhagavan, taken from Sadhu Om’s translation of Bhagavan’s essay version of Who am I?:

The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ The thought ‘Who am I?’, destroying all other thoughts, will itself be finally destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre.

The question ‘Who am I?’ indicates a desire to find the true nature of the ‘I’. If that thought ‘Who am I?’ is held strongly and continuously, it burns up all other thoughts and eventually consumes itself, the original desire to know the Self, leaving a desire-free ‘I’. However, for this to happen the desire for the Self must exceed the distracting power of one’s vasanas:

Bhagavan: If the will and desire to remember Self are strong enough, they will eventually overcome vasanas. There must be a great battle going on inwardly all the time until the Self is realised. (Conscious Immortality, 1st ed., p. 57)

The process by which a strong desire for the Self burns up the mind and all its desires was stated even more explicitly by Bhagavan in the flowing reply, taken from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 152:

Bhagavan: Long for it [God or the Self] intensely so that the mind melts in devotion. After the camphor burns away no residue is left. The mind is the camphor; when it has resolved itself into the Self without leaving even the slightest trace behind, it is realisation of the Self.

All these ideas are neatly tied together in Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 149:

The non-dual experience will only be attained by those who have completely given up desires. For those with desires, it is far, far away. Hence it is proper for those with desires to direct their desires towards God, who is desireless, so that through desire for God the desires that arise through the delusion that objects exist and are different from oneself will become extinct.

The last line of this verse may also be translated as ‘so that through desire for God their deluding desires become extinct’. This second version is the one that appeared in Padamalai, on page 242.

So, ‘Anonymous’, I have stuck to your brief and only included citations from Bhagavan. I hope they will dispel a little of your confusion. To conclude, here are two more verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai. Though they do mention that giving up desires is essential for Self-realisation, they don’t really contribute much more to this discussion on desiring or not desiring the Self. However, since they do offer good practical advice on self-enquiry, that is a good enough reason for me to include them here:

850

By becoming the source of all desires, the ego is the doorway to the sorrow of samsara. The extremely heroic and discriminating person first attains through dispassion the total renunciation of desires that arise in the form of ‘I want’. Subsequently, through the Selfward enquiry ‘Who am I?’, he renounces that ego, leaving no trace of it, and attains the bliss of peace, free from anxieties. This is the supreme benefit of dharma.

851

Instead of marring the fullness of being that is God, who exists and shines without a second, by rising arrogantly as ‘I’ in opposition to him, a person should enter and subside in the Heart, his source. This truly is the virtuous discipline that should be unfailingly observed by a person who wants to reach God’s sanctum sanctorum, his consciousness-presence [jnana-sannidhi].

* * *

Apologies to everyone for not posting much recently. I am working on a couple of very long topics and they will both take time to complete.

Relations with the Guru

In the previous post I laid out my views, and the views of various teachers I have been with, on the phenomenon of temporary glimpses of the Self. The posting arose in response to an account by Broken Yogi on an experience he had had in the presence of one of his former teachers. Here is an extract from the experience he narrated, followed by a query abut the nature of the Guru-disciple relationship when such experiences take place.

I have had exactly one such experience in my life, back when I was a teenager. It occurred during my first meeting with the teacher who was to be my Guru for many years thereafter. I came into a small room with him, very nervous, waiting I thought for the “big moment”. I kept chastising myself for being so crassly craving of having “something happen”, but before I could control myself he was looking me right in the eye, and it was as if he could see everything I was doing. I felt caught red-handed, and I could hear his inner voice speaking to me, saying, “Well, here we are. I’m looking at you, and you’re looking at me, and nothing is happening.” I felt crushed, but then all of a sudden he repeated the words “Nothing is happening!” and it was as if I was suddenly slapped in the face. I saw instantly that nothing was happening, that the universe wasn’t happening, that there was nothing happening anywhere, at any time, in any place. The only thing that was real was the Guru, and I was in eternal relationship with the Guru….

Which is my other question. In my experience, the Guru was the only thing “present”. Is that only because I was not truly realised, or is there something in the experience of ajata that leaves the Guru untouched as eternal Presence?

I would say that the goal is to arrive at the state wherein there is no difference whatsoever between the Guru and the disciple. If any sense of distinction or separateness remains, then one’s sadhana is not complete. After realisation, one may maintain outer respect and reverence for the form of the Guru, but internally there will be no awareness that the abiding true nature of the Guru is different from one’s own. The following three verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai emphasise this same point:

997

Guru and disciple are only described as different through the imaginary feeling of upadhi [limitation]. In the mauna union, the summit of jnana in which these two ideas [Guru and disciple] merge through the true experience of the Self, is there even a trace of speech and breath? As the ego, the cause that creates the sense of difference, is destroyed, the minds of the two become one through their real nature, pure being, and cease. In such a situation the talking and listening that consist of spoken words, which take place between the two, are of no use.

1182

What is the place where the minds of the two [Guru and disciple] merge once they have reached and dwelt there? When one investigates this, the arrival and the abidance in that place [the Heart] is the true conversation that goes on, without a break, between the two who converse through auspicious and extremely sharp consciousness.

269

The state of being the best among the noble disciples is this: a constancy of mind whence springs forth the feeling of supreme devotion [parabhakti] that manifests when the ‘I’ is lost in the radiance of the state of silence, the Supreme. Know and keep in your mind that this is itself the state of being the Guru.

* * *

The following sequence of verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai comes from a section entitled ‘Worshipping the Guru’. The theme of the verses is that true worship of the Guru necessitates becoming indistinguishably one with him:

309

You may, through body, speech and mind, perform, without leaving any out, all the possible varieties of worship to the jnana Guru, he who is the walking Supreme Siva who has accepted with delight the disciple. However, [for the disciple,] losing the idea that he exists as a distinct entity, separate from that Guru who shines as the soul of his soul, completely dissolving, like ice in water, his individuality in his [the Guru’s] supreme swarupa, and becoming one with him as love alone – this is the perfect and complete worship that he should perform.

311

Bear in mind that the true puja to the jnana Guru is only the Self-abidance in which the vasana-free mauna surges once the disciple-consciousness that proclaimed itself as ‘I’ is destroyed by the raging fire of the consciousness of the jnana Guru, he who is God Himself.

312

The true puja performed to the Guru by worthy disciples is the complete destruction of the false ‘disciple-consciousness’. This is brought about by firm abidance in the state of ‘Guru-consciousness’, the experience of fullness that arises through the Heartward enquiry, ‘Who is the “I” who has been accepted as a disciple?’

314

The limitless perspective, Guru-consciousness, sees everything that appears as ‘I’ and ‘this’, which are dependently interlinked, as the swarupa of one’s own jnana-Guru. Gaining this perspective through the way of virtuous conduct is indeed the puja that is worthy of being performed by the true disciple.

315

When the ice of the ego-consciousness that is limited to the form of the body dissolves in the ocean of Guru-consciousness that is the experience of the Self which exists and shines as the one savour of love, know that this is Guru-puja.

316

The polluting ego-view causes the fullness of the Guru, which is present everywhere, without any absence, to be limited. Only the behaviour in which this does not appear is the shining puja to the Guru who stands out like a mountain in a plain.

* * *

A few years ago I wrote a commentary on Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham verse 39 in which I pointed out that while Bhagavan taught that oneness with the Guru was the experiential goal, in one’s outer behaviour one should always treat him with respect and reverence. This article has been on my site for several years but I am reproducing it here, with a few minor modifications and additions, because it discusses in some detail the distinction between the experience of the Guru’s true nature and the attitude one should have towards his physical form. This is the verse as it appears in the current edition of Collected Works. The translation is by Prof. K. Swaminathan:

Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry it into action. Even if you apply it to all the three worlds, O son, it is not to be applied to the Guru.

Annamalai Swami has given an account of how this particular verse came to be written. It began with the following remarks by Bhagavan:

‘Advaita should not be practised in ordinary activities. It is sufficient if there is no differentiation in the mind. If one keeps cartloads of discriminating thoughts within, one should not pretend that all is one on the outside.

‘Westerners practise mixed marriages and eat equally with everyone. What is the use of doing only this? Only wars and battlefields have resulted. Out of all these activities, who has obtained any happiness?

‘This world is a huge theatre. Each person has to act whatever role is assigned to him. It is the nature of the universe to be differentiated but within each person there should be no differentiation.’

I [Annamalai Swami] was so moved by this speech that I asked Bhagavan to summarise these ideas in a written Tamil verse. Bhagavan agreed, took a Sanskrit verse from Tattvopadesa [by Adi-Sankaracharya, verse 87] which expresses a similar idea, and translated it into a Tamil venba. When he was satisfied with his translation, I also managed to persuade him to write the first fair copy in my diary. This verse was eventually published as verse thirty-nine of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham. (Living by the Words of Bhagavan, 2nd ed. p. 99)

Maurice Frydman, the compiler of I am That and Maharshi’s Gospel, questioned Bhagavan about the first half of this verse and received the following explanation:

Question: Sri Bhagavan has written [Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, verse 39] that one should not show advaita in one’s activities. Why so? All are one. Why differentiate?

Bhagavan: Would you like to sit on the seat that I am sitting on?

Question: I don’t mind sitting there. But if I came and sat there the sarvadhikari [the ashram manager] and the other people here would hit me and chase me away.

Bhagavan: Yes, nobody would allow you to sit here. If you saw someone molesting a woman, would you let him go, thinking, ‘All is one’? There is a scriptural story about this. Some people once gathered together to test whether it is true, as said in the Bhagavad Gita, that a jnani sees everything as one. They took a brahmin, an untouchable, a cow, an elephant, and a dog to the court of King Janaka, who was a jnani. When all had arrived King Janaka sent the brahmin to the place of brahmins, the cow to its shed, the elephant to the place allotted to elephants, the dog to its kennel and the untouchable person to the place where the other un­touchables lived. He then ordered his servants to take care of his guests and feed them all appropriate food.

The people asked, ‘Why did you separate them individually? Is not everything one and the same for you?’

‘Yes, all are one,’ replied Janaka, ‘but self-satisfaction varies according to the nature of the individual. Will a man eat the straw eaten by the cow? Will the cow enjoy the food that a man eats? One should only give what satisfies each individual person or animal.’

Although the same man may play the role of all the characters in a play, his acts will be determined by the role that he is playing at each moment. In the role of a king he will sit on the throne and rule. If the same person takes on the role of a servant, he will carry the sandals of his master and follow him. His real Self is neither increased nor decreased while he plays these roles. The jnani never forgets that he himself has played all these roles in the past. (Living by the Words of Bhagavan, pp. 216-7, 2nd ed.)

One can have the idea that everything is a manifestation of the Self, and one can attempt to incorporate this idea into one’s daily life by treating other people in an egalitarian way. However, all this would all be theoretical since it would be based on an idea of reality instead of stemming from a direct experience of the Self. From the standpoint of the Self ‘practising advaita’ is an oxymoron since in that state there is no longer an entity who can make choices about what should or should not be done. In that state action arises spontaneously from the Self, unmediated by the I-am-the-doer idea. Sadhu Om has elaborated on this important point in his commentary on this verse:

Advaita is the experience of clearly apprehending that, in reality, the Self, being-consciousness, shining continuously as ‘I am’, alone exists, and that all that appears in duality, consisting of the body, mind and world, is entirely unreal. Therefore, since doing belongs to the dualistic state, where the mind and body appear to be real, non-duality cannot be expressed through doing. On the contrary, should anyone think that non-duality might be expressed through doing, they would [be showing themselves to] be bereft of the experience of the truth of non-duality. (Sri Ramanopadesa Nul Malai – Vilakkavurai, pp. 314-15, 1987 ed.)

If, as Bhagavan instructed in the first quotation I gave from Living by the Words of Bhagavan, ‘Advaita should not be practised in ordinary activities,’ how is the sadhaka to relate to the world, which he still sees as separate from himself? Lakshmana Sarma, who received personal lessons from Bhagavan on the meaning of the Ulladu Narpadu verses, answers this question in his own comments on this verse:

... it is established that, until the I-am-the-body sense is removed, advaita cannot exist. It is fitting then that all the behaviours that occur in this state should respect the rules of duality, and one should act accordingly. It is not possible to implicate advaita in these behaviours. If any such attempt is made, impurities will arise through the power of the ego, and man’s dvaitic vasanas will wax greater. We observe that even a jnani who is established in the advaitic state will not, in his conduct, infringe the rules of dvaitic respect. Bhagavan’s view is that advaita is the direct experience of the jnani, whilst for the ajnani, it is useful for meditation and so on. (Ulladu Narpadu, p. 162, 1979 ed.)

It may be difficult to make out the reason for these injunctions [not to attempt to put advaita into practice]. But if we remember the power of the ego to pervert and frustrate even honest efforts to realise the truth – which would mean its own death – we need not be puzzled. Reflection on the truth of advaita tends to dissolve the ego and develop devotion to the truth. But action from the advaitic standpoint is suicidal because the enemy [the ego] would be in charge of such action. While ignorance is alive, duality persists in appearing as real, because of the ego sense, and truly advaitic action is impossible. The sage alone can put advaita into action, because he is egoless. Hence the sacred lore and also the sage advise us to restrict our activities and not to extend them, so as to give as little scope as possible for the ego to frustrate our efforts. (Maha Yoga, pp. 175-6, 2002 ed.)

... theoretical knowledge of the truth of non-duality does not avail to destroy the primary ignorance, so as to raise one to the egoless state in which wrong action would be impossible. So, until that state is won, the ego would be in command of actions, and this warning is therefore necessary. (This is a comment by Lakshmana Sarma that he appended to verse 416 of Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad. This particular verse was a translation of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, verse 39. )

That is to say, one should strive for advaita in the Heart, but in outer activities one should adhere to the dualistic rules of dharma. There are two ideas present in this Anubandham verse: the first, which has just been dealt with, is that one should not attempt to practise advaita in the day-to-day activities of one’s worldly life; the second is a much more specific injunction that one should never practise advaita towards one’s Guru. That is to say, one should never think, ‘All is one. My Guru is the same as I am. Therefore, I don’t have to treat him as someone special since in essence he is just the same as everything and everyone else.’

Before I begin to deal with this topic I should like to discuss what the phrase ‘three worlds’ might mean in ‘Even if you apply it [advaita] to all the three worlds...’.

Sadhu Om, in his Tamil commentary, has equated the ‘three worlds’ with the heavenly realms of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. Having raised this possibility, he then elaborates on its implications:

Though we might speak of a man going to Brahma Loka and addressing Brahma with the words, ‘You and I are one,’ or going to Vishnu Loka and addressing Vishnu saying, ‘You and I are one,’ or going to Siva Loka and addressing Siva saying, ‘You and I are one,’ yet it would never be permissible to address one’s Sadguru, saying, ‘You and I are one’. Why? Because someone in the individualised state, though he might, through the power of his austerities, acquire even the powers of creation, preservation and destruction exercised by the Trimurtis, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, it would be an entirely impossible task for him to obtain the power that belongs [only] to the Sadguru, that of destroying the ignorance of others. Thus, the action of destroying ajnana ... is vastly more powerful than those three operations that are present in [the state of] ajnana. Thus, the power of the Sadguru’s grace is vastly superior to the powers of the Trimurtis. (Sri Ramanopadesa Nul Malai – Vilakkavurai, p. 315, 1987 ed.)

While I agree with the sentiments expressed in this commentary by Sadhu Om, I am not convinced that the term ‘three worlds’ used in this verse really does denote the realms of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. The three worlds are generally taken to be the physical one that we live in and the two spirit worlds that are held to exist above it and below it. In a more general sense the phrase ‘three worlds’ is just an emphatic way of saying ‘everywhere’, or ‘in all possible places that exist’. Consider, for example, verse 167 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:

The jivas, who are all bound to total ignorance, experience the ego life in the three worlds. This is nothing but the dance of a zombie who has possessed a corpse on a funeral pyre in the cremation ground.

Here ‘the three worlds’ clearly means all the places that the ignorant jiva can manifest in and suffer. Saying that these three worlds, these three places of suffering, can be equated with the realms of the gods seems highly inappropriate.

However, while I feel that Sadhu Om may not be justified in saying that the three worlds are the realms of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, I do accept his central premise that the Guru is more powerful than the gods on account of his having the power to destroy the ignorance of devotees. The greater power and authority of the Guru was alluded to by Bhagavan in verse 800 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:

If a person offends against God, it is possible to rectify the matter through the grace of the Guru, but it is impossible even for God to nullify an offence committed against the Guru. This is what the declarations of the great ones assert.

Muruganar’s comment on this verse states, ‘Devotion to the Guru is therefore more powerful than devotion to God’. The ‘declarations of the great ones’ in the final sentence of the Guru Vachaka Kovai verse may be a reference to famous verses from the Guru Gita that express the same sentiments. The Guru Gita is a portion of the Skanda Purana. Here are two of its verses on this theme:

79 If Siva is angry, the Guru will protect you, but if the Guru is angry, no one can save you. Therefore, with all your efforts, take refuge in him.

106 Even gods and sages cannot save one who has been cursed by the Guru. Such a wretch soon perishes, without the least shadow of doubt.

The preceding verse of Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 799, has a similar theme:

Even if those great ones who have firmly embraced the means to redeem themselves from the miseries of samsara happen to deviate from conduct enjoined by the Vedas, either due to forgetfulness or any other reason, they should on no account transgress the command of the Guru who has told them about the ultimate truth.

Muruganar’s comment on this is: ‘To those who deviate from vedic conduct, there is [a possibility] of atonement, but for those who transgress the command of the Guru, there can be no atonement. It has therefore been said, “Though one may transgress the Vedas’ commands, one should never transgress the Guru’s command”.’

Lakshmana Sarma has noted that there is another important reason why one should revere the Guru as a living manifestation of the Self, and as an embodiment of the divine power that can bestow liberation.

Only that devotion to the Guru is good which is rendered to a sage-Guru, and which regards him as identical with God. Only by such devotion does one attain freedom from delusion. Truly the sage is not other than God.

[Also] there is the text of the Upanishads, that one who wants deliverance must worship the knower of the Self. If he thinks of him [the sage, who is the Guru] as other than God, that thought will obstruct his path. (Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad, verses 25 and 237)

In a comment on one of these two verses Lakshmana Sarma wrote: ‘The sage who is accepted as one’s Guru must not be regarded as just a human being, a person, but as an incarnation of God Himself, because that is the truth of the sage, and because, if the Guru be so regarded, the goal will be reached soon.’

The point of the second half of the Anubandham verse thus becomes more clear. One goes to a Guru for liberation, but if one has the belief or attitude that he is one’s equal, or just an ordinary person, one is unlikely to receive it.

Having a strong conviction that one’s Guru is God Himself can help one to retain, as well as gain, an experience of the Self. This was brought home to me a few years ago when I interviewed Sharad Tiwari, a devotee of Papaji who had had an experience of the Self within a few days of meeting him in the 1970s. When I spoke to him in the mid-90s, about twenty years after the experience had happened, he told me that the experience had never left him. I have met many people who claim to have had a direct experience of the Self in Papaji’s presence, but the vast majority of them seem to lose the experience later. When I interviewed him in 1996, I asked Sharad why other people were losing the experience whereas he had managed to keep it.

David: Papaji shows people who they are. Sometimes, though, he says that it is up to the person concerned to recognise it and not throw it away. From what you have told me, in your case the experience never went away. Why do some people like you stay in that state while others appear to go back to their limited viewpoint again?

Sharad: Anyone who recognises Papaji as God and who never wavers in his conviction that Papaji is God will keep the experience naturally and effortlessly. That is my firm conviction. When the glimpse comes, it is God revealing Himself as God within you. If you treat Papaji as God, and if you treat the experience he has given you as an experience of His divine nature, it will never go away. If you allow the ego to arise again and cover up the experience, it means that you have thrown away your previous knowledge that Papaji is God, along with your belief that the experience he gave you is God Himself shining within you. It all comes down to having the right attitude.

David: How do you yourself hold onto the absolute conviction that Papaji is God? Is it through awareness of his form, his formlessness, or a combination of both?

Sharad: There is no difference between form and the formless. Form itself is formless and the formless is the form. To know Papaji as God is to know that there is no difference between the two. (Nothing Ever Happened, volume three, pp. 127-8)

Later in the interview Sharad, who is something of a mystic visionary, told me, ‘Quite often I see the gods dancing around him in mid-air, paying obeisance to him. When I see the gods themselves bowing before him with my own eyes, how can I doubt that I am in the presence of the Supreme Lord?’

This injunction in the Anubandham verse – that of not displaying advaita towards the Guru – seems to apply even after full liberation, when both Guru and disciple, abiding in the natural state, effortlessly know and experience the truth of the non-dual Self. Bhagavan used a colourful but apt image to convey this. He said that even though a Hindu wife may have enjoyed sexual union with her husband, in public she will still show him deference and respect.

Formal respect is only for external show. When the husband and the wife are in bed, where is all this [formal respect]? (Sri Ramana Pada Malai, by Sivaprakasam Pillai, cited in The Power of the Presence, part one, p. 63)

If it is properly understood, the tradition of intimate and true disciples showing external deference to the Guru, who has accepted them as rightfully his, is similar to the respect shown by a wife to her husband, which is limited to outward behaviour only. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 304)

Extending this analogy into the spiritual realm, the disciple may have attained oneness with his or her Guru, but the behaviour he or she exhibits is always reverent and deferential. This is what Sadhu Om has to say on this point in his commentary on this verse:

When the Sadguru has destroyed the ajnana that is his disciple’s individual consciousness; when he has graciously bestowed upon him the experience of non-duality; and when he has made him one with himself in the state where duality is no more; even then, such a disciple will always serve his Sadguru and show for him a fitting respect, and will continue to venerate his name and form. Although, in an inner sense, it is not possible to show a reverence that is dualistic in the state of oneness where duality is not present, still, that disciple will show respect outwardly, just as a wife acts respectfully toward her husband.

... as long as the Guru and disciple appear in the perceptions of others as separate individuals, possessing individual minds and bodies, it will always appear to others that they are, in reality, separate from each other. Therefore, even when this perfected disciple who knows reality attains the non-dual state in which, in his Heart, he and his Guru are one, he will always conduct himself in a subservient and deferential manner toward his Sadguru, such that other disciples, taking him as an example, will follow him and behave in a fitting manner. (Sri Ramanopadesa Nul Malai – Vilakkavurai, pp. 315, 1987 ed.)

I have found this to be true with all the great teachers and enlightened beings I have been associated with. Nisargadatta Maharaj, for example, did an elaborate Guru puja every day of his life, long after he had realised the Self. One morning, just before he started, he paused to give an explanation of this daily ritual. ‘I don’t need to do this at all. There is nothing that I can gain from it because I know who and what I am, and what I am cannot be added to in any way. My Guru asked me to do bhajans and puja every day, and even though I no longer use them to attain a spiritual goal, I will continue to do them until the day I die because my Guru asked me to do them. In carrying out these orders I can show not only my respect for his words but also my continuous, undiminishing gratitude to the one who gave me the knowledge of who I really am.’

Muruganar wrote thousands of verses in which he thanked Bhagavan for bestowing the state of liberation on him, but he still did elaborate full-length prostrations whenever he came into Bhagavan’s presence. Sometimes he would remain lying on the floor after his namaskaram was completed and talk to Bhagavan while he was still prostrate at his feet. Viswanatha Swami used to make fun of Muruganar for this, calling the resulting conversations ‘lizard talk’. (Moments Remembered, pp. 56-7)

Once, while I was sitting with Papaji, someone asked him if he had any regrets about his life. At first he answered ‘no,’ but after a few seconds’ reflection he added, ‘Actually, I do have one regret. Because my legs are now almost paralysed, I can no longer throw myself full length on the floor at the feet of my Master.’ In his later years he had to be content with a standing ‘namaste’ whenever he wanted to pay his respects to Bhagavan’s image.

And what about Bhagavan himself? His respect and veneration towards Arunachala, his Guru, were legendary. However, I will just mention one interesting point. When he composed his philosophical works such as Upadesa Undiyar and Ulladu Narpadu, his tone was non-dualistic. The verses were an uncompromising expression of what the Anubandham verse calls ‘advaita within the Heart’. However, when Bhagavan wrote about his Guru, Arunachala, in his devotional poems, he often adopted the pose of the loving, grateful devotee, a standpoint that enabled him to show proper respect and veneration to the form and power of the mountain.

One final story about Bhagavan: when Arunachaleswara (the God Arunachala who is the principal deity in the Tiruvannamalai temple) was being taken in procession around the hill in the 1940s, the procession stopped outside the gate of Sri Ramanasramam. Bhagavan noticed it as he was taking a walk to the cowshed. He sat on a bench to watch, and when devotees brought him vibhuti as prasad, he applied it reverently to his forehead and remarked, ‘The son is beholden to the father’. (Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, 21st November, 1945)

Postscript, 30th September 2008

I was going through my Word files on Living by the Words of Bhagavan yesterday, making sure they were in order, because a publisher has agreed to bring out a Russian edition. I noticed that the final conversation in the book (pp. 353-6) was a highly relevant discussion of the relationship between the Guru and the disciple, which is the main theme of this post. I am adding it here:

Question: Is the relationship between the Guru and the disciple a real relationship or a maya relationship? If it is a maya relationship, how can it help us to transcend maya?

Annamalai Swami: Bhagavan used to give, as an example, the story of an elephant that dreamed it was being attacked by a lion. The shock of seeing the lion in the dream was sufficient to wake the elephant up. The Guru, according to Bhagavan, is the roaring lion who appears in our maya dream and shocks us so much that we wake up into jnana. While the dream is in progress the lion is very real for us, but when we wake up there is no lion and no dream. In the state of jnana we become aware that there was no Guru and no disciple; there is only the Self.

But we should not have that attitude prior to realisation. While we are still trapped by maya we must accept the Guru-disciple relationship as being real because this relationship provides the only way of transcending all the wrong ideas we have about ourselves. Even though we may know intellectually that all is one, we should revere the form of the Guru because it is only through his grace that our ignorance can be dissolved. We should respect the Guru and his teachings at all times. We cannot do this if we start treating him as an ordinary person who is no different from any other manifestation of the Self. Respect for the Guru and faith in his teachings are essential for all those who want to make progress.

The outer Guru appears to tell us about the reality of the Self, who is the inner Guru. With our defective vision we cannot see or experience for ourselves that this is true. The inner Guru pulls us towards the Self and establishes us there. The inner Guru is waiting at all times to perform this function but he cannot begin until we turn our attention towards him.

It is the outer Guru who tells us, ‘Turn within. Put your attention on the inner Guru and let him pull you back into your source.’

In addition to giving these instructions, the outer Guru trans­mits his grace to us, cleans our minds, and pushes them towards the inner Guru, the Self. All Gurus are the Self.

All Gurus are formless. And all Gurus are ultimately one and the same. The outer forms of the Guru may appear differently to different people but there is really only one Guru, and that Guru is the Self. When we reach spiritual maturity, the Self manifests to us in the form of a Guru in order to help us to make further progress with our sadhana.

The relationship with the outer Guru lasts as long as it is necessary. It lasts until the sishya [disciple] knows from direct experience that the Self alone exists. In my case a time came when it was no longer physically possible for me to be with the form of the Guru. Bhagavan severed the physical relationship because he wanted me to be aware of him as he really is. When you pass your exams at school, you graduate to the next class. We cannot enter the same class again. I graduated from regarding Bhagavan as a form and came to regard him as the formless Self. After that I was never given the chance to have a relationship with Bhagavan’s physical form again.

Other disciples were treated differently. The Guru does not give the same treatment to all. He looks at the maturity and the predilections of each disciple and gives an appropriate sadhana to each one. For example, Bhagavan encouraged some of his devotees to sing devotional songs because that was an appropriate path for them. In my case he encouraged me to be aware of the formless Self.

When a calf is very young its mother gives it milk whenever it is hungry. But after it has learned to eat grass the mother gives it a kick whenever it tries to drink milk again. After I had learned to make contact with the formless Self, Bhagavan gave me a kick when I still tried to carry on drinking the grace from his physical form. He wanted to wean me from his form. He wanted me to get all my spiritual nourishment from the formless Self.

One should not leave the Guru thinking that one has learned everything from him. That is a very arrogant attitude. One should only leave the Guru if he tells us to go. Until then we have to stay and learn our lessons from him.

Each of us will meet a different form of the Guru. The form we meet depends on our maturity and our spiritual ripeness. Each Guru gives out different teachings, and often one Guru will give different teachings to different disciples. It is a question of maturity and temperament. The disciples in the kindergarten class will get kindergarten lessons while the disciples in the college class will get college-level teachings. And within each class there will be different lessons for each disciple. Some may be told to follow a bhakti path while others may be told to do meditation on the Self.

The many different paths that are taught are really only preparations for Bhagavan’s path. Ultimately, one must learn to abide in the Self by meditation on the Self or by self-enquiry or by complete surrender. Unfortunately, there are very few people who are spiritually mature enough to follow Bhagavan’s highest teachings. Most people have to follow other paths until they are ready for the final path.

Your original question was, ‘Is the Guru-disciple relationship real?’ From the standpoint of the Self one would have to say that it is all maya, but one could add that it is the best kind of maya. One can use a thorn to remove another thorn. Similarly, one can use the maya-like Guru-disciple relationship to root out maya in all its manifestations. Maya is so firmly established in us that only the illusory Guru-lion in our dream can give us a big enough shock to wake us.